Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many planets has the Hubble been able to closely observe, YWC? The Hubble is not some magical device which allows us to determine if any planet is potentially able to sustain life. Our reach in the universe is incredibly small. We have observed very few planets closely enough to have much of an idea of their conditions.
And yes, life would be rough.....in space. However, if there are other planets similar to Earth, life would be less rough within their atmospheres.
You really should stay away from these discussions. They do nothing to support your points and show off how little you appreciate the vastness of the universe, as well as how much you overestimate man's knowledge.
Trust me I don't over estimate man's knowledge of the universe. But there is none, zero evidence of a planet being similar to earth. There is zero evidence of life existing on other planets. Just because the universe is vast does not mean there is another planet like earth out there and it supports life.
It actually looks worst coming from your side because the universe is so vast there is no reason believe life does not exist out there or there is no planet out there like this one. The main reason to make a claim like this is to try and take away the uniqueness of this planet.
About the hubble telescope they can see galaxies that supposedly formed shortly after the big bang about 13.1 billion years away and you don't think they can see near by planets if life exists on them ? Or an enviornment that could even support life ?
Hubble telescope finds farthest galaxy protocluster ever seen (Wired UK)
Do you realize how much closer mars and saturn are from earth ?
Yes I know the Jews don't believe in the NT they are the cause of Jesus being put to death and they still have no messiah or temple.
He did mention Jesus and the christians and John the baptist.
Two References to Jesus
Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.
First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".
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 among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; 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.
Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3
Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.
But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
Did Josephus Refer to Jesus
Jesus had a brother?
Using the cause and effect argument, it is a logical conclusion that some form of deisgn intelligence has always existed. Using scientific logic, Argument A is illogical and a scientific impossibility.
Using the science that we know, if we accept Argument B, we have to throw out a whole lot of science that we have accepted as settled science.
That leaves us with Argument C which is a very strong and scientific argument for the existance of intelligent design.
You'd have to "throw out" all the same science for C that you threw out for B.
Why? C is an entirely different conclusion based on scientific extrapolation.
As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth.
I guess dragons are real, too then.
You do not find a concept of dragons in more than a very few, interrelated cultures. You find some sense of a God in all cultures everywhere.
In short it requires dismissal of far more science to disbelieve in God than it does to believe in some sort of intelligent design.
It requires far more faith to disbelieve in God or some sort of intelligent design than it does to believe.
That science has not yet devised a method to prove the existence of God is not at all proof or even a good argument that there is no God. It is a good argument for the limitations of science.
Why? C is an entirely different conclusion based on scientific extrapolation.
What science is there that there's an eternal being capable of having lasted forever?
Again, the inability of science to prove existence of intelligent design is a limitation of science, not intelligent design. Science is limited to cause-effect in repeatable phenomena based on careful observation and study. So far it cannot explain cause-effect for one time events such as the 'big bang' or even such mundane components that go into criticial thought or human personality.
Proof such as existence of a person, or occurrence of one-time events requires legal or historical evidence: oral testimony, written testimony, exhibits. Evidence is examined, and a verdict is concluded based on the weight of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt).
There is much in life and the universe that is known by the historical evidence and that cannot be proved by scientific methods.
"Is convinced" and "accepts that" are two very different things.
Being convinced implies that an overwhelming assault of facts has left you converted.
Accepting that something "is" is just that.
How can one be convinced of a matter of faith?
I contend that the existence of God, however that God might be perceived, is the only plausible and rational explanation for why things are as they are. I contend that it requires far more faith to dismiss or reject a concept of God than it does to accept one.
You do not find a concept of dragons in more than a very few, interrelated cultures.
Sure, if by "very few" you mean "most of the world" (Europe AND Asia) and if by "interrelated culture", you mean not very related at all (as in Europe and Asia during the early middle ages)
There is no lore of dragons among most of the cultures in Africa, Australia, islanders who were not exposed to the Roman Empire either by physical presence or via trade relationships. No concept of dragons evident in the historical record of North and South American ancient cultures.
Yet a concept of some sort of god or gods is evident in all.
Again, the inability of science to prove existence of intelligent design is a limitation of science, not intelligent design.
I don't think true Christians kill Christians.
Please provide a viable explanation on how life started ?
There is evidence of design.
Sure, if by "very few" you mean "most of the world" (Europe AND Asia) and if by "interrelated culture", you mean not very related at all (as in Europe and Asia during the early middle ages)
There is no lore of dragons among most of the cultures in Africa, Australia, islanders who were not exposed to the Roman Empire either by physical presence or via trade relationships. No concept of dragons evident in the historical record of North and South American ancient cultures.
Yet a concept of some sort of god or gods is evident in all.
Quetzalcoatl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't think true Christians kill Christians.
So you're saying that there have been a bunch of Popes who weren't Christians.
Please provide a viable explanation on how life started ?
Something was created by an organized being who, in turn, was created by an organized being who, in turn, was created by an organized being who, in turn, was created by an organized being who, in turn..........
There is evidence of design.
What evidence? Do you mean complexity is evidence for a designer?
I refuse to believe that the universe and everything in it happened "by accident"...
imho, there's something bigger driving the whole thing... something beyond our ability to comprehend...
I refuse to believe that the universe and everything in it happened "by accident"...
imho, there's something bigger driving the whole thing... something beyond our ability to comprehend...
Yeah...well Einstein's theory of relativity was proven a century ago and when the improved Hubbel project gave scientists pictures of absolute happenings in the universe and effectively time stamped all of them...the big bang is a no brainer. Maybe god was phucking around with some pretty serious matters and blew his foolish ass away. The life thing and evolution did happen and you can call it an accident if you wish but as long as religion is all you have to back it up you have nothing. Most religion hangs on the premise of life after death and there's no way to substantiate that except to take the word of ignorant primitives. Sad fix isn't it............
I refuse to believe that the universe and everything in it happened "by accident"...
imho, there's something bigger driving the whole thing... something beyond our ability to comprehend...
Yeah...well Einstein's theory of relativity was proven a century ago and when the improved Hubbel project gave scientists pictures of absolute happenings in the universe and effectively time stamped all of them...the big bang is a no brainer. Maybe god was phucking around with some pretty serious matters and blew his foolish ass away. The life thing and evolution did happen and you can call it an accident if you wish but as long as religion is all you have to back it up you have nothing. Most religion hangs on the premise of life after death and there's no way to substantiate that except to take the word of ignorant primitives. Sad fix isn't it............
Do you know the difference between theory fact ? Why don't you give us evidence that is not theory. There is plenty of evidence agains't the Big Bang theory.
Yeah...well Einstein's theory of relativity was proven a century ago and when the improved Hubbel project gave scientists pictures of absolute happenings in the universe and effectively time stamped all of them...the big bang is a no brainer. Maybe god was phucking around with some pretty serious matters and blew his foolish ass away. The life thing and evolution did happen and you can call it an accident if you wish but as long as religion is all you have to back it up you have nothing. Most religion hangs on the premise of life after death and there's no way to substantiate that except to take the word of ignorant primitives. Sad fix isn't it............
Do you know the difference between theory fact ? Why don't you give us evidence that is not theory. There is plenty of evidence agains't the Big Bang theory.
There is plenty of evidence for it too, and one does not have to deny his/her Chrsitian faith in order to acknowledge that. Earlier you were discussing proteins and how difficult they are to form. There you are getting into the telelogical arguments for the existence of an intelligent designer.
For instance:
Dr. Francis Crick defined DNA along with the following scientific facts:
Molecules in one cell are 6½ feet long.
Molecules in each person are 500,000 miles long.
Genetic info in each cell = 4000 volumes of books in library
Each human has about 30 trillion cells
After doing the math, Crick calculated chance of DNA molecule coming into existence by chance = 0 and led him to propose the theory of directed panspermia or 'seeds of life" that can be spread. Crick was not at all religious so did not come to the conclusion of an intellligent designer, but nevertheless accepted on 'faith' that those seeds of life had always existed.
Which of course requires as much faith as is required to accept a concept of an intelligence within the design as Einstein concluded through personal observation, not science.
Do you know the difference between theory fact ? Why don't you give us evidence that is not theory. There is plenty of evidence agains't the Big Bang theory.
There is plenty of evidence for it too, and one does not have to deny his/her Chrsitian faith in order to acknowledge that. Earlier you were discussing proteins and how difficult they are to form. There you are getting into the telelogical arguments for the existence of an intelligent designer.
For instance:
Dr. Francis Crick defined DNA along with the following scientific facts:
Molecules in one cell are 6½ feet long.
Molecules in each person are 500,000 miles long.
Genetic info in each cell = 4000 volumes of books in library
Each human has about 30 trillion cells
After doing the math, Crick calculated chance of DNA molecule coming into existence by chance = 0 and led him to propose the theory of directed panspermia or 'seeds of life" that can be spread. Crick was not at all religious so did not come to the conclusion of an intellligent designer, but nevertheless accepted on 'faith' that those seeds of life had always existed.
Which of course requires as much faith as is required to accept a concept of an intelligence within the design as Einstein concluded through personal observation, not science.
We know they didn't always exist. If the big bang happened there was no life in existence. There is zero evidence of prebiotic evolution for the reasons I have given.
There is plenty of evidence for it too, and one does not have to deny his/her Chrsitian faith in order to acknowledge that. Earlier you were discussing proteins and how difficult they are to form. There you are getting into the telelogical arguments for the existence of an intelligent designer.
For instance:
Dr. Francis Crick defined DNA along with the following scientific facts:
Molecules in one cell are 6½ feet long.
Molecules in each person are 500,000 miles long.
Genetic info in each cell = 4000 volumes of books in library
Each human has about 30 trillion cells
After doing the math, Crick calculated chance of DNA molecule coming into existence by chance = 0 and led him to propose the theory of directed panspermia or 'seeds of life" that can be spread. Crick was not at all religious so did not come to the conclusion of an intellligent designer, but nevertheless accepted on 'faith' that those seeds of life had always existed.
Which of course requires as much faith as is required to accept a concept of an intelligence within the design as Einstein concluded through personal observation, not science.
We know they didn't always exist. If the big bang happened there was no life in existence. There is zero evidence of prebiotic evolution for the reasons I have given.
No we don't know that because there is no way to prove that or disprove that. But for sure you can't have a big bang without including the other probabilities into it.
The simple fact is, simple logic makes a far stronger case for intelligent design. It is a far stronger case than any logical conclusion that there is no intelligent design.
There is plenty of evidence for it too, and one does not have to deny his/her Chrsitian faith in order to acknowledge that. Earlier you were discussing proteins and how difficult they are to form. There you are getting into the telelogical arguments for the existence of an intelligent designer.
For instance:
Dr. Francis Crick defined DNA along with the following scientific facts:
Molecules in one cell are 6½ feet long.
Molecules in each person are 500,000 miles long.
Genetic info in each cell = 4000 volumes of books in library
Each human has about 30 trillion cells
After doing the math, Crick calculated chance of DNA molecule coming into existence by chance = 0 and led him to propose the theory of directed panspermia or 'seeds of life" that can be spread. Crick was not at all religious so did not come to the conclusion of an intellligent designer, but nevertheless accepted on 'faith' that those seeds of life had always existed.
Which of course requires as much faith as is required to accept a concept of an intelligence within the design as Einstein concluded through personal observation, not science.
We know they didn't always exist. If the big bang happened there was no life in existence. There is zero evidence of prebiotic evolution for the reasons I have given.
No we don't know that because there is no way to prove that or disprove that. But for sure you can't have a big bang without including the other probabilities into it.
The simple fact is, simple logic makes a far stronger case for intelligent design. It is a far stronger case than any logical conclusion that there is no intelligent design.
