The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.” To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed” and account for the “known facts.”

In contrast, a “hypothesis” as defined by Oxford is “a proposition or principle put forth or stated (without any reference to its correspondence with fact) merely as a basis for reasoning or argument …. [A] provisional supposition from which to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at.” More simply stated, a hypothesis is an idea or a guess at something without facts to support it. If the evidence proves the hypothesis, it then becomes a theory.

The idea of evolution or alien life has never reached that step. At best, both evolution and alien life are a hypothesis. Unproven and without “correspondence with fact,” it stands as an idea scientists still need to substantiate, though they remain unable to do so. In contrast, the probability of aliens living out there is infinitesimal small, if at all. So as they say in legal terms in court cases ... we need to look at the balance of probabilities.

This puts us squarely back at my first question .... which is a fact ... why are we here ... "It begs the question ... why do we not have 'nothing' here on earth like everywhere else - why should we have life here - is their a plan or purpose?"

For life to exist, we need a given distance from the sun, a sea, a moon for the tides, an atmosphere, in-land water, 21% oxygen, a planet rotating around its own axis for seasons, with 117 elements in the periodic table, etc. If the mass of the earth were a little less, then its gravitational force would be insufficient and the atmosphere would be dispersed in space. If its mass were a little greater, then the gravitational force would be too much and the earth would absorb all gasses in the atmosphere. A rare combination and a delicate balance, I would suggest.

Warrior

Why are we here?

100,000,000,000 stars in a galaxy. 100,000,000,000 galaxys in our universe.

That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000+ rolls of the dice in our observable universe. Remember, when we say random chance, we are not discussing just one random chance, but 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or more chances. That doesn't even take into account multiple plants or moon in a given solar system, or the possibility of multiple universes. If there is any substance to the mutliple universe hypothesises you might (assuming the other universes have law of physics similar to our, some scientist think maybe, some think maybe not) be adding an addition 12+ zero to the end of that big number.

Why are we here? Because this is where the Wheel of Fortune hit JackPot, and you have yet to prove to me this is the only place the wheel has hit Jackpot.

Hey Goooglemaster,
To copy and paste and present as your own, is dishonest. I thought the spelling and grammar was too good to be true (or yours).

http://www.thetrumpet.com/inde...?page=article&id=589

I have a simple question for those of you who espouse the religion of evolution VS Christianity.

How could the Big Bang have happened? Give yourself a day to ponder this and get back with me, if you would.

thanks,

Rich

Antelope Sniper,

It is a fact that humans are on earth, but elsewhere at this stage, it is just a hypothesis.

You have not answered the question why we are here. Or for that mattter, why there would be intelligent life (ie other human beings or super human beings as some claim) elsewhere on other earth-like planets. Back to us, is there any compelling reason for us to be here as homo sapiens, the thinking man? If so, does it point to planned design or just a haphazard chain of events that led us to be here. Could it be that we have dominion over the animal kingdom, for one? Why are we here?

If all life was created by chance in a specific sequence and order, it is either not probable elsewhere statisically speaking, as I outlined the conditions on earth (and there is a ten-fould or hundred-fold more factors that I have not even mentioned), or it is the greatest miracle ever, and for miracles to happen time and time again is not plausible without inteligent design. Does it not point to a Great Architect either way?

Where do we come from .... where is the missing link .... here is a statement during 1930 by Dr. A.H. Clark in The New Evolution: Zoogenesis: “No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon Earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups or phyla.” “Evolutionists, geneticists, biologists, scientists in any field whatsoever, have never been able to demonstrate, nor to offer the slightest evidence that the living can come into existence from the not-living!"

Many fraudulent claims have been made over a century by scientists to prove this and it is not helping the case of evolutionists one bit. To jump from an animal to a human being is such a giant leap of faith that it becomes a religion by itself. How did thought evlove; that is a nagging question?

The living plant (earth) is a wonderful place by all accounts with all its various systems that keep it in place and making it habitable.

Warrior

Antelope and supporters, I am waiting, is anyone going to back up their talk here?

Rich

When we consider the mystery of life, where it came from and how this miracle was possible, then we are forced to think about DNA and what it is in its simplest form that everyone can understand, more in a philosophical way than in a biological way.

Many people assume that DNA happened by chance, and the argument is invariably that surely, given billions of years, it was bound to happen sometime, somewhere. They never consider that DNA is actually evidence of Design in the universe. DNA is a code, a genetic code loaded with INFORMATION. We can also call it a CODED LANGUAGE. Coded information ONLY comes from a MIND, and not by chance!

Nature can create fascinating PATTERNS like snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites, tornadoes and cloud formations. Non-living things cannot create CODE or LANGUAGE. Matter, gravity, energy or physical laws cannot create INFORMATION.

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the "primordial soup," the early ocean, which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells. But there is still a problem with this theory; it fails to answer the question, ... Where did the INFORMATION come from?

DNA is not merely a molecule, nor is it simply a "pattern." Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate LANGUAGE, in the exact same way that English or Chinese is a language. DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs, with very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them.

Show me just one example of a language that didn't come from a mind? Information is a separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy. This fact is missed by most evolutionists. Skeptics like agnostics and atheists insist that life arose without the assistance of God, the Mind, who created the CODED INFORMATION. Some evolutionists though, do see God’s hand in the creation.

Warrior

More copy and paste without acknowledgement

http://www.cosmicfingerprints....blog/infinite-chasm/
http://www.cosmicfingerprints....g/darwin-half-right/
http://www.creationism.org/hei...ife03InfoInCells.htm

"The scientific principle that life only comes from life is called Biogenesis." {Essenfeld, Gontang, Moore, Addison-Wesley Biology, 1996, p. 223} It states that 'spontaneous generation' does not happen, instead, every living thing has come from some other living thing. It is one of the best proved scientific principles, sometimes called the Law of Biogenesis.

Warrior

The greatest biologist of the nineteenth century was Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)(1822-1895) and he demonstrated way back then that life comes only from life. It was a blow to the widely held idea of "spontaneous generation" More than a hundred years later in scientific research, and it still seems to stand.

http://www.panspermia.org/pasteur.htm

Warrior

I asked a question, do I get an answer?

Rich

quote:

How could the Big Bang have happened?

Rich,

I think the evolutionists are still working on it, and the explanation would be something like ....

we have done so much work in the last decade, but please do understand that all of it is still work in progress, but an announcement can be made as soon as they have a breakthrough. These things do take some time and you might not get a concrete answer as yet ... or perhaps our children will still have to pose the very same question and wait patiently for an answer.

For now it requires faith that someting came from nothing, all by itself and by chance without Intelligent Design.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I have a simple question for those of you who espouse the religion of evolution VS Christianity.

How could the Big Bang have happened? Give yourself a day to ponder this and get back with me, if you would.

thanks,

Rich

As I recall God said "Let There Be Light."
I'm sure there are other details involved that none of us would understand.

quote:

asked a question, do I get an answer?

About 4 or 5 pages ago, in this thread and others.

Warrior, you have not answered the question why there would NOT be intelligent life elsewhere.
You have still not responded to my statement that "The Drake equation is only a theory, but as a theory, it's at least as valid as your theory that we are the only life in the universe, or put another way, God said "Let There Be Light."

It states that 'spontaneous generation' does not happen, instead, every living thing has come from some other living thing.

Scripps Research Institute might differ with the above statement, or did you just decide to ignore that post?

where is the missing link ....
You are back to ignoring evidence already presented.

here is a statement during 1930 by Dr. A.H. Clark
Really? Back to the stone age again?

It is a fact that humans are on earth, but elsewhere at this stage, it is just a hypothesis.
Up until 1992 Extrasolar planets were just a theory, Now we have confirmed at least 460 of them. What does your bible say about Extrasolar planets?

The idea of evolution or alien life that God created life and man in his image, has never reached that step. Here I fixed it for you.

Intelligent life on earth is a fact, as I sated before, but out in the universe it is just a possibility, but highly improbable for conditions to be exactly like on earth and in the timeframe that the earth came about. I stated further, if you have noticed, that makes the miracle even bigger if it were to be case that there is a Great Architect. I also stated that life does not come from the non-living - Louis Pasteur is of the same opinion, and yes, you may refer to him as also living in the 'stone age'.

About the 'missing link' .... it is just that ... it is missing .... could not be found in the last 5000 years.

Warrior

WASHINGTON – Astronomers say they have for the first time spotted a planet beyond our own in what is sometimes called the Goldilocks zone for life: Not too hot, not too cold. Juuuust right.

Not too far from its star, not too close. So it could contain liquid water. The planet itself is neither too big nor too small for the proper surface, gravity and atmosphere.

It's just right. Just like Earth.

"This really is the first Goldilocks planet," said co-discoverer R. Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

[Related: Seven best places to sleep under the stars]

The new planet sits smack in the middle of what astronomers refer to as the habitable zone, unlike any of the nearly 500 other planets astronomers have found outside our solar system. And it is in our galactic neighborhood, suggesting that plenty of Earth-like planets circle other stars.

Finding a planet that could potentially support life is a major step toward answering the timeless question: Are we alone?

Scientists have jumped the gun before on proclaiming that planets outside our solar system were habitable only to have them turn out to be not quite so conducive to life. But this one is so clearly in the right zone that five outside astronomers told The Associated Press it seems to be the real thing.

"This is the first one I'm truly excited about," said Penn State University's Jim Kasting. He said this planet is a "pretty prime candidate" for harboring life.

Life on other planets doesn't mean E.T. Even a simple single-cell bacteria or the equivalent of shower mold would shake perceptions about the uniqueness of life on Earth.

But there are still many unanswered questions about this strange planet. It is about three times the mass of Earth, slightly larger in width and much closer to its star — 14 million miles away versus 93 million. It's so close to its version of the sun that it orbits every 37 days. And it doesn't rotate much, so one side is almost always bright, the other dark.

Temperatures can be as hot as 160 degrees or as frigid as 25 degrees below zero, but in between — in the land of constant sunrise — it would be "shirt-sleeve weather," said co-discoverer Steven Vogt of the University of California at Santa Cruz.

It's unknown whether water actually exists on the planet, and what kind of atmosphere it has. But because conditions are ideal for liquid water, and because there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water, Vogt believes "that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent."

The astronomers' findings are being published in Astrophysical Journal and were announced by the National Science Foundation on Wednesday.

The planet circles a star called Gliese 581. It's about 120 trillion miles away, so it would take several generations for a spaceship to get there. It may seem like a long distance, but in the scheme of the vast universe, this planet is "like right in our face, right next door to us," Vogt said in an interview.

That close proximity and the way it was found so early in astronomers' search for habitable planets hints to scientists that planets like Earth are probably not that rare.

Vogt and Butler ran some calculations, with giant fudge factors built in, and figured that as much as one out of five to 10 stars in the universe have planets that are Earth-sized and in the habitable zone.

With an estimated 200 billion stars in the universe, that means maybe 40 billion planets that have the potential for life, Vogt said. However, Ohio State University's Scott Gaudi cautioned that is too speculative about how common these planets are.

Vogt and Butler used ground-based telescopes to track the star's precise movements over 11 years and watch for wobbles that indicate planets are circling it. The newly discovered planet is actually the sixth found circling Gliese 581. Two looked promising for habitability for a while, another turned out to be too hot and the fifth is likely too cold. This sixth one bracketed right in the sweet spot in between, Vogt said.

With the star designated "a," its sixth planet is called Gliese 581g.

"It's not a very interesting name and it's a beautiful planet," Vogt said. Unofficially, he's named it after his wife: "I call it Zarmina's World."

The star Gliese 581 is a dwarf, about one-third the strength of our sun. Because of that, it can't be seen without a telescope from Earth, although it is in the Libra constellation, Vogt said.

But if you were standing on this new planet, you could easily see our sun, Butler said.

The low-energy dwarf star will live on for billions of years, much longer than our sun, he said. And that just increases the likelihood of life developing on the planet, the discoverers said.

"It's pretty hard to stop life once you give it the right conditions," Vogt said.

___

Online:

The National Science Foundation: http://www.nsf.gov

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/uni...ese_581_feature.html



Prior to 1992, we did not know of any plants outside our solar system. Since then we've discovered nearly 500 extrasolar planets, and now, our first "Goldilocks" extrasolar planet Gliese 581G

“Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent,” said discoverer and astronomer Steven Vogt during a press briefing yesterday. “I have almost no doubt about it.”


I'll take his word over yours.

New meteorite clues to life on Mars

http://www.scientificamerican....life-on-mars-2010-04

It is statements like these in biology books (Biology Principles and Exlorations, Johnson & Raven, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996.) that cast doubt ... and this is just one example.

The following is an example of giving only the appearance of an answer to a significant question. The question posed is:

"Is Life Too Complex to Have Arisen Naturally?" (p. 234) The conclusion of the answer is: "With variation and natural selection working together over billions of years, very complex life-forms could have evolved naturally."

This answer is simply a restatement of the problem that gave rise to the question.

Warrior

That was a nice non sequitur, and adds nothing to the discussion. Just more useless quote mining.

Hey Tin Can, is that Tequila you are stiring in that kettle?

homebrew

Hey Gooooglemaster, you forgot about this one:

quote:

The scientific principle that life only comes from life is called Biogenesis

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Life.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Intelligent life on earth is a fact, as I sated before, but out in the universe it is just a possibility, but highly improbable for conditions to be exactly like on earth and in the timeframe that the earth came about. I stated further, if you have noticed, that makes the miracle even bigger if it were to be case that there is a Great Architect. I also stated that life does not come from the non-living - Louis Pasteur is of the same opinion, and yes, you may refer to him as also living in the 'stone age'.

About the 'missing link' .... it is just that ... it is missing .... could not be found in the last 5000 years.

Warrior

Antelope Sniper,

The above remains my short answer. The question of where life comes from, whether from this planet or another one has not been answered remotely satisfactorily. So I have not made a detour as you hinted. The failure is on your part to bring the evidence as to how life started. This is also Rich's question.

Evolution - a trip down memory lane:

A quick trip down memory lane provided the following snippets from high-school biology books that are used as tuition for our children - I just took a few, as these are the explanations that are offered as scientific material to our kids. It is rather interesting how casually and recklessly the 'timing' aspect is being dealt with, and how these scientific books differ from one another. Nevertheless here it is either for instruction or for fun ..... enjoy!

Biology, Visualizing Life, Johnson, Holt Rinehart Winston, 1994.

"Soon after the Earth's surface cooled, life arose in the ancient seas. The first organisms to appear on the planet were bacteria, which are single-celled prokaryotes. These early bacteria are the ancestors of modern bacteria and of all the many different kinds of organisms living today, including you." (p. 203)

"Humans share a common ancestor with the living apes, but the apes from which humans descended are extinct." (p. 224)

"Upright walking was one of the first adaptations to evolve among our ancestors after the human and chimpanzee lines diverged about 5 million years ago." (p. 226)

"You are an animal, and share a common heritage with earthworms and dinosaurs, butterflies and sea stars. It is no accident that the fingers of your hand have bones like those in a bird's wing. In this unit you will discover how the animal body has been shaped by its long evolutionary journey, from the simplest sponge to worms, insects, and vertebrates. Evolution has molded animals to suit many ways of living, often altering their design to take advantage of new opportunities in the environment." (p. 453)

Biology, Miller & Levine, Prentice Hall, 1995.

"The fossils of the earliest birds are rare, often poorly preserved, and very similar to those of many small dinosaurs. Because of this, there is much controversy over which fossils are those of birds and when birds first appeared on Earth. Although the fine points of bird evolution are hotly debated, one thing is certain - birds evolved from ancient reptiles." (p. 725)

Biology (2nd ed), Essenfeld, Gontang, Moore, Addison Wesley, 1996.

Illustration 16.4. "All organisms, living or extinct, are descendants of the first cells. Because they all share a common ancestor, all organisms are related to one another no matter how different they seem." (p. 286)
"The first animals with backbones to evolve were fish. From these early fish evolved all other vertebrates, including amphibians, reptiles, and even human beings." (p. 552


Biology an Everyday Experience, Kasskel, Hummer, Daniel, Glencoe (MacMillan/McGraw-Hill), 1995.

"Primates evolved about 45 million years ago into two main groups. One of these groups was the ancestor of apes and humans. Humans evolved about three million years ago." (p. 624) (and this ancestor is the 'missing link' that is missing somehow)

Biology Living Systems, Raymond Oram, Glencoe, 1994.

"Trace the evolutionary steps from the beginnings of increased brain size in southern apes to the development of complex language in Cro-Magnons." (p. 362) (The student is expected to assume the truth of these evolutionary steps without any evidence being presented in the text.)

Warrior

quote:

With an estimated 200 billion stars in the universe, that means maybe 40 billion planets that have the potential for life, Vogt said. However, Ohio State University's Scott Gaudi cautioned that is too speculative about how common these planets are.

Did they mention speculative? Nah, its not ... it is a fact !!!

Examine conditions on earth as I mentioned before and then come back and tell me if these 40 billion planets meet the same conditions as on earth. At least then we will have a starting point otherwise we are back to speculaion again.

For brevity sake .... "For life to exist, we need a given distance from the sun, a sea, a moon for the tides, an atmosphere, in-land water, 21% oxygen, a planet rotating around its own axis for seasons, with 117 elements in the periodic table, etc. If the mass of the earth were a little less, then its gravitational force would be insufficient and the atmosphere would be dispersed in space. If its mass were a little greater, then the gravitational force would be too much and the earth would absorb all gasses in the atmosphere. A rare combination and a delicate balance, I would suggest."

A most basic requirement for life to exist ..... we need 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, Carbon-Di-Oxide is 0.003% and the balance consist of other gases. When this composition balance is disturbed materially, life will cease to exist shortly, and plants and trees are necessary as an oxygen factory. So we need water (rain) on these earth-like planets with the right temperature to flourish. Without a see life is doomed and it needs to be of a certain volume in relation - we have about 2/3's see. The see is an absolute requirement, not just a nice to have. What is a see without a moon ... and so we can carry on ad infinitum.

So when I see the statement ... "Temperatures can be as hot as 160 degrees or as frigid as 25 degrees below zero, but in between — in the land of constant sunrise — it would be "shirt-sleeve weather," said co-discoverer Steven Vogt of the University of California at Santa Cruz." ..... I just wonder how good (condicive) that will be for plant life? The broad and wooly reference to another planet in the universe that it is earth-like is not necessarily a fact and may differ in many respects.

And then we read ... "It's unknown whether water actually exists on the planet, and what kind of atmosphere it has. But because conditions are ideal for liquid water, and because there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water, Vogt believes "that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent." ... we don't know if water actually exists and what the atmosphere is like .... but then check the 180 degree turn in the same sentence ... read the last part of the qouted sentence .... this is jumping to conclusions in the most unscientific way that I have ever encountered - at first not sure and then the chances are 100%. Amazing.

I rest my case.

Warrior

Hey Warrior,

quote:

this is jumping to conclusions in the most unscientific way that I have ever encountered

There is nothing strange about this. You do it all the time.

quote:

I rest my case.

Not a chance. You will be back with some more plagiarism and other unrelated snippets of junk science to entertain us.

Thanks for your awesome contribution.



Warrior

You can not even do sarcasm without a copy and paste or repeating yourself.

The only way I will talk to you is if you have the balls to meet with me face to face.

Warrior

Antelope Sniper,

are you avoiding answering my question? Tell me the Big Bang Theory in a paragraph or less if you would.

I know you know the answer. Don't be afraid just share it with me and the audience, please. Put Warrior and I in our place.

regards,

Rich

Antelope and Tin Can, et al,

let me share with the audience why neither or you, or any other non-believers in God will not answer me.

It is this, the two cornerstones of a non-God belief system of creation are:

1. the Big Bang Theory. There was nothing, and then Bang! there was.

2. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Those two things are diametrically opposed, and both cannot be true.

You must either admit that one of these two statements are false, or reconcile them to us here.

Which is it, pray tell...

Rich
God did it.

Whoa
5 pages of download without any premise of a theory on either side with proof of concept.

belief requires faith
faith requires belief
neither necessarily requires fact or proof of concept.

As for Big Bang theory , it requires proof of the existence of the "dark matter" & its energy content to prove a theory of an event that disobeys a bunch of man's laws that presumes a balance of energy, wherein the only thing that cannot be created is energy.
A simple virus ( eg influenza ) can, has , & been proven, to evolve .
Known matter ( the elements ) can, has, & been proven to evolve.

The metabolism of animals ( incl humans), can, has , & been proven to evolve complex organic matter.............. Ha Ha , you couldn't, live , act, or think without it being so.

.........now that's something to think about , you don't need to get anymore complex in evolutionary concepts than that .


takes little faith to assume that larger agglomerations of matter can evolve too.
Lots of missing 'links" in every science.
Thinking man has been in existence a miniscule of time relative to the world & the cosmos he lives in

gonna take a while for him to find & fill in a bunch of those "missing links'.

Till then believe in whatever you have faith in & accept that you cannot provide proof of concept of your belief & the other guy might just be right in his belief.

Till absolute proof of concept of your personal belief is available , be happy in your faith ( be that religion or science .........whatever ) & don't get too depressed that the validated answer to most of the questions posed in this thread will not be answerable in your lifetime.

Hunt, fish , or kill some vegetarian stuff & feed your own personal evolutionary system......... you are the "great architect" of that evolutionary system........ He He.

And the march of science continues on:

Scientists Create World's First 'Mini Big Bang'

Published November 09, 2010
| NewsCore
Print Email Share Comments (470) Text Size

CERN

A computer simulation of the first lead ion collision in the Large Hadron Collider, a simulation of the events immediately after the Big Bang.
A miniature Big Bang was created Sunday at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), as the world’s most powerful atom-smasher successfully entered a new phase of exploration.

The particle accelerator at the CERN laboratory near Geneva smashed together lead atoms for the first time, to produce temperatures a million times hotter than those found at the heart of the sun.

The $8 billion machine had previously been colliding protons -- sub-atomic particles -- in the search for the Higgs boson or "God particle," thought to give matter its mass. These experiments were shut down last Thursday, to allow the LHC to run with lead ions instead -- atoms from which an electron has been removed -- to study different aspects of physics.

The lead ion collisions will allow the LHC to create a superheated mixture of subatomic particles called quark-gluon plasma, which pervaded the universe immediately after the Big Bang. One of the accelerator’s four detectors, called ALICE (A Lead Ion Collider Experiment), will examine this substance for clues to the early universe.

David Evans of the University of Birmingham, who works on the ALICE experiment, said: "We are thrilled with the achievement. This process took place in a safe, controlled environment, generating incredibly hot and dense sub-atomic fireballs with temperatures of over ten trillion degrees.

The potential advances scientists hope the LHC will make are prime topics for physicists and cosmologists seeking to understand how the universe works. Within the atom smasher's 16.8-mile tunnel, scientists are recreating on a miniature scale what happened within nano-seconds of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the tremendous explosion that created the galaxies, stars -- and life.

Six ultra-sophisticated detectors around the LHC record how particles behave after being smashed together, transmitting the data for analysis to laboratories at CERN and in other research centers around the globe.


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech...orlds-mini-big-bang/

Idaho, you have yet to respond to my evidence of evil in the presence of God?

Or did you just ignore that post?

quote:

most basic requirement for life AS WE KNOW IT to exist ..... we need 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, Carbon-Di-Oxide is 0.003% and the balance consist of other gases. When this composition balance is disturbed materially, life will cease to exist shortly, and plants and trees are necessary as an oxygen factory. So we need water (rain) on these earth-like planets with the right temperature to flourish. Without a see life is doomed and it needs to be of a certain volume in relation - we have about 2/3's see. The see is an absolute requirement, not just a nice to have. What is a see without a moon ... and so we can carry on ad infinitum.

There I correct it for you.

Actually, we have life on this planet exiting at tempertures hotter then 140 degrees. Some at underwater vents may live in temperatures as hot a 230 degrees. Howabout life in caves dripping with Sulphric acid, and plants that live in the dark and eat rocks? They are called extremophiles, and show that life can exist in conditions significantly different from what you have described. Of course we evolved to take advantage of the conditions you mentioned because those are the condition we live under. It would be pretty difficult for us to evolve to live in an enviroment different then the one we are exposed to.

http://www.astrobiology.com/ad...a/extremophiles.html

Dennis, the inflation portion of the big bang theory calls for "Dark Energy".

The Big Bang does not require dark matter. It's the observed rotational velocity of galaxies that requires Dark Matter. With out Dark Matter Galaxies would rotate slower then they do.

quote:

1. the Big Bang Theory. There was nothing, and then Bang! there was.

2. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Idaho, creation of the our universe does not equal creation of energy and matter. You are assuming our universe is tho only one, and there is nothing beyond our universe. Can you prove our universe is the only one?

quote:

Antelope and Tin Can, et al,

let me share with the audience why neither or you, or any other non-believers in God will not answer me.

Who says I'm a non-believer? Cite anywhere in this thread, or anywhere on AR where I have made such a statement.

I originally posted an article whereas a particular date was estimated by the presence of tools used by hominids- that's it.

If you want to grab that ball and run with it the way you want to, go ahead- I don't have your answer, nor do I owe you one. I didn't publish a question.

Your acting kind of typically of folks who, well, are rather ...sure of themselves...

Tin Can, I think you said "hey look at the pretty old rocks" and Idaho responded with:

quote:

I find it interesting that someone who cannot tell you either of his great-great-grandmothers maiden names can postulate with such accuracy what went on 3.4 million years ago...

Rich
DRSS

You were the first one to sling mud Rich.