Sunday, July 08, 2007

Do you believe the UFO stories?

I'm skeptical when it comes to all the stories about alien abductions and flying saucers crashing in the desert in Roswell and other places on our planet. Similar to the lack of evidence for the existence of supernatural beings, no evidence has been presented for public examination and analysis that we have been visited by aliens from other worlds. All we have to go on are the "eye-witness" accounts of "believers" and concocted images and also legends and stories passed on orally from person to person. I do think that life on other planets is possible, after all...we are here, and if conditions are right someplace else in the vastness of the universe, life could have formed in more places that we will never know about. We've sent rovers to Mars. Explorers to other planets. OUR alien "probes". It is possible that other mortal beings are looking at us from some other far-off planet..."seeking out new life", boldly going where none of their beings have gone before. (I borrowed that from Star Trek...tee hee hee.)


LINK: THOUSANDS COMMEMORATE THE 1947 UFO 'CRASH' IN ROSWELL

By MARK EVANS, Associated Press Writer

ROSWELL, N.M. - If you truly believe a UFO and its crew of bug-eyed aliens came crashing down here 60 years ago, rest assured: You're not alone. At least 35,000 people have descended on Roswell this weekend for the 2007 Amazing Roswell UFO Festival to commemorate a purported flying saucer crash on a nearby ranch in July 1947. Participants have filled hotel rooms and nearly doubled the southeastern New Mexico town's population for a few days.


103 comments:

Infinite Glory said...

Hey Star!!

As science has shown the probability for finding a life support planet in the universe is nil. So, ET doesn't exist. 99 percent of the UFO stories are frauds but there is a tiny 1 percent that remains unexplained. I don't have one but several have been offered. The Christian would see it as demonic activity. I'll leave it open for you to decide.

Stardust said...

infinite glory,

If you are saying that the chance for we earthlings to find another planet which can support our life forms is nil, I might agree with you. However, the chances of finding other life forms on other moons or planets, and even in other galaxies is possible.

Evidence has not been provided for 100% of reported UFO stories involving aliens from outer space.

Demonic activity would suggest the existence of the supernatural (which is a whole other topic), and there has never been a shred of evidence for the existence of supernatural entities.
We have more evidence for life existing on Titan than we do for the existence of supernatural beings.

Stardust said...

Does the Christian who says these "alien encounters" are "demonic activity" believe then that our Mars' Rovers are "demonic activity". Earthlings have sent out numerous probes and explorers into space to take photos, collect information and send data back to Earth for analysis. That would be silly to think that our space exploration is "demonic activity."

Poodles Rule said...

I actually went to the Roswell festival last year. I even went to some of the conferences. I am very fascinated by alien, UFO stuff. Am I a believer? Not with the evidence presented. Do I think it is possible that our government has covered up stuff? Yes, but I think it is of our own creating. Do I think there is life on other planets? Absolutely, is that faith? Perhaps, but I think it would be selfish to think that with the vastness of the universe we were the only living things to come from the big bang. Will I stop looking? Nope.

Krystalline Apostate said...

IG:
As science has shown the probability for finding a life support planet in the universe is nil.
Dude, WTF are you talking about? You mean other life?
So, ET doesn't exist.
Assertions ain't evidence. Bring some.
99 percent of the UFO stories are frauds but there is a tiny 1 percent that remains unexplained.
Last I checked, it was 75% that were explainable, 25% that weren't.
I don't have one but several have been offered.
Yeah, mostly from folks who're bound for Bedlam.
The Christian would see it as demonic activity. I'll leave it open for you to decide.
'God of the Gaps' strikes again!
What utter crap.
Let's exorcise the planet! No, scratch that, the solar system! In nomine domine vobiscum celius sellius...
Get a grip.
If it comes to choosing, I'll go w/ET over your cosmic babysitter, hands down.
But 1 of 'em needs proof. Got some?
No angels, demons, hell, heaven...can you dig it?

Tommy said...

When I was a kid, one of my favorite movies was "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". After seeing that, I was convinced that extraterrestials were visiting our planet on a nightly basis. I devoured books and magazines about UFO's, and though in retrospect, it was clear that as a pre-teen I was buying into a lot of nonsense, on the positive side it did encourage in me a love of reading.

My standard argument is that if intelligent beings from another planet had the ability to travel to our planet at will, they would have conquered us by now. Just think of Cortez and the Aztecs or Pizarro and the Incas.

That being said, considering the vastness of the universe, I take it for granted that there is life elsewhere in the universe, ranging from beings more advanced than us down to simple microbes. But the sheer distances involved guarantee that we will never meet other intelligent beings, barring the possibilty of faster than light travel at some point in the future.

Poodles Rule said...

Tommy:

My standard argument is that if intelligent beings from another planet had the ability to travel to our planet at will, they would have conquered us by now.

I'm not so sure they haven't. Have you ever seen Dick Cheney smile? That ass has to be alien...

CyberKitten said...

I think that the odds of life on other worlds is good - even the possibility of intelligent life is good. The Universe is staggeringly big - I mean *really* big. The odds that we're IT just doesn't bare thinking about.

As to 'visitors' I doubt it. The distances are just too great for quick visits and the odd abduction - unless they have FTL or they're from the future/other dimensions.

Some hard evidence would be *really* nice.

Tommy said...

Yeah Cyber, it would be awfully bizarre for extraterrestrials to travel all the way here just to anally probe a select chosen few.

Infinite Glory said...

No, there is not the remotest chance that the natural conditions and physical laws of the universe will spawn a planet capable of sustaining physical life.

After reading KA's comment I have to say I was wrong. Terribly wrong.
ET does exist.

Stardust, I'll have to find the information on that demonic activity and the unexplained phenomena. I don't have it with me.

Stardust said...

infinite glory,

Demonic activity is believed without verifiable scientific evidence, just like god belief. Those who want to believe in ghosts and goblins, will and will even create their own "evidence" to try to prove it.

I would be more interested in seeing your evidence for your first statement "there is not the remotest chance that the natural conditions and physical laws of the universe will spawn a planet capable of sustaining physical life." Also, you have not yet addressed the points made about earthlings sending out rovers and explorers to other planets. There IS better than a "remote chance" for another planet somewhere to support life. Maybe not life as we know it here on Earth, but still living organisms.

Stardust said...

IG -FYI, ET is a movie character. It's not real...ET is FICTION...like the Bible. ;)

Stardust said...

infinite...I deleted your last comment because I am NOT your "sweetie".

If you are going to type up a bunch of crap about demonic activity, you can save yourself the trouble unless the evidence comes from a credible scientific source.

Infinite Glory said...

OK I guess I was wrong. You're not a sweetie. I'm sorry. I wasn't going to give you evidence for demonic activity. I was refering to your first question. Then I was going to give you the evidence for the unexplained (1 percent or maybe it's .1 percent) phenomena. I don't think they are demons I was just pointing out that some christians have put that forward as an explanation. I'll leave.

Stardust said...

infinite, you specifically stated you were going to come back and post something about "demonic activity" and didn't say you were going to address anything else.

If you have something from a credible source concerning my first question, then we would like to read what you have found.

Andrea said...

Star, the evidence will probably be something along the lines of...
Hypothesis: Science is wrong.
Experiment: Read the Holy Bible.

Gee, I wonder what conclusion one would come to with that kind of reasoning.

As for aliens, I'm not really sure. I wonder about ancient cave drawings depicting strange "men" and so forth. I do know two guys who claim to have seen something weird in the sky, and they both were in the Air Force at the time. So I don't know. It's an interesting subject.

Stardust said...

Here is an interesting article, The Habitable Zone from the PBS website about the film, Life Beyond Earth

From the center of the Earth to the far-flung galaxies, we find evidence that life arose from cosmic processes. The iron in our blood and the calcium in our bones was made inside stars. All silver and gold was forged by stars that exploded long ago. Terrestrial life is embedded in a cosmic web, and it seems reasonable to speculate that life is cosmically commonplace.

If life is in fact cosmically commonplace, where might we find it? Our search begins within the solar system, as we try to locate three ingredients upon which life depends: water, energy, and organic molecules (or carbon). Recent discoveries inform us that these requisites may exist well beyond the planets closely orbiting the sun. This area — where conditions might potentially support life — is called The Habitable Zone.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust,

I was saying that CHRISTIANS believe that. I'm not a christian. I don't believe in demons. Science has shown that genesis chapter one is fable. Of course they would disagree and give different interpretations of genesis but I don't see them as credible.

CyberKitten said...

infinite glory said: there is not the remotest chance that the natural conditions and physical laws of the universe will spawn a planet capable of sustaining physical life.

Well, there *is* our planet.... That's one. I suspect that the odds of another planet being able to sustain 'physical life' (as opposed to non-physical life?) is pretty good. We're finding new planets on a fairly regular basis and we've only really just started looking. There are also billions of stars in this galaxy and billions of galaxies. Just by pure chance there will be other worlds somewhere with the right conditions for life to emerge and evolve - after all its had 15 billion years to get around to it. It's happened at least once so its feasible that it could happen again...

Stardust said...

I'm not a christian. I don't believe in demons.

IG - But you do believe in the existence of a supernatural god, don't you?

I am already familiar with all the types of things Christians choose to believe regarding demons, talking snakes, and satan , etc. etc. etc.

Andrea said...

If they aren't a Christian, why in the world would i.g. bring up the christian perspective on purported alien activity? Why not first mention what Hindus or anyone else thinks about it? Why immediately bring up demonic activity?

Stardust said...

good point, andrea

Infinite Glory said...

Well, because Christianity is popular and I don't know what Hindus believe. Go to a christian bookstore and look. You'll see.

Anyway, If you can harmoize Genesis with science I might think about changing my mind. Until then...

Look. There is no life on other planets as the evidence shows. Now, if you want to sit arround and dream about a possible world with different kinds of life (there are none) go right ahead. I'm going to stick with the facts.

Stardust said...

infinite glory,

what "facts"? You haven't presented any facts. Have you read the website links I provided in an above comment "Life Beyond Earth" and the "Habitable Zone"? Have you read any scientific journals or anything at all on the NASA websites? These are full of information and links to credible sources about space exploration and the quest to find life on other planets.

Stardust said...

infinite glory...how old are you? The way you sound, it seems you are very young.

Stardust said...

An article from Space.com to contemplate. Scientists Claim Evidence of Life in Outer Space

Also, here is the link for the SETI Institute. The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust,

I have evidence taken from peer reviewed scientific journals. If you want me to give it to you with the documentation it's going to take up alot of space. If that's ok I'll give it to you.

Stardust said...

infinite, how about a couple of credible links instead?

Can you not give a brief summary in your own words if you have read and understand what you have read?

Also, have you read any of the source links I have provided?

Stardust said...

infinite glory,

I just want to add that if the "peer reviewed scientific journals" (whoever you mean by "peers" might be), cannot be found online, then please provide a brief synopsis of the articles and site the source and date of the the journal, author and page it would be found on so we can look these up for ourselves. Thanks.

Tommy said...

Infinite Glory, the new Sable Chicken!

Stardust said...

tommy, LOL!

I wonder where she went to. This is a long time for Sable to go without even lurking.

Infinite Glory said...

Once again this is typical behavior of the atheist when you start talking about real science. They get scared when you bring up the journals.

Tommy said...

Oh yeah, we're sooooooooo scared IG!

So basically you're saying that in all of the Andromeda Galaxy, there is not a single planet with so much as a microbe on it. Is that your contention.

I can't say 100% that there is life of any kind on at least one planet in the entire Andromeda Galaxy, but I would be willing to wager that it is highly likely that there is at least one planet with life on it at least at the microbial stage. Why does that seem so far fetched to you?

Stardust said...

infinite ...I could say "typical god botherer response" when you ask them for evidence. Afraid? You apparently haven't read anything we have written here.

I just asked you WHAT JOURNALS so we can read them for ourselves, and to produce a brief synopsis of the evidence you have found. Should be simple enough to explain what you believe and provide your reasons why.

Have you read the links I provided yet that give links to sources for evidence found thus far?

Stardust said...

I see from infinite's link that he is a student. Infinite, what grade are you in? It would explain a lot if you told us. (Like why you are so reluctant to site sources...maybe you haven't learned that yet and don't know how.)

Infinite Glory said...

With considerable security we can draw the conclusion that even with a hundred billion trillion stars in the observable universe the probability of finding a single planet capable of supporting physical life is much less than one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. The odds actually are higher that the reader will be killed by a sudden reversal in the second law of thermodynamics.(10 to the 80th power) It's never going to happen.

local abundance and distribution of dark matter .1
galaxy cluster size .1
galaxy cluster location .1
galaxy size .1
galaxy type .1
galaxy location .1
variability of local dwarf galaxy absorption rate .1
star location relative to galactic center .2
star distance from corotation circle of galaxy .005
star distance from closest spiral arm .1
z-axis extremes of stars orbit .02
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption .01
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption .01
number of stars in system .7
number and timing of close encounters of nearby stars .01
proximity of close stellar encounters .1
masses of close stellar encounters .1
star birth date .1
star age .2
star metalicity .4
star orbital eccentricity .05
star mass .1
star luminosity change relative to speciation types and rates .00001
star color .4
star's carbon to oxygen ratio .4
star's space velocity relative to local standard of rest .05
star's short term luminosity variability .05
star's long term variability luminosity .05
number & timing of solar systems encounters with interstellar gas clouds .1
H3+production .1
supernovae rates & locations .01
white dwarf binary types, rates, & locations .01
planetary distance from star .001
inclination of planetary orbit .5
axis tilt of planet .3
rate of change of axial tilt .01
period and size of axis tilt variation .1
planetary rotation period .1
rate of change in planetary rotation period .05
planetary orbit eccentricity .3
rate of change of planetary orbital eccentricity .1
rate of change of planetary inclination .5
period and size of eccentricity variation .1
period and size of inclination variation .1
number of moons .2
mass and distance of moon .01
surface gravity (escape velocity) .001
tidal force from sun and moon .1
magnetic field .01
rate of change & character of change in magnetic field .1
albedo (planet reflectivity) .1
density .1
thickness of crust .01
oceans to continents ratio .2
rate of change in oceans to continent ratio .1
global distribution of continents .3
frequency, timing, & extent of ice ages .1
frequency, timing, & extent of global snowball events .1
asteroidal & cometary collision rate .1
mass of body colliding with primordial earth .002
timing of body colliding with primordial earth .05
location of body collision with primordial earth .05
position & mass of Jupiter relative to earth .01
major planet eccentricities .1
major planet orbital instabilities .05
drift and rate of drift in major planet distances .05
number & distribution of planets .01
atmospheric transparency .01
atmospheric viscosity .1
atmospheric electric discharge rate .01
atmospheric temperature gradient .01
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere .01
rate of change in carbon dioxide level in atmosphere .1
rate of change in water vapor level in atmosphere .01
rate of change in methane level in early atmosphere .01
oxygen quantity in atmosphere .01
chlorine quantity in atmosphere .1
cobalt quantity in crust .1
arsenic quantity in crust .1
copper quantity in crust .1
boron quantity in crust .1
flourine quantity in crust .1
iodine quantity in crust .1
manganese quantity in crust .1
phosphorus quantity in crust .1
tin quantity in crust .1
zinc quantity in crust .1
molybdenum quantity in crust .05
vanadium quantity in crust .1
chromium quantity in crust .1
selenium quantity in crust .1
iron quantity in oceans .1
tropospheric ozone quantity .01
stratospheric ozone quantity .01
mesospheric ozone quantity .01
water vapor level in atmosphere .01
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere .1
quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere .01
rate of change of greenhouse gases in atmosphere .01
rate of change in greenhouse gases in atmosphere .01
quantity of forest & grass fires .01
quantity of sea salt aerosols .1
soil mineralization .1
quantity of anarobic bacteria in the oceans .01
quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans .01
quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil .01
quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil .01
quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil .01
quantity & timing of vacular plant introductions .001
quantity, timing, & placement of carbonate producing animals .00001
quantity, timing, & placement of methanogens .00001
quantity of soil sulfur .1
quantity of sulfur in the planets core .1
quantity of silicon in the planets core .1
quantity of water at subduction zones in the crust .01
hydration rate of subducted minerals .1
tectonic activity .05
rate of decline in tectonic activity .1
volcanic activity .1
rate of decline volcanic activity .1
viscosity at earth Earth core boundaries .01
viscosity of lithosphere .2
biomass to comet infall ratio .01
regularity of comet infall .1
number, intensity, and location of hurricanes .02

dependency factors estimate 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

longevity requirements estimate .0000001

probability for occurrence of all 128 parameters = 10 to the -166
maximum possible number of planets in the universe = 10 to the 22

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10 to the 144 exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe. The chances of being killed by a reversal in the second law of thermodynamics is 10 to the 80th.

As for the millions of dollars spent by the U.S. government on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, former Senator William Proxmire said it best when he said we would have been far wiser to spent the money looking for intelligent life in Washington.

Now, before I give you the references please tell me... How is the one-eyed flying purple eater?

Stardust said...

infinite glory, Where did you get your data? What sources? Please provide your links and scientific references used in gathering of your information.

outofcontrol said...

Infantile
Your hypothesis for no life on another planet uses earth as your control. Bad assumptions come from bad information. GIGO
A few years ago it was thought that life could not exist in high temperatures. Until scientists, not pastors, found life in underseas volcanic activity at 180 degree Fahrenheit. Your probabilities state that cannot exist.
Since you are such a no believer in other worldly life , because of your assumptions, where is your three pages of probabilities that your god exists?
Here are those probabilties.
Take the Superdome, paint everything black, I will put a pin hole in somewhere, put you in without any lights, and you find the pinhole. Without light, food or water, look fast.
Now if you found the pinhole as you think that your god would, you would then be able to see and talk with the over 6 billion people on that pinhead, and be able to know how many hairs are on each of their heads. I lose some of mine everyday so you would have to be able to keep up.
Thats the probability of a god, and of a god giving a shit about you.

Krystalline Apostate said...

IG:
With considerable security we can draw the conclusion that even with a hundred billion trillion stars in the observable universe the probability of finding a single planet capable of supporting physical life is much less than one in a [whole lotta trillions.
You do realize that life on earth came about via space-borne bacteria, right? That water was transported via comets?
I recommend 'Evolution' from PBS. Neil Degrasse Tyson, to name-drop.
The odds actually are higher that the reader will be killed by a sudden reversal in the second law of thermodynamics.(10 to the 80th power)
Errr, could you explain that little gem a little further? I don't read minds.
How is the one-eyed flying purple eater?
Sheesh, if you're going to try to be clever, at least get the phrase right.
It's a "a one-eyed, one-horned, flyin' purple people eater."

Stardust said...

infinite...just found out that it seems you have copied some of your info nearly word for word from:

301 Startling Proofs & Prophecies that God Exists
www.fool4given.com/books/301proofs.pdf

Not cool...not at all.
Hope you aren't trying to get through school this way.

Stardust said...

infinite...doing further research into your "facts" and numbers, looks like you willy nilly copy and pasted from a number of websites...word for freakin word without citing one source...all creationist sources where facts have been manipulated and distorted to support desired god beliefs.

Stardust said...

For those who are curious, here is what infinite posted in several comments

Here is what he posted in those several comments:

.

Rood and James S. Trefil, Are We Alone? The Possibility of Extraterrestrial Civilizations.
R.E. Davies and R.H. Koch, "All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 334 (1991), pages 391-403.
William R. Ward, "Comments on the Long-Term Stability of Earth's Oliquity," Icarus 50 (1982) pages 444-448
Carl D. Murray, "Seasoned Travellers," Nature, 361 (1993), pages 608-612
Jacques Laskar, F. Joutel, and P. Robutel, "Stabilization of the Earth's Obliquity by the moon," Nature, 361 (1993), pages 615-617.
Don L. Anderson, "The Earth as a Planet: Paradigms and Paradoxes," Science 22, no.3 (1984) pages 347-355; I.H. Campbell and S.R. Taylor, "No Water, No Granite-No Oceans, No Continents," Geophysical Research Letters, 10(1983), pages 1061-164; Brandon Carter, "The Anthropic Principle and it's Implications for Biological Evolution," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series A, 310 (1983), pages 352-363; Allen H. Hammond, "The Uniqueness of Earth's Climate," Science 187(1975), page 245; Owen B. Toon and Steve Olson,"The Warm Earth," Science, 85 (October 1985) pages 50-57; George Gale, "The Anthropic Principle," Scientific American 245, no.6 (1981), pages 154-171; Ron Cottrell, The Remarkable Spaceship Earth; Ted D. Haar,"On the Origin of the Solar System," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 5(1967), pages 267-268; George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe; John Templeton,"God Reveals Himself in the Astronomical and in the Infinitesmal," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation(December 1984), pages 196-198; Michael H. Hart, "The Evolution of the Atmosphere on Earth," Icarus, 33(1978), pages 23-39;Tobias Owen, Robert D. Cess, and V. Ramanathan, Enhanced CO2 Greenhouse to Compensate For Reduced Solar Luminosity on Early Earth," Nature 277 (1979), pages 640-641; John Gribbin,"The Origin of Life: Earth's Lucky Break," Science Digest(May 1983), pages 36-102; P.J.E. Peebles and Joseph Silk, "A Comic Book of Phenomena," Nature 346(1990), pages 233-239; Michael H. Hart, "Atmospheric Evolution, the Drake Equation, and DNA: Sparce Life in an Infinite Universe,"Philosophical Cosmology and Philosophy, ed. John Leslie, pages 256-266; Stanley L. Jaki, God and the Cosmologists, pages 177-184; Richard A. Kerr,"The Solar System's New Diversity," Science, 265(1994), pages 1360-1362; Richard A. Kerr,"When Comparative Planetology Hits it's Target," Science, 265(1994), page 1361; W.R. Kuhn, J.C.G. Walker, and H.G. Marshall, pages 11, 129-131,136; Gregory S. Jenkins, Hal G. Marshall and W.R. Kuhn, pages 8785-8791; K.J. Zahnle and J.C.G. Walker, pages 95-105; M.J. Newman and R.T. Roos,"Implications of the Solar Evolution for Earth's Early Atmosphere," Science, 198 (1977), pages 1035-1037; J.C.G. Walker and K.J. Zahnle, "Lunar Nodal Tides and Distance to the Moon During the Precambrian," Nature 320(1986), pages 600-602; J.F. Kasting and J.B. Pollack,"Effects of High CO2 Levels on Surface Temperatures and Atmospheric Oxidation State of the Early Earth,"Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, 1 (1984), pages 403-428; H.G. Marshal, J.C.G. Walker, and W.R. Kuhn, "Long Term Climate Change and the Geochemical Cycle of Carbon," Journal of Geophysical Research 93(1988), pages 791-801; Pieter G. van Dokkum, et. al., pages L95-L98; Anatoly Klypin, Andrey V. Kravtsov, and Octavio Valenzuela, pages 82-92; Roland Buser, pages 69-74; Robert Irion, pages 62-64; D.M. Murphy, et al.' pages 62-65; Neil F. Commins., pages 2-8; 53-65; W.R. Kuhn, J.C.G. Walker, and H.G. Marshall, pages 11, 129-131, 136; G. Gonzalez, "Spectroscopic Analysis of the Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planetary Systems," pages 221-238; Guillermo Gonzalez,"New Planets Hurt Chances for ETI," pages 2-4, the editors,"The Vacant Interstellar Spaces,"Discover, April 1996, pages 18, 21; Theodore P. Snow and Adolf N. Witt, "The Interstellar Carbon Budget and the Role of Carbon in Dust and Large Molecules,"Science, 270(1995), pages 1455-1457; Richard A. Kerr,"Revised Galileo Data Leave Jupiter Mysteriously Dry," Science, 272(1996), pages 814-815; Adam Burrows and Jonathan Lumine,"Astronomical Questions of Origin and Survival," Nature, 378(1995), page 333; George Wetherill,"How Special is Jupiter?" Nature, 373(1995), page 470; B. Zuckerman, T. Forveille, and J.H. Kastner,"Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion Arround Young Stars,"Nature, 373(1995), pages 494-496; "Terrestrial Paleoenvironmenta Effects of a Late Quaternary-Age Supernova,"Icarus, 46(1981), pages 81-93; M.A. Ruderman, "Possible Consequences of Nearby Supernova Explosions for Atmospheric Ozone and Terrestrial Life," Science, 184(1974), pages 1079-1081; G.C. Reid et al.,"Effects of Intense Stratospheric Ionization Events,"Nature, 275(1978), pages 489-492; B. Edvardsson et al., "The Chemical Evolution of The Galactic Disc. I. Analysis and Results,"Astronomy & Astrophysics, 275(1993), pages 101-152; J.J. Maltese et al., "Periodic Modulation of the Oort Cloud Comet Flux by the Adiabatically Changed Galactic Tide,"Icarus, 116(1995), pages 255-268; Paul R. Renne, et al., "Syncrony and Causal Relations Between Permian-Triassic Boundary Crisis and Siberian Flood Volcanism,"Science, 269(1995), pages 1413-1416; T.R. Gabella and T. Oka,"Detection of H3+ in interstellar Space,"Nature384(1996), pages 334-335; David J. Des Marias, Harold Strauss, Roger E. Summons, and J.M. Hayes,"Carbon Isotope Evidence for the Stepwise Oxidation of the Proterozoic Environment Nature, 359(1992), pages 605-609; Donald E. Canfield and Andreas Teske,"Late Proterozoic Rise in Atmospheric Oxygen Concentration Inferred From Phylogenic and Sulfur-Isotope Studies," Nature, 382(1996), pages 127-132; Alan Cromer, Uncommon Sense:The Historical Nature of Science, pages 175-176; Christopher Chyba, "Life Beyond Mars," Nature, 382(1996), page 577; E. Skindrad,"Where is Everybody?" Science News, 150(1996), page 153; Stephen H. Schneider, Laboratory Earth: The Planetary Gamble We Can't Afford to Lose, pages 25,29-30; Miguel A. Goni, Kathleen C. Ruttenberg, and Timothy I Eglington,"Sources and Contribution of Terrigenous Organic Carbon to Surface Sediments in the Gulf of Mexico,"Nature, 389(1997), pages 275-278; Paul G. Falkowski,"Evolution of the Nitrogen Cycle and it's Influence on the Biological Sequestration of CO2 in the Ocean," Nature, 387 (1997)' pages 272-274; John S. Lewis, Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System, pages 485-492; W.L. Chameids, P.S. Kasibhatla, J. Yienger, and H. Levy II,"Growth of Continental Scale Metro Plexes, Regional Ozone Pollution, and World Food Production," Science, 264(1994), pages 74-77; Paul Crutzen and Mark Lawrence,"Ozone Clouds Over the Atlantic," Nature, 388(1997), page 625; Paul Crutzen, "Mesospheric Mysteries," Science, 277(1997), pages 1951-1952; M.E. Summers, et al., "Implications of Satellite OH Observations for Middle Atmospheric H2O and Ozone," Science, 277(1997), pages 1967-1970; K. Suhre, et al.,"Ozone-Rich Transients in the Upper Equatorial Atlantic Troposphere," Nature, 388 (1997), pages 661-663; L.A. Frank, J.B. Sigwarth, and J.D. Craven,"On the Influx of Small Comets into the Earth's Upper Atmosphere, II. Interpretation,"Geophysical Research Letters, 13(1986), pages 307-310; David Deming," Extraterrestrial Accretion and Earth's Climate," Geology, in press; T. A. Muller and G.J. MacDonald,"Smultaneous Presence of Orbital Inclination and Eccentricity in Prozy Climate Records from Ocean Drilling Program Site 806," Geology, 25(1997), pages 3-6; Clare E. Reimers, "Feedback from the Sea Floor,"Nature, 391(1998), pages 536-537; Hilairy E. Hartnett, Richard G. Keil, John I.Hedges, and Allan H. Devol,"Influence of Oxygen Exposure Time on Organic Carbon Preservation in Continental Margin Sediments,"Nature, 391(1998), pages 572-574; Tina Hesman, "Greenhouse Gassed: Carbon Dioxide Spells Indigestion for Food Chains," Science News,157(2000), pages 200-202; Clair E. Reimers,"Feedbacks From the Sea Floor," Nature, 391(1998), pages 536-537; S. Sahijpal, et al.,"A Stellar Origin For the Short Lived Nuclides in the Early Solar System," Nature, 391 (1998), pages 559-561; Stuart Ross Taylor, Destiny or Chance: Our Solar System and It's Place in the Cosmos; Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe; Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self Orginization; Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny; Gonzales,"Solar system Bounces in the Right Range for Life," pages 4-5; Guillermo Gonzales, "Is the Sun Anomalous?" in press (2000); Ray White III and William C. Keel, pages 129-130; Rob Rye, Philip H. Kuo, and Heinrich D. Holland,"Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Consentrations Before 2.2 Billion Years Ago,"Nature, 378(1995), pages 603-605; Robert A. Muller and Gordon J. Macdonald,"Glacial Cycles and Orbital Inclination," Nature 377(1995), pages 107-108; Paul Parsons,"Dusting off Panspermia," Nature, 383(1996), pages 221-222; P. Jonathan Patchett,"Scum of the Earth after all," Nature, 382(1996), page 758;M. Schlidowski, "A 3,800 million year Isotopic Record of Life from Carbon in Sedimintary Rocks," Nature, 333(1988), pages 313-318; H.P. Yokey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology; C. De Duve, Vital Dust; Peter D. More,"Fire Damage Soils Our Forest,"Nature, 384(1996)pages 312-313; A.U. Mallik, C.H. Gimingham, and A.A. Rahman,"Ecological Effects of Heather Burning I. Water Infiltration, Moister Retention, and Porosity of Surface Soil," Journal of Ecology, 72(1984), pages 767-776; Herbert J. Kronzucker, M. Yaeesh Siddiqi, and Anthony D.M. Glass, "Conifer Root Discrimination against Soil Nitrate and the Ecology of Forest Succession," Nature, 385(1997), pages 59-61; Richard A. Kerr,"Cores Document Ancient Catastrphy," Science, 275(1997), page 1265; Stephen Battersby,"Pathfinder Probes the Weather on Mars,"Nature, 388(1997), page 612; Ron Cowen,"Martian Rocks Offer a Windy Tale," Science News, 152 (1997), page 84; Peter Olson, "Probing Earth's Dynamo," Nature, 389 (1997) page 337

In addition we have extreme Fine-Tuning Characteristics of the universe For life to be possible

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of Space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptins
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. Mass values for the active nutrinos
41. Number of different species of active neutrinos
42. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
43. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
44. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
45. Rates of exotic mass particles
46. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
47. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
48. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
49. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
50. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
54. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
55. Density of quasars
56. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
57. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
58. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
59. Epoch at which the first stars (metal free pop III stars) begin to form
60. Epoch at which the first stars cease to form
61. Average mass of metal free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the first gaaxies
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64. Amount rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67. Level of quantizization of the cosmic space-time fabric
68. Flatness of universes geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy size
70. Change of average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constancy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of charge parity violation
76. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
77. Waters temperature of maximum density
78. Water's heat of fussion
79. Water's heat of vaporation
80. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
81. Location of clumpuscules in the universe

Even if there are an infinite number of universes they all need fine tuning too.

I have some more references if you want them. I need to take a break.
I'm sorry it took so long.

I'm supised you've never heard of these things

Stephen H. Kirby, "Taking the temperature of slabs," Nature, 403 (2000), pages 31-34; James Trefil,"When the Earth Froze," Smithsonian, December, 1999, pages 28-30; Arnold L. Miller,"Biotic Transitions in Global Marine Diversity," Science, 281 (1998), pages 1157-1160; D.F. Williams, et al, "Lake Baikal Record of continental Climate Response to orbital Insolation During the Past 5 Million years," Science, 278(1997), pages 1114-1117; Nicholas R. Bates, Anthony H. Knap and Anthony F. Michaels, "Contribution of Hurricanes to Local and Global Estimates of Air-Sea Exchange of CO2,"Nature, 395 (1998), pages 58-61.

There's a few more I got to go to bed.
Look them up.

A good book that has some of this stuff in it is from the agnostic

Michael Denton. He's not a creationist.
It's in the list.

Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe. I'm sure you will find many references in there.

Also, don't forget the space-time theorem proven by Hawking and Penrose. If the universe is governed by general relativity then time itself along with matter and energy must have had a beginning. Also, there must exist a CAUSE responsible for bringing the universe into existence outside the universe. Since General Relativity has been established beyond reasonable doubt the space-time theorem and it's corollary can be trusted.

George Walker Bush was elected president of the Uninted States in the year 2000 and re-elected president in the year 2004. He also served as the 47th Govener of Texas in the years 1995 to 2000.

This is a true statement. It was true yesterday and the day before that. It is true today and will be true tomorrow. It's an unchanging truth. It stays the same. It will be true when George Bush dies and it will be true when you die. It's always true. It will always be true. It's eternaly true. Since this statement contains information about George Bush and information presupposes intelligence then there must exist an unchanging eternal mind. And since that is true it's always true and it will always be true. It's eternaly true.
So, there must exist a living, eternal, personal, God.

Stardust said...

I'm supised you've never heard of these things

YOU, mostly likely, have not even heard of any of the sources you just willy-nilly copy and pasted here.

Stardust said...

infinite, now ...can you explain yourself in your own words how all of the data and sources you cited are relevant to your claims? Can you respond to KA and outofcontrol without copy and pasting random information?

You are using Earth and life as we know it as your control.

Also, where is your collection of statistics to prove the existence of your god? You don't even have a thing to base that claim on.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust physicist Robert Dicke observed thirty-two years ago that if you want physicists or any other life forms, you must have carbon. You can't redefine life just because you don't like the evidence. Those parameters are for physical life. Now, if you want to say it's possible that non-physical life exists and call them UFO's go right ahead.

Stardust said...

Infinite, are you going to address the points that outofcontrol brings up? They are good ones.

Also, are you going to respond to KA?

They are the ones who understand more than I do. I am not the only one in this discussion. I would be interested in your responses to their comments to YOU.

Stardust said...

Also, what you believe...an invisible god who is obsessed with itsy bitsy humans on an itsy bitsy speck of a planet in the vastness of the cosmos...

where is your evidence for that claim? That is much more of an absurdity and waste of time contemplating than seeking out life that is possible, no matter how remote a chance for us finding it.

The chance of finding your imaginary "creator" is nil since not a shred has been found to even start with.

CyberKitten said...

IG - Think of it this way:

Stars are abundant.

Planets appear to be common, orbiting just about every star we investigate.

Some of those stars have been around a LOT longer than ours.

It is likely that at least some of those planets are in the inhabitable zone - neither too far from or too near to their star.

The chemicals that are needed for the life we know about - including carbon and much else besides - are apparently common throughout our galaxy.

Given enough time and the right circumstances it seem that life naturally emerges fron non-life.

Taking all of the above into account how can anyone say with confidence that there is not a single planet (other than our own *very* unexceptional one) in the entire UNIVERSE that does not support at least 'primitive' lifeforms.

Andrea said...

Wow, Star, sorry you had to plow through the crap to find the origins of this person's illogical ramblings and doublespeak. The inclusion of "Bush," "elected," and "intelligence..." Yeah, that really cements the argument. lmao

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about the idea or existence of any supreme deity...I tend to think there isn't one, but I don't care either way...it's the idea of a *personal* god that is so absolutely beyond ludicrous. But whatever. People will believe what they want.

And all this from a little post about Roswell :)

Stardust said...

andrea, yep...you never know where the discussion is going to go in blogland and who is going to show up on your doorstep.

I just think it's absurd when believers in "divine supernatural creators" for which there is zero evidence come into the discussion and tell us that considering physical evidence for life existing elsewhere in the solar system is a waste of time.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust I have nothing else to say about this. Be irrational if you want to

Stardust said...

IG, Once again, you run away without addressing comments directed at you with specific questions, especially concerning evidence to support your irrational supernatural creator beliefs.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust, I have given you evidence.

What question do you want me to address?

Stardust said...

infinite g...oh my gosh. Are you reading anything here?

Again, I would like you to respond to outofcontrol's points, KA's points as well as all of the rebuttals here questioning your gathered "evidence".

KA asked You do realize that life on earth came about via space-borne bacteria, right? That water was transported via comets?

Let's start with you answering that one.

Infinite Glory said...

Well, if you're talking about iterstellar space travel the radiation that is needed would break down the molecules of life. Especialy for something so large and far away. The solar radiation pressure and the vast period of time for it to travel would garentee the life non-viable. Also, the evidence I presented above guarentees life could not have existed. Life would have to have originated on mars. But it has been shown that life couldn't have originated on mars. Mars as a warm wet planet early in it's history was dramatically transformed to a cold dry planet and stripped of it's atmosphere at the impact events 3.8 billion years ago and experienced a runaway cooling. What is going on here is that origin of life researches have no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on earth so they (were) in serious desperation for an alternative because they realize it couldn't have happened on earth by natural process. Some have even rejected this in favor of space aliens planting life here on earth.

Of course we may expect to find life remains on mars because of it's close proximity to earth. A few reasons would be

1. Meteorites large enough to make a crator greator than 60 miles across will cause Earth rocks to escape Earth's gravity. Out of 1,000 such rocks ejected, on the average, 291 will strike Venus, 20 go to Mercury, 17 hit Mars, 14 make it to Jupiter, and 1 would go all the way to Saturn.

2. The sun's radiation exerts a pressure that is capable of wafting tiny life forms outward through the solar system and perhaps beyond.

3. Some microbes are capable of absorbing 600 kilorads of X-ray radiation without losing their viability.

These and other reasons show that millions of earth's minute creatures may have been deposited on mars and other solar system planets.

The build up evidence for a Creator and the continued resistence of it's rejection shows that the source of rejection is not intellectual. The increasing bizzare absurdities shows how strong this evidence must be. An example of this is the flat earth society. They still have "scientific reasons" for rejecting the round shape of the earth. Just as the naturalist does for his materialism. But in the end science stands strong. Reality will collapse the ideology. And in the end truth will prevail.

Krystalline Apostate said...

This is a true statement. It was true yesterday and the day before that. It is true today and will be true tomorrow. [...] And since that is true it's always true and it will always be true. It's eternaly true.
So, there must exist a living, eternal, personal, God.

Unhinged is the best description we have of you thus far.
Well, if you're talking about iterstellar space travel the radiation that is needed would break down the molecules of life.
Ummm...then you put in shielding.
Yeesh, do you ever read at all?
Also, the evidence I presented above guarentees life could not have existed.
What evidence? You've provided little else but 'we can't do that right now.'
The build up evidence for a Creator and the continued resistence of it's rejection shows that the source of rejection is not intellectual.
You're...joking, right? I can pretty much debunk most of the crap you've spewed up, fairly easily.
The increasing bizzare absurdities shows how strong this evidence must be.
So you hiccup a few science soundbites, that's evidence?
An example of this is the flat earth society. They still have "scientific reasons" for rejecting the round shape of the earth. Just as the naturalist does for his materialism. But in the end science stands strong. Reality will collapse the ideology. And in the end truth will prevail.
Oh, so now WE'RE the irrational ones? Flat earthers? Are you fucking kidding me?
Thus far, extremely unimpressive.
Prove that this 'agent' has a face, 2 arms, 2 legs, etc.
Of course, you can't. Response is...'the ways of the lawd are mysterious indeed'.
What an ego.
Watch this and this, THERE'S some evidence for you.
The universe is superbly 'designed', but it sure ain't for us, bucko.

Tommy said...

Hey IG, there are a couple of guys with white coats and butterfly nets looking for you.

CyberKitten said...

I never 'got on' with the whole Panspermia idea myself.

As far as I'm concerned life emerged right here on Earth (and most probably on other planets too).

It's likely that material entering the atmosphere added to the mix though. There a lot of space dust and meteorites that fall every day with contain some quite complex molecules. All that certainly would've helped things along....

Krystalline Apostate said...

cyberkitten - the strongest likelihood is that life came here from hurtling debris from elsewhere.
IG just reversed it, so his(?) POV is thoroughly geocentric.

Toni said...

Of course the deist would choose not to believe in life on other planets. That would might mean that their big sky daddy could possibly love the sibling even more than they love the earthlings...maybe on that planet he even heals amputees?

Tommy said...

In the mid-15th century, if you were to tell learned Europeans that there were vast continents of land yet to be discovered populated with millions of people, they probably would have scoffed at the notion. "W-why it's not mentioned anywhere in Scripture!"

Stardust said...

tommy, then several centuries later they are scurrying around trying to make scripture fit the present.

CyberKitten said...

KA said: the strongest likelihood is that life came here from hurtling debris from elsewhere.

Maybe so - though I remain unconvinced. I mean, if life originated elsewhere... where did *that* life come from. Surely it must have originated somewhere?

Personally I have no issue with the idea that life naturally emerges from lifelessness wherever conditions allow it to do so. I expect that life has independently evolved throughout our galaxy and in all the other galaxies too. Once we get 'out there' I expect that we'll be tripping over various lifeforms wherever we go.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust,

It's understandable why some origin of life researchers have decided to say that life was created and transported to earth by space aliens. This will answer the objections by everyone.

1. All origin of life senarios require kerogen tars and carbonaceous molecules to self assemble in some kind of primordial soup or mineral substrate into living organisms. However, when living organisms die, they decay into the same kerogen tars and carbonaceous material, physical chemists can ascertain whether these substances are prebiotic or postbiotic in nature. Their conclusion: it's all postbiotic. Thus, a prebiotic primordial soup or mineral substrate never existed upon the earth.
2. The time scale during which life arose is very brief, less than five million years. Life has been abundant on earth throughout the past 3.86 billion years. Between 3.5 and 3.86 billion years ago, dozens of life exterminating bombardment events took place. Life must have originated and reoriginated as many as fifty times within the 360 million year time span. Gven the abundance of life during this era, several of the origins of life must have occured in time windows briefer than five million years. If life arose through natural processes alone in such brief time spans, it should be easy to construct in a laboratory. As yet biochemists cannot manufacture (from scratch) a single DNA or RNA molecule or any of the more complex proteins, let alone a complete, functioning organism.
3. The vast complexity of even the simplest life-form argues against random or natural self-assembly. If all the chemical bonds of Earth's simplest living creture were broken, the chance of it's reasembly, even under ideal environmental and chemical conditions and even if no components were allowed to escape and no foreign substances were permitted to intrude, is less than one in 10 100,000,000,000, a number so large it would fill nearly a thousand sets of Encyclopedia Britanica with Zeros if someone were to write it out in standard notation. Even if most of the sequence positions for the atoms are not criticle, the odds by the most calculations are still less than one in 10 to the 3,000 for assemblies attempted continuosly over 10 billion years. The universe is around 13 billion years old. I have a list of textbooks writen by atheists and agnostics with calculations.
4. The simplest chemical step for the origin of life, the gathering of amino acids that are all left-handed and nucleotide sugars that are all right-handed cannot be achieved under inorganic conditions.
5. The various nucleotides essential for building RNA and DNA molecules require radically different environmental conditions for their assembly. Cytosine and uracil need near boiling water temperatures, while adenine and guanine need freezing water temperatures. Thus it is highly unlikely that under natural conditions all four building blocks would come together in adequate concentrations at the same site.
6. At the time of life's origin Earth's surface was relatively hot, probably between 80 and 90C, with little temperature variation. That is, Earth's surface was without any cold spots. At these warm temperatures RNA nucleotide sequences decouple. Moreover, new experimental results demonstrate that all of the RNA nucleotides themselves degrade at warm temperatures. They can last only from 19 days to 12 years. The most optimistic naturalist hypothesis demand that they hold together for millions of years. Even at water's freezing point, cytosine decomposes in less than 17,000 years. Outside the cell there is no environment providing sufficient stability and protection for RNA molecules and their nucleotide bases. This means RNA molecules cannot survive without cells while cells cannot survive without RNA. Both must be constructed simultaneously.
7. Life transported from some distant "exotic" location in the cosmos to earth would arrive dead, so broken down that none of life's building blocks would survive. Stellar radiation pressure strong enough to move microbes across the long reaches of interstellar space would kill the microbes in a matter of days. If the microbes were embedded in sizable dust grains, their chemical properties might be protected from the effects of most interstellar radiation, but only supergiant stars generate enough radiation pressure to move such dust grains, and life is impossible anywhere in the vicinity of a supergiant star.
8. Life involves more than the assembly of all the molecular machines an organism requires. Each machine must have the capacity to survive some random destruction of the components making up it's inner workings. Multiple forms of radiation essential to life occasionally disturb the positions and the types of amino acids and nucleotides comprising proteins, DNA, and RNA molecules. Life assembly, thus, becomes all the more challengig. Certain "backups," or redundancy, must be available at the right times in the right locations for molecules to survive and continue their essential functions. The task is roughly analogous to writing a computer program that can still perform even when 1 percent of it's code is randomly shuffled or destroyed.
9. The energy released from the decay of the radiometric isotopes of uranium, thorium, and potassium sets up a reaction whereby ocean water feeds a continuous stream of oxygen into the earth's atmosphere. This streaming was much greater a few billion years ago than it is now. It is sufficient to guarantee the complete shutdown of chemical reactions that possibly could cause prebiotic molecules to assemble ito biotic molecules.
10. Without oxygen in the atmosphere, no ozone shield would ever form. Without an ozone shield solar ultraviolet radiation will penatrate unimpeded to the earth's surface. Such radiation will shut down the chemical reactions that are essential for the assembly of prebiotics into organisms. The existence of oxygen will shut down the required chemical reactions. The lack of oxygen will also shut down the required chemical reactions.

Any naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is doomed.

Stardust said...

It's understandable why some origin of life researchers have decided to say that life was created and transported to earth by space aliens

Infinite - Pausing for a moment, KA's questions were, You do realize that life on earth came about via space-borne bacteria, right? That water was transported via comets?

He didn't say anything about life being transported by "space aliens".

Stardust said...

I see you have copy and pasted your exact words written as Michael Houx from your debate at Debunking Christianity to which another commenter replied to the exact words you pasted here, with this. (Since you love the copy and paste method of debate, here you go, Michael Infinite g...)

The commenter david ellis responds to you with:

"Michael, your fine-tuning argument ignores the fact that there are several hypotheses other than intelligent agents which fit the facts you are taking as evidence of God.

"You must show these possibilities (the multiverse hypothesis, for example) to be more unlikely than the God hypothesis for these facts to be legitimately taken as evidence for theism.

"As for your argument that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible.....you simply have no way of knowing that. The fact that we don't yet know how it happened (which no one disputes) does not show it CANNOT have happened---the history of science is too full of unexpected and surprising natural processes being discovered to claim we can know that, to quote you, "a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life is doomed".

Stardust said...

To save time and space here, everyone can go read Michael Houx Infinite Glory's copy and paste argument and excellent rebuttals from other commenters over in the Debunking Christianity's May 11th post titled Is God a Better Explanation for Existence?

Tommy said...

No thanks Star, I'm not going to waste anymore time with Infinite Gloryhole.

Stardust said...

tommy, infinite should change his name to "Infinite Copy-Paste Poster"

CyberKitten said...

IG said (or pasted): Gven the abundance of life during this era, several of the origins of life must have occured in time windows briefer than five million years. If life arose through natural processes alone in such brief time spans, it should be easy to construct in a laboratory.

I'm sure that given 5 million years to experiment that we could do so..... Or even a million.... Maybe even a thousand years of round the clock experiments..... Given that experimentation to produce life from its basic chemical building blocks has hardly been a scientific priority I'm not surprised that we haven't accomplished much yet. After all we didn't even know much about DNA as little as 50 years ago.

I am impressed though in your obviously high expectations and confidence of what science can accomplish in such a short time!

Stardust said...

I see from my sitemeter that Mr CopyPaster from Plano, Texas came by to read this morning, but didn't have anything to say about copy and pasting arguments from other websites.

Hmmm...he probably has to go find some more stuff to copy and paste in response to the copy and paste stuff we copy and pasted....tee heee

Stardust said...

Another visit from Infinite Copypaster in the middle of the night but nothing to say...er, I mean copy and paste? No god evidence to provide?

Stardust said...

Infinite posted this in another place. Another copy and paste effort...are we surprised?

Infinitely Annoying said:

As the physicist Dr. Michael Strauss has said

Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and George Ellis published the space-time theorem of general relativity in a series of papers from 1966 to 1970. In terms of it's impact on our understanding of the universe, this is one of the most significant scientific discoveries of all time. Assuming that the equations of general relativity accurately describe the dynamics of the universe they extend Einstein's work and provide powerful support for the Big Bang theory. This theorem established that time itself, as well as the dimensions of space were created at the big bang. The universe was created by something outside of space and time.

The space-time theorem of general relativity indicates that time itself, as well as the dimensions of space had it's origin outside of space and time. Apparently the creator is much greater than the universe itself. Current objections to these conclusions involve quantum tunneling, a proper theory of quantum gravity, or a proposed breakdown in the laws of physics, have no scientific credibility, are only opinion, and have no basis in any actual scientific theories or observations. Some of these ideas are so speculative that they will never be able to be tested, or have any scientific affirmation. As these hypotheses are fully explored, it is nearly assured that the above conclusions will no change since they are solidly based on known facts.

It's beyond reasonable doubt.

Stardust said...

I will do IG's work for him and point out that Dr. Michael Strauss is an Associate professor of Physics at the University of Oklahoma.

Michael Strauss is a god-believer, and therefore his beliefs probably are incorporated in his work.

My copy and paste time about Michael Strauss....

"I still enjoy riding my bicycle, although sometimes when I am riding the rolling hills of Oklahoma I miss the mountains in the bay area. I love spending time with my wife and children. We have found a great church home at Wildwood Community Church in Norman. Over the last few years I have had a number of opportunities to speak at universities and churches on the relationship between science and Christianity, and to work with Reasons to Believe, an organization that integrates faith and science.

Strauss's full biography HERE.

Strauss's church

Tommy said...

Well, Gloryhole and Strauss are apparently lazy when it comes to Hawking.

It just so happens that on my vacation I read "God The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. On page 122, Stenger writes "In 1970 cosmologist Stephen Hawking and mathematician Roger Penrose, using a theorem derived earlier by Penrose, "proved" that a singularity exists at the beginning of time."

"However, Hawking has repudiated his own earlier proof. In his best seller A Brief History of Time, he avers, "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe." This revised conclusion, concurred with by Penrose, follows from quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic processes that was developed in the years following the introduction of Einstein's theory of relativity."

Stenger continues on page 126, "While he avoided technical details in a Brief History of Time, the no boundary model was the basis of Hawking's oft-quoted statement 'So long as the universe had a beginning we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place then for a creator?"

Stardust said...

tommy, I am going to have to read that book.

Infinite Glory said...

Yes Hawking has tried to get arround the implications of the space-time theorem and the need for a creator in A Brief History of Time to no avail. It's beyond reasonable doubt. Now your free to speculate about the three eyed flying cookie monster in that tiny area of doubt but there can be little doubt where the evidence points. The universe was created by a CAUSAL AGENT outside the universe.

I have a copy of the proven theorem right in front of me.

Tommy said...

And this Creator gets what out of having created our universe?

Tommy said...

You sound like Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where the weapons of mass destruction are."

Stardust said...

FYI - There is NO space-time theorem.

Where are you getting that from? Star Trek?

Infinite Glory said...

Boy that's a first.

There is no space-time theorem of general relativity.

It looks like we have reverted to magic and the word of faith movement into speaking things in and out of existence.

Why is it when someone gets presented with the facts they start accusing people of being a troll?

What are you afraid of Stardust?

Stardust said...

IG...
There is a Theory of general relativity

Provide the link for space-time theorem you are referring to please...just the link.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust I have a copy of it. Would you like me to show it to you and then you can get a copy of it to see if I'm telling you the truth? I got mine over the internet out of the journal it was published in. It costs nine dollars.

Stardust said...

I am afraid of dragonflies, and bees...because I am allergic to bee stings.

You are the one who believes in unseen things without evidence. You have provided lots of physics from a creationist perspective, but you have failed to show how that evidence proves the existence of a god. You have not provided the proof...only your assumptions and those assumptions of a creator of the universe is not an agreed assumption based on any scientific findings. Only on "feelings" and what a person wishes to believe.

Stardust said...

Provide a title, author and publisher and link...and we can investigate your source for ourselves if we so choose.

If you look to my right-hand sidebar, you will see all sorts of science and astronomy links. It seems like you are only here to push your god beliefs and are lesser concerned about the science or else you would have a more open mind and realize that not even scientists have come to a consensus on this god business.

Stardust said...

After doing more research (my oldest son has a degree in Physics and so I got a bit of help), what you are probably talking about the space-time continuum which is a concept...not a proven theory.

More here...
Spacetime

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust it's not the space-time continum. It's the space-time theorem of general relativity.

If it's o.k. I'll show it to you.

This is what drove Stephen Hawking annd Roger Penrose to worldwide fame.

Stardust said...

Just the link to the source please. Thanks. I have a Masters in English, I do know how to read.

Stardust said...

Keep in mind, Stephen Hawking annd Roger Penrose have not proven the existence of a creator. You keep ignoring that point. Scientists have not come to the conclusion that the universe was created by a god.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust all I'm trying to argue right now is that there is a first cause that brought the universe into existence.

I already placed a copy of the corollary of the theorem a few weeks ago on the other post with Al Sharpton. But I can put the more fuller version up if you want me to. The reference is there. Type in the Royal Society of London and it should come up. You have to search for the correct journal and everything. Again, it will cost nine dollars to get a copy.

Stardust said...

"more fuller version"...

How old are you?

Stardust said...

Infinite troll said: "all I'm trying to argue right now is that there is a first cause that brought the universe into existence."

Now you are changing your argument to detract from the fact that you have no evidence for a supernatural creator of the universe. That there must have been a first cause is nothing many of us disagree with. However, that an invisible supernatural being clicked his fingers and said abracadabra and brought it all about has not one shred of evidence.

Post the link here, please.

You seem to have a problem interacting.

This was posted by John W Loftus at Debunking Christianity...

" . . .until you start interacting with people in a give and take exchange, you are wasting your time. Otherwise all subsequent comments of yours will be deleted.

I provided several questions in the Blog Entry here, and I just provided a link to answer another question of yours. Interact, or don't bother commenting."


I suggest the same thing.
Provide the link HERE to your source you are referring to. That should not be too difficult.

And for the final time, please respond to the counter-arguments point by point in an interactive manner or don't bother coming back.

Stardust said...

Infinite...you are rehashing old discussions. You have been rebutted and debunked so many times it's getting really old.

Here is the link so everyone can see how KA, physicist Jason H. Bowden, outofcontrol and others have countered your arguments, and you robotically continue to copy and paste random data in order to make it look like you have an argument when you actually don't.

Infinite Glory said...

The space-time theorem says what it says Strardust.

If General Relativity holds then there is a singular beginning to space and time along with matter and energy. Also, there must exist a causal agent that brings the universe into existence outside the universe. Since general relativity is now the best proven principle in physics the space time theorem can be trusted.

The universe was created by an ENTITY outside the universe.

Stardust said...

The universe was created by an ENTITY outside the universe.

No evidence has been found, nor provided by you that the universe was "created" by a supernatural entity...

causal agent does not = supernatural entity

As far as the existence of god goes, you are only making a personal assumption.

The horse is dead.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust the space-time theorem contains a CAUSAL singularity.

The singularity is the whole universe shrunken down to 0 volume.

The CAUSE is a nonphysical entity of some sort.

Given that it created the universe then it is the creator of the universe.

Stardust said...

From The Freethought Zone:

A fairly common example of the god of the gaps fallacy is the argument that since we don't understand where the dimensionless constants in the equations of physics come from, and since carbon based life could not have evolved if some of the parameters varied by a small amount, a god must have chosen the parameters to produce human life. In addition to being an example of the god of the gaps fallacy, this argument is wrong for several other reasons. For example, it assumes that the dimensionless parameters are fundamentally arbitrary. In other words, it assumes that the parameters cannot be predicted with a more fundamental theory. But in string theory, all dimensionless parameters are expected to be predictable (see Internet Physics Resources). Several other problems with the argument are discussed in Cosmythology and Is God in the Details?.

Stardust said...

Again, there is no space-time "theorem". Where is your source?

Do not comment further till you start providing links to the sources of your information. You most likely do not wish to provide any because your information is from creationist perspective textbooks. I have seen these creation science textbooks and they are absolutely pathetic the way you try so hard to make your religious beliefs fit into the scientific world.

Stardust said...

Infinite...though I don't usually like to resort to this, your redundant comments will be deleted from now on.

You have not provided links to your sources and you keep making excuses. They are probably creationist bullshit sites/sources...

Quit trolling my blog . . .

bye.

Stardust said...

infinite annoyance, when you provide links for your sources, you can come back.

Infinite Glory said...

Stardust I provided it for you at the Sharpton. Read it. It says theorem. Type in Proceedings of the Roral Society of London.

I don't rely on flim flam web sites.

Stardust said...

Infinitely redundant, if you don't rely on flim flam websites, why aren't you willing to post the link to where you got your information? If it is science presented from a creationist's perspective, and you consider what that source's information and final conclusions to be true, you should also be able to find secular scientists who also support this ...and as I have presented via several links to sources, scientists have not come to any agreement whatsoever of how the universe came to be, and none of them have yet found one shred of evidence for the existence of a god. AGAIN, it is simply a matter of faith and filling in things we don't know with "god did it".

It is not being mean to demand that you stop trolling and to go someplace else if you will not interact with others and if you only wish to push your agenda without reading one bit of anything else. You copy and pasted your "beliefs" repeatedly here and elsewhere without considering the counter-argument and without citing your sources, so there is simply nothing else to discuss with you. Not allowing you to spam my message boards with redundancy is not being mean. I simply asked you to supply the exact link to sources of where you are getting your perspective about the facts you have supplied. You refuse to do so which can lead me to believe you do not have a credible supporting evidence which proves your "conclusion".

Tommy said...

Yeah, but Stardust, Gloryhole has a copy of the theorem right in front of him! Isn't that good enough?