Closest Potentially Habitable Planet

[rogue06]

I'm glad you would not hold to such a crazy strawman position. It's just that you're known for making mountains out of molehills. Ultimately(in regards to salvation), it doesn't matter when or how God created the Universe. Just that He is responsible. And doesn't prank scientists. Because that would be immature and out of character.

Agreed. It is not and never been considered a salvific issue. And the Bible would not encourage us to examine His creation to gain some insight into His might and majesty only to be given a false impression about it.

[Christianbookworm]

Obviously I cannot answer for him but... Wrt encountering a far more advanced civilization we can only examine our own history of what happens -- and it is not pretty. Of course if they exist they may be nothing like us but that is pure speculation. As for God, I kinda of see Him as existing outside of His creation though He obviously profoundly effects it. Angels? There are good and evil ones.

Well, if they were really, really advanced, they might have a prime directive and just leave us alone. Otherwise... give them this. Except that there would be a language barrier. Oops.

[Jedidiah]

Obviously I cannot answer for him but... Wrt encountering a far more advanced civilization we can only examine our own history of what happens -- and it is not pretty. Of course if they exist they may be nothing like us but that is pure speculation. As for God, I kinda of see Him as existing outside of His creation though He obviously profoundly effects it. Angels? There are good and evil ones.

It is not at all likely that there are any alien beings much more advanced than our own. Assuming the purely naturalistic formation of life (which I do not assume or accept) earth has developed about as early as possible. To get life one requires a rocky planet. That can only come about with third generation stars such as ours. Thus we are likely to be as advanced as any life out there.

[rogue06]

It is not at all likely that there are any alien beings much more advanced than our own. Assuming the purely naturalistic formation of life (which I do not assume or accept) earth has developed about as early as possible. To get life one requires a rocky planet. That can only come about with third generation stars such as ours. Thus we are likely to be as advanced as any life out there.

Some third generation stars are older than ours meaning that some planets might be older than ours

[oxmixmudd]

Kindly stop putting out distortions / misrepresentations / straw man versions of my position -- that's about the 20th time that I've made this request.

A few weeks back I received a "warning" from a Moderator here about calling you people "dishonest / liars". That Moderator said that he had sent others here a similar warning. I certainly hope that you were one of those. Yet, you continue with your sig which is a dishonest misrepresentation of my article - a point that I have made to you several times.

In the "warning" I was reminded that any such accusations had to be supported. Most of the time I do indeed support my accusations. Like here - there's your sig for all to see. Then there's this post where you refer to a long-past discussion in which you selectively state some things while omitting others. For example, you say: "... Jorge spent a good deal of time claiming Stars can't form naturally,..." That statement in no way contains the accuracy or fullness of my position AND YOU KNOW IT. Thus, that is certainly a form of dishonesty / lying and I'm calling you out on it here and now.

**********************

As for the "closest potential habitable planet", many years ago I wrote a piece on this subject. The upshot is that in order to promote Materialism certain things have to be believed sans any evidence. Thus, Frank Drake and Carl Sagan believed - and heavily promoted their beliefs - in habitable planets and extraterrestrial civilizations decades before there was any kind of "evidence" for any "planet", let alone one that could be "habitable". Of course, SETI is approaching its 6th decade without as much as a whiff of ET -- looks like ET isn't "home" or anywhere else. Yet money and resources continue to be wasted seeking support for these Materialistic beliefs.

That said, could God have created life (intelligent or not) elsewhere in the universe? Of course He could have! Just as He could have created other planets - habitable or not. I'm just not buying that pig on a poke, that's all. Especially since the all-out effort in this area is meant to support the worldview of Materialism - one that I do not subscribe to.

Sad that many "Christians" aren't wise enough to comprehend such things.

Jorge

I changed my sig to 'just the facts' Jorge, pulled out all accusations of anything. And there they remain. That you are offended by the facts is not really my problem.

As for my recounting of the 'star can't form' and 'these probably are not planets' events, I was quite generous to you Jorge. Your positions on those two represented (and probably still represent) nothing less that full on denial of the facts.

As for whether my comments represent the 'fullness' of your position ... feel free to explain your position again if you see fit to do so. Those threads where I think over 100 pages long. I read all your objections and found them foolish (was Sarfati in that thread too - I think he was). I posted Hubble close ups of the Orion Nebula showing hundreds of forming stars (though I think it was a later thread about the same topic). You continued to deny stars can form naturally. It was mind boggling.

The planets thing ... all I can say is you argued for several pages with me about whether or not an object that was the size of Jupiter or smaller and pulled on its host star so as to induce a symmetric doppler shift might be something other than a planet. You could never actually justify that position - except to say it 'might' be something else and it was silly to claim it was a planet till we had proof. That is when I predicted you'd be faced with a picture of one in the not too distant future. I predicted within 10 years IIRC, It was like 2, maybe less, without the old TWEB it would be hard to pin it down exactly.

Your concern over the "Materialistic" motivations of Sagan or whoever are irrelevant to these sorts of discussions. 3000+ extra-solar planets have been found. And this one is just a little bigger than the Earth and sits where it could harbor liquid water. That is interesting at least. And the scientific facts had presented this kind of thing as likely long before and actual extra-solar planets were ever discovered. To believe in what is scientifically likely is not an issue of ideology. However, to deny what is fact and what has been discovered because it isn't what one wants to believe about the universe, especially as violently as you do, is folly. God made it all Jorge. Just accept your overly literal interpretation derived assumptions were wrong and move on.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Some third generation stars are older than ours meaning that some planets might be older than ours

Alpha Centauri itself is a little older than our Sun (and consequently a tad larger). And proxima being a small red dwarf could easily be older than our sun, and hence its planet may be a good bit older too! The star itself has the potential to shine trillions of years!


Jim

[Jorge]

I'm glad you would not hold to such a crazy strawman position.

Huh?

It's just that you're known for making mountains out of molehills.

Now you're really coming out of Crazyville!

Ultimately(in regards to salvation), it doesn't matter when or how God created the Universe. Just that He is responsible. And doesn't prank scientists. Because that would be immature and out of character.

The above is the superficial view of a grade-school citizen -- which is fine if it makes you happy.
As an adult, however, I know perfectly well that it goes much deeper than the surface.
But then, most people never get to be adults. Oh well ...........

Jorge

[Jorge]

I understand what their message was just fine. That has zip to do with whether or not exoplanets exist, however.

Point missed! Neeeeeeeeeeeext!!!

I note that, as usual, your only defense is to counter-attack. I carefully did not judge you - I said appears, not is. For someone who is constantly on the attack, you seem to have a rather thin skin.

I see you speak Clintonese quite well. Of course, what you say depends on what 'is' is, right?

Why? That's never stopped you from flapping your gums.

Infantile!

Of course, I actually DO know what I'm talking about, having acquired a minor in Astrophysics (by passing the classes, not by buying a piece of paper).

I'll see your "minor in Astrophysics" and raise you three (3) undergraduate majors.

To that add:
(1) I don't play the "credentials" game - that's a game for losers.
(2) Everyone "pays" for their piece of paper. Get a clue.
(3) With or without your piece of paper, you still don't know what you're talking about.
(4) Very "honest" of you bringing up the "piece of paper" issue in light of the facts.

You lose - times four! Man, it must really suck being you.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Agreed. It is not and never been considered a salvific issue. And the Bible would not encourage us to examine His creation to gain some insight into His might and majesty only to be given a false impression about it.

The above is the superficial view of a grade-school citizen -- which is fine if it makes you happy.
As an adult, however, I know perfectly well that it goes much deeper than the surface.
But then, most people never get to be adults. Oh well ...........

Jorge

[Jorge]

I changed my sig to 'just the facts' Jorge, pulled out all accusations of anything. And there they remain. That you are offended by the facts is not really my problem.

As for my recounting of the 'star can't form' and 'these probably are not planets' events, I was quite generous to you Jorge. Your positions on those two represented (and probably still represent) nothing less that full on denial of the facts.

As for whether my comments represent the 'fullness' of your position ... feel free to explain your position again if you see fit to do so. Those threads where I think over 100 pages long. I read all your objections and found them foolish (was Sarfati in that thread too - I think he was). I posted Hubble close ups of the Orion Nebula showing hundreds of forming stars (though I think it was a later thread about the same topic). You continued to deny stars can form naturally. It was mind boggling.

The planets thing ... all I can say is you argued for several pages with me about whether or not an object that was the size of Jupiter or smaller and pulled on its host star so as to induce a symmetric doppler shift might be something other than a planet. You could never actually justify that position - except to say it 'might' be something else and it was silly to claim it was a planet till we had proof. That is when I predicted you'd be faced with a picture of one in the not too distant future. I predicted within 10 years IIRC, It was like 2, maybe less, without the old TWEB it would be hard to pin it down exactly.

Your concern over the "Materialistic" motivations of Sagan or whoever are irrelevant to these sorts of discussions. 3000+ extra-solar planets have been found. And this one is just a little bigger than the Earth and sits where it could harbor liquid water. That is interesting at least. And the scientific facts had presented this kind of thing as likely long before and actual extra-solar planets were ever discovered. To believe in what is scientifically likely is not an issue of ideology. However, to deny what is fact and what has been discovered because it isn't what one wants to believe about the universe, especially as violently as you do, is folly. God made it all Jorge. Just accept your overly literal interpretation derived assumptions were wrong and move on.


Jim

Jorge

[Jorge]

So, i guess learning about the Universe is a materialist agenda. The horror!

Way to trivialize a fundamentally-important issue. Very mature and learned of you!

Actually, nobody knows enough to judge that at the moment.

Actually, no one knows much of anything at the moment.
But boy-oh-boy they sure do put out the propaganda as if they do!
And the fools just wander in, like hapless sheep to the slaughterhouse.

Yes, such wild speculation to consider potential properties of exoplanets based on measurements of their mass, density, the properties of their star, etc. Will the wildness never end?

I see you still haven't learned the difference between real science and science fiction.
Thus, it's quite easy to see why you embrace most of Materialistic Naturalism and Evolutionism.

Jorge

[Christianbookworm]

The above is the superficial view of a grade-school citizen -- which is fine if it makes you happy.
As an adult, however, I know perfectly well that it goes much deeper than the surface.
But then, most people never get to be adults. Oh well ...........

Jorge

So, do you think YEC is a secondary doctrine? Why do you think holding to a YEC point of view is so important that you seem to have a poor reputation at tweb? I'm not a scientist, so I'd rather be agnostic about specifics of creation(whether the earth is young or old).

[TheLurch]

I see you still haven't learned the difference between real science and science fiction.

Actually, i did scientific research for a living for roughly 25 years, and have had a science focused career for another 10. I'm pretty sure i know what's going on with science.

But i won't stoop to insulting you. Let's put it this way: i've read several papers on the potential for "eyeball earths" to exist. If you'd like, i'll send you links to a couple. You can read them over and tell me specifically what's wrong with the science - something that goes against what we know about physics, atmospheres, stars, or planets.

[One Bad Pig]

Point missed! Neeeeeeeeeeeext!!!



I see you speak Clintonese quite well. Of course, what you say depends on what 'is' is, right?



Infantile!




I'll see your "minor in Astrophysics" and raise you three (3) undergraduate majors.

To that add:
(1) I don't play the "credentials" game - that's a game for losers.
(2) Everyone "pays" for their piece of paper. Get a clue.
(3) With or without your piece of paper, you still don't know what you're talking about.
(4) Very "honest" of you bringing up the "piece of paper" issue in light of the facts.

You lose - times four! Man, it must really suck being you.

Jorge

Oh look, more gum-flapping and insults instead of an actual defense. Face it, Jorge, you're not going to live down your diploma mill "doctorate". Yay, you have three undergrad majors - in what, you somehow failed to say. Are they in any way relevant to the field?

The fact is that exoplanets have been postulated for quite some time based on the known existence of planets in this solar system and the knowledge that the sun is a star. That Drake and Sagan were using the postulate to push SETI is wholly immaterial to that fact. This is pretty basic stuff, Jorge.

[Jorge]

So, do you think YEC is a secondary doctrine? Why do you think holding to a YEC point of view is so important that you seem to have a poor reputation at tweb? I'm not a scientist, so I'd rather be agnostic about specifics of creation(whether the earth is young or old).

Don't know what you mean by "secondary doctrine".

As for my "poor reputation" here, these people don't like being called out - it upsets the living snot out of them. That, in a nutshell, is the source of my "poor reputation". Of course, they'll deny that and claim all sorts of concocted BS excuses but I can't help that.

Just do your own thinking and be sure to ASK instead of just swallowing the party line.

Next, claiming "Agnostic" is a cop-out. Many claim being Agnostics but no one lives
like a Agnostic -- when push comes to shove everyone takes a side.

Lastly, whether the Earth is young or old is primarily a metaphysical/theological issue, not one of "science".
Science only serves to support - and only to a limited degree - the metaphysic / theology.

Jorge