Subscription Center
Hundreds of planets around other stars have been discovered recently, but many centuries may pass before human eyes actually see them up close. Interpreting current data, Hugo award-winning artist Ron Miller takes us to seven of the most fascinating of these worlds. Text and narration by Ed Bell
| November 23, 2010 | 83
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
83 Comments
Add CommentGreat Artist Renditions !! But, what gives?..The video will not play for me. My software should be up to date.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt amazes me how good these artists are. I've seen renditions since the early 1950's. Picturers of the moon, Saturn and many, many other scenes were often very similiar when our probes returned real photos. The artists are amazing people.
Sauder3: Dude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet your information from someplace beyond Answers in Genesis, ok? Go to school, read some books, whatever, but really get a handle on both biology and statistics.
(I can't believe I took the bait. The guy just seems genuine and maybe a little trip into Fact Land will help him out a bit. Or not).
SA: thanks for a really terrific piece by these great artists imagining these places using the available science. Sure, some of it is speculative…but still the sense of these illustrations are inspirational. What I wouldn't give to stand on one of those exo-worlds (well-protected, naturally)…
@ msadesign
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I need to ask, but have I said anything untrue?
sauner3 (#2)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe your:
"I really can not imagine such a preposterous notion!"
Bertrand Russell used to call that poverty of the imagination.
Sauder3: Regarding your presentation of your particular mythology, keep in mind that while the Christian bible describes your creator, the Quron describes yet another, the Shashtras (etc) describes the Hindu version, etc. I have no doubt your emphatic beliefs would be just as strong were you born in Riyadh or Mumbai...only just to another fiction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour voice is very similar to those who only a few hundred years ago declared heretic anyone who would believe the Earth is not the center of the universe.
Since we've learned that's not true, why did your god put Earth in the galactic equivalent or Arkansas? We are in the "outback" of a pretty standard galaxy. You'd think god would want us front and center of the billions and billions of galaxies he took the time to build!
Life, from what we are learning, appears to be not so special given the right mix of ingredients and time.
When one day (probably hundreds of years from now) we do find intelligent life on another planet...and IF they have survived their own religious mythologies and wars what will the religious people of Earth do? Send missionaries I suppose. Clearly those recently discovered exoplanet societies need your god. They probably don't even realize your god created them!
You should get busy fitting a space suit...
@ dwayson Regarding your statement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Life, from what we are learning, appears to be not so special given the right mix of ingredients and time."
I am really curious as to what you have been "learning" and what the source of that "leaning" may be. As you may be aware, there exists legitimate experimental science that can be repeatedly verified and then there is also purely imaginary speculation that has no basis in fact and cannot be verified at all.
As far as I can tell from all sources, LIFE requires not two but three things, a very specific list of INGREDIENTS and also a little TIME. Unfortunately, it also requires a very specific list of very specific INFORMATION. Not one of those three items can be missing or in short supply.
I am afraid that the entire speculation on "how LIFE began" falls squarely into the second category of "purely imaginary speculation." Also, the notion of traveling to the stars falls into that bin as well. Do you have any idea how far away even the nearest stars are? Even communication over such distances would be MOST unsatisfactory. If anyone imagines that the Human race can be saved from the sun's eventual demise by migrating to planets around other stars, THEY are the ones that need to be fitted for space suits!
Le jour du soleil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrès des
brouillards les
souffles des
vents perpétuels
inventent une
joie, avec
une chanson
qui brille dans
la mer.
Francesco Sinibaldi
@ slopa
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to have missed my point about the sun's demise. Actually, the Christian Bible does predict that the earth will someday perish in a raging fire with the elements melting from the intense heat.
Regarding your comment about the Andromeda galaxy eventually colliding with the Milky Way. Just because these star systems may have a future close encounter, that does not mean that the solar system will necessarily be disrupted. In any case, such an event will be so far in the future as to be irrelevant to any discussion today.
God is indeed loving and merciful to those who love and revere Him. However, He is also inherently just, and will ultimately deal sternly with those who mock Him and His Word. See Galatians 6:7 even if you do not believe it.
Regarding your comment about lipids mixing into amino acids. You may not be aware that the Miller/Urey experiment proved that the amino acids synthesized in that test were in equal amounts of "right hand" and "left hand" varieties. In the same puddle of soup, these two types annihilate each other in a short time. There is soon nothing left but brown goo to assemble into anything else.
Regarding your comment on the new word "information". Could you please inform me of even one true code that has NO author? Real code of course contains information about something other than itself.
The idea of DNA self assembling into the coherent sequence that directs the development of humans is about as likely to happen as a 621 car train load of scrabble letters (62,181.12 tons of them and yep, I weighed them to see) spontaneously forming over 450 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica after being spilled in a train wreck!
You don’t really believe such an extreme improbability, I hope.
sauder3, i don't wanna persuade you to turn into an atheist or non-religious. if you get the facts just from one side of the story (creationist PoV) is your choice and loose, not mine. in my world, there are just too many people on earth, so i'm glad when i hear people arguing with obsolete facts to defend their mythology, and i hope many of those to exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe miller experiment is obsolete, there are many other new experiments, post-2003, which proof the abiogenesis.
you are right, the solar system won't suffer much from andromeda/milky way collapse, because our protective heliopause/heliosphere, but i see you are also fond of the fact that humans won't witness those astronomical events, neither the sun's inflation. you think that until then your savior will descent upon a cloud to rapture all belivers? come on... i rather belive Saruman will come with Rocs to pick me up to Rivendell
the train with scrabble letters idea is simmilar to the monkey with a typewriter to randomly stroke keys until the complete Shakespeare's Works are complete. i hate this comparations, they're created and spoken in that a way that makes a gullable mind belive them, but to answer to you i just say: yes, i belive in that. also add to the equation many many other monkeys (traincrashes), something equal to 10^26 and some billion years and yeah, they'll do it. it's pure mathematics, and the nature won't try the normal, linear alorithm from aaa to zzzzzzzzz to form a word, i think will be something like the Monte-Carlo Algorithms, with random pickups of combinations to create a sentence, and after that with a stochastic arrangement everything will work just fine.
working in IT, i can tell you, code without coders exist, one of this is called Phantom Code I think, or ghost coding. it was a phenomen in the 80's or 90's many overflowed data combined itself with parts from other overflowed data and it actually did some things in the computer's memory...but asking that in nature to find a software without a coder is like asking a cake without cook while discussing quark-gluon plasma.
if you tell me that god will punish me badly if i mock him and by justifing that, you quote from the bible, is like i would receive a mail where a nasty ogre threatens to eat me because i don't belive in elves and i mock the pixies.
in the end, seek these passages in your book of faerytales:
Proverbs 3:13 vs Ecclesiastes 1:18 and Matthew 10:34 vs Matthew 26:52.
you can google more or check www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm they got more to satisfy you
sauder3, i don't wanna persuade you to turn into an atheist or non-religious. if you get the facts just from one side of the story (creationist PoV) is your choice and loose, not mine. in my world, there are just too many people on earth, so i'm glad when i hear people arguing with obsolete facts to defend their mythology, and i hope many of those to exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe miller experiment is obsolete, there are many other new experiments, post-2003, which proof the abiogenesis.
you are right, the solar system won't suffer much from andromeda/milky way collapse, because our protective heliopause/heliosphere, but i see you are also fond of the fact that humans won't witness those astronomical events, neither the sun's inflation. you think that until then your savior will descent upon a cloud to rapture all belivers? come on... i rather belive Saruman will come with Rocs to pick me up to Rivendell
the train with scrabble letters idea is simmilar to the monkey with a typewriter to randomly stroke keys until the complete Shakespeare's Works are complete. i hate this comparations, they're created and spoken in that a way that makes a gullable mind belive them, but to answer to you i just say: yes, i belive in that. also add to the equation many many other monkeys (traincrashes), something equal to 10^26 and some billion years and yeah, they'll do it. it's pure mathematics, and the nature won't try the normal, linear alorithm from aaa to zzzzzzzzz to form a word, i think will be something like the Monte-Carlo Algorithms, with random pickups of combinations to create a sentence, and after that with a stochastic arrangement everything will work just fine.
working in IT, i can tell you, code without coders exist, one of this is called Phantom Code I think, or ghost coding. it was a phenomen in the 80's or 90's many overflowed data combined itself with parts from other overflowed data and it actually did some things in the computer's memory...but asking that in nature to find a software without a coder is like asking a cake without cook while discussing quark-gluon plasma.
if you tell me that god will punish me badly if i mock him and by justifing that, you quote from the bible, is like i would receive a mail where a nasty ogre threatens to eat me because i don't belive in elves and i mock the pixies.
in the end, seek these passages in your book of faerytales:
Proverbs 3:13 vs Ecclesiastes 1:18 and Matthew 10:34 vs Matthew 26:52.
try three-w's dot evilbible dot com slash Biblical%20Contradictions.htm they got more to satisfy you
Hey Saunder - isn't ALL religion speculative?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissauder3 - wow, so many topics in such a small venue...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecorded human history teaches us that in the fabric of time, we have occupied an unnoticeable blip. To assume that an evolving human race millions of years from now will be unable to move between stars is equivalent to times in our history when we believed the Earth was flat or when it took years to cross North America where now we can do it in a few hours or when it was said man could not survive travel above 100 miles per hour.
The advances made just in the past hundred years (such as the LCD screen you read this on) are mind boggling.
I have to agree with slopa that there might be a day in the future when science supplants ALL religions and men won't fear our invisible creator's wrath as you wish but will simply look back at this period from a historical perspective much as you might view Roman and Greek religions as interesting myths.
Ultimately what makes many non-believers turn their heads away from your position is that it is so parochial in view. My dear mother-in-law was born in North Carolina and holds similar hyper-Christian views. She has a hard time saying whether she'd be a Christian if she was born in China or Thailand or Morocco. So much of what you believe is what you've been told to believe unquestioningly. You quote Galatians because the bible is your ultimate guide; if the Jack in the Beanstalk story was in the bible, it would be taken on faith as 100% true. Regardless of your scientific knowledge you must bring things back to a designer or your faith is in vain. If creationism is wrong....if evolution is right...if exoplanets can hold intelligent life...your belief system becomes a cute fairy tale you once told.
The billions of galaxies containing billions of star systems coupled with hundreds of discovered exoplanets causes even the most doubtful astronomer to agree there must be millions of inhabited planets out there.
One third of the world's population believe in one of the thousands of strains of Christianity. A large portion of that third (who miss the nuance of your strain of Christianity) and ALL of the rest don't believe and are subject to the Galatians treatment.
Pity the first exoplanet man discovers which is inhabited by intelligent life when we find out 100% of that world believes something "completely different..."
reply to slopa
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe may debate without agreement about science v.s. religion for a long time, but I am just trying to point out that it is unreasonable to imagine that any significant code can ever self-assemble in a mud puddle in any imaginable amount of time. Who would be available to identify and save any significant bits that may appear?
Like you said, "...but asking that in nature to find a software without a coder is like asking a cake without cook..."
So. . . who is the cook? Certainly NOT chance!
I have some copies of Scientific American from the 1870's. In the letters section of what was then a fortnightly publication, a reader was arguing that perpetual motion was possible, and others were taking the other side. Finally, when the discussion had drawn on unbearably long, the editors hopped in and said "enough."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are well past the point on this issue, and I hope the moderators will take similar action here in the near future.
I am not arguing against your beliefs. If they give you comfort, then good for you. I am, however, against allocating this much resource to a discussion where you aren't going to convince the others. I am against it because it gets in the way of my enjoying the sort of discussion one seeks out Scientific American to enjoy. I do suspect your motive in launching this discussion in this forum, and I feel somewhat like the person at a serious medical conference who has been trapped by a person who is determined to convince me of the efficacy of St. John's Wart in treating mental conditions or chiropractic in treating asthma.
As a Christian I believe in God and Jesus Christ. As a civilized human being I believe that pompously asserting that I'm right and others are wrong without ever considering the limits to the information available or testing our hypothesis is an inferior view point as well as particularly rude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople once thought that humans couldn't breathe at over 35 mile per hour. We thought the sound barrier was absolute. Now we think the light speed barrier is absolute. I don't see any possible way to travel faster than the current speed of light but would not be surprised if it was possible or could be rendered irrelevent by some other form of transport. Why are these worlds out there if not for us to explore and exploit? Chemicals can only combine in a limited number of ways. Why shouldn't life be out there? An Earth centric God seems like an infantile construct by fearful children.
@sauder3
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen, god did this DNA mix too… gods one funky author
Ezekiel 1. The Holy Bible: King James Version.
001:004 And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north,a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.
001:005 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.
001:006 And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
001:007 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.
001:008 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.
001:009 Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.
001:010 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.
001:011 Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies
Something here is definitely AUTHORED, i'll give you that.
It is so sad to see people who should know they don't know what they are talkinbg about continue to speculate about all this nonsense rather than just let the science speak for itself.Basic theology should make it cle3ar that it matters nothing what people believe about creation!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sauder3,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not wish to enter into extended debate over evolutionary theory vs. creationism, but as one believer to another I would like to offer some items for consideration: One is, contrary to your statement, evolutionary theory does *not* posit that life evolved "by chance"; you need to look at it more carefully, as described by its practitioners. A second is the thought that the existence of scientific laws does not contradict the existence of the Deity, only literal interpretation of certain verses. Finally, I invite you to meditate on 1 Cor 14:15 -- "I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind." This may be interpreted as meaning that the human enterprise has two complimentary sides to it, one is the exercise of one's intuitive or spiritual faculty ("...with my spirit") the other is the exercise of reason ("...with my mind"). To my understanding, Paul's latter phrase is a ringing affirmation of science.
Rightly conceived, religion and science are not inherently contradictory, but are like two wings of a bird: Humanity cannot progress, materially or spiritually, without the harmonious development of both. A corollary to Paul's statement above is that if a particular religious teaching does not stand up to (honest, well-supported, well-reasoned) scientific scrutiny, it must be discarded.
A parting thought experiment: Consider that without religion, civilization becomes trapped in materialism (the honorable Prof. Dawkins' assertion to the contrary notwithstanding); without science, humanity becomes mired in superstition. In our sadly disunited, polarized age, are we not suffering from both conditions?
Best wishes,
In any event, a terrific interactive site! Wonderful artist's conceptions! Looking through them, I feel as I was at age 8, turning the pages of my old astronomy books, learning the names and characteristics of the (then) nine Solar planets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think sparky31411 hit the nail on the head in comment 16. However, it is not about comfort, it is about Absolute Truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you find people vigorously defending concepts that are clearly scientifically bankrupt, such as Perpetual Motion, Author-less Code or Life spontaneously bubbling out of a mud puddle, it is time to hang it up and move on to more useful work.
After all, we each have a VERY finite time at our disposal, after which we will see more clearly.
This Christmas season we all need to recall Jesus statement at His trial, “For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” See John 18:37 NIV2010
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know that I take risk in replying to your comments over twenty four hours later. Chances are that you may not even notice someone has replied.
I'd just like to point of a few logical missteps in what you've argued thus far.
I'll begin with your reference to the scrabble tiles in train cars anecdote. I'm sure you're well aware of it's similarities to the similar arguments of the previously mentioned monkeys and typewriter, as well as the tornado through a junkyard anecdote. First off it is essentially a claim to ridicule. The anecdote completely distorts the amount of time it takes for abiogenesis, as well as makes the example seem to improbable and ridiculous that the uneducated would feel that if such an example truly represents the side of science then only a fool could believe it. Put into terms of creation though, one could say that a belief in the creation story is anecdotally similar to an omnipotent tornado sweeping through nothing and creating everything. As you can see that clearly seeks to ridicule the belief of the creation story, yet specifically provides no evidence against it.
When you make note of sparky31411's comment in saying "I think sparky31411 hit the nail on the head in comment 16. However, it is not about comfort, it is about Absolute Truth" I believe you mistake the definition of an absolute truth. Outside of philosophy, an absolute truth is something that can be proven time and time again empirically, such as a molecule of Ozone contains three oxygen molecules, or that my native language is English. Both of those can be proven again and again by experiment or observation. Your belief in the Christian/Catholic deity is a personal truth, however just because you believe it to be absolutely true does not mean it is an absolute truth. To use a rather vivid and charged example, Hitler believed it to be absolutely true that those of Jewish faith or descent are the scourge of the Earth. Absolutely NOT true, but it was believed by Adolf to be absolutely true. A personal truth. Furthermore, it's also possibly a bandwagon fallacy, in that you might have cited "I believe it, my pastor believes it, my significant others believe it", yet that does not mean it is unequivocally true.
At the end of that I admit that yes it is somewhat of a slippery slope as it is possible to turn around and apply that same logic to a "belief" in/of evolution, abiogenesis, etc. The difference being however the empirical testing and proof, overwhelming evidence, and demonstrable function of said theories. I ran out of characters
As a geologist and as fossil collector, and having taken several classes in microbiology, I understand a bit about the biochemical basis of life and the biology of evolution, but I agree with Saunders - there is more to the story than simple chemistry brewing in a pond early in a planet's geohistory. The mind-boggling complexity of even the simplest life forms, begs aloud for a more organized organizer than rudimentary carbon compounds swirling around in a puddle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo put this in perspective, can someone explain to exactly where in a beaver's DNA is the information the beaver needs to know to build it's dam?
To xxfallacyxx
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the good comment. In reference to your statement:
"The anecdote completely distorts the amount of time it takes for abiogenesis,. . . "
Hmmmm, I wonder just how much time abiogenesis actually takes. So many people seem to forget that biology is based on real CODE, and as far as I know, there exists NO real code that wrote itself.
Do you happen to know of a specific example?
sauder3, how many scrabble pieces falling in place by chance would it take to equate to the probability of the christian god existing? Can you give me an example of another omnipotent being? Just one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not accept the Bible as a book of history, but more a book to teach morals and knowledge for living, and that for people who are mostly shepherds, living in a very dry climate, very primitive in scientific knowledge. Since then god has allowed us people to obtain knowledge about the science. How elements are formed from positrons, neutrons and electrons. How our living cells are build up of amino acids etc. How, in our history evolution, things changed over a period of thousands of years. Such evolution occurring today as we are watching. In the Bible it says that God created life and, ultimately, us humans. How do we think of this "creating" happened? like a wave of the hand, like a magician, or more like Rembrandt created his paintings? The artist creates his painting from nothing, using tools to form raw materials into his creation. So did God create life using DNA as material and time and environment as tools. Think about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to focalist, #27 and #28
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad you point out that at least some organic molecules are "nearly self assembling." Actually, there is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between "building blocks" (amino acids, lipids, etc.) and a building (a viable living cell). I just think you are very mistaken about the "spitting distance." There is NO intrinsic information in any of the above, but only in the special specific sequences in which they are arranged. (originally by some outside intelligence) I understand that there are always equal amounts of right and left handed amino acids produced in the Miller/Urey and subsequent experiments of this type. I also understand that these two types soon mutually damage or destroy each other when in the same solution together. So, where does that leave our "building" (cell)?
I am also glad you have no problem with conceding that Life may have had an external intelligent source. That is my only point.
I make no recourse to any dogma of any kind. I simply find it impossible to believe that scientifically bankrupt notions like Perpetual Motion, Authorless Code or Life bubbling out of a mud puddle by chance have any redeeming value. I have no fear of the possibility of any of the above, only grave doubts that any of them will ever come to fruition. I completely agree with you that, "simply braying no, no, no, no" is NOT a valid line of reasoning.
Also, I do NOT "vehemently deny science" as you accuse. Rather, I am an enthusiastic student of real science these past 50+ years, particularly with regard to astronomy and telescope building and their use for scientific and educational purposes. It just bothers me when so-called scientists extrapolate on subjects they clearly have very little first hand experience with. As you may be aware, "extrapolation" is always very dangerous in the pursuit of reality. Even "interpolation of real data" provides slightly suspect information. "Extrapolation beyond real data" always goes way out on a limb that may break off at any moment.
To those who do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God, it is probably a waste of time to point out that it is written,
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." II Timothy 4:3-4.
No one is asking anyone to believe anything. We have all been given individual free choice.
Reply to BernieLos
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry, that you seem to have a very primitive view of the Bible and of God. In your analogy of the artist, you seem to be trying define God in human terms. Actually, humans have been defined in God's terms. Just exactly what all that image entails is open to some debate.
Human creativity is one example. The rest of biology has little if any real creativity. No bird that I am aware of has an engineering program for the purpose of developing a better or safer nest design. Beavers have been given the ability to build dams of amazing size yet they never improve on the basic design of their dams.
Every biological species depends on its basic DNA code for its existence and development. That DNA code is expressed in base 4 mathematics. Some say that the origin of Life doe not involve chance. But, there is NO code that exists without an intelligent author. That is because code, by definition, is a language used by intelligent beings to transmit ideas and/or designs. Think about that.
Reply to rgrplmr
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the affirmation in comment #24!
Sauder3:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am perplexed. You begin your reply speaking about the amount of time abiogenesis may take, then finish on a completely different topic.
"Hmmmm, I wonder just how much time abiogenesis actually takes. So many people seem to forget that biology is based on real CODE, and as far as I know, there exists NO real code that wrote itself."
If you wish to speak on the code, well yes life as we know it is based on code. This is where I believe you are hung up. Just because the only life we know of is one way does not equate to ALL life in the universe being that one way. Just because we can not see other life does not mean it is not there. Inversely, it does not mean it is. It is essentially saying that you look outside your window to see that is raining. You then assume it is raining EVERYWHERE and live happily not knowing otherwise. A very large difference in scale yes, however the logic is the same.
You call yourself a life-long student of science, yet your arguments seek backing from Biblical references and you insist that we were designed. I'm not entirely sure if you're a life long student of science, or perhaps that you are indeed simply a religious man who in his spare time reads scientific articles. The main differences between religion and science are such: religion has a question and an answer; science has a question, finds the answer, then questions the answer in an infinitely repeating cycle.
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." II Timothy 4:3-4."
I quoted that because I want to leave a few definitions in closing.
sound: reasoned, logically valid; "a sound argument"
doctrine: a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.
myth: a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people
So the way I interpret your quoted bible verse: There will come a day when people turn away from logical teachings and instead, to suit their own desires, will turn to religion.
I'm sure you can understand exactly how remarkably subject to interpretation the bible is. Every person who reads the bible will come up with their own interpretation.
reply to xxfallacyxx
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right about most people interpreting the Bible differently. I am sorry I confused anyone with mention of Scripture but, of course I do believe it.
However, that is NOT my point. I reiterate one more time:
No one has yet provided me with even one example of any code that exists without the benefit of some sort of intelligent input.
While I may believe the Christian Bible, that in no way relates to my disbelief in the concepts of Perpetual Motion, any Code without intelligent authorship or the Claim that Life has somehow spontaneously bubbled out of a mud puddle millions of years ago.
I would simply appreciate if SOMEONE could provide a scientifically replicable example of any of those three concepts.
You stand in opposition claiming simply that because no one has proved it, it simply must NOT exist. I apologize, but I find the irony of the situation quite amusing. It's more of the same fallacious logic that I pointed out prior to this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not here to debate the principles of perpetual motion, ridiculous as they may be. I joined the discussion to point out your lack of logical foresight. In the end you claim that because not one of the individuals in this discussion has in their hands solid proof, then whatever they are arguing in invalid and must not be real. As much as I don't like having to do this, you argue for the existence of a creator. You do not have solid physical proof of said creator. Therefore by the logic you've employed, said creator can not exist.
I hope that points out to you where your thinking is off. Instead of turning this article into a creation vs evolution debate, why not just read the article and move along? Or just wait patiently. At the rate discoveries are being made and computer power is being increased, science will be making leaps and bounds in terms of the information discovered and hypotheses proven.
It was not a bad discussion with you. I admit I've seen far worse when it comes to the ilk of creationists. In the end though my judgement of you is that perhaps you're not interested in seeing the science that goes against what the creationist dogma preaches. As such, you seek to simply dismiss it without true consideration.
Regards.
reply to xxfallacyxx
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too, thank you for a good discussion. However your last reply seems to indicate that I still have not made myself clear.
I do NOT dismiss Authorless Code or Abiogenesis simply out of respect for any religious dogma.
Rather, I dismiss Authorless Code because that concept flies in the face of the definition of code. Just look up the definition of code and note that all explanations require intelligence. They are all about authorship.
I therefore conclude (from a scientific perspective) that since all of Life is inextricably bound up in DNA Code, Life MUST have had an Author.
Do you consider THAT blind adherence to dogma? Or, is it just a simple and clear understanding of the definition of code?
I believe it to be the latter rather than the former.
Peace
Sauder3: Was it not you speaking of the dangers of extrapolation regarding science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding your simple and clear definition of code:
Code: a set of rules or principles or laws (especially written ones)
That is the closest definition that loosely can be attributed to DNA. Please note however, that the definition of code does not posit that there must be an author. Furthermore, DNA is a chemical compound that functions as a catalyst above all else. When DNA is referenced as genetic code, it is a layman's term.
Your point had been clear to me the whole time, as I said I just want to point out the incorrect reasoning that led you to that assumption.
Sorry for the reply after my final reply. I have a passion for the English language. :shrug:
I guess we both have the same affliction! We both need the last word. There has got to be some other method of conversation that is less stilted than this thread. Dare we give our e-mail address in these comments?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case, now you are telling me that DNA is in reality, no code at all, but rather that "code" is just a layman's term for it. Very interesting. That is the trouble with so-called scientists. They talk in circles when they are trying to push concepts such as Abiogenesis that really have no basis in demonstrable fact.
Your go.
I am telling you that referring to DNA as genetic code is a layman's term yes, an idiom even. I never specified that DNA is code, that is someone else's argument. I don't think so much that it is "scientists talking in circles", instead that there is certainly much lost in translation from the forefront of science to the web-site based article meant for a range of viewers from average intelligence beyond, and made to give everyone some idea of what the science means regardless of their scholarly background. As I said before, DNA and RNA in all their forms are more akin to catalysts than code.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCatalyst: (chemistry) a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected.
DNA, RNA, proteins, and the cells that emerge from their interactions are all based on specific molecules, chemical compounds. DNA and RNA in their various forms promote the formation of certain chemical compounds as opposed to others.
As for abiogenesis having "no basis in demonstrable fact", well that is being worked out. Strictly speaking, I believe it is still technically a scientific hypothesis, meaning that scientists are performing experiments to determine whether or not it is actually possible. The Miller-Urey experiment sought to confirm whether or not the amino-acids used by organisms today could have occurred naturally in the conditions present on pre-life Earth. New research by Greg Joyce out of the Scripps Research Institute shows that not only can RNA molecules survive outside of a cell, but they also replicate and change over time. These and other experiments over time will add up, increase our knowledge, and either confirm abiogenesis, or show that perhaps things happened differently and the hypothesis needs to be reworked or discarded entirely. In the mean time, I'm not entirely sure why abiogenesis seems such a threat to those who believe in creationism.
I did post a comment with means to infer indirectly my email, however it seems the comment moderation is more inclined to remove comments with an ampersand instead of the spam littering the articles on the site. I suppose we're forced to continue our discussion here.
This business of DNA not really being a true Code is certainly news to me, I will admit. I have always heard it described as a code from every source I ever looked at, both pro and con on the idea of Abiogenesis. I will need to look further into that angle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a quote from Richard Dawkins, "The most compelling evidence of all, (for evolution) comes from molecular biology – the fact that DNA code is universal among all living things, with all creatures sharing identical segments of code."
I agree that there is distinct code for each of the thousands of various nucleotides, enzymes, proteins, etc. However, I think it shows the hand of the Creator who did it all, rather than evidence for a hand-me-down lineage.
If Dawkins means "catalyst" why does he say "code"? There is quite a difference between those two and I am sure anyone out of high school chemistry can see it. It feels like I am getting my leg pulled again!
Trouble is, it seems like that whenever a real a stone wall is pointed out by one side in any debate, the opposition just invents some smooth talking way around it.
Sorry for that observation.
Regarding what I would see as real evidence. . . I would consider an experiment similar to the Miller/Urey type of experiment that yields a simple living, metabolizing, replicating cell of some strange unknown species to be a fair test.
I would NOT consider the cutting and pasting of existing DNA as valid proof of Abiogenesis even if it does produce a viable living cell. After all, no one was there millions of years ago to direct the original development of Life, so it MUST have been only chance.
Again, my doubts have nothing to do with Dogma here... I see only a desperate theory that hopes to eliminate God.
As I said, there's a lot lost in translation so that the science becomes comprehensible to John Everyman. Even when it comes to Dawkins' statement, if you remove the first use of 'code' the statement still makes sense. The second use of code is figurative as I displayed previously how loosely the definition of code may apply to DNA. I don't think you'd really appreciate just thinking of DNA as a sequence of catalysts however, because it does remove some of the grandeur of life itself. We are the result of chemical reactions. They make us, sustain us, and when they go wrong, they break us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Again, my doubts have nothing to do with Dogma here... I see only a desperate theory that hopes to eliminate God."
I tend to question the validity of your objection to abiogenesis via a result of your dogma. You just made it very clear that either you see science as an attempt to eliminate your deity, or perhaps some individual improperly presented it to you that way. Science is not out to eliminate any god. True science is an attempt to understand the universe and our existence.
Bare with me on the following. Real science can never disprove the existence of a god simply because said existence is unprovable. Religious scriptures are not proof of a deity, they are proof that someone wrote them and believes them. The fact that religions and deities occur in almost every human population is not proof of an omnipotent existence, it is a band wagon fallacy.
The existence of a particular deity cannot be proved or disproved, but that does not mean it can not exist or does not exist. As such, belief in a deity becomes a personal exercise of choice and faith.
I hope you understand what I'm attempting to convey. Your belief is yours and yours alone. While science may discover information and evidence that refutes or disproves certain aspects or stories of a religion, it never disproves the deity. In the very end, what is more important to the deity, worship of the deity or worship of a story?
First of all, I do not agree that science needs to be made "comprehensible to John Everyman." Double talk such as using words like "code" when one really means "catalyst" is dishonest at best and a simple lie at worst. It is interesting to see you defending Dawkins' statement about code by calling it "figurative." You sound just like someone who is defending a difficult Bible passage. Let's keep science literal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, I agree with your explanation that a deity can not be proven or disproven by science. It is truly a matter of choosing to believe what one has been taught. In that regard, the entire notion of abiogenesis gets mighty close to being an all-out religion. This too, can not be proven or disproven. No one was there to observe the original conditions, so even the Miller/Urey type experiments are based on thin air. And, if it takes millions of years for any critters to develop, we will be around to note the results.
Thirdly, I wish I had not included the last statement in my previous comment about my opinion that evolutionists are trying to eliminate God.
While I think that is exactly what drives all this intense interest in the subject of abiogenesis, even the large NASA expenditures for Mars Missions, (which I follow with great enthusiasm. Remember, I love REAL science) my doubts are NOT based on that opinion. Rather, my doubts are based on the contrast between the enthusiastic claims such as the one from the team that wrote their university's name into a section of "DNA CODE" that they can splice as a signature into any "cut and paste" job they may come up with. Also, the great excitement that surrounded the discovery of the tolerance for arsenic in some bacteria that first reports falsely claimed to be extraterrestrial. I am just fed up with so-called scientists salivating over every hint of the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. If such is found, so be it. But falling all over themselves to gain fame for being the first to find something, certainly causes a whole lot of confusion and false notions. (such as catalyst v.s. code, etc.)
"First of all, I do not agree that science needs to be made "comprehensible to John Everyman."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Perhaps not, but it happens because there is a market for it to happen. If that's your belief then there are ways for you to obtain the actual publications of the research in the various journals they are submitted to.
"It is interesting to see you defending Dawkins' statement about code by calling it "figurative."
-Ah the wonders of the English language, it allows the user to be as specific as possible while maintaining the ability for the reader to completely misinterpret the intent. I was not defending Dawkins' statement. I disagree with his statement because he describes DNA as code, it is horrible simplification at worst, but definitely not a lie. If we want to drop the simplification, then deoxyribonucleic acid is an incredibly complex organic molecule which contains many more complex organic molecules that act as catalysts be they self-replicating or not. It's a mouthful, figuratively, and yet still that is remarkably simplified from the actual processes that take place. Figuratively, it's raining cats and dogs. As you can see it's not an attempt at deception, unless the listener is record-breakingly gullible(pardon my word creation). It is an attempt to convey meaning, intent, emotion, or a vague understanding of the situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see if the quote you used isn't verbatim what Dawkins had said, as to me it doesn't sound the most logical evidence for abiogenesis, rather for arguing common descent.
As for you believing that abiogenesis being close to a religion, well that's simply not true. Religion as a whole uses the supernatural, or a divine being, to explain existence. Abiogenesis does not rely on such. You are absolutely right when you say we will never know if abiogenesis is how life on Earth arose, no one was there to witness it. That applies to religion as well, but that can be put aside. The sciences of the past make logical conclusions based on the evidence provided to them. IE: In rock samples that are radio-carbon dated to be appr. 40,000 years old are found small pockets of air. The air in these pockets is logically the same age as the rock itself because it is a sealed pocket, the air couldn't have gotten in any other way. The composition of the air in the pocket is different from the composition of the air we breathe today. Combining that information with what we know to be true about gases, we logically conclude the composition of the atmosphere then is different from how it is now.
We can then ask: is it possible that the composition of the air in that pocket is different for X reason or Y reason, and the answer is yes it is possible because we were truly not there to see it happen. The question that needs to be asked though, is this: Is it likely and logical that reason X or Y could have happened instead. In these the sciences will invariably point to no, it is not likely or logical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe I had more to say, but alas I got distracted and lost my train of thought.
Regarding the pockets of gas found in rocks being a reasonable facsimile of the composition of earth's atmosphere when the bubbles got trapped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis seems to be a study in ignorance. Why? Because for rock to form and trap gas i suppose you need either igneous rock or sedimentary rock.
The gasses in any igneous rock would be de4scriptive of the volcanic odors found at the site then. Not a real true sample of the general atmospheric composition. Ditto with sedimentary rock. Those bubbles are probably mainly swamp gas or something of the sort. Again, NOT indicative of the general earth atmospheric composition.
That is what I mean by "I doubt it."
The more that someone appeals to evilbible.com the more they discredit themselves as evilbible.com is saturated with fallacies of every sort and has been discredited.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvidence of these facts are found at the following URL and an honest skeptic will take the time to consider them:
http://www.truefreethinker.com/evilbiblecom
Sauder I apologize, that was simply an example I made up quickly to get the idea of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh and sedimentary rock doesn't form in swamps :shrug:
When it comes to gases though, we know how they act and what they do. Gases tend to expand as much as they possibly can, so atmospheric composition tends to be more or less uniform except in small areas where volcanoes belch their toxic fumes, or Los Angeles.
Not a study in ignorance at all. If all over the Earth there are found those small air pockets, all coinciding with a certain age, then it is logical to deduce that the composition of Earth's atmosphere at that point in time was similar to the air trapped in the rocks.
Yes, I know that sedimentary rocks do not form in swamps. Neither do they form in any other environment that would provide unambiguous bubbles of fresh clean air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, there are even serious questions as to the accuracy of the various radiometric dating methods too. Many profound assumptions must be made about the distant past to help keep these theories afloat.
I guess it just boils down to the absolute truth that, each person has been given the right to believe however they wish. It does seem strange how we all have the same evidence, but there are such diametrically opposed views anyway.
I have chosen to believe the Christian Bible and its many descriptions of our awesome Creator God with whom we have to deal. Others may choose not to believe, but rather, keep making up stories that leave any creator out of the picture.
I certainly cannot believe in the monkey at a typewriter scenario for the production of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, nor the tornado in a junk yard scenario for the production of a 747 airliner. If I recall correctly, someone in this thread claimed such beliefs. All I can say is, “Good Luck” even though I am totally convinced that there is NO LUCK involved at all. I actually subscribe to Paley’s teleological observation to wit, that when you find something that bears much evidence of design, it most certainly was designed and NOT just a natural occurrence such as a snowflake or a sand dune.
Why is it that no one in possession of all their faculties ever picks up an arrow head and marvels how the wind and rain created such a marvelously symmetrical and useful object? Because it is totally clear that such an object is, in reality, the result of intelligent purpose, design and labor.
I am sorry, but I do not buy the concept that DNA is merely a catalyst for some chemical reactions. Life is indescribably more exquisite and specifically complex than that. I see that as just one more ploy in the hope some have, that life is simply a natural consequence of stirring the soup.
If the following performance doesn't touch you, probably nothing will:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE&feature=player_embedded
Merry Christmas to ALL, and to all, a Good Night!
NEVER fails... some dimwitted creationist must spam their dopey belief in a bible-sky-god imagined by late-iron-age, ignorant jewish desert tribes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSooo predictable, trotting out their petty invisible Gawd Almightee in the alleged knowedge-gaps of science... and in this particularly instance, cowering in abiogenesis nook of the library.
First of all,creationist have zero evidence for their god apart from the evolved Cosmos itself: call it Nature or call it some bogus god construct, it matters not at all... except to the more rational among us.
Secondly, life had "no choice" but to evolve beginning about 4.5 BYA with the formation of this planet: biochemistry mandates it. Likely an RNA based self-replicating (serves dual role of enzyme and gene) form initially... lipo-protein wall later... but who really cares. It is clear massive energy, myriad chemicals and opportunity over cosmic time made it a certainty here and unless you're a complete moron, a certainty among the billions of galaxies, each with many billions of starts... and duh, planets.
BTW: just the extremophilic microscopic form on THIS planet show how utter likely and ubiquitious "life" is... especially now that phosphates are rendered unnecessary with the "arsenic loving" bacteria!
Thirdly, the bible is a source of only ONE commodity... or make that two: myth and confusion. The genesis accounts (yup there are 2) are prima facie absurd... and every postition taken by the faith-based have eventually been refuted by the fact-based.
Finally, since your creator god apparently has such an incredibly light touch as to not have left a celestial finger-print on the inexorably evolving Cosmos, then why call it a god? It is moot and irrelevant since it does not or cannot intervene in this Universe.
READ Victor Stinger's" "God the Failed Hypothesis"... and get back to us... or not.
Remember, this Universe IS clearly finely tuned ---> but only for Black Holes.
The luminous candle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are a
luminous candle,
your eyes make
a present when
a young bird
escapes in the
light of my
sunshine.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Pretty awesome pics, huh? Who knows what we'll discover in the future!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurprisingly, I took the time to read through the discourse in this comment section. What's the fuss about?
We can all agree that our hearts are beating, that the earth is moving through space, that snow falls, trees grow, and birds fly. Essentially we see that there is stuff, it does stuff, and that we are part of that stuff.
Where did it come from? Why? Who knows. But I think that we too often get the idea that it matters what we call it. God? Tao? The source? Spirit? Brittany? It doesn't matter what you call it; and when we argue the unimportant details of labeling we are faced with the consequence of feeling different and separate from one another.
Whatever force that beats your heart is the same force that beats mine. It's fascinating to listen to astronauts speak after they see the Earth from the perspective of space. How it's possible to see how tiny our planet really is and how everything that makes us human is right there- in the tiny blue ball amidst innumerable stars in a barely understood galaxy.
"We're not so different, you and I." -Dr. Evil
HAHAHHAHAHHAHA.."Send missionaires." What does that say about earth's intelligence...people who "Flock," to suffering only to indoctrinate them in their darkest and most painful (I.e., Vulnerable), hour of life. Is THAT what a "Good," God would want? For someone to PRESSURE the wounded? I would also ask...would a "Loving," God punish not just HIS children but those grandkids...great-grandkids, etc., for eating an apple...because they did not listen to him? Is that not ABUSIVE, pathological, and just plain MEAN? I also would ask would a loving God watch as his children were out of control and self-destructing? Why would he not show himself as surely that would shape up the evil that has come to be. No, I think we have "Choice," because we have a thinking mind and so I ask all you followers to USE it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ sauder3
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are completely disregarding the scale of the universe. The probability that you so conveniently worked out concerning the self-assembly of DNA may be extraordinarily slim, but there are at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe, with the chance that some have hundreds (even thousands) of planets, and some not having any. These numbers are sufficient to account for your "extreme improbability."
In a universe of such extreme physical extent, anything is possible. And are you aware of the science of cryonics? The physics of wormholes? Genetic engineering? All of these would allow for interstellar travel in the human lifetime, referring to one of your other posts.
And to bring it even further, how do you know that DNA is truly well-defined code? It may just be a random sequence of nucleotides and histones that seemed to work according to solely the laws of the universe. No creator involved, except the creator of the laws of physics. And modern science is progressing toward extinguishing the need for even an initial creator. Just sayin'.
Creationists like you are running out of concepts to fall back on. I don't want to say 'excuses,' for I myself am Christian, I just try my best to keep my religious and scientific views separate. I'll deal with the contradictions later in life.
Pretty neat assemblage of logical fallacies you got going here sauder3. I'll stick to the equivocation fallacy you're presenting. I'll try to make it easy to understand too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Keys unlock doors. Key West in Florida is a Key. Therefor Key West can unlock doors." This is an easy view of how shortcomings in language can be used to make an incorrect premise seem to logically be correct.
RNA and DNA are self replicating molecules, not "codes" or "information". When you equate the two, You are equivocating a substantive actual physical object with a conceptual object. In other words, you're confusing the object with part of it's description.
Every argument I've ever come across for the existence of the supernatural has been a logical fallacy. Although you have presented yours in an elegant fashion, all the arguments you have presented are simply rehashes of old debunked fallacies.
I do believe I said something similar to him prior. ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell... that was meant to link to Tonkashouse...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, I must have missed it. Perhaps multiple similar responses from different people will help make the point. Hope I didn't step on your toes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove the Username by the way.
@ samqua
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat sure is strange! You seem to think I am disregarding the scale of the Universe in terms of how many stars there may be. There are, indeed more stars (and perhaps planets) in the Universe than anyone can practically imagine.
I do know you are disregarding the scale of the Universe in terms of how far away these stars really are. They are all MUCH more distant than you seem to realize.
I am also aware of the hypothetical dreams of using cryonics to regenerate frozen astronauts after incredibly long space voyages to visit such stars.
The physics of the worm holes you seem to think would be so useful to short cut such a trip is really quite hypothetical too. That may be OK for some mathematicians but, as you may have heard, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." I really don't have anyone particular in mind.
For a practical trip to a planet around some distant star (they are all quite distant) it would require a rocket ship that is unaffordable and/or a refrigeration system that will almost certainly fail too soon. Genetic engineering (to provide longer life spans I presume) is just one more piece of pie-in-the-sky.
How do I know that DNA is a well defined code? Because that is all I have ever heard it described as. That is, until this thread where I learned that it is really just a catalyst. Oh my! You learn something new every day if you are not careful!
As far as dealing with apparent contradictions of religious versus scientific views later in life, you may have to deal with them later in death. If you do not believe that, you may not be the Christian you claim to be.
I do not want to get into a religious or philisophical conversation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout the scale of the universe, that was independent to what I said later in the question. My point was that even an improbable event like abiogenesis could (and most likely has) occured somewhere else in the cosmos. Thinking otherwise would be counterintuitive.
Cryonics: machines powered with antimatter, because antimatter has a 100% efficient conversion rate from matter to energy when it collides with normal matter, would be easily able to be stored in reasonable amounts on a spaceship. Antimatter, in fact, could power all things on a spacecraft, as one gram of antimatter colliding with one gram of matter produces the energy of a thermonuclear explosion.
Genetic engineering: "pie-in-the-sky" Really? You have got to be kidding me. The rejection of a whole field of science as ridiculous and the use of silly language is not very professional, for you really seem to know your stuff. Genetic engineering is a viable option for the expansion of our human lives.
Wormholes: An advanced enough civilization could use the power of a star to create a wormhole. No one proclaims that humanity, at our current stage, could actually produce one. All you need is a vast amount of energy concentrated at the quantum level. Nobody's "lying" here.
All I can comment about religion is: it's running out of options to fall back on. Science can explain, now, nearly everything about the universe. It can create and maintain itself out of nothing. That seems pretty convincing to me.
But all in all, God would still have the freedom to choose the physical laws the universe obeyed. Also, science will never be able to prove that a God doesn't exist.
Still a Christian. Don't attempt to refute me here, my religious views are my own.
No, no toe injuries here. Hopefully more than one person explaining the logical fallacies he's employed will help make it understandable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe earth we live on and its surroundings including planets galaxies etc etc, are simply awe inspiring with beauty and wonder, all having its reason for existence, one FACT is that it was disclosed to anyone in possession of the holy scriptures that the earth is round and hanging upon nothing, this information was give to a person who bothered being in touch with the GRAND Creator, who gave a letter to all mankind trusting in individuals that he knew to be trustworthy as only the GRAND creator can READ the heart of mortal man, the earth has been made for specific purpose it is our home....Christopher Columbus was not as honoured as Isaiah the prophet of long ago who was given specific information of the earth being a circle thousands of years before hand.....as the creator reveals such relevant information to his people first....the creator has a name and yet most holy scriptures explain why they omit from using his name in the preface....I believe it is JEHOVAH
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But, there is NO code that exists without an intelligent author. That is because code, by definition, is a language used by intelligent beings to transmit ideas and/or designs. Think about that."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI whould like to ask you the name of the "intelligent author" of your "intelligent Author"(that you call "God") ?????
I think these creationists get very funky with "Code" and "coding" stuff, since the computer science is very popular since 10-20 years. And the Scientists found out that DNA structure with the help of certain software application(s). Now they talk all the time about DNA, Code, (Intelligent) Coder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you ever heard a creationis(or call them all Believer), talking about DNA,Code,Coder 50 years ago?
They had no idea about these terms, it is also not in the Bible :) (i havent read Bible btw.)
Harmonie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoucement,
comme un son
fugitif dans l'aube
de mes rêves,
comme un chant
qui revient en
donnant la lumière
et un souffle
de soleil.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no logic or argument that will convince a true believer. Maybe this kind of quality of cocksure belief is genetically driven, maybe some of us have an "author" of non-fiction and others an "author" of fiction.
Oh yes, and Francesco, J'aime votre poésie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswow! what a waste of a forum. i hope the artists aren't offended by people using all this space to argue over religion when 60+ "great painting"s could have been posted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo offense at all, though you are right: I would certainly have rather seen the space devoted to more of my artwork!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat discovery...since Galileo argued that the Earth is
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisround...we've come a long way...but still need long ways
to go..!!
A molecule of Ozone contains three "atoms" of oxygen..and
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnot three molecules of oxygen...mister..!!
Ah you are correct sir, thank you for catching that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this an art or just another cristians illutions ? i have no doubt about "cristianity crisis" or hoax,about uncivilization systems which happen in my country which most of their people is moeslim, but i hope this articles were not another star wars episode.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the civilization people must look good and wealthy than the uncivilization systems. But in our gembler trade, all is possible to raising some money.
Talking about our politic policy, i think moeslim et al get in charge a lot and equally in charge with corruption, manipulations,they are not a difficult job to do.
So where is another planets or exoplanets where pure catolict can sit :( Damn...Don't say tie in suffer againn!!!!!it doesnt help me and my daughter....
ow there is another planets
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe video is not working. Solutions, pls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems to me that all the prior submitters fail to understand the most inportant aspect of all the data under discussion - that is, it is very much incomplete. My scientific training and knowledge have little to do with my faith. I can comprehend some of the data presented, and understand even less, but something speaking within my mind reminds me that my body, my capabilities of observation, my ability to move about, construct interesting devices based on principles of physics that exist and operate in my living environment, and gather and comsume small masses of matter that prolong my life, are nothing compared to my companion being - like me but wonderfully different, attractive to me in ways indescribable to anyone or anything excepting a being like myself, a companion (I have no other comparative scientific or philosophical word) that loves me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever else exists in the observative powers we humans sometime exhibit, falls very short to all else, except the love -- and the wonder -- that we sometimes show when and if we lower our guard, communicate from the heart, and, together, enjoy the microcopic and celestial view!
Every day of your life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery day
of your life
is a luminous
moment and
every sunshine,
when the light
fades away, is
a magical quietness.
Francesco Sinibaldi
the images come too slow and I imagine this this not due to my connection because I have seen videos from Nasa and ESA and they worked fine...there might be a problem with these images.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks SCIAM for a very informative and entertaining presentation. Of a sleepless night with nothing other to do, you provided entertainment and increased my knowledge at the same time. My hope for the future, is seeing the verification of the information provided is accurate and of course of discovering how accurate this information will be. This one presentation and the three hours of my time, let's just say today if I took this time and interested into a movie theatre I would have probably spent $30-$40. About the price I pay for you magazine for one year. This was well worth my time and interested.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYours respectfully,
Mr. Jaime R. Cancio (Jim)
Bakersfield, California
Comme créer une poésie....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLa nature
engageante est
comme le soleil
qui souffle
dans le chant
du matin et
cette harmonie,
en donnant
une lumière,
devient perpétuelle
comme la voix
des sourires.
Francesco Sinibaldi
My goodness. Such heated blather on an article that is little more than pure speculation in the first place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot as much speculation as you might think...at least not in the depiction of these worlds. While specific details had to be invented, knowing their size, orbital details, composition, etc. allows for fairly informed recreations. The entire article, pictures and text, is based on real information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the federation of planets does come into existence, I suggest that it be called "United Federation of Orbs". I like the acronym. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems important to note that no one has deduced the nature of any religion from the facts of science. All of those making god-based arguments begin with a previously held belief. The sooner mankind matures out of the fairy tales of our early cultures the better. We will not be less human, loving or compassionate for the change. We will likewise not be more or less good or evil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis discussion is important because the arguments for god based societies hold back human progress now as in the past. We must outgrow these ideas.
slopa, on your reference to Matthew it says first, i(Jesus) will take a sword, not peace and than it says he who takes a sword will perish by the sword. these two references are not contradicting each other but rather giving two different examples in that Matthew 10:34 is righteous and Matthew 26:52 is when peter takes revenge on a soldier, you have to read the surrounding verses not just the sole verse. as to Ecclesiastes and proverbs i'll get back to you. it seems like many people are challenging sauder3 because of his religion. in fact the bible is not a science textbook but is correct in all aspects of science: the fish that jesus's disciples caught that had coins in its mouth, the creation of the universe has been proven to be the big bang but God could have used it right? everyone needs to look at everything and decide for themselves, but there can be only one truth: its either evolution, Christianity, goddess worship, cults, you name it its a religion. one of them has to be right, why can't it be Christianity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, I was reading pretty old arguments and got carried away
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are simply annoying us all. And nothing you have said is even slightly stimulating. I feel I speak for everyone when I say this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this