re: Science increasingly makes case for "creator"

Here's another article on it:

LINK

It makes the argument based on #'s that life exists in the Milky Way:

quote:

---

An international team of astronomers have reached the most definitive conclusion, one with profound implications: our galaxy contains a minimum of 100 billion planets. Of those, most are small planets like ours. Statistically, every star would have at least one planet.

This means that the chances of life and habitable planets in our galaxy alone is overwhelmingly high. So high that it's impossible to deny that it's out there.

---

And this should have little to no impact on religion at all. It doesn't prove/disprove intelligent design.

The WSJ author was just completely wrong on that entire portion of the paper. Odds hurt his argument, and he tries to claim that it supports it.

It seems pretty obvious you didn't read it, since he definitely accounts for the scale/size of the universe as the default, classic argument in favor of intelligent life.

The idea that there are only a few limiting factors for a planet to support life has been turned on its head over the years, as the list from has grown exponentially from what Sagan claimed a few decades ago.

Let's also remember that the concept of time varies across the universe. It took nearly 4 billion earth years for our solar system to form and several hundred million years for earth to be able to develop and sustain the conditions for algae to evolve into intelligent human beings to frick off on TD.

quote:

---

It seems pretty obvious you didn't read it, since he definitely accounts for the scale/size of the universe as the default, classic argument in favor of intelligent life.

---

It seems pretty obvious that you didn't read my post. I said that he doesn't understand odds at all.

quote:

---

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

---

This is so far from being true.

And if he does understand it, he's being intentionally misleading.

quote:

---

I know several atheists and not one isn't a depressed, paranoid, arrogant douchebag.

---

Me too. I suppose this proves the saying "ignorance is bliss" really is true. Don't you think?

quote:

---

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

---

I'd just like to point out, since no one else noted this that even if this idiot understood statistics and was correct that the odds of a planet in the universe supporting life was LESS than zero, he has a problem.

Namely that he is missing that those odds would apply to OUR PLANET TOO!

In other words, the odd of Earth even having life would also have had to have been less than zero. And yet, here we are.

So, he wants to simultaneously argue that the long odds of any other planets with life existing = creator and yet the fact Earth actually DOES exist doesn't seem to imply that there would be any elsewhere.

I mean, does the Bible or any other religious text even IMPLY anywhere that if God created life here, he ONLY created it here?

NOPE

In any case,the primary problem with this stupid column is he cites one guy as if he's just some random physicist who may have changed his mind when in fact, that guy has ALWAYS been a creationist and he quotes another guy obliquely in a way that implies he's on board with the creator thing even though a cursory Google search will show you that the man thinks no such thing.