Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

This is interesting:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/14 12:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
This is interesting:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568



And funny, too. :)

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:09:48 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

This is interesting:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

You'd better do a cut'n'paste. I'm not going to subscribe.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Friday, December 26, 2014 12:29:01 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:09:48 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

This is interesting:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

You'd better do a cut'n'paste. I'm not going to subscribe.

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he's obsolete--that as science progresses, there is less need for a "God" to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God's death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place--science itself.

Here's the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion--1 followed by 24 zeros--planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion--1 followed by 21 zeros--planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis--0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: "In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable."

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn't be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth's surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There's more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces--gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces--were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction--by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000--then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all "just happened" defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term "big bang," said that his atheism was "greatly shaken" at these developments. He later wrote that "a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming" and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said "the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here."

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something--or Someone--beyond itself.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

Thanks Wayne. I thought it was really interesting and from my phone I didn't have to subscribe either...

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:19:41 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 12:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
This is interesting:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568



And funny, too. :)

Yup, some of those probabilities are a bit funny, but it does seem
like Fred Hoyle has seen the Light, so to speak.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Friday, December 26, 2014 12:52:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, December 26, 2014 12:29:01 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:09:48 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

This is interesting:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

You'd better do a cut'n'paste. I'm not going to subscribe.

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he's obsolete--that as science progresses, there is less need for a "God" to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God's death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place--science itself.

Here's the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion--1 followed by 24 zeros--planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion--1 followed by 21 zeros--planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis--0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: "In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable."

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn't be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth's surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There's more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces--gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces--were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction--by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000--then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all "just happened" defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term "big bang," said that his atheism was "greatly shaken" at these developments. He later wrote that "a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming" and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said "the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here."

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something--or Someone--beyond itself..

Thanks, got it.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/14 2:45 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.



Neil DeGrasse Tyson had a wonderfully humorous tweet yesterday:

On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would
transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) December 25, 2014

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.

I saw nothing in the article precluding evolution. I think the term
'by design' was used.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/14 6:49 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.

I saw nothing in the article precluding evolution. I think the term
'by design' was used.


Creationism.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:54:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 6:49 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.

I saw nothing in the article precluding evolution. I think the term
'by design' was used.


Creationism.

Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming".
I must have missed the word 'creationism' which I assume precludes
evolution, in your terminology?

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/14 7:04 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:54:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 6:49 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.

I saw nothing in the article precluding evolution. I think the term
'by design' was used.


Creationism.

Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming".
I must have missed the word 'creationism' which I assume precludes
evolution, in your terminology?



Intelligent design assumes creationism.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:07:01 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 7:04 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:54:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 6:49 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.

I saw nothing in the article precluding evolution. I think the term
'by design' was used.


Creationism.

Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming".
I must have missed the word 'creationism' which I assume precludes
evolution, in your terminology?



Intelligent design assumes creationism.

And does not exclude evolution.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/14 7:08 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:07:01 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 7:04 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:54:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 6:49 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.

I saw nothing in the article precluding evolution. I think the term
'by design' was used.


Creationism.

Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming".
I must have missed the word 'creationism' which I assume precludes
evolution, in your terminology?



Intelligent design assumes creationism.

And does not exclude evolution.


There isn't the slightest bit of scientific proof of intelligent design
or creationism. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. There is plenty of proof for
evolution, but nothing scientifically provable that connects it to
intelligent design or creationism.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Hey, believe what you want. But until you can produce scientific proof
of intelligent design or creationism, it's nothing more than religious
belief, the evolutions of Ra, Amun, and Isis.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:20:01 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 7:08 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:07:01 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 7:04 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:54:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 6:49 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.

I saw nothing in the article precluding evolution. I think the term
'by design' was used.


Creationism.

Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming".
I must have missed the word 'creationism' which I assume precludes
evolution, in your terminology?



Intelligent design assumes creationism.

And does not exclude evolution.


There isn't the slightest bit of scientific proof of intelligent design
or creationism. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. There is plenty of proof for
evolution, but nothing scientifically provable that connects it to
intelligent design or creationism.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Hey, believe what you want. But until you can produce scientific proof
of intelligent design or creationism, it's nothing more than religious
belief, the evolutions of Ra, Amun, and Isis.

Not putting you down, but I think these guys are smarter than you -
but only by a little bit:


"In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many
have accepted the cultural narrative that he's obsolete--that as
science progresses, there is less need for a "God" to explain the
universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God's death were
premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his
existence comes from a surprising place--science itself.

Here's the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline,
the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important
criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a
planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly
octillion--1 followed by 24 zeros--planets in the universe, there
should have been about septillion--1 followed by 21 zeros--planets
capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly
funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something
soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for
signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random.
But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was
deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues
with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely
bubkis--0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became
clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan
supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and
so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased
accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on
plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in
a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: "In light of new
findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria
to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . .
may no longer be tenable."

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets
hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any
planet in the universe supporting life, including this one.
Probability said that even we shouldn't be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet
to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or
the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter
nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as
many would hit Earth's surface. The odds against life in the universe
are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What
can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been
perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science
suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't
assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require
far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just
happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There's more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet
is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to
exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of
the four fundamental forces--gravity, the electromagnetic force, and
the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces--were determined less than one
millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the
universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the
nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the
tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction--by even one part in
100,000,000,000,000,000--then no stars could have ever formed at all.
Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions,
and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly
astronomical that the notion that it all "just happened" defies common
sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10
quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term "big bang," said that
his atheism was "greatly shaken" at these developments. He later wrote
that "a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with
chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question."

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of
design is overwhelming" and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said
"the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis
that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best
explanation of why we are here."

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably
points with the combined brightness of every star to something--or
Someone--beyond itself."

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:07:01 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 7:04 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:54:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 6:49 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.

I saw nothing in the article precluding evolution. I think the term
'by design' was used.


Creationism.

Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming".
I must have missed the word 'creationism' which I assume precludes
evolution, in your terminology?



Intelligent design assumes creationism.

===

Not necessarily, that's just your interpretation. The fundamentalist
interpretation believes that everything was created exactly as it is
now.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 10:17:54 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

Thanks Wayne. I thought it was really interesting and from my phone I didn't have to subscribe either...

===

No one should have needed to subscribe since I created the link with
Google News. Not sure what happened with John.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs (or
not).

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/14 7:33 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:20:01 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 7:08 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:07:01 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 7:04 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:54:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 6:49 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:45:53 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:52:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:


Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.

I think there is a lot of arrogance in that statement. It assumes the
only life forms possible are those like we have on earth.
I think life is like a fire. It is fairly hard to get started but once
you get it going, it is hard to stop.

There is some merit to the idea that comets can seed a planet with
life or the precursors of life. The proof would be finding a comet
with something living on it.

The real hang up is you have to believe in evolution.

I saw nothing in the article precluding evolution. I think the term
'by design' was used.


Creationism.

Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming".
I must have missed the word 'creationism' which I assume precludes
evolution, in your terminology?



Intelligent design assumes creationism.

And does not exclude evolution.


There isn't the slightest bit of scientific proof of intelligent design
or creationism. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. There is plenty of proof for
evolution, but nothing scientifically provable that connects it to
intelligent design or creationism.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Hey, believe what you want. But until you can produce scientific proof
of intelligent design or creationism, it's nothing more than religious
belief, the evolutions of Ra, Amun, and Isis.

Not putting you down, but I think these guys are smarter than you -
but only by a little bit:


"In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many
have accepted the cultural narrative that he's obsolete--that as
science progresses, there is less need for a "God" to explain the
universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God's death were
premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his
existence comes from a surprising place--science itself.

Here's the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline,
the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important
criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a
planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly
octillion--1 followed by 24 zeros--planets in the universe, there
should have been about septillion--1 followed by 21 zeros--planets
capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly
funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something
soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for
signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random.
But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was
deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues
with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely
bubkis--0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became
clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan
supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and
so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased
accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on
plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in
a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: "In light of new
findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria
to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . .
may no longer be tenable."

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets
hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any
planet in the universe supporting life, including this one.
Probability said that even we shouldn't be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet
to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or
the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter
nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as
many would hit Earth's surface. The odds against life in the universe
are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What
can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been
perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science
suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't
assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require
far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just
happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There's more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet
is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to
exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of
the four fundamental forces--gravity, the electromagnetic force, and
the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces--were determined less than one
millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the
universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the
nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the
tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction--by even one part in
100,000,000,000,000,000--then no stars could have ever formed at all.
Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions,
and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly
astronomical that the notion that it all "just happened" defies common
sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10
quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term "big bang," said that
his atheism was "greatly shaken" at these developments. He later wrote
that "a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with
chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question."

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of
design is overwhelming" and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said
"the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis
that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best
explanation of why we are here."

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably
points with the combined brightness of every star to something--or
Someone--beyond itself."



Wonderful story, but there's not a shred of proof offered in it. It's
just conjecture.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/14 8:14 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs (or
not).



A miracle implies the intervention of a deity. There's no proof of that.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:46:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 8:14 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs (or
not).



A miracle implies the intervention of a deity. There's no proof of that.

===

I disagree. To me a miracle is something that defies all odds whether
there are religious implications or not. Under that definition the
universe is definitely a miracle, i.e., something miraculous.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/14 8:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:46:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 8:14 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs (or
not).



A miracle implies the intervention of a deity. There's no proof of that.

===

I disagree. To me a miracle is something that defies all odds whether
there are religious implications or not. Under that definition the
universe is definitely a miracle, i.e., something miraculous.


As with religion, you are free to believe whatever you want.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/2014 8:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:46:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 8:14 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs (or
not).



A miracle implies the intervention of a deity. There's no proof of that.

===

I disagree. To me a miracle is something that defies all odds whether
there are religious implications or not. Under that definition the
universe is definitely a miracle, i.e., something miraculous.


e.g. the fact that you two are discussing a subject in a respectful,
civil manner is indeed a miracle! :=)

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:39:30 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 10:17:54 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

Thanks Wayne. I thought it was really interesting and from my phone I
didn't have to subscribe either...

===

No one should have needed to subscribe since I created the link with
Google News. Not sure what happened with John.

The link clicked took me to the first paragraph of the article and a
box that said I needed to log in or subscribe to see the rest.

Likewise.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:43:22 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:39:30 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 10:17:54 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

Thanks Wayne. I thought it was really interesting and from my phone I didn't have to subscribe either...

===

No one should have needed to subscribe since I created the link with
Google News. Not sure what happened with John.

The link clicked took me to the first paragraph of the article and a
box that said I needed to log in or subscribe to see the rest.

===

Interesting. I'm already a subscriber so it's difficult to test. I
plugged the headline into a Google News search and it sent back a link
which worked for me.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:42:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/26/2014 8:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:46:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 8:14 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs (or
not).



A miracle implies the intervention of a deity. There's no proof of that.

===

I disagree. To me a miracle is something that defies all odds whether
there are religious implications or not. Under that definition the
universe is definitely a miracle, i.e., something miraculous.


e.g. the fact that you two are discussing a subject in a respectful,
civil manner is indeed a miracle! :=)

===

Indeed. It definitely defies all odds. :-)

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Friday, December 26, 2014 6:43:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:39:30 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 10:17:54 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

Thanks Wayne. I thought it was really interesting and from my phone I didn't have to subscribe either...

===

No one should have needed to subscribe since I created the link with
Google News. Not sure what happened with John.

The link clicked took me to the first paragraph of the article and a
box that said I needed to log in or subscribe to see the rest.

Odd. I'm not a subscriber and I clicked the link on my home computer as well as my phone and accessed the entire column.

Maybe it's a WSJ/facebook match up thing...

Beats me.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:21:58 -0500, wrote:

The flaw in the article is it assumes the only way life could possibly
evolve is if the universe worked out exactly like it did.
It is a joyous accident that things worked out like it did ... for us
but if it didn't it could have happened somewhere else and Sagan was
saying it is very likely that it did. They just won't look like us..

===

That's all true and another big factor is time. As far as we know
now, intelligent life on earth has existed for less that 100,000
years. That's just a heartbeat on a galactic scale. And of that
100,000 years it has only been the last 100 or so that we have been
capable of creating any sort of phenomena detectable at a distance,
i.e., electromagnetic waves and large scale explosions. It's very
likely that sometime in the next 100 years we will stop relying on
high powered electromagnetic waves for communications, to be replaced
by optical fiber for everything other than very low power local
communication. That paradigm shift is already in progress. Hopefully
we will also stop producing high powered (nuclear) explosions. That
has also been in progress for a while.

So following along that logic path, our civilization has a less than a
200 year window for producing detectable signs of life. Presumably
other intelligent life forms elsewhere would follow a similar timeline
if they exist at all. The odds that their 200 year window would
coincide with our existence are almost infinitesimally small but who
knows. It would be a miracle. :-)

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/26/14 9:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/26/2014 8:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:46:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 8:14 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs (or
not).



A miracle implies the intervention of a deity. There's no proof of that.

===

I disagree. To me a miracle is something that defies all odds whether
there are religious implications or not. Under that definition the
universe is definitely a miracle, i.e., something miraculous.


e.g. the fact that you two are discussing a subject in a respectful,
civil manner is indeed a miracle! :=)



Sadly, Wayne has "reverted" back to snarky in several other threads. :(

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/27/2014 7:06 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/26/14 9:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/26/2014 8:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:46:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 8:14 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs (or
not).



A miracle implies the intervention of a deity. There's no proof of
that.

===

I disagree. To me a miracle is something that defies all odds whether
there are religious implications or not. Under that definition the
universe is definitely a miracle, i.e., something miraculous.


e.g. the fact that you two are discussing a subject in a respectful,
civil manner is indeed a miracle! :=)



Sadly, Wayne has "reverted" back to snarky in several other threads. :(

So you have decided that "monkey see monkey do" is the way to go. That
was one hellofa experiment while it lasted. Thanks for the brief
reprieve from the same ol same ol.

--
Patriotic Americans dump on O'Bama.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/27/14 10:01 AM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/27/2014 7:06 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/26/14 9:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/26/2014 8:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:46:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 8:14 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs
(or
not).



A miracle implies the intervention of a deity. There's no proof of
that.

===

I disagree. To me a miracle is something that defies all odds whether
there are religious implications or not. Under that definition the
universe is definitely a miracle, i.e., something miraculous.


e.g. the fact that you two are discussing a subject in a respectful,
civil manner is indeed a miracle! :=)



Sadly, Wayne has "reverted" back to snarky in several other threads. :(

So you have decided that "monkey see monkey do" is the way to go. That
was one hellofa experiment while it lasted. Thanks for the brief
reprieve from the same ol same ol.


I haven't decided any such thing. I simply pointed out that Wayne
"reverted" back to snarky. I haven't. Will you?

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/27/2014 10:05 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/27/14 10:01 AM, Let it snowe wrote:
On 12/27/2014 7:06 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/26/14 9:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/26/2014 8:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:46:56 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/14 8:14 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:33:27 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the
universe.

===

Of that there can be no doubt regardless of your religious beliefs
(or
not).



A miracle implies the intervention of a deity. There's no proof of
that.

===

I disagree. To me a miracle is something that defies all odds whether
there are religious implications or not. Under that definition the
universe is definitely a miracle, i.e., something miraculous.


e.g. the fact that you two are discussing a subject in a respectful,
civil manner is indeed a miracle! :=)



Sadly, Wayne has "reverted" back to snarky in several other threads. :(

So you have decided that "monkey see monkey do" is the way to go. That
was one hellofa experiment while it lasted. Thanks for the brief
reprieve from the same ol same ol.


I haven't decided any such thing. I simply pointed out that Wayne
"reverted" back to snarky. I haven't. Will you?

Are you saying that Wayne directed a snarky remark toward you,
unprovoked? That seems highly unlikely to me.

--
Patriotic Americans dump on O'Bama.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:05:02 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

Are you saying that Wayne directed a snarky remark toward you,
unprovoked? That seems highly unlikely to me.

===

Harry, who is perhaps the all time snark master in this group, now
sees snarky under every rock and behind every tree, even in the
cellar.

It's his destiny.

What goes around, comes around.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/27/14 2:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:05:02 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

Are you saying that Wayne directed a snarky remark toward you,
unprovoked? That seems highly unlikely to me.

===

Harry, who is perhaps the all time snark master in this group, now
sees snarky under every rock and behind every tree, even in the
cellar.

It's his destiny.

What goes around, comes around.


The reality is that how this group moves forward is up to those who
behave decently in here and those who don't.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 17:07:19 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/27/14 2:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:05:02 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

Are you saying that Wayne directed a snarky remark toward you,
unprovoked? That seems highly unlikely to me.

===

Harry, who is perhaps the all time snark master in this group, now
sees snarky under every rock and behind every tree, even in the
cellar.

It's his destiny.

What goes around, comes around.


The reality is that how this group moves forward is up to those who
behave decently in here and those who don't.

===

And I suppose you think that you're qualified to be the arbiter of
said behavior?

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/27/2014 5:07 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/27/14 2:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:05:02 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

Are you saying that Wayne directed a snarky remark toward you,
unprovoked? That seems highly unlikely to me.

===

Harry, who is perhaps the all time snark master in this group, now
sees snarky under every rock and behind every tree, even in the
cellar.

It's his destiny.

What goes around, comes around.


The reality is that how this group moves forward is up to those who
behave decently in here and those who don't.

You are absolutely correct.

--
Patriotic Americans dump on O'Bama.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
 

On 12/27/14 5:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 17:07:19 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/27/14 2:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:05:02 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

Are you saying that Wayne directed a snarky remark toward you,
unprovoked? That seems highly unlikely to me.

===

Harry, who is perhaps the all time snark master in this group, now
sees snarky under every rock and behind every tree, even in the
cellar.

It's his destiny.

What goes around, comes around.


The reality is that how this group moves forward is up to those who
behave decently in here and those who don't.

===

And I suppose you think that you're qualified to be the arbiter of
said behavior?



No, I do not. Those who want this group to be a pleasant place will
behave pleasantly. Those who want this group to be snarky will behave
snarky.