tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post3413476671356824484..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: Are Earth-like Planets Common?Michael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-65603090325480188422018-04-15T18:59:26.973-05:002018-04-15T18:59:26.973-05:00Thanks for pointing me to this very details commen...Thanks for pointing me to this very details comment.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-64626699242731562202018-04-09T18:46:19.797-05:002018-04-09T18:46:19.797-05:00I apologize Dr. Strauss, I have a hard time articu...I apologize Dr. Strauss, I have a hard time articulating my thoughts into written word sometimes. I did not mean to imply you were basing this post on ignorance. I understand what you mean. I've learned how unique carbon and water are. I think I was trying to say something similar what your reply said. Except this, that if the universe is fine tuned and we are a part of that, that means there is a high likelihood that (and I guess I would argue more likely than not) that if God created Earth and humans to evolve into it, that God created others to support intelligent life too. And that the chemistry and physics of how unlikely it is for life to evolve are not what matters because those are the tools God uses to create, and not the reason or the purpose.Stetson Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697583852025293333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-41144842520401025862018-04-03T10:05:03.170-05:002018-04-03T10:05:03.170-05:00Dr Stauss, you may be interested in this comment I...Dr Stauss, you may be interested in this comment I posted yesterday at another blog:<br />https://uncommondescent.com/culture/do-atheists-find-meaning-in-life-from-inventing-fairy-tales/#comment-655402<br />bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-88670195189423202642018-03-23T15:53:10.076-05:002018-03-23T15:53:10.076-05:00The discussion in this post is based on the opinio...The discussion in this post is based on the opinion of the experts who study this question. Within our universe almost all experts agree that the only viable element on which to base life is carbon, which then highly constrains the possible environments. I'm not saying the rest of the universe is devoid of earths. If a creator made one he could have made a lot. I am saying that scientists understand enough about the necessary requirements for an earth like planet that (a) we have not found any yet, (b) there may be none to find. I'm not making any claims based on ignorance but rather what is known about what is necessary for carbon-based life to survive. <br /><br />Despite the fact that there are many things we don't know, there are also many things we do know, and those we do know can often rule out many possibilities. That is the scenario when it comes to the requirements for life in our universe.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-5065155356082158002018-03-14T16:22:07.389-05:002018-03-14T16:22:07.389-05:00Dr. Strauss, I have to firmly push back on this hu...Dr. Strauss, I have to firmly push back on this human-centric point of view. It just feels inauthentic to predict whether life exists on other planets or not and I've expressed this to you before. Maybe a year ago or a little less. I looked at the Part B link and even saved it for future reference for when I understand some of the data points in it better. But even knowing what I know now, postulating that Earth is so unique, God would need the rest of the universe for it to exist just defies reason. Just to give a little example, what if the bacteria on another planet (as you admit there most likely are a good amount of planets with bacteria on them) didn't use adenosine triphosphate for energy, respiration, or metabolism? Theoretically they could still be carbon based. Still have DNA. Still evolve to their surroundings. If their energy on a cellular level was based on something entirely different, all the assumptions in Part B of what we understand our world needs to support life would break down. I don't think I need to point out the evolution of our understanding of our place in the universe to show you the pattern of the most firmly held beliefs based on their own sets of data points they KNEW to be true at the time (i.e the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth blah blah blah) get smashed over and over. These truths were shattered but with much resistance. We haven't even been to the next planet over from us with anything but a couple robots and some satellites (not discounting that feat or their discoveries, just saying there's an infinite amount of exploring in our own solar system we still need to do). So by your own logic and argument that you have consistently made throughout this blog, why would we assume to know that which we cannot possibly. What did you call it? The logic fallacy? I could be getting the use of that term totally wrong but you understand what I'm saying. We know life in one form. The form it takes on earth. For all the variables Hugh Ross accounts for, he does not account for the ones we don't even know we don't know. You work at CERN. How much about the universe do we know for sure and how much are we assuming because we need it to fit into the laws of physics and chemistry we theorize to be correct for the sake of another theory. That's obviously rhetorical. I would make the argument that the universe is SO finely tuned that to make such a blanket assumption is preposterous. Earth is pretty firm evidence a creator designed the universe. That does not mean the rest of the universe is devoid of Earths. Again, I'll just throw out there that it feels like this argument is rife with confirmation bias because again, you are making an assumption about the universe based on what we think we know and deducing a belief that you cannot even come close to scientifically proving or disproving, even if it is based on a wealth of data. How is that any different from multiverse? I'm not assuming there is life. I'm not making the argument that there's all this space so how could there not be life. I'm making the argument it is impossible for us to know either way and to speculate is somewhat irresponsible of any scientist, religious figure/community, or the media. Either to assume there's life or assume there isn't. How and why can someone like you, who is 100x smarter than I will ever be, come to this conclusion and try to use science to do so? Stetson Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697583852025293333noreply@blogger.com