Why do so many atheist scientists believe in aliens when there's no proof for them either?

[AzogtheDefiler]

No aliens? Then why are we building the Wall?

That's for the illegal aliens. The extraterrestrial aliens don't exist except in the heads of atheists and people who don't like God.

What? You're kidding? I thought Trump was building the Wall to stop the aliens from outer space from entering the US. You are pulling my leg. Stop it.

 

[james bond]

I think the smart, rational people will agree with me that real science is based on finding a way or method to show that something is true. It isn't based on other theories which could change later such as birds came from dinosaurs. It's not based on circular logic such as ToE.

Furthermore, if aliens exist, then we should have found them by now or they would've contacted us per the anthropic principle. However, atheists don't believe this and opt for the universe from nothing, invisible particles. Of course, there is no physical evidence for this. Thus, no aliens. Under the anthropic principle, we find that God didn't create aliens.

 

[BreezeWood]

I think the smart, rational people will agree with me that real science is based on finding a way or method to show that something is true. It isn't based on other theories which could change later such as birds came from dinosaurs. It's not based on circular logic such as ToE.

Furthermore, if aliens exist, then we should have found them by now or they would've contacted us per the anthropic principle. However, atheists don't believe this and opt for the universe from nothing, invisible particles. Of course, there is no physical evidence for this. Thus, no aliens. Under the anthropic principle, we find that God didn't create aliens.

.

Furthermore, if aliens exist, then we should have found them by now or they would've contacted us per the anthropic principle.

- if aliens exist ...

the fact physiological life is not native to planet Earth has been established in this thread, no biological life was present during Earths primordial beginning:

- the life present on Earth is alien or established when the conditions became conducive for what has developed and evolved after the first physiological template was established in according to its environment, ToE - as it would be for any other similar planet that can be found in the universe.

physiological life is a construct of the periodic table and prevalent throughout the universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

physiological life is a construct of the periodic table and prevalent throughout the universe.

And the periodic table is a construct of living beings.

Far out, man

 

[Montrovant]

I think the smart, rational people will agree with me that real science is based on finding a way or method to show that something is true. It isn't based on other theories which could change later such as birds came from dinosaurs. It's not based on circular logic such as ToE.

Furthermore, if aliens exist, then we should have found them by now or they would've contacted us per the anthropic principle. However, atheists don't believe this and opt for the universe from nothing, invisible particles. Of course, there is no physical evidence for this. Thus, no aliens. Under the anthropic principle, we find that God didn't create aliens.

How does the anthropic principle mean that we should have been contacted or found alien life? And are you speaking of the weak, strong, participatory, or final anthropic principle? All are controversial to some degree, and not all are completely science based; the SAP, in particular, is described as being more teleological and speculative than WAP. None of the versions of the anthropic principle seems to in any way indicate that humanity should have come into contact with alien life if it exists.

Here's a couple of links I went to in looking for information about the anthropic principle:
The Anthropic Principle
How The Anthropic Principle Became The Most Abused Idea In Science

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How does the anthropic principle mean that we should have been contacted or found alien life? And are you speaking of the weak, strong, participatory, or final anthropic principle?

He doesn't know or understand the differences. He plagiarized that talking point from here: The universe is finely tuned for life - creation.com

And the author of that idiot blog clearly has no understanding of the differences either, or at least pretends not to understand in order to fool a very uneducated and gullible audience.

 

[BreezeWood]

physiological life is a construct of the periodic table and prevalent throughout the universe.

And the periodic table is a construct of living beings.

Far out, man

.

And the periodic table is a construct of living beings.

are you being serious, that really does not make sense ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

physiological life is a construct of the periodic table and prevalent throughout the universe.

And the periodic table is a construct of living beings.

Far out, man

.

And the periodic table is a construct of living beings.

are you being serious, that really does not make sense ...

Maybe to you ...

 

[BreezeWood]

physiological life is a construct of the periodic table and prevalent throughout the universe.

And the periodic table is a construct of living beings.

Far out, man

.

And the periodic table is a construct of living beings.

are you being serious, that really does not make sense ...

Maybe to you ...

10/4 ...

 

[james bond]

How does the anthropic principle mean that we should have been contacted or found alien life? And are you speaking of the weak, strong, participatory, or final anthropic principle? All are controversial to some degree, and not all are completely science based; the SAP, in particular, is described as being more teleological and speculative than WAP. None of the versions of the anthropic principle seems to in any way indicate that humanity should have come into contact with alien life if it exists.

Here's a couple of links I went to in looking for information about the anthropic principle:
The Anthropic Principle
How The Anthropic Principle Became The Most Abused Idea In Science

You and your fellow atheists claim life exists elsewhere. Then, somewhere in space, there would have to be what causes life. One of the big criticisms of believers of aliens is that they have no other information to support their beliefs. Instead, they present arguments such as amino acids exist all over in space and they form proteins. Creation science discovered chilarity to disprove this. Protein can only be created within the cell. Why didn't the atheist scientists study what causes life on planet Earth on go from there?

The Anthropic Principle is based on the universe was prepared for the emergence of life and especially of human life. It is used to develop scientific explanations in cosmology. One of the arguments for it are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists when looking to explain their Big Bang Theory as follows:

• the production of a mixture of Hydrogen and Helium after the Big Bang
• long living hydrogen burning stars
• the production of the elements C, O, N, S in a star
• the distance of a planet (earth) to the star (sun): not too far, not too close
• the minimum size of the planet (to hold an atmosphere)
• atomic and molecular stability
• the unique properties of such a simple molecule as water

It's presented by Barrow and Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow

My question to Montrovant is why not start with the above and then find a planet to meet the qualities of Earth? I think NASA is trying to do this with Mars, but not really succeeding. Instead, we get more hypothesis based on evolutionary thinking such as ice/water on Mars and that somehow that means life, a microble. Actually, NASA made a video of a small fish which I saw darting across the screen as the type of life they thought could exist, but it was quickly pulled. One atheist scientist I spoke with said he thought that the evidence on Mars shows that life could have existed there in the past. I posed the same question to him and he said he's working on looking for further evidence such as fossils and such.

ETA: I think he's conceding that there is no life on Mars even though he didn't say that. I mean they've probed Mars, but haven't found a microbe. That said, they continue to probe for life, but it seems they have changed their focus to previous life.

 

[james bond]

And this isn't evidence of previous life on Mars, Fort Fun Indiana. It's pareidolia, you dumbass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And this isn't evidence of previous life on Mars, Fort Fun Indiana. It's pareidolia, you dumbass.

And an embarrassingly bad piece of literature written by ignorant, bronze age goat herders is not evidence of creation. I'm glad we got that all cleared up, shaman.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lets drag this thread,kicking and screaming, back on topic:

When doing it science, it is always assumed that the universe is deterministic and follows natural laws. Else, science cannot be done at all, as cause and effect loses all meaning and substance. Therefore, the scientific view is necessarily that life arose from abiogenesis. While a scientist may hold a different personal belief, that belief is not scientific.

Abiogenesis itself relies on the principle of selection. The chemicals that lead to life and compose life perist precisely because they are more fit to do so,I their environment. Selection is the same basic principle that brings us "stable" molecules, like water. As life therefore arises purely from the forcing of selection, it is therefore natural and correct to assume that such persistence and organization is an inevitable result in any system that allows it, given enough time. For example, in the conditions that allow for the presence of water, it is fair and correct to assume that water molecules will form, when their constituents are present.

Using these very simple principles, together with the sheer size (and number of environments to sample) of/in the universe, it seems likely, at first glance, that abiogenesis would have occurred more than once in our universe.

And really,that sums up the scientific view of life existing elsewhere in the universe. While a scientist may assert with certainty that life exists elsewhere, that is not a scientific view based on existing knowledge. So it is important to recognize this difference, and to recognize when charlatans intentionally transpose these two ideas (personal belief vs. scientific determination), as we see baked right into this thread.

 

[Montrovant]

How does the anthropic principle mean that we should have been contacted or found alien life? And are you speaking of the weak, strong, participatory, or final anthropic principle? All are controversial to some degree, and not all are completely science based; the SAP, in particular, is described as being more teleological and speculative than WAP. None of the versions of the anthropic principle seems to in any way indicate that humanity should have come into contact with alien life if it exists.

Here's a couple of links I went to in looking for information about the anthropic principle:
The Anthropic Principle
How The Anthropic Principle Became The Most Abused Idea In Science

You and your fellow atheists claim life exists elsewhere. Then, somewhere in space, there would have to be what causes life. One of the big criticisms of believers of aliens is that they have no other information to support their beliefs. Instead, they present arguments such as amino acids exist all over in space and they form proteins. Creation science discovered chilarity to disprove this. Protein can only be created within the cell. Why didn't the atheist scientists study what causes life on planet Earth on go from there?

The Anthropic Principle is based on the universe was prepared for the emergence of life and especially of human life. It is used to develop scientific explanations in cosmology. One of the arguments for it are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists when looking to explain their Big Bang Theory as follows:

• the production of a mixture of Hydrogen and Helium after the Big Bang
• long living hydrogen burning stars
• the production of the elements C, O, N, S in a star
• the distance of a planet (earth) to the star (sun): not too far, not too close
• the minimum size of the planet (to hold an atmosphere)
• atomic and molecular stability
• the unique properties of such a simple molecule as water

It's presented by Barrow and Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow

My question to Montrovant is why not start with the above and then find a planet to meet the qualities of Earth? I think NASA is trying to do this with Mars, but not really succeeding. Instead, we get more hypothesis based on evolutionary thinking such as ice/water on Mars and that somehow that means life, a microble. Actually, NASA made a video of a small fish which I saw darting across the screen as the type of life they thought could exist, but it was quickly pulled. One atheist scientist I spoke with said he thought that the evidence on Mars shows that life could have existed there in the past. I posed the same question to him and he said he's working on looking for further evidence such as fossils and such.

ETA: I think he's conceding that there is no life on Mars even though he didn't say that. I mean they've probed Mars, but haven't found a microbe. That said, they continue to probe for life, but it seems they have changed their focus to previous life.

1. You did not actually answer my question. There are multiple versions of the antrhopic principle, which do you think says that humanity should have discovered alien life it exists, and why?

2. You assume I am an atheist

3. You assume I have claimed there is life elsewhere

Basically, you seem to enjoy creating an argument based on your own often false assumptions as though they are factual.

 

[BreezeWood]

How does the anthropic principle mean that we should have been contacted or found alien life? And are you speaking of the weak, strong, participatory, or final anthropic principle? All are controversial to some degree, and not all are completely science based; the SAP, in particular, is described as being more teleological and speculative than WAP. None of the versions of the anthropic principle seems to in any way indicate that humanity should have come into contact with alien life if it exists.

Here's a couple of links I went to in looking for information about the anthropic principle:
The Anthropic Principle
How The Anthropic Principle Became The Most Abused Idea In Science

You and your fellow atheists claim life exists elsewhere. Then, somewhere in space, there would have to be what causes life. One of the big criticisms of believers of aliens is that they have no other information to support their beliefs. Instead, they present arguments such as amino acids exist all over in space and they form proteins. Creation science discovered chilarity to disprove this. Protein can only be created within the cell. Why didn't the atheist scientists study what causes life on planet Earth on go from there?

The Anthropic Principle is based on the universe was prepared for the emergence of life and especially of human life. It is used to develop scientific explanations in cosmology. One of the arguments for it are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists when looking to explain their Big Bang Theory as follows:

• the production of a mixture of Hydrogen and Helium after the Big Bang
• long living hydrogen burning stars
• the production of the elements C, O, N, S in a star
• the distance of a planet (earth) to the star (sun): not too far, not too close
• the minimum size of the planet (to hold an atmosphere)
• atomic and molecular stability
• the unique properties of such a simple molecule as water

It's presented by Barrow and Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow

My question to Montrovant is why not start with the above and then find a planet to meet the qualities of Earth? I think NASA is trying to do this with Mars, but not really succeeding. Instead, we get more hypothesis based on evolutionary thinking such as ice/water on Mars and that somehow that means life, a microble. Actually, NASA made a video of a small fish which I saw darting across the screen as the type of life they thought could exist, but it was quickly pulled. One atheist scientist I spoke with said he thought that the evidence on Mars shows that life could have existed there in the past. I posed the same question to him and he said he's working on looking for further evidence such as fossils and such.

ETA: I think he's conceding that there is no life on Mars even though he didn't say that. I mean they've probed Mars, but haven't found a microbe. That said, they continue to probe for life, but it seems they have changed their focus to previous life.

1. You did not actually answer my question. There are multiple versions of the antrhopic principle, which do you think says that humanity should have discovered alien life it exists, and why?

2. You assume I am an atheist

3. You assume I have claimed there is life elsewhere

Basically, you seem to enjoy creating an argument based on your own often false assumptions as though they are factual.

.

Basically, you seem to enjoy creating an argument based on your own often false assumptions as though they are factual.

you seem to enjoy creating an argument based on your own often false assumptions as though they are factual ...


they spent the 4th century collating the christian bible claiming in the end theirs was a work of the Almighty ... the, State Church of the Roman Empire.

no need to wonder those in the 1st century fed to the lions would be ardent members of their assailants new church as being now theirs, bond's.

 

[james bond]

When doing science, we use experiments. There are no experiments that create life.

Second, if all of this is natural, then why do we not see it happening all over the place today? There are no life on Mars, for example.

Both show that abiogenesis does not happen. It has been rendered pseudoscience just like spontaneous generation.

Evolution destroyed in three sentences.

(For the same reasons, we know that humans didn't come from monkeys.)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When doing science, we use experiments. There are no experiments that create life.

There are also no experiments that create stars.

Therefore, stars don't form...they are poofed into existence by magical fairies!

 

[james bond]

How does the anthropic principle mean that we should have been contacted or found alien life? And are you speaking of the weak, strong, participatory, or final anthropic principle? All are controversial to some degree, and not all are completely science based; the SAP, in particular, is described as being more teleological and speculative than WAP. None of the versions of the anthropic principle seems to in any way indicate that humanity should have come into contact with alien life if it exists.

Here's a couple of links I went to in looking for information about the anthropic principle:
The Anthropic Principle
How The Anthropic Principle Became The Most Abused Idea In Science

You and your fellow atheists claim life exists elsewhere. Then, somewhere in space, there would have to be what causes life. One of the big criticisms of believers of aliens is that they have no other information to support their beliefs. Instead, they present arguments such as amino acids exist all over in space and they form proteins. Creation science discovered chilarity to disprove this. Protein can only be created within the cell. Why didn't the atheist scientists study what causes life on planet Earth on go from there?

The Anthropic Principle is based on the universe was prepared for the emergence of life and especially of human life. It is used to develop scientific explanations in cosmology. One of the arguments for it are the fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists when looking to explain their Big Bang Theory as follows:

• the production of a mixture of Hydrogen and Helium after the Big Bang
• long living hydrogen burning stars
• the production of the elements C, O, N, S in a star
• the distance of a planet (earth) to the star (sun): not too far, not too close
• the minimum size of the planet (to hold an atmosphere)
• atomic and molecular stability
• the unique properties of such a simple molecule as water

It's presented by Barrow and Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow

My question to Montrovant is why not start with the above and then find a planet to meet the qualities of Earth? I think NASA is trying to do this with Mars, but not really succeeding. Instead, we get more hypothesis based on evolutionary thinking such as ice/water on Mars and that somehow that means life, a microble. Actually, NASA made a video of a small fish which I saw darting across the screen as the type of life they thought could exist, but it was quickly pulled. One atheist scientist I spoke with said he thought that the evidence on Mars shows that life could have existed there in the past. I posed the same question to him and he said he's working on looking for further evidence such as fossils and such.

ETA: I think he's conceding that there is no life on Mars even though he didn't say that. I mean they've probed Mars, but haven't found a microbe. That said, they continue to probe for life, but it seems they have changed their focus to previous life.

1. You did not actually answer my question. There are multiple versions of the antrhopic principle, which do you think says that humanity should have discovered alien life it exists, and why?

2. You assume I am an atheist

3. You assume I have claimed there is life elsewhere

Basically, you seem to enjoy creating an argument based on your own often false assumptions as though they are factual.

Agnostic is the same as atheist in the Bible. To me, an agnostic is someone who isn't smart enough to figure things out for themselves.

If one believes in God and Genesis, then you would see there is no need for the anthropic principle. Were you not able to figure this out for yourself?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Agnostic is the same as atheist in the Bible. To me, an agnostic is someone who isn't smart enough to figure things out for themselves.

Says the guy plagiarizing creationist blogs he doesn't even understand....

 

[james bond]

When doing science, we use experiments. There are no experiments that create life.

There are also no experiments that create stars.

Therefore, stars don't form...they are poofed into existence by magical fairies!

Fort Fun Indiana you are wrong again.



Stars, as our sun, also has to be the proper distance from Earth or else we'd burn or freeze to death. God created the sun and put it in just the right place and in the right magnitude so we can live and prosper. He also created the moon and other planets so we can have tides and see the heavens above and appreciate the earth where we live. That's how wonderful and great God is. He did it all for us and not aliens.

Of course, you're an idiot and do not understand God nor science.