Evidence for God from Science

Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All - ScientificAmerican

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... after-all/

• The scientists also have similar concerns about the galactic and cosmological inputs of their model but nonetheless they suspect that their final numbers are accurate to within an order of magnitude. With the estimated errors taken into account, the researchers conclude that Earth stands as a mild violation of the Copernican principle. Our pale blue dot might just be special after all. “It's not too much of a fluke that we could arise in a galaxy like the Milky Way, but nevertheless, it's just enough to make you think twice about it,” says Jay Olson from Boise State University, who was not involved in the study. Both he and Zackrisson think the Copernican principle could be saved by some unknown caveat to the findings. “Whenever you find something that sticks out…” Zackrisson says, “…that means that either we are the result of a very improbable lottery draw or we don’t understand how the lottery works.”
  
  But Max Tegmark from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who also was not part of the research, thinks Earth is a colossal violation of the Copernican principle—not because of its location but because of its young age. “If you have these civilizations that had a 3.5-billion-year head start on us, why haven't they colonized our galaxy?” asks Tegmark. “To me, the most likely explanation is that if the planets are a dime a dozen, then highly intelligent life evolves only rarely.” So should we feel insignificant? Should we be reduced to near nothingness? Not at all, he says. “It might be that one day in the distant future much of our universe will be teeming with life because of what we did here.”

Not surprising to us, I know. But just the kind of confirmations Ross and others have been talking about for many years. And as I argued in "Grounding the Kalam," seems to me really important part of this, apologetically speaking, is what it suggests about our non-theistic friends. The evidence, as we have it, positively suggests that we are very rare. This is a fact that must be explained. So what is the basis of the blind faith claim that we ought not draw the most likely inference, that we should hold out for another explanation? What is the basis of the faith-claim that the obvious inference is incorrect, of the faith-claim that there's something secret we just don't know yet? Appeals to ignorance are never the realm of the rational.

So what does this "prove"? Only this: that based on our current understanding of the laws of physics, that we have no evidentiary basis on which to claim that there is anything like us in the universe, and that our current understanding suggests that the evidentiary basis warrants the opposite claim. And if the question is what we are warranted in claiming, I think our non-theist friends have some 'splain ta dooo.

Jac3510 wrote:Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All - ScientificAmerican

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... after-all/

So what does this "prove"? Only this: that based on our current understanding of the laws of physics, that we have no evidentiary basis on which to claim that there is anything like us in the universe, and that our current understanding suggests that the evidentiary basis warrants the opposite claim. And if the question is what we are warranted in claiming, I think our non-theist friends have some 'splain ta dooo.

Aside from your queer notion that this 'splain necessarily befalls the non-theist, the 'splain is that you've taken a whole lot of qualified statements and tried to make wine out of water with them.

............................................Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All

..................A new tally proposes that roughly 700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets are likely to exist across the ..................observable universe—most vastly different from Earth

More than 400 years ago Renaissance scientist Nicolaus Copernicus reduced us to near nothingness by showing that our planet is not the center of the solar system. With every subsequent scientific revolution, most other privileged positions in the universe humans might have held dear have been further degraded, revealing the cold truth that our species is the smallest of specks on a speck of a planet, cosmologically speaking. A new calculation of exoplanets suggests that Earth is just one out of a likely 700 million trillion terrestrial planets in the entire observable universe. But the average age of these planets—well above Earth’s age—and their typical locations—in galaxies vastly unlike the Milky Way—just might turn the Copernican principle on its head.

Astronomer Erik Zackrisson from Uppsala University and his colleagues created a cosmic compendium of all the terrestrial exoplanets likely to exist throughout the observable universe, based on the rocky worlds astronomers have found so far. In a powerful computer simulation, they first created their own mini universe containing models of the earliest galaxies. Then they unleashed the laws of physics—as close as scientists understand them—that describe how galaxies grow, how stars evolve and how planets come to be. Finally, they fast-forwarded through 13.8 billion years of cosmic history. Their results, published to the preprint server arXiv (pdf) and submitted to The Astrophysical Journal, provide a tantalizing trove of probable exoplanet statistics that helps astronomers understand our place in the universe. “It's kind of mind-boggling that we're actually at a point where we can begin to do this,” says co-author Andrew Benson from the Carnegie Observatories in California. Until recently, he says, so few exoplanets were known that reasonable extrapolations to the rest of the universe were impossible. Still, his team’s findings are a preliminary guess at what the cosmos might hold. “It's certainly the case that there are a lot of uncertainties in a calculation like this. Our knowledge of all of these pieces is imperfect,” he adds.

Take exoplanets as an example. NASA’s Kepler space telescope is arguably one of the world’s best planet hunters, but it uses a method so challenging that it is often compared with looking across thousands of kilometers to see a firefly buzzing around a brilliant searchlight. Because the telescope looks for subtle dimming in a star’s light from planets crossing in front of it, Kepler has an easier time spotting massive planets orbiting close to their stars. Thus, the catalogue of planets Kepler has found lean heavily toward these types, and smaller, farther-out planets are underrepresented, leaving our knowledge of planetary systems incomplete. Astronomers do use other techniques to search for smaller planets orbiting at farther distances, but these methods are still relatively new and have not yet found nearly as many worlds as Kepler. In addition, “everything we know about exoplanets is from a very small patch in our galaxy,” Zackrisson says, within which most stars are pretty similar to one another in terms of how many heavy elements they contain and other characteristics. The team had to extrapolate in order to guess how planets might form around stars with fewer heavy elements, such as those found in small galaxies or the early universe.

The scientists also have similar concerns about the galactic and cosmological inputs of their model but nonetheless they suspect that their final numbers are accurate to within an order of magnitude. With the estimated errors taken into account, the researchers conclude that Earth stands as a mild violation of the Copernican principle. Our pale blue dot might just be special after all. “It's not too much of a fluke that we could arise in a galaxy like the Milky Way, but nevertheless, it's just enough to make you think twice about it,” says Jay Olson from Boise State University, who was not involved in the study. Both he and Zackrisson think the Copernican principle could be saved by some unknown caveat to the findings. “Whenever you find something that sticks out…” Zackrisson says, “…that means that either we are the result of a very improbable lottery draw or we don’t understand how the lottery works.”


There's a reason people use qualifiers. Know why?


.

Is it the Dogma of Relative Absolutes?

Audie wrote:Is it the Dogma of Relative Absolutes?

No, the dogma that science doesn't prove anything. But it sure suggests, implies, and finds things to be probable/likely/statistically significant.

I'm curious, Audie, as to your take on the article.

Funny how atheists "proved" that God "isn't real" despite the fact that LIFE ITSELF is a violation of physics, and cannot even form by random chance, with proteins somehow self-replicating into more complex strands of molecular structures which, again, somehow, eventually forces cellular arrangements by the trillions. It is also funny, how they hypocritically claim that "God does not exist due to a lack of evidence", they believe that extraterrestrial life exists, even though there is absolutely no evidence for it, and even more evidence against, it, with it being more or less wishful thinking on their part.

Although the idea of extraterrestrial life stems from philosophers from the 16th century, with Giordano Bruno being the most prominent (and Bruno himself going against Biblical teachings). But the idea of extraterrestrial life being prominent, were caused by maps of Mars, drawn by Giovanni Schiaparelli, and described it as having "canali", or "channels". However, mistranslated as "canals", and people not only went wild with trying to "prove" that extraterrestrial life exists, but also attempting to "disprove" God due to "scientific advancements". Of course, the "Life on Mars" phenomenon still persists to this day, with NASA and other space agencies trying to find "evidence" that Mars once had life, which is little more than wishful thinking, due to Mars being completely sterile, and all evidence turning up negative.

Of course, this has people still speculating that extraterrestrial life exists on Venus (impossible due to extreme temperatures and pressure), Europa (excessive radiation), Titan (impossible due to high concentration of liquid methane being toxic) and Enceladus.

Despite this, scientists are trying to "explain" that "silicon based life" is "possible", even though silicon is the third-most abundant element in Earth's crust, with an estimated average of 150,000,000 parts per billion in total atoms, while carbon is the 12th most abundant element, and has an average of 1,600,000 parts per billion in total atoms, so I am not buying that excuse, since if life itself were to have formed, naturally, by itself, on Earth, it would have been silicon based due to it being 100 times more abundant in Earth's crust.

I know it will get to the point where biologists "create" authentic cellular life using natural elements, and then "proving" that God does not exist by doing so, even though all they would prove that life would then be a direct product of creation by an intelligent manner.

I could spend an entire day discussing and disproving every theory on extraterrestrial life (not originating from Earth from cells that were accidentally sent up by spacecraft and survived), as well as the origin of life on Earth, but it would go on for hours.

All I will say is that unless if I am proven completely wrong, and see absolute evidence of life originating somewhere other than on Earth, I would not believe extraterrestrial life exists, at all.

ICOYAR wrote:

Funny how atheists "proved" that God "isn't real"

Funny how you think all "atheists" are the same. Of course, anyone offering to prove that god is not real is an idiot; so that must be how you see all atheists.

despite the fact that LIFE ITSELF is a violation of physics

haha.

, and cannot even form by random chance, .

And you know this, how?

It is also funny, how they hypocritically claim that "God does not exist due to a lack of evidence",

Not that you can find anyone who makes this claim. Cool tho, that you were able
to detect non existent hypocrisy.

they believe that extraterrestrial life exists, even though there is absolutely no evidence for it,

You sure know a lot about all the people you dont know. Are you quite certain tho, that there is NO evidence? Of any sort, direct, indirect, nothing?

and even more evidence against, it, with it being more or less wishful thinking on their part.

Evidence against it? From the most distant galaxies? You are tuned in to some special channel?

Of course, this has people still speculating that extraterrestrial life exists on Venus (impossible due to extreme temperatures and pressure), Europa (excessive radiation), Titan (impossible due to high concentration of liquid methane being toxic) and Enceladus.

Oh, right. Surface temperature of 900 F and an atmosphere of sulphuric acid.
You are so into making things up.

e, since if life itself were to have formed, naturally, by itself, on Earth, it would have been silicon based due to it being 100 times more abundant in Earth's crust.

And you know this about chemistry, how?

I know it will get to the point where biologists "create" authentic cellular life using natural elements, and then "proving" that God does not exist by doing so, even though all they would prove that life would then be a direct product of creation by an intelligent manner.

None of it has anything to do with disproving god, other, that is, is your strange mind.

I

could spend an entire day discussing and disproving every theory on extraterrestrial life (not originating from Earth from cells that were accidentally sent up by spacecraft and survived), as well as the origin of life on Earth, but it would go on for hours.

You've made quite enough abusrd statements already.

All I will say is that unless if I am proven completely wrong, and see absolute evidence of life originating somewhere other than on Earth, I would not believe extraterrestrial life exists, at all

So, someone should care?

I was recently looking at photos and news of the planet Jupiter, due to an asteroid collision that occurred there on March 17, that was briefly caught on camera, and one of the articles linked was to the Wiki article I am linking. (The article is written using the evolutionary perspective of life occurring. Just overlook that if you are not a Theistic Evolutionist).
Not only is Earth unique as Jac article shows but the very system Solar System we live in is unique. If Jupiter and the gas giant planets, including our very large moon, did not act as vacuums for capturing space debris being pulled towards the Sun from outside our system, many more asteroids and comets would be pulled towards the Sun, making cometary and asteroid collisions on Earth far more prevalent than our geological record shows. And our geological record shows there have been five possibly six mass extinctions; three of which may have been caused by either asteroid or cometary collisions. The other three caused by mass volcanic eruptions and a gamma ray burst from a Hypernova star.
Every large cosmic collision has in the past, destroyed life. More collisions would mean even less of a chance of life beginning, if it were not for the special system (which appears designed), that we live in.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

That is the only verse in the Bible that contains the Hebrew words for create, made and formed.

It seems to me if life were to begin in a system outside our own Solar System, it would have to have similar characteristics to our own, in order for life to not only begin there but thrive there without being obliterated.

Rare Earth Hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

http://www.reasons.org/articles/3-ways- ... stands-out

a little more "specialness " . for all the potential out there for abundance of life ... we truly seem destined for special.

Special is has me in it.

Audie wrote:Special is has me in it.

Yes Audie, you're "special" alright!

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Special is has me in it.

Yes Audie, you're "special" alright!

Thats about as close to a compliment as you're gonna get from tricky ricky, audie