Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted June 7, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2017 Christianity isn't bent on world domination through terrorism and demographics... One man asked about Islam... "What is wrong with people? We are talking about a religion in which one of the highest aspirations of its adherents is to be killed fighting in a war. What other religion advocates chopping off hands and heads, and stoning people in the streets? What other religion advocates global war, in order to convert people? In what other religion, during religious festivals, can you see droves of the "faithful" marching the streets with AK-47's, and declaring their desire to kill and die for "God". Excuse me people....what are we missing here? How do religion and AK-47's go together?" Yeah I think you might have missed the history lesson that covered CE 325 to around CE 1700. You know, marching armies, crusades, blood flowing out of Jerusalem from the slaughter of both Jews and Muslims. Witch hunts, burnings, hangings. In the Name of God. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 What other religion advocates stoning people? Deuteronomy 13:6-10New International Version (NIV) 6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted June 7, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2017 All I did was answer your question big guy! The proof that God exist is found in a burrito. I can explain whores, snakes, donkeys, dragons, behemoth, and burrito's. I'll start next week. I'm going on vacation tomorrow. I'm sure you'll love it! You didn't answer anything. You made a bunch of unsupported assertions. I can go to any biblical scholar and they will provide me with answers different from yours. In fact if I took all the versus you are quoting, and asked 10 different Christians what their interpretation is, I'd get 10 different answers. It then becomes who is right, and that's where one has to provide backing for their assertions and interpretations and thus far you fail. Job 41 is talking about a crocodile You whistling about ISIS doesn't change that. Stop quote mining the bible, read things in context and you might understand why we are calling your interpretations bullshit. I am quite certain I will do a combination of face palming, laughing, running into a wall, then replying. By the way, I'd like to prove the invisible unicorn exists - look in the mirror. #Gotchya! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 This is a myth. You believe this based solely on faith. There maybe, but so far the evidence (SETI and Biochemistry) say it is unlikely they exist. Even if it were a myth, Clay, it's a vastly better myth than the atavistic nonsense you're trying to push on us. There is a very simple reason that we haven't made contact with extraterrestrial civilizations yet: Distance. We don't yet possess the technology to go to even the closest star, Proxima Centauri (about 4 light years away). The fastest thing we've currently got, ionic propulsion, would take 81,000 years to get there and there's no guarantee there would be any inhabited planets. Checking out the estimated 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy would take even longer, and then there are about 10 billion more galaxies to explore. I believe that there *is* life out there, somewhere; in fact, I believe that the probability of extraterrestrial life is 0.999... Coincidentally, that's the same probability that I assign to your god being just a sad old fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I...need...a....wall.... Here you can have mine. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 My OP was a question. I wanted to know if people accepted the internet as a source of truth. If people simply admit that the internet is more prone to lies than other sources then I'm content. The internet is a tool one can use to find truth or bullshit either one. The internet is a network of servers, computers, and websites that we can access for many different reasons such as shopping, chatting, support groups (such as this one), entertainment, and yes even research into factual information. For instance if I use the Internet to access a study on gravity, that is accessing a truth. If I use the Internet to access the latest news weekly article then that's probably bullshit. It isnt whether the "internet" is true or false. It's whether or not the information we access is true or false. And that is determined by the authority of the evidence, credibility of the author or website, and if it can be proven. If it can't be proven it is either theory or bullshit. Now, all that being said I am going to assume you consider the bible "truth" and most of the information we can read in the bible seriously lacks evidence other than vague generalizations. Sometimes events are placed in time periods that don't coincide with the people and events of the story or visa versa . Also their are stories that lack any archeological evidence to give them credit where there should be an abundant amount of evidence. Therefore, if we apply the same criteria to the bible that we should apply to information on the Internet, then we can determine that Some of the bible is factual, some of it is theory, but there are large portions of obvious bullshit that can be dismissed bc they can't be proven, have been proven to be false, or have been discovered to be out right lies. Hence the bible is the not infallible but is in fact very fallible. So overall it appears that the bible has more bullshit than truth. I guess it and the internet are a lot alike in that respect. Maybe instead of attacking the "internet" as a whole to justify your belief in the bible. Maybe you should pick any particular source of information which we have provided in the various other threads on this website. Take each one and tell us why they are/are not fact. Make sure you justify your claims too. Dark Bishop 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted June 7, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2017 Here you can have mine. Oh thank you my dear sir. May I offer you an additional 9 likes to the one I've already given. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 To the short peckered sdelsolray... You're a fucking troll. So, the new guy spouting nonsense in a mere 70 posts calls our longstanding member with 2,970 posts a troll. Oh, the irony! The proof that God exist is found in a burrito. Now, that takes the cake for being the ultimate in stupidity! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 Even if it were a myth, Clay, it's a vastly better myth than the atavistic nonsense you're trying to push on us. There is a very simple reason that we haven't made contact with extraterrestrial civilizations yet: Distance. We don't yet possess the technology to go to even the closest star, Proxima Centauri (about 4 light years away). The fastest thing we've currently got, ionic propulsion, would take 81,000 years to get there and there's no guarantee there would be any inhabited planets. Checking out the estimated 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy would take even longer, and then there are about 10 billion more galaxies to explore. I believe that there *is* life out there, somewhere; in fact, I believe that the probability of extraterrestrial life is 0.999... Coincidentally, that's the same probability that I assign to your god being just a sad old fiction. Your point about propulsion is a valid one, but SETI does not rely on propulsion. Also given the Universe is 13 or so BY old one would think these other hypothetical civilizations would had time to develop maximally advanced propulsion systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 Again, any evidence for angels? I stated up front that life on other planets is highly probable. Whether or not they visit our planet is up for debate, and a lot depends on what one accepts as evidence. I have even seen an atypical "ufo" at close range, about 100 yards or so. Not a saucer but an upside down ice cream cone divided into three glowing colors that illuminated the trees and ground. This happened when I lived in the country and I have three corroborating witnesses. HOWEVER, given that we have top secret technology and I wasn't that far from an air force base, I must consider the possibility that the thing was of terrestrial origin, though it moved in ways not generally known to be possible with standard propulsion systems in a field of gravity. Honestly, each scenario is possible and I give each possibility an equal probability. But I still can't imagine what alien civilizations would want with this, of all planets. Again, any evidence for angels? It's amazing how many people have seen seemingly unexplainable things in the sky. You seem to allow for the possibility that they are extraterrestrial. If so, why is it we don't detect their communication signals. Your last question is answered by the demonic explanation of UFOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 7, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2017 "You seem to allow for the possibility that they are extraterrestrial. If so, why is it we don't detect their communication signals." We know the components of life exist throughout the universe. We know there is an incredibly large number of planets. Odds are, some of them have life. This is conjecture based on information, not imagination. There is little chance we and other planets would be communicating in compatible formats, but we look for any possible signals anyway. "Your last question is answered by the demonic explanation of UFOs." The demonic "explanation" is a guess extrapolated from ancient mythologies. Life exists on this planet, there are countless other planets, therefore life could exist on some of those as well. Demons, angels and other magical beings present no evidence for their existence on any planet or elsewhere. See the difference? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted June 7, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2017 Your point about propulsion is a valid one, but SETI does not rely on propulsion. Also given the Universe is 13 or so BY old one would think these other hypothetical civilizations would had time to develop maximally advanced propulsion systems. I'm pretty sure Astreja used the term "life" - not to be confused with YOUR term "Civilization". We haven't yet, and our physics so far state that FTL is impossible. Short of developing point to point jump drives, crossing the distances of space would mean only short distances could be crossed. If nothing is fairly close by then the chances are we'll never see them. Sadly. It's amazing how many people have seen seemingly unexplainable things in the sky. It's also amazing how many people are convinced that some ancient power source in the Bermuda triangle pulls out every ship and plane that dares to venture into the area. This is despite me proving that the rate of ships and planes going down in the area is not remarkable at all. People see all sorts of things. As I was trying to explain to the good Rev Turmoil, humans are pattern seeking animals. We see patterns everywhere. There is an entire stock market trading strategy around recognizing patterns in random price movements. This does not mean we need or should attach any significance to them unless there is good reason to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 "You seem to allow for the possibility that they are extraterrestrial. If so, why is it we don't detect their communication signals." We know the components of life exist throughout the universe. We know there is an incredibly large number of planets. Odds are, some of them have life. This is conjecture based on information, not imagination. There is little chance we and other planets would be communicating in compatible formats, but we look for any possible signals anyway. The drake equation falls very short. It does not at all account for the huge number of other variables needed for any life let alone advanced life, for example, a crust with just the right thickness to allow plate tectonics (advanced life requires plate tectonics), or a stabilizing moon of the right size and distance (the incredible stability of our climate is something we take for granted), or very very long term stability in the magnetic field (crucial for life). The list goes on and on. SETI assumes we can communicate. Science tells us there is only one way to communicate over distance, EM waves. Unless you assume some form of magical or sci fi communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 7, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2017 The drake equation falls very short. It does not at all account for the huge number of other variables needed for any life let alone advanced life, for example, a crust with just the right thickness to allow plate tectonics (advanced life requires plate tectonics), or a stabilizing moon of the right size and distance (the incredible stability of our climate is something we take for granted), or very very long term stability in the magnetic field (crucial for life). The list goes on and on. SETI assumes we can communicate. Science tells us there is only one way to communicate over distance, EM waves. Unless you assume some form of magical or sci fi communication. We have actually discovered planets that are like Earth. Not surprising given the vast number of planets we know to exist. Odds are that there are many others we haven't discovered yet due to the vast distances and sheer number of possibilities. And FYI, EM waves are not the only option for communication. Many of our own communications protocols can't communicate with or detect each other even when all are EM based. "In principle, any of the fundamental "forces" could be used to transmit information. In practice, humans are only able to use electromagnetism." https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70132/are-electromagnetic-waves-the-only-means-of-transmitting-information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 We have actually discovered planets that are like Earth. Not surprising given the vast number of planets we know to exist. Odds are that there are many others we haven't discovered yet due to the vast distances and sheer number of possibilities. And FYI, EM waves are not the only option for communication. Many of our own communications protocols can't communicate with or detect each other even when all are EM based. "In principle, any of the fundamental "forces" could be used to transmit information. In practice, humans are only able to use electromagnetism." https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70132/are-electromagnetic-waves-the-only-means-of-transmitting-information "Like" is very vague. We know virtually nothing about these planets except their position, mass and very basic composition. This tells us nothing about whether they are even remotely capable of supporting life. SETI is not looking to detect their grammer. they are looking for patterns in order to detect intelligence. So you are speculating the aliens would use one of the other fundamental forces to communicate? Notice the author said we can't use them, and there use was possible only in principle. The same obstacles we face in their use would exist for aliens as well. Also, none of this means we would not be able to detect them. We know about these other forces because we can detect them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Your point about propulsion is a valid one, but SETI does not rely on propulsion. Also given the Universe is 13 or so BY old one would think these other hypothetical civilizations would had time to develop maximally advanced propulsion systems. As someone who has in the past participated in SETI At Home, who is a card-carrying member of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, and whose father was a real-life rocket scientist (35 years in aerospace electronics engineering), let me spell things out for you, Clay. First of all, although radio signals travel close to the speed of light it would 1400 years for a signal to be received from a relatively close galaxy, the M42 nebula in Orion. A lot can happen in 1400 years, and even if we do get a positive from there, it was sent a very long time ago -- about the same time as the founding of Islam. By the time we send a message back, another 1400 years will have elapsed (circa 3417 CE). The senders are long dead, and whoever is still there may not be listening for a response. If they do decide to come visiting, even if they have near-light-speed propulsion systems they still won't show up till around 4817 CE. By that time we won't be here, and there's a chance that no one else will be, either. I don't know if advanced civilizations will be able to overcome the laws of physics and develop faster-than-light drive. Even if they did, would they want to visit us? Perhaps they have more interesting destinations in mind -- for instance, other advanced civilizations. Coming here would be like having one's car break down near Ark Encounter. Personally I'd rather go to the Smithsonian or the Field Museum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucy Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Perhaps they have more interesting destinations in mind -- for instance, other advanced civilizations. Coming here would be like having one's car break down near Ark Encounter. Personally I'd rather go to the Smithsonian or the Field Museum. Hey now. There is plenty to see and do at Ark Encounter. And talking to the people standing around was just as informative as the exhibits. I learned so much great information about what the government is hiding from us that proves the Bible is true. Like flat earth and alien demons. Did you know cartoon style cutesy ark books for children is actually the work of the devil? All those Christians making and buying those don't even know they are furthering Satanic agenda! All the little kids learned so much "truth" that day I'm sure it will last them a lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 7, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2017 Your point about propulsion is a valid one, but SETI does not rely on propulsion. Also given the Universe is 13 or so BY old one would think these other hypothetical civilizations would had time to develop maximally advanced propulsion systems. This assumes other planetary civilizations would be technologically superior to us, based on their universe existing for the same amount of time as ours (and we don't possess that kind of technology, yet). In truth, life might have only begun on another planet yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 The drake equation falls very short. It does not at all account for the huge number of other variables needed for any life let alone advanced life ... Sure it does. "The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to arrive at an estimate of the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Waygalaxy.[1][2] The number of such civilizations, N, is assumed to be equal to the mathematical product of the average rate of star formation, R∗, in our galaxy, the fraction of formed stars, fp, that have planets, for stars that have planets, the average number of planets ne that can potentially support life, the fraction of those planets, fl, that actually develop life, the fraction of planets bearing life on which intelligent, civilized life, fi, has developed, the fraction of these civilizations that have developed communications, fc, i.e., technologies that release detectable signs into space, and the length of time, L, over which such civilizations release detectable signals, for a combined expression of: N=R∗⋅fp⋅ne⋅fl⋅fi⋅fc⋅L The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for intelligent extraterrestrial life (SETI). [3][4] The equation summarizes the main concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other radio-communicative life.[3] Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Item 5 above absorbs all of your concerns. In any event, the Drake Equation is only a mathematical/probability equation. If accurate data were available for each of the parameters, an accurate product would result. ... for example, a crust with just the right thickness to allow plate tectonics (advanced life requires plate tectonics), or a stabilizing moon of the right size and distance (the incredible stability of our climate is something we take for granted), or very very long term stability in the magnetic field (crucial for life). The list goes on and on. ... This is from the Rare Earth Hypothesis. Note it is a hypothesis. Yet, you pretend it is fact. Your bias is quite obvious. In any event, even if correct, it merely affects the probability of the product of the Drake Equation (again, assuming we have accurate data to apply to it), not the viability of the Drake Equation. As to the factors in the Rare Earth Hypothesis equation, some have evidence supporting them (e.g., need for magnetic field) because there is actual evidence supporting that factor. Others are somewhat more speculative in terms of necessity (e.g., need for a "right" arrangement of planets in the solar system in question, need for plate techtonics). Two of the factors in the Rare Earth Hypothesis deal with biological evolution. No doubt you agree with those factors in the equation. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 SETI assumes we can communicate. Science tells us there is only one way to communicate over distance, EM waves. Unless you assume some form of magical or sci fi communication. Isn't prayer some form of magical communication? Or maybe just talking to one's self. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 7, 2017 Super Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2017 "Like" is very vague. We know virtually nothing about these planets except their position, mass and very basic composition. This tells us nothing about whether they are even remotely capable of supporting life. SETI is not looking to detect their grammer. they are looking for patterns in order to detect intelligence. So you are speculating the aliens would use one of the other fundamental forces to communicate? Notice the author said we can't use them, and there use was possible only in principle. The same obstacles we face in their use would exist for aliens as well. Also, none of this means we would not be able to detect them. We know about these other forces because we can detect them. That is why I said PROBABLE rather than PROVEN. With innumerable planets out there the odds favor more "earths" existing. Life was able to arise on this planet and if a thing can happen once, it can happen again. I am not attempting to prove that aliens actually exist and they like to visit our planet. I am showing that it is not only possible, but most scientists think it probable. I have still not seen any logical support for a belief that angels actually exist, or even could possibly exist. I see reasons that alien life is definitely possible and even probable. I await your logical argument with evidences we can build on to bring the angel assertion into plausible consideration.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag_NO_stic Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Clearly the world before the Internet did not have anywhere near the volume or freedom of information dumping as today. If you disagree then I suspect you have come to rely on the Internet as your source of truth and it's painful to have it questioned. "Clearly the world before the Bible did not have any kind of original content, considering all the influences from ongoing myths and legends of the time. If you disagree, then I suspect you have come to rely on the Bible as your source of truth and it's painful to have it questioned." Also, doesn't that argument have a, "If you disagree with homosexuality, you're just an 'in-the-closet' homosexual" feel? Disagreeing has nothing to do with finding stupid arguments painful, it's just.....a disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Sure it does. "The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to arrive at an estimate of the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Waygalaxy.[1][2] The number of such civilizations, N, is assumed to be equal to the mathematical product of the average rate of star formation, R∗, in our galaxy, the fraction of formed stars, fp, that have planets, for stars that have planets, the average number of planets ne that can potentially support life, the fraction of those planets, fl, that actually develop life, the fraction of planets bearing life on which intelligent, civilized life, fi, has developed, the fraction of these civilizations that have developed communications, fc, i.e., technologies that release detectable signs into space, and the length of time, L, over which such civilizations release detectable signals, for a combined expression of: N=R∗⋅fp⋅ne⋅fl⋅fi⋅fc⋅L The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for intelligent extraterrestrial life (SETI). [3][4] The equation summarizes the main concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other radio-communicative life.[3] Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Item 5 above absorbs all of your concerns. In any event, the Drake Equation is only a mathematical/probability equation. If accurate data were available for each of the parameters, an accurate product would result. This is from the Rare Earth Hypothesis. Note it is a hypothesis. Yet, you pretend it is fact. Your bias is quite obvious. In any event, even if correct, it merely affects the probability of the product of the Drake Equation (again, assuming we have accurate data to apply to it), not the viability of the Drake Equation. As to the factors in the Rare Earth Hypothesis equation, some have evidence supporting them (e.g., need for magnetic field) because there is actual evidence supporting that factor. Others are somewhat more speculative in terms of necessity (e.g., need for a "right" arrangement of planets in the solar system in question, need for plate techtonics). Two of the factors in the Rare Earth Hypothesis deal with biological evolution. No doubt you agree with those factors in the equation. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis sdelsolray, The Rare Earth Hypothesis is a fatally flawed argument and it's conclusions about the exoplanets where life might arise are also fatally flawed. The flaw arises from the fact that the formulators of this hypothesis (Brownlee and Ward) used only exoplanet data running from 1995 to 2000. If you check out this link... http://obswww.unige.ch/~naef/RECAN/announcement.html ...you will see that between 1995 and the end of 2000 no more than fifty (50) exoplanets had been discovered. This is the maximum number of exoplanets that Brownlee and Ward could have used in their hypothesis. This sampling was far too small to be statistically meaningful and the methods of exoplanet detection in use during those years were heavily biased in favor of the most-massive exoplanets. This bias polluted their sample, skewing the conclusions and rendering their hypothesis deeply flawed. Please carefully examine this 2015 graphic of the exoplanets discovered by the Kepler satellite. https://www.nasa.gov/content/kepler-multimedia All of the fifty exoplanets that Brownlee and Ward used in formulating the Rare Earth hypothesis belong in the orange and red data bins. A few belong to the Neptune-size bin (orange) but most are Jupiter-sized or larger. None of their sample was any smaller or less massive than that. No Super Earth-sized or Earth-sized exoplanets featured in their data at all. So Brownlee and Ward's sample was severely biased towards the massive end of the above scale. Less than ten of their sample featured in the three most abundant types of exoplanet (the blue, green and orange bins) that are now known to exist. The reason for this statistical bias isn't difficult to understand. Exoplanet detection in the 1990's was an immature and imprecise discipline, with only the largest and most massive exoplanets generating a sufficiently strong signal for the ground-based instruments of that decade to register. This is in sharp contrast to the much-more precise instruments lofted above the blurring and distorting effects of Earth's atmosphere on the Kepler satellite. In a nutshell, Brownlee and Ward committed themselves too early, with too little data and with severely biased data. If they had waited until after the Kepler results had come in and used the 3,000+ exoplanets in that data set, then their hypothesis would be worth consideration. As it stands, their Rare Earth hypothesis made in the year 2000 is not worthy of serious consideration. I would therefore like to expand upon your response to OrdinaryClay. Like this... The Rare Earth hypothesis is not fact. It is a hypothesis and a very-poorly formulated one at that. It does not stand up to scrutiny. It's conclusions are deeply flawed and they should not be trusted. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 The proof that God exist is found in a burrito. Does your burrito god give you gas and bad breath? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 I have a question for OrdinaryClay about Brownlee and Ward's book, The Rare Earth Hypothesis. Here is a link to .pdf file of the entire book. http://www.ohsd.net/cms/lib09/WA01919452/Centricity/Domain/675/Rare Earth Book.pdf In chapter two (Habitable Zones of the Universe) there is a diagram showing the habitable zones surrounding different types of star. Brownlee and Ward contend that to support life a planet would need to orbit within the respective habitable zone of each type of star. The diagram is on page 17 of the book and can be found by scrolling down to page 50 of the linked .pdf file. OrdinaryClay, Please tell us what important information the printers of this book have omitted from the diagram. Thank you, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now