Moontanman

Good one, I do remember! NSFW!

Don't take your ball and go home just yet PaulP I'm not done, I think we can figure this out. In a court of law, in the US anyway, I'm not familiar with legal systems in other countries, but anyway in a court of law we go by the preponderance of evidence. To do this we'll have to break down your assertions a bit because most of them require differing forms of evidence. You've made the claim that your evidence for creation is as valid as the evidence science has gathered about the universe. #1 Science predicted we would find the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB. "The predicted CMB has been detected and it was as predicted." Now, tell me something your holy book predicted and if you or your religion can confirm your holy book's prediction. This should be easy if you have evidence. BTW your holy book cannot be evidence of itself. Your holy book is the claim that needs evidence. So are you game to play?

I think he means use wise old men...

Religion is the only claim of absolute knowledge I am aware of, science uses theories that describe what we see in reality. New information is always welcome and can change the status quo. Where is your evidence of a god?

Who says it came about by pure chance? Citation please! You keep making these assertions about what others believe, who makes these claims, can you give quotes in context? A singularity is a mathematical concept no one knows if such a thing exists and no one who understands it would make that claim. Why do you claim the existence of a god?

No, in science faith is not part of the process. Evidence is what convinces us that things either are or are not true. If we don't have enough evidence then the honest term is I don't know... As in I don't know how it all began but I have a pretty good idea back to something like 10 to the -47 of a second after it began. If you are going to assert something about science I would suggest you actually find out how science works instead of assuming it works based on how you get your beliefs. Yes, it takes faith to believe in things demonstrably not true... Knowing is based on evidence, science is not in the business of proof science is based in evidence... No, in fact only religion is based on faith, science is based on what you can show, if you can't show it then you don't know it.. hence your faith based ideas are simply wishful thinking... The difference is that science is based on evidence while god is based on baseless assertions... No, science requires evidence and being there is not necessary and more than watching a murder is necessary to solve one. Maybe but did you bother to read the meme i posted? Do you believe in all of those things? The bible claims they happened... Faith is wishful thinking. Actually the actual processes that led to the formation of the universe are still under investigation. You god is just a place holder that allows you to make claims you cannot back up..

Is the Bible the source of your faith? If so then you must believe these things are also true. I know this is just a meme but all of things are asserted as true or real in the Bible and it was easier to just post the meme. I know that is intellectually lazy but then so is an argument from ignorance which so far is all you have...

I must have missed your question but I never do more than rise them out once with the water hose. Never had any problems and the stuff they use now days is much better that the chemicals i had back then...

I am going to rewrite this, the idea of colonising the galaxy or visiting other star systems is to a great extent different things. We see and read in Science Fiction so much of the trope of running off to simply visit another star system is so ingrained in the zeitgeist that it's sometimes difficult to really see the forest for the trees. Unless star travel really does end up as easy as portrayed in shows like Star Trek or Star Wars I very much doubt that there will be much in the way of manned exploration. The idea of a habitat containing several thousand people taking off across the galaxy just to explore is, I think, fatally flawed. Every bit as flawed as expecting to travel to stars to colonize alien planets. The real colonization will be done by creating more or less self contained habitats that can either be slowly moved over generations to sources of raw materials like Oort cloud objects or orbit a star in a dyson swarm. Again it's important to think that we can create the surface area of a billion Earths in a Dyson swarm all powered by our sun. One we run out of space for new dyson swarm objects moving to another star to do the same is the next step. Gean type planets will most likely be encountered by accident and we may for ethical reasons avoid them completely...

I think we might be speaking past each other, in chemical rockets we already use rockets about as powerful as can be made. Such rockets already have some difficulty simply attaining low earth orbit. Making the rocket bigger to contain more fuel quickly reaches a point of the fuel being even more difficult to lift and bigger rockets only make the problem worse not better. In the Video Scott Manly suggest that even a saturn five ringed by solid rocket boosters would have much difficulty putting eve a small object into low orbit. Nuclear rockets might do it easier but bring their own problems to the table. I'm not sure why you would say that not being able to travel FTL traps us in our solar system, it does not...

I hadn't considered that possibility. The problem, if I understand it correctly, isn't actually how much G can be handled but more about how much G can be generated by a rocket. The Saturn 5 at lift off generated a thrust to weight ratio of 1.2 G. That is why it took off so slowly. a planet with 2G at the surface would require much more thrust to achieve the same acceleration. Scott Manly talks about this @ 07:37 in this video. Also would creatures who evolved under high gravity be even more negatively affected by zero G than we are?

Such a super Earth would probably have a very dense atmosphere, this would be a double edged sword. The super Earth could stay warm much further away from it's sun that we are but be much harder to leave.

Doesn't the presence of heavy elements cause fusion to happen at lower mass? I think i read someplace about the first stars having to be much more massive due to a lack of elements heavier than helium. Carbon is significant if I remember, there is at least one star that has a unusual amount of transuranic elements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przybylski's_Star

Would aliens who evolved on a Super Earth be trapped due to the difficulty of leaving the planet? A Super Earth 16,000 miles in diameter with a similar density would have a volume 8 times Earth's, 4 times the surface area, and twice the gravity. Escape Velocity would be twice Earth normal? I'm not sure if my numbers are accurate but you get the idea. https://www.space.com/40375-super-earth-exoplanets-hard-aliens-launch.html

Intelligence is in the mind of the being defining it. We think of ourselves being the most intelligent creature on Earth because intelligence tests are designed by us and compared to us. Elephants have huge brains and are quite intelligent and if they were designing an intelligence test we would probably come up short in their minds...

My yongest son always asked "how Come"

No independant information is involved, just chemicals reacting in ways governed by physics. The information is imposed from without by us to make it easier to explain and quantify complexity... Complexity can arise and can be shown to arise spontaneously from kaos... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

I used to be a bit of a heavy drinker, tequila was my poison of choice and drinking water was my secrete to no hangovers. When i was young we used to camp on the beach and surf fish all night, if your definition of surf fishing is drinking all night and taking your line out of the water if the fish become too annoying... In the morning after a night of drunken revelry while everyone else was lying around sick and throwing up I would be cooking bacon and eggs and laughing my ass off. Most of the guys refused to use my method due to being told that drinking water would make them sicker. Old wives tales are often incorrect...

I would have to disagree that there is no evidence for how abiogenesis came about, there is considerable evidence just not absolute evidence. There are more than one possibility for many of the necessary processes the possibility exists that there are more than one valid route to life. Artificial life like forms have been developed in many definitions of life but the path to our particular life is still unknown and may indeed be a synergy of more than one path. It's quite certain that eucaryote life like us... is a synergy of several different life forms combining in a symbiosis. I may not be a biologist but i have reproduced biologically.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Once you get past the idea of a sudden appearance of a recognisable life form the idea becomes much more manageable. The process is thought to have been gradual not sudden and some would say inevitable under the correct circumstances. The one thing abiogenesis is not is chance, chance is not part of the process, chemicals react in ways governed by physics not chance... http://www.iflscience.com/physics/life-inevitable-consequence-physics/

The best hangover sure i know of is drinking water, large amounts of water, before, during, and after your alcohol bing. Not drinking too much is a much wiser route to avoiding a hangover...

There is a name for it Strange, it's called lying for god...

If we are expecting to see the equivalent of the UFP or the star ship Enterprise I think the expectations are totally unrealistic. The idea of colonising another Earth like planet is equally unrealistic as is terraforming another panet if for no other reason the time scales involved in terraforming if not the actual distances needed to be covered. I love to read science fiction and watch science fiction TV and movies but the more realistic ideas of slowly mining the galaxy for materials to build artificial habitats in the not so empty space between the stars doesn't really make for snappy episodes of tv or movies. Even small discrepancies in the parameters of another planet would make them uninhabitable to humans without some serious Genetic modification. Once you get past the idea of scouting the galaxy for habitable worlds and get down to building our own worlds the idea becomes much more realistic if more than a bit slow and boring. Colonising the galaxy in a few million years does not make for good drama but it does make sense. I have my doubts that any other civilization will want to do anything with alien worlds other than avoid them. The possibility of biological contamination in of itself is worrying if not the ethical issues of invasive species wiping out other ecosystems. Humans have done rather badly by doing this on Earth by allowing species to be spread outside their natural boundaries here in Earth and we share all our DNA with them. I can see the possibility of occasional visits by their equivalent of researchers but I would expect them to be few and far between and their presence would almost certainly mean they are already nearby and exploiting the raw materials of our own Oort cloud. I would expect such expeditions to only be sent out long after the Planetary system in question already has a long term colony of space habitats operating in the outer reaches of the worlds in question. While the revelation of this would probably not be as Earth shattering as some think it would be disturbing to our own future plans of expansion. IMHO even if UFOs do not represent an alien civilization visiting us they still have a potential tale to tell about how the human minds works and possibly even how mythology and religion originates. Another rather long shot is that UFOs themselves represent some sort of unknown natural phenomena that that has it's own value as furthering our knowledge of the universe... There are many reports with actual evidence that either represents something real or some sort of widespread natural tendency or conspiracy of human perception... There are reports that are either complete hoaxes or an actual extraordinary event, no third possibility exists... Firmenant? What exactly do you mean by firmenant? One possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox is that star travel is not reasonable unless the resources of the original planetary system has been turned into a Dyson Swarm. Even if controlled fusion never becomes possible we already have a fusion reactor nearby and we could break up the planets to make a dyson swarm consisting of the equivalent of a billion times the surface area of the Earth. How long would this take? would it ever really be over? Is there really any motivation to star travel?

I have to say me too! That is why i mostly fixate on old reports, youtube is full so full of fake stuff I think I'd have to be on the spot and see one land on the white house lawn and then I'd how it was faked... There is a guy near where i live who flies a lighted drone at night, I keep expecting to see it on youtube at anytime. The fact remains that something is going on or was and most arguments to the contrary were fixed by disinformation and unrealistic expectations...