US astronomers launch search for alien life on 86 planets

May 14, 2011 by Kerry Sheridan
This picture taken on March 2010 shows the Karoo Array Telescope construction site in South Africa. A massive radio telescope in rural West Virginia has begun listening for signs of alien life on 86 possible Earth-like planets, US astronomers said Friday.

A massive radio telescope in rural West Virginia has begun listening for signs of alien life on 86 possible Earth-like planets, US astronomers said Friday.

The giant dish began this week pointing toward each of the 86 planets -- culled from a list of 1,235 possible planets identified by NASA's Kepler -- and will gather 24 hours of data on each one.

"It's not absolutely certain that all of these stars have habitable planetary systems, but they're very good places to look for ET," said University of California at Berkeley graduate student Andrew Siemion.

See also: SETI survey focuses on Kepler's top Earth-like planets

The mission is part of the SETI project, which stands for Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence, launched in the mid 1980s.

Last month the announced it was shuttering a major part of its efforts -- a 50 million dollar project with 42 telescope dishes known as the (ATA) -- due to a five million dollar .

ATA began in 2007 and was operated in partnership by the UC Berkeley Lab, which has hosted several generations of such experiments. It was funded by the SETI Institute and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

With ATA's dishes in hibernation for now, astronomers hope the powerful Green Bank Telescope, a previous incarnation of which was felled in a windstorm in 1988, will provide targeted information about potential life-supporting planets.

"Our search employs the largest fully steerable radio telescope on the planet, and the most sensitive radio telescope in the world capable of undertaking a SETI search of this kind," Siemion told AFP.

"We will be looking at a much wider range of frequencies and signal types than has ever been possible before," he added, describing the instrumentation as "at the very cutting edge of radio astronomy technology."

The surface of the telescope is 100 by 110 meters and it can record nearly one gigabyte of data per second, Siemion said.

The 17 million pound (7.7 million kilogram) telescope became operational in 2000 and is a project of the NSF's National Radio Astronomy Observatory.

"We've picked out the planets with nice temperatures -- between zero and 100 degrees Celsius -- because they are a lot more likely to harbor life," said physicist Dan Werthimer.

US astronomers launch search for alien life on 86 planets
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank West Virginia. Image credit: Paul C. Smith, provided

Werthimer heads a three-decade long SETI project in Puerto Rico, home of the world's largest radio telescope, Arecibo. However that project could not observe the same area of the northern sky as the Green Bank telescope, he said.

"With Arecibo, we focus on stars like our Sun, hoping that they have planets around them that emit intelligent signals," Werthimer said in a statement.

"But we've never had a list of like this before."

The Green Bank can scan 300 times the range of frequencies that Arecibo could, meaning that it can collect the same amount of data in one day that Arecibo could in one year.

The project will likely take about a year to complete, and will be helped by a team of one million at-home astronomers, known as SETI@home users, who will help process the data on personal computers.

Explore further: Image: Hubble looks at light and dark in the universe

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

SETI@home completes a decade of ET search

May 01, 2009

The SETI@home project, which has involved the worldwide public in a search for radio-wave evidence of life outside Earth, marks its 10th anniversary on May 17, 2009.

Arecibo Begins Search for Dark Galaxies

Feb 08, 2005

Fitted with a new compound eye, the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico last week began a multiyear effort to survey all the galaxies in a large swath of sky out to a distance of 800 million light years—a ...

SETI Sets Its Sights On M Dwarfs

Nov 21, 2005

Scientists have been searching actively for signs of intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations for nearly half a century. Their main approach has been to point radio telescopes toward target stars and to "listen" for electronic ...

Budget cuts may ax powerful telescopes

Nov 06, 2006

U.S. federal science officials said budget constraints may force the closure of the Arecibo dish and the Very Long Baseline Array telescope network.

Allen Telescope Array begins all-sky surveys

May 28, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- With commissioning of the 42 radio dishes of the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) nearly complete, UC Berkeley astronomers are now embarking on several major radio astronomy projects, including daily surveys of ...

Recommended for you

How can we find tiny particles in exoplanet atmospheres?

Aug 29, 2014

It may seem like magic, but astronomers have worked out a scheme that will allow them to detect and measure particles ten times smaller than the width of a human hair, even at many light-years distance.  ...

Spitzer telescope witnesses asteroid smashup

Aug 28, 2014

(Phys.org) —NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has spotted an eruption of dust around a young star, possibly the result of a smashup between large asteroids. This type of collision can eventually lead to the ...

User comments : 98

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1.2 / 5 (19) May 14, 2011
Life, nuclear matter and the Sun evolved here together.

This will be explained in a paper in press: "Origin and Evolution of Life Constraints on the Solar Model," K. Michaelian and O. Manuel

The concept was first introduced here: Neutron Repulsion, The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages, O. Manuel

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Oliver K. Manuel

Aliensarethere
4.4 / 5 (16) May 14, 2011
Good luck, you will need it :-)

Seriously, 86 planets is nothing. You need to scan millions to have a reasonable chance of success.
Zenmaster
4.8 / 5 (12) May 14, 2011
Isn't it the case, that if these worlds used the same techniques on us, even if they were closer than 50-60 light years away, they would not detect anything at all?
TJ_alberta
2.8 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
Zenmaster: I am confident that the people who build and operate the radio telescopes can calculate path loss. It is pretty easy. To my mind the key question is: Would technologically advanced civilization use high powered radio systems? -- analogous to our commercial TV and Radio transmitters. The chance of picking up directed high power beamed signals (radar or point to point communication) is probably low.

For comparison look at the Pioneer spacecraft transponders - only 23 W (don't know if that is input power or what) and could not find xmtr antenna gain but they do use a small dish so probably ~ 18 dB (just a guess). Can hear them a long way off...

For sure we won't receive garage door openers from these planets but maybe "Vulcan's Got Talent" :)
Newbeak
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
SETI is a poor way of searching for extra-terrestial life,as the odds of receiving a radio signal is dependent on the convergence of a number of independent factors.For one,the age of solar system being studied is important,as a young system would not have had time to evolve life,let alone intelligent life,although presumably this was taken into account when the 86 planets were selected.Secondly,evolution on extra-solar planets will not conveniently start and proceed at the same time and rate as on Earth.For another,radio use would probably follow the model seen on this planet,where fiber optics and low power line of sight satellite transmission has largely taken over long distance communication,and cable has largely replaced transmission of tv signals.
A better strategy might involve the spectral analysis of the light reflected off of a planet which could determine whether or not it is covered with vegetation.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (12) May 14, 2011
Good luck, you will need it :-)

Seriously, 86 planets is nothing. You need to scan millions to have a reasonable chance of success.

Yes,but it is a start.It's better than listening to stars without knowing whether or not they host planetary systems.
Newbeak
not rated yet May 14, 2011
Isn't it the case, that if these worlds used the same techniques on us, even if they were closer than 50-60 light years away, they would not detect anything at all?

You have to consider their level of technology 50-60 years ago,as that is when their last transmissions began.But what are the odds that they are at our technological level? I would say pretty damn slim.More likely,they are technologically far ahead or behind us.
Aliensarethere
not rated yet May 14, 2011

Yes,but it is a start.It's better than listening to stars without knowing whether or not they host planetary systems.


Not really, most stars probably have planets, as Kepler has shown.

There are a lot of factors working against detecting a signal, even if advanced civilizations are common in the Milky Way. For example
1) Timing. The Civilization must not have gone extinct, or not been born yet.
2) The signal must not drown in the background noise.
3) We must look at the right frequency.
4) The Aliens must transmit a signal.

So we need to scan a lot of stars, not just thousands but millions and millions of stars.

I believe there are aliens of there, but lately I have come to realize that we need very sophisticated technology to find them. We are decades away, I'm afraid.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2011

Yes,but it is a start.It's better than listening to stars without knowing whether or not they host planetary systems.


Not really, most stars probably have planets, as Kepler has shown.

There are a lot of factors working against detecting a signal, even if advanced civilizations are common in the Milky Way. For example
1) Timing. The Civilization must not have gone extinct, or not been born yet.
2) The signal must not drown in the background noise.
3) We must look at the right frequency.
4) The Aliens must transmit a signal.

So we need to scan a lot of stars, not just thousands but millions and millions of stars.

I believe there are aliens of there, but lately I have come to realize that we need very sophisticated technology to find them. We are decades away, I'm afraid.

Yes,but you would be wasting your time looking at a star with an accretion disk orbiting it.
stanfrax
1 / 5 (9) May 14, 2011
what a waste of time for the bipedal type of hairless primate - all the stars burnt out long ago - this is it - planet earth - theirs no 1 coming to save this speaces - earthquakes tsunamis wars radiation - yay keep the tech held back - keep the greed for growth system working - lets keep playing in the trees
pauljpease
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2011

A better strategy might involve the spectral analysis of the light reflected off of a planet which could determine whether or not it is covered with vegetation.


Could only quote part of your comment, but I agree with all of it. It's probably pretty easy to remain unnoticed by other civilizations unless you want to be found. What could humans do to be found by other civilizations. We could start setting of nuclear weapons in space at the same time each year. Anybody looking at the sun at the right time would probably see that from quite a ways off, and the regular timing would immediately tip them off that it is intelligent life and not some natural phenomenon. Something along those lines. As Schrodinger wrote in "What is Life", physics determines what CAN happen, but life determines what DOES happen. If we do things that are visible but unlikely to occur naturally, someone will eventually spot us. We should be looking for the same.

Adam
2 / 5 (4) May 14, 2011
Kepler showed us that, out of 150,000 stars studied, about 1000 systems were seen. Factoring in the odds of transits and that means most stars DON'T have planets. Worst still the number of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones of those 1000 systems seen so far is roughly two. Thus 1/600 systems with planets, roughly, will have a Habitable Earth-sized planet in the right place. Thus a sample of 86 isn't quite enough to have decent odds.
Newbeak
not rated yet May 14, 2011

A better strategy might involve the spectral analysis of the light reflected off of a planet which could determine whether or not it is covered with vegetation.


As Schrodinger wrote in "What is Life", physics determines what CAN happen, but life determines what DOES happen. If we do things that are visible but unlikely to occur naturally, someone will eventually spot us. We should be looking for the same.


That would certainly be a better use for nukes than vaporizing cities-very original idea!
Zenmaster
4 / 5 (2) May 14, 2011
Not really, most stars probably have planets, as Kepler has shown.
Aren't most star systems binaries? Do binaries have planets? If it's unlikely that binaries would have planets, then how can most stars probably have planets?
stanfrax
1 / 5 (5) May 14, 2011
the nearest star from planet earth apart from our sun is 4 .5 light years away - proxima centori - so lets say im a alien standing on this other sun - wearing a magic suit and shining a magic torch with super light - its just brighter light so you can see it - it will be traveling the same speed as light from the sun - ready - click - 5900,000,000 miles = 1 light year = 200,000 earth years x 4.5 - from the star - the further we look out the further we are looking back in time - stars last for billions of years then they run out of fuel - most of the stars are long gone along with any planets - its great mankind is looking for intelligent life with information but to me this is proper-gander to keep people dreaming of other worlds because it keeps people away from real issues and the mess of our own planet
HarshMistress
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2011
Even if we caught millions of years old signal of inelligent life - it's worth it. It would mitigate our claustrophobia in the vastness of the Universe, for we would know beyond any doubt that we are not alone.
marraco
5 / 5 (6) May 14, 2011
So, the Allen telescope array was canceled to pay for a fraction of a tank.
Aliensarethere
not rated yet May 15, 2011
Kepler showed us that, out of 150,000 stars studied, about 1000 systems were seen. Factoring in the odds of transits and that means most stars DON'T have planets. Worst still the number of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones of those 1000 systems seen so far is roughly two. Thus 1/600 systems with planets, roughly, will have a Habitable Earth-sized planet in the right place. Thus a sample of 86 isn't quite enough to have decent odds.


So far, as you say. The planets with Earth-like periods can't bee detected just yet, Kepler needs more time.
unknownorgin
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2011
If we look everywhere and not receive any signals it will not prove there is not life out there it just means there are some holes in our unified theory and there other ways to comunicate.
scidog
not rated yet May 15, 2011
i have always been a naysayer on a lot of "odd" programs both public and private that i have seen come down the pike since i was old enough to understand.born in 46 i got in on "modern times" from the get go. SETI in all it's forms seemed to be so fringe that it was not worth my attention.however in the last 10 years or so huge amounts of money that could have been spent on hard research is going to planet search in one part of the sky.i was taken aback by the tiny cone/fan of the Kepler search.i know some of that is the result of limits in our technology.i'm not a conspiracy theory person but i get the feeling despite much of what has been said in the above posts that something is afoot.enough people in the right places have information/feelings in their gut that we are very close to some sort of contact,even just one way would be enough to put moon landings,space junk clean up,new power systems to lift to orbit and so forth on the back burner because the "big one" is almost in reach.
MrJohnA
5 / 5 (3) May 15, 2011
My last post disappeared rather than post. Apologies if it turns up later.

@Adam: You said roughly that "Most stars have no planets since Kepler found 1,000 planets out of 150,000 target stars." Also that you factored in the odds of transits. Please check your math, or the assumptions being used.

A Jupiter sized planet has a 1 in 200 chance to transit a red dwarf. For planets even smaller in relation to their star the odds are worse. This means we must multiply the number of detected worlds by the average of all such numbers to arrive at a reasonable estimate of planets we know will *never* be visible with this method.

So divide 150,000 by 1,000 and then multiply the product by at least 200...That means there should be more planets than stars. Far more, since the number to multiply with is likely a lot more than 200. Suggesting even binary stars should have multiple planets. Time will tell if any are Earth sized and in habitable zones. Kepler needs many transits to see an earth.
MrJohnA
5 / 5 (1) May 15, 2011
I have to admit that it isn't very likely we will find ET on any planets orbiting those 86 stars though. Not by a long shot. Not even if each has its own life-bearing earth in fact. Who knows...
CyberRat
not rated yet May 15, 2011
There are to many stars and planets out there to not have at least some form of life going. The possibility that life evolved technological is even smaller but they are out there, remember: there are more stars in the universe then sand grains on earth!
Beard
not rated yet May 15, 2011
The detection of radio emitting intelligence is dependent upon these conditions:
1) Life exists on the planet
2) Life is sapient and technological
3) Life was emitting radio signals at the time we are listening
4) Our instruments are powerful/sensitive enough to recognize the signal

Each one of those could have an absurdly low probability, the odds are stacked against us. It might be many orders of magnitude more likely that a powerful tool such as the JWST will detect life indicative atmospheres, because that only relies on the first condition. Not evidence for ETI but ETL in any form would be great too.

I of course wish them great success, regardless of the odds.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (13) May 15, 2011
a young system would not have had time to evolve life

Problem is that life does NOT evolve in any way or form, ever. It's impossible for life to arise spontaneously from non-living chemicals, irrespective of the environmental conditions. Full stop.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (5) May 15, 2011
a young system would not have had time to evolve life

Problem is that life does NOT evolve in any way or form, ever. It's impossible for life to arise spontaneously from non-living chemicals, irrespective of the environmental conditions. Full stop.

On what authority do you make such a sweeping statement? Given the right conditions,life can begin from non-living precursors.If you have been reading the latest research in the biological sciences,you would know that an artifical cell has been created in the lab from off the shelf chemicals by Craig Venter: http://en.wikiped...g_Venter
Once started,life is quick to evolve to best survive in it's environment: http://en.wikiped...volution
Dug
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2011
This lack of science prioritization is consistent with gov. bureaucracy led science programs. As one reader noted there are no habitable planets within a human life span - even assuming light speed conveyance.

Long before anyone will reach a habitable solar system beyond this one, our species' current civilization faces several highly probable and predictable extinction scenarios:

1. We will not free ourselves from the petroleum/food production energy relationship that has allowed the last hundred years population growth bloom. We will starve to death.
2. We will not be able to reduce our population to a level sustainable without petroleum - pre-1800s and we starve and devolve.
3. If we accomplish the first two, we will not be able to develop an economic system to replace the current form of capitalism which is totally dependent on population/market growth and we starve and devolve.
We would be far better off focusing on Mars terra-forming and economics than inter-galactic travel.
Thex1138
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2011
Kepler showed us that, out of 150,000 stars studied, about 1000 systems were seen. Factoring in the odds of transits and that means most stars DON'T have planets. Worst still the number of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones of those 1000 systems seen so far is roughly two. Thus 1/600 systems with planets, roughly, will have a Habitable Earth-sized planet in the right place. Thus a sample of 86 isn't quite enough to have decent odds.


Hmmm and the Keppler sample is a percentage of how many multiple of trillions and billions of stars to choose from in the visible universe?
One survey satellite scanning a narrow and short ranged selection of stars...
RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet May 16, 2011
What if the first message they receive is a random bit of spam...advertising a new range of sauces for that delicious roast human ...
antialias
4.6 / 5 (5) May 16, 2011
Listening for radio messages is futile.

1) Radio signals of the strength we have been sending are undetectable (even by theoretical amplifiers) further than 2 light years out
2) A civilization that could send a signal of sufficient strength to be noticeable at any distance (i.e. with power that exceeds our global output) would already have mastered spaceflight to some degree.
3) Sending probes is VASTLY preferrable to radio signals because YOU get to decide whom you make contact to instead of having to pray that EVERYONE listening isn't out to get you.
4) detecting 'stray' signals (i.e. signals they use for communications amongst themselves) is unlikely: We already know how to aim radio signals - they will, too. Why would they aim a signal at earth?
5) Radio signals may not be the optial way of transmitting messages over long distances. If so then the galaxy could be full of chatter and we'd never know. We are probably listening with the 'wrong' ears.
Magician
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
Why is it taken as a given that we should be searching for other intelligent life? If it exists, and we are any indication of what it will be like, then it seems only natural to fear the only goal of another technological species: earth resource extraction. As Stephen Hawking says, we should probably remain silent, rather than beaming out "HERE WE ARE" signals all over the place. Human folly, again.
antialias
5 / 5 (5) May 16, 2011
Resource extraction is certainly not an issue for a space faring species thant can travel between solar systems. There's PLENTY of resources for the taking in any asteroid belt (many times the earth's mass). Or on any moon/planetoid.

I hardly think they'd come to earth to scratch at its surface a bit - all the while having to contend with an almost certainly, to them, poisonous atmosphere, biosphere, incompatible gravity, temperature, pressure and some nagging parasites (humans).
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (3) May 16, 2011
Why is it taken as a given that we should be searching for other intelligent life?


"We"? It's not like humanity en-masse sits down and decides to do anything. Individuals decide to get together and do things. Other individuals get together and do other things. These people decided to group together and listen out. You are free to gather a group and attempt to curtail their activities via legal means, should it bother you so greatly.

it seems only natural to fear the only goal of another technological species: earth resource extraction. As Stephen Hawking says, we should probably remain silent, rather than beaming out "HERE WE ARE" signals all over the place


Well for a start, why would they bother with extraction from earth? Easier and cheaper to pick it up from asteroids etc.

Also, this is a radio telescope they are talking about - so it is an exercise in *listening* for signals. They are not 'beaming out' anything.
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (1) May 16, 2011
There's no chance of them finding anything, but I sincerely wish them good luck all the same...
ssco00
not rated yet May 16, 2011
One comment on the previous statement:

For comparison look at the Pioneer spacecraft transponders - only 23 W (don't know if that is input power or what) and could not find xmtr antenna gain but they do use a small dish so probably ~ 18 dB (just a guess). Can hear them a long way off...

Those signals are so weak that they really are lost in the noise. If you tuned with the largest antenna, you would hear nothing but background noise. Information is gathered, at an extremely low data rate, by knowing exactly how it is formatted, listening for a long time with antennas all around the world feeding into the Deep Space Network center at JPL, and analyzing the results on computers. There is nothing casual about this.
Beard
not rated yet May 17, 2011
Sending probes is VASTLY preferrable to radio signals because YOU get to decide whom you make contact


Check this out: http://articles.a...15...78S

We just might find one in 2017.
antialias
5 / 5 (3) May 17, 2011
only 23 W (don't know if that is input power or what) and could not find xmtr antenna gain but they do use a small dish so probably ~ 18 dB (just a guess). Can hear them a long way off...

Those signals are directed. If the antenna doesn't point DIRECTLY at earth then we hear nothing.
The craft which are furthes out from us and barely able to communicate are about a light-day distant. A light-DAY. We're not talking about what SETI is searching for: Signals from planets hundreds of light YEARS distant with OMNI-directional broadcasting. That's many, many orders of magnitude of power higher.
Idiocracy
not rated yet May 18, 2011
Think about satellite broadcasting. Each signal downlinked to Earth has a counterpart, feeder source which is UPlinked from Earth to the satellite. Audio-only digital uplink signals usually represent at least fifty watts per carrier envelope; video-involved uplinks use quite a bit more power. Satellites do not absorb the Earth-based uplink signals, they receive their working portion of the signal...and the remainder continues out into space, ad infinitum, in an ever-widening (and weakening) wave-cone. All the Romulans need, is the ability to decode our digital uplinks. (The vast majority of such transmissions are digital; lesser odds cling to the remaining analog signals that are still regularly uplinked.) Satellite uplinks from Earth have gone out continuously for the past 36 years; just do the math in light-years ...
Johannes414
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2011
Almost 3500 years before the invention of the modern telescope, the Bible mentions that there are as many stars as there are grains of sand on the earth . With the naked eye at best a few thousand stars can be identified. The Bible also mentions the earth as floating in space and that space is expanding. How did the so called bronze age goatherders know this? The answer is that God revealed it to them (to Abraham).
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2011
The Bible also has the Earth as a disc and in another part as having corners. It also has an Earth that is only thousands of years old which would be fine if it were even remotely true. There are cities older than that.

It has a Flood that never happened. It has the wrong order of creation. In fact it has two different wrong orders.

However how about you telling us when that flood occurred.

What were the last words of Jesus on the cross? Read all four gospels for making something up.

Has man ever seen the face of Jehovah?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2011
5900,000,000 miles = 1 light year = 200,000 earth years x 4.5 - from the star
Where the hell did you get that nonsense? It is 4.5 LIGHT YEARS away as in it takes 4.5 YEARS for the light to travel that distance. Why did you think it was called a light YEAR anyway?

Try learning what a light year is before you post something on light again.

http://en.wikiped...ght_year

A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (1016 metres, 10 petametres or about 6 trillion miles).
5,900,000,000 or 5.9 billion is off by three oders of magnitude from 6 trillion.

http://en.wikiped...Centauri

Its 4.2 light years.

Next you think you know what you are talking about check first as you clearly don't have a clue in this area of knowledge.

Ethelred
stanfrax
not rated yet May 19, 2011
enlightenment appreciated ------------------------------------ just a monkey on a planet
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) May 19, 2011
Ethelred,

Can you give me the Bible verse that says that the earth is a disk?

The mentioning of the four corners of the earth is a metaphore. It refers to the four wind directions, just like we use them today. Is does not mean four literal corners at all. The Bible is full of poetic languange, like in Johns vision:

Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Soylent_Grin
5 / 5 (6) May 19, 2011
Ethelred,

The mentioning of the four corners of the earth is a metaphore. [snip] The Bible is full of poetic languange, like in Johns vision... [snip]


But the "grains of sand" had to be literal, huh? God went to some lengths to show Abraham something totally useless to him, but neglected to mention that owning other human beings is wrong?
"I could show you how to cure smallpox, but instead, here's a useless vision of pretty stars."
You've got a weird god, man.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2011
This is a website to comment on SCIENTIFIC topics,not to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Trying to reason with religious nuts is pointless-in their minds,what the good book says is not open to debate,end of story.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (4) May 19, 2011
Things like science and knowledge are illusory brain states if people are just bags of interacting molecules. To do science it is a necessity that God exists. He invented reason and laws of logic. Atoms do not give us rational minds.

Please go and do your trolling on one of the hundreds of religious websites..
Johannes414
1 / 5 (5) May 19, 2011
Hi Newbeak,

It is my right to voice my free opinion in a free country on a (still free) internet. That you dont like that opinion, is not my problem but yours. Be blessed!
Newbeak
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2011
Hi Newbeak,

It is my right to voice my free opinion in a free country on a (still free) internet. That you dont like that opinion, is not my problem but yours. Be blessed!

I am not suggesting you don't have the right to voice your opinion,I'm just suggesting you do it somewhere else.Maybe the others reading this can put their two cents in,and let the majority rule..
Johannes414
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2011
Newbeak,

Your suggestion is rather strange. If you are only participating in discussions to hear likeminded opinions, its you who should reconsider his presence on a forum, not me.
kaasinees
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2011
Hi Newbeak,

It is my right to voice my free opinion in a free country on a (still free) internet. That you dont like that opinion, is not my problem but yours. Be blessed!

People like you make me wish you did not.
Either way there are rules on this website, so you do not.
Please piss off.
Newbeak
3.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2011
Newbeak,

Your suggestion is rather strange. If you are only participating in discussions to hear likeminded opinions, its you who should reconsider his presence on a forum, not me.

No,my friend,I am where I belong,and you are the interloper.I don't go to religious websites and spout off about evolution,the beginning of the universe,etc
Johannes414
1 / 5 (5) May 20, 2011
Newbeak,

That is not a valid argument to bring in any thought police.

I case you may have noticed, this website does post about religious topics too. If scientists are free to critique religion under the mantle if science, then they also should expect a response.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2011
Can you give me the Bible verse that says that the earth is a disk?
Sure but it may be circle rather than disc but a circle is a disc. Yes it was circle.

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Note that the metaphors in there are clearly stated 'as a whatever' and "circle of the earth" is not.

The mentioning of the four corners of the earth is a metaphore.
Metaphor when you want and literal when you want. As long as you insist on literal for the G1 and pretend that G2 is compatible with G1 I will go literal when is suits me. It is idiotic to claim that the four corners is a metaphor and the six days is not. Both are incompatible with reality.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) May 20, 2011
Now I answered your questions. Quit evading mine. Perhaps you think I won't notice that you did again. Its standard operating procedure for Cranks of all kinds to ignore what is inconvenient. Doesn't work with me.

It has a Flood that never happened. It has the wrong order of creation. In fact it has two different wrong orders.

However how about you telling us when that flood occurred.

What were the last words of Jesus on the cross? Read all four gospels for making something up.

Has man ever seen the face of Jehovah?
I am not about to quit asking until your answer. If you have to evade, dissemble, quote out of context, distort and ignore why do you continue to believe something you clearly are unable to support with honest debate?

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) May 20, 2011
Things like science and knowledge are illusory brain states if people are just bags of interacting molecules.
Science and knowledge are how we learn about reality BECAUSE we are bags of molecules that interact with our environment. We are SELF AWARE bags.

To do science it is a necessity that God exists.
Since your god, the god of Genesis, does not exist that is false. And we sure don't need a god to discover how things work. We need reason and evidence and experiments.

He invented reason and laws of logic.
Lie. WE invented them. The Bible is sadly lacking in logic or reason. Which is due it being written by men that were completely unaware of the concepts.

Atoms do not give us rational minds.
And you can prove that how? This I gotta see. Either prove or quite pushing that bovine fertilizer. There is nothing in brains that isn't due to the laws of the universe. NO ONE has ever found anything going on in nerves that requires divine intervention.

Ethelred
Johannes414
1 / 5 (8) May 20, 2011
Hi Ethelred,

I don't recall that "circle" ever started to become synonymous for "disk". Both represent two entirely different Euclidean entities. But you knew that.

Thanks for providing that scripture by the way. Now let's take a closer look at it. It really has three elements that the writer tries to transmit:

God sits on the circle of the earth
God stretches out the heavens as a curtain
He makes them like a tent to dwell in

What do we notice here? The Bible uses allegory to transmit the truth that God is the omnipotent Creator of the earth and the heavens (Gen 1:1). God is not really sitting, and heaven is not really a curtain. Its a metaphor.

The earth has roundness (in fact "circle" can also be translated as "horizon" here, as some translations do), and the heavens are moving, expanding, whatever you call it. Both observations (roundness of the earth and expanding heavens) are completely consistent with modern science.
Bog_Mire
3 / 5 (3) May 20, 2011
Good luck Ethelred, this crank is a gun at avoiding messy contradictions and only engages in debate when an opportunity to preach biblical non-senses presents. I suspect it is using these forums as practice for door knocking or evangelicalising. Irony is that it is so far removed from the true spirit of what Jesus was about that it would end up in its so called "hell" if it existed - which it doesn't.

Head, meet brick wall.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2011
Things like science and knowledge are illusory brain states if people are just bags of interacting molecules.
Science and knowledge are how we learn about reality BECAUSE we are bags of molecules that interact with our environment. We are SELF AWARE bags.

To do science it is a necessity that God exists.
Since your god, the god of Genesis, does not exist that is false. And we sure don't need a god to discover how things work. We need reason and evidence and experiments.

He invented reason and laws of logic.
Lie. WE invented them. The Bible is sadly lacking in logic or reason. Which is due it being written by men that were completely unaware of the concepts.

Atoms do not give us rational minds.
And you can prove that how? This I gotta see. Either prove or quite pushing that bovine fertilizer. There is nothing in brains that isn't due to the laws of the universe. NO ONE has ever found anything going on in nerves that requires divine intervention.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2011
I don't recall that "circle" ever started to become synonymous for "disk"
Well start thinking then. A solid circle is a DISC. There may be one solid circle in you PC right now. Its called a DISC. The plural is DISKS. Which is silly but I didn't make the rule.

Both represent two entirely different Euclidean entities. But you knew that.
I knew you would try to evade it. The Bible uses the word circle in EXACTLY the sense of s disc. What do you think the Bible has the worlds as a CIRCLE. All edge no interior? Typical of the mendacity of a Creationist that you would trip on your own evasions.

he Bible uses allegory to transmit the truth that God is the omnipotent Creator of the earth
So omnipotent that he had to walk to Sodom.

and heaven is not really a curtain
Those ARE labeled as metaphor. The rest isn't. Its YOUR interpretation and if you can do that you can give up on the silliness of six days as well.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2011
The earth has roundness
Not in the Bible. It could have but it doesn't.

(in fact "circle" can also be translated as "horizon"
That could be too but that would be a fairly broad interpretation not in keeping with the sort literalism that accept G1 as the word of god not to be questioned.

. Both observations (roundness of the earth and expanding heavens) are completely consistent with modern science.
Which is total bullshit because the Bible does no such thing. You just made it up.

Now for those questions you find so painful that you force me to repeat them rather than deal with them. Adding to your embarrassment. Answering them must be VERY painful for you to subject yourself to so much embarrassment.

It has a Flood that never happened. It has the wrong order of creation. In fact it has two different wrong orders.

However how about you telling us when that flood occurred.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2011
What were the last words of Jesus on the cross? Read all four gospels for making something up.

Has man ever seen the face of Jehovah? I think I will ad another question to that. This might grow to quite a large list since you don't like any of them.

Cain was cursed to wander for the rest of his life. How do you reconcile that with his marrying, having children that were followed for many generations, and founding a city?

Ethelred
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2011
Problem is that life does NOT evolve in any way or form, ever.
Problem is that YOU do not evolve in any way or form. Ever.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2011
Almost 3500 years before the invention of the modern telescope, the Bible mentions that there are as many stars as there are grains of sand on the earth . With the naked eye at best a few thousand stars can be identified. The Bible also mentions the earth as floating in space and that space is expanding. How did the so called bronze age goatherders know this? The answer is that God revealed it to them (to Abraham).
Another Bible thumping Taliban wannabe out to destroy a science thread. Welcome back once again to Physorgasmatron-for-religious-psychopaths-and-schizoids, Have-you-taken-your-meds-today-Jo. From now on I'll be reporting all your posts as ABUSE as they are all in violation of forum guidelines.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2011
The mentioning of the four corners of the earth is a metaphore.
So was the grains of sands bit, *genius*. One happens to turn out to be true, the other not, but they were both metaphors. To dismiss one as metaphor and the other not after the fact (of discovery of the actual number of stars) because it suites your religious psychosis makes you...well, a hopeless crank...to be kind.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2011
Newbeak,

That is not a valid argument to bring in any thought police.

I case you may have noticed, this website does post about religious topics too. If scientists are free to critique religion under the mantle if science, then they also should expect a response.

I agree: Physorg unfortunately sometimes breaks the spirit of their own comment guidlines. When that happens, I suppose the door becomes opens for your type of religious bullshit ON SUCH A THREAD.

THIS IS NOT SUNCH A THREAD MORON. As such your comments are being reported as abuse.
Calenur
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2011
I can't wait until tomorrow when these cranks are magicked into heaven by Jesus so we can get back to discussing science and not the bible.
Johannes414
1.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2011
Ethelred,

"We are SELF AWARE bags"

Repeating a statement doesn't make it any more true. Please provide proof for that assertion. Begin with providing a decent naturalistic model on how electric currents can generate self-awareness.

"WE invented them" (on laws of logic)

If laws of logic are just conventions invented by humans, they are conventional, meaning, dependent on culture and time. Did humans at some point in the past think that contradictions are OK? Laws of logic only work because they are universal. That is why they alllow us to reason with eachother. They are self-evident truths that are axiomatic to human existence.

"There is nothing in brains that isn't due to the laws of the universe"

Laws of logic and reason are not part of the physical brain. This is simple to prove. On the planet Mars for instance, the law of non-contradiction is also valid. So its not just some electrons in your head. This law really exists as an abstract entity. Even without humans.
Soylent_Grin
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2011
Things don't contradict in reality. So what? That's just how it goes, and it took humans several thousand years to formalize that knowledge. If things *did* contradict, you'd point to THAT and say someone had to make it that way.
Things have to be *some* way. Doesn't mean someone has to make it that way. Perhaps the universe exists simply because it's impossible not to. A meta-extension of Heisenberg's principle.
Soylent_Grin
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2011
As I said, things have to be SOME way. If they were any other way, you'd just be pointing at those ways to try to support your a priori belief in a supernatural entity.
In fact, given the existence of parallel universes (the May 2003 SciAm gives a great summary), things ARE many other ways, but any of those ways that are incompatible with life existing, we wouldn't find ourselves there to ask these questions in the first place. Perhaps the multiverse is the result of a schizophrenic god, unable to commit to things being just one way.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) May 20, 2011
"things have to be SOME way"

Why?

Is this a universal law? If so, where does it come from? If not, why does it exist?
Soylent_Grin
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2011
"things have to be SOME way"

Why?

Is this a universal law? If so, where does it come from? If not, why does it exist?


Alright, you're officially a troll. Later days, daisy.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2011
I can't wait until tomorrow when these cranks are magicked into heaven by Jesus so we can get back to discussing science and not the bible.

Amen,brother! Couldn't have said it better myself..
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2011
Repeating a statement doesn't make it any more true
That is what I said to you. You should credit the people you quote. We are self-aware, we are bags of chemicals and both those things are true. Or is that are not self aware? If you want to claim that we are MORE than bags of chemicals you need to show something that is physically impossible in the way humans function. Until then I will go with the physical reality and that is that we function due to chemistry and some electrical activities.

Please provide proof for that assertion
The entirety of medicine and biochemistry backs me up. YOU need to show otherwise as there is multi-billion dollar drug industry that depends on us being what I said. If all you can do is point out the we do not know everything you are doing the god of the gaps bit. You have a very tiny god if it has to fit into such a small gap.

And you are exceedingly demanding for someone that is evading reasonable questions.>>
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2011
Begin with providing a decent naturalistic model on how electric currents can generate self-awareness.
Show how it can't. I simply go on the obvious way we function. We have multiple ways of thinking about things and some parts the the other parts. Which is what self-awareness entails. There is nothing else going on.

If laws of logic are just conventions invented by humans
I never made that claim. The principles are those of math and logic and those principles would be true whether there is a god or isn't. If you think a god is needed SHOW WHY a god is needed. One plus one is true whether a god wills it or not.

are conventional, meaning, dependent on culture and time.
Bullshit. They are dependent on LOGIC and evidence that the logic works. They work regardless of culture or the existence of a god.>>

Did humans at some point in the past think that contradictions are OK?
Sure. You think so right now. You clearly are OK with the contradictions in the Bible.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) May 21, 2011
But contradictions don't work in the real world. If you think two different contradictory things are true and then test them you will find that only of the two is true. Or rather anyone but you as you are just fine with contradictions if they are in the Bible.

Laws of logic only work because they are universal.
They work because they are based on principles that are inherent in ANYTHING, more than one single thing that is, existing.

They are self-evident truths that are axiomatic to human existence.
They are NOT self-evident. People had to do a lot of work to discover them. They are axiomatic to ANY existence but they are not self-evident or we wouldn't have logic and math classes and EVERYONE would understand Godel's Proof and it wouldn't need a name.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) May 21, 2011
Laws of logic and reason are not part of the physical brain.
But the brain behaves according to them, as chemistry is an emergent property of physics and physics is an emergent property of the principles that we have discovered in logic in math, and any god would also be a product of those principles.

This law really exists as an abstract entity. Even without humans.
Yes. Even without a god.

I answered your questions now you answer mine.

The Bible has a Flood that never happened. It has the wrong order of creation. In fact it has two different wrong orders.

So since you are so sure there was a Flood how about you telling us when that flood occurred? Don't kid yourself I know why you don't want answer. Well I know two reasons and neither speak well for you.

What were the last words of Jesus on the cross? Read all four gospels for making something up.

Has man ever seen the face of Jehovah?

Ethelred
Johannes414
1 / 5 (5) May 21, 2011
Ethelred,

If indeed the principles of logic and math are always and universally true, then why does matter feel compelled to obey them? In other words, principles are not material, they are abtract. But how can atoms give rise to abstract laws? Even if the whole universe would be empty, 1+1 would still equal 2.

If there are immaterial laws in an otherwise material world, how did they come about? And what is the point of contact bewteen the material and the immaterial? If atoms obey immaterial laws they cannot also be the cause of them, because immaterial laws do not need atoms to exist.

If universal and non-material principles exist, then there is also the possibility that God exists, because God is also a non-material principle. On the other hand, if immaterial laws exist then by definition material atheism is illogical because it cannot account for the existence of logic.
Johannes414
May 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Peteri
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2011
If those of us who have a genuine interest in these articles ignored the comments of the attention seeking pious religious cranks who haunt this web site like a flock of circling vultures, then perhaps these intellectually myopic individuals would eventually loose interest and migrate to the various web sites devoted to religious debate - there they could ruminate to their hearts content with like-minded people about their god or gods.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (4) May 21, 2011
If those of us who have a genuine interest in these articles ignored the comments of the attention seeking pious religious cranks who haunt this web site like a flock of circling vultures, then perhaps these intellectually myopic individuals would eventually loose interest and migrate to the various web sites devoted to religious debate - there they could ruminate to their hearts content with like-minded people about their god or gods.

This website should have a feature I have encountered at another website: The ability to selectively block posts from annoying posters. In the meantime,keep reporting them as abusive.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2011
Once we start using the same energies the ETs are using, then we will begin hearing a lot of intelligent chatter out there amongst those planets, stars or whatever turns you on! Until then, the funding for these kinds of projects are sure to keep a lot of politicians and their cohorts very happy while at the same time bankrupting America. Maybe those ETs will loan us some money?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2011
Oh, I forgot, everything works with electricity!
ILIAD
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2011
more waste of money.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2011
If indeed the principles of logic and math are always and universally true, then why does matter feel compelled to obey them?
Because that is how the universe works. The laws of the Universe are subset of mathematics. Why is because THIS universe worked out to use the particular subset of math that it is using. And no that can't be proved but it makes sense.

In other words, principles are not material, they are abtract.
That is your opinion. The Universe is not constrained by your opinion. It is constrained by the principles behind math and logic. Like physics math and logic are discovered. Experiments are needed to find out which principles are involved in our Universe.

But how can atoms give rise to abstract laws?
How can they can do otherwise since the laws are NOT abstract rather they are basic principles of any kind of existence.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2011
Even if the whole universe would be empty, 1+1 would still equal 2.
I said that already. So if the universe has contents, as it must to be a universe, then 1 atom plus another atom would still equal two. You aren't going make a god appear by magic this way.

If there are immaterial laws in an otherwise material world, how did they come about?
You have it backwards. The principles inherently constrain ANYTHING including gods and worlds. And if they are mathematically valid why shouldn't they exist? Jehovah is NOT valid in our Universe. If you so desperately need Jehovah you have to move to another universe. One with a young earth as we don't have that. In that universe it will be obvious that the world is young.

Unless Jehovah is a liar. Then you will be living in a world way to much Ellison's I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. You are welcome to such a world. I prefer this one.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (1) May 22, 2011
If atoms obey immaterial laws they cannot also be the cause of them
Yes. They are the result of them. However in physics matter produces gravity and gravity tells matter where to go so it is not always straight forward once the basic principles of a universe are sorted out.

If universal and non-material principles exist, then there is also the possibility that God exists,
A god does not have to be YOUR god and there is no need for a god by those principles. There might be a universe with a god. Might even be this one but in that case the god is not omniscient as our Universe has laws that constrain what can be known of the future and even the past. We call that constraint The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. A god that is outside the universe would still be limited by the principle of logic and math and thus by Godel's Proof as that covers ALL systems of logic that can produce numbers and there are none know that can't produce numbers.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2011
because God is also a non-material principle.
No. No god is a principle. All gods are constrained by principles. Well Jehovah isn't a principle and frankly Jehovah doesn't seem to have ethics either. So it is good that Jehovah doesn't exist.

On the other hand, if immaterial laws exist then by definition material atheism is illogical because it cannot account for the existence of logic.
That does not follow from anything even remotely based on logic. You just claim a god created logic. I say a god constrained by it and that IS logical as we BOTH agree that logic transcends the universe.

Just making claims that logic must have a god is silly as I can simply do the opposite and claim a god must be constrained by logic. You are never going to get anywhere that way.

IF your god existed, the god of Genesis called Jehovah, THEN the there should be evidence that the world is young. You can't make that evidence by writing bullshit like you have been doing.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet May 22, 2011
I don't think you can do that in anyway since the physical evidence is against you but you are welcome to try. Produce REAL evidence for a Flood. Tell us your best guess as to when it happened. That you are evading a real answer is a clear indication that you know that the evidence is ALL against it.

I believe in some other post I addressed the alledged discrepancy between the chronological account of Gen 1 and the flash back to creation day six in Gen 2.
You tried and I showed you were not only wrong but that I had forgotten that G2 has man created on day EIGHT.

The animals in fact God "had made" in the original Hebrew.
And it still didn't change the order. Nor did fix the problem of man being made on day 8.

The plusperfect removes any order problem, as we can find in translations older than KJV.
It does no such a thing. And the day 8 problem remains as well.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet May 22, 2011
I do not know when exactly the flood occured. The Bible does not provide any specific date.
Disingenuous as the time can calculated and has been done many times.

Some people are of the opinion that we can calculate that date by adding the generations in Genesis, but this is open to debate.
False. It can be done. The problem is the date is embarrassing. I saw one group apologizing for the result but they could not figure out anyway to move the date back farther in time.

Some of these numbers seem highly symbolic and generations could be missing.
No. But there are CONTRADICTORY numbers for the ages of some of the people. The calculators always use the numbers that produce the oldest then possibly manage.

You could call me an agnostic when it comes to the earth being 6000 years old. But it is a definite possibility nevertheless.
No. There is no possibility at all and there was no Flood as there is NO physical evidence for it.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet May 22, 2011
The times are VERY bad for believers. Which is the real reason you were avoiding giving a date. Its right smack dab in the middle of the Egyptian pyramid building era and long after they and the Sumerians started writing. Neither of them notice being wiped out.

Each of them have the distinct profile of an eye witness account, as scholars admit.
My that was said be carefully. You really might want to know that I have been dealing with disingenuous Creationists for over a decade and know the real answers.

And no they do not have feel of an eyewitness account. Very little of the Bible does.

Between different eye witness accounts of any event, the general outline is usually undisputed.
Only by people that avoid the truth.

Certain details however, could differ.
That is dancing around the facts.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet May 22, 2011
The Bible writers made no effort to artificially harmonize the gospels, adding to their authenticity.
Yeah they did. There are cases where the translations were carefully shaded to hide the contradictions. Usually those are where the contradictions are close together in the same book. My guess is the translators didn't talk to each other much and only worked on small sections each.

They would only be a problem if they would present a contradiction.
I notice that you still refuse to actually quote them. Pretty clear then that you know you are trying to bullshit me.

A contradiction occurs when one gospel writer would have written A, when another would have written non-A. But this is not the case with the gospels.
That is false. You either didn't read all four or you are engaged in mendacity.

Jesus said several things on the cross. Those words are reflected accurately in the gospels.
Not possible since one contradicts another.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet May 22, 2011
So since you deliberately didn't quote them I will do so to show just how far into disingenuous behavior you are willing to go.

Matthew, Chapter 27:50
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Mark 15:37
And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Luke, Chapter 23:46
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John, Chapter 19 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Mathew and Mark aren't a problem though they do imply that the last words, well sounds, were just groans. BUT Luke and John have actual words. Very different words. They cannot both be true. And you knew that or you would not have evaded giving the actual words.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2011
Who has seen the face of God? The answer is: those that have seen Jesus Christ.
No. Of course it would be no if you were a Jehovah's Witness on that alone. But they are members of an organization that has predicted the end of the world SEVEN times so far so I think we can ignore them as grossly incompetent.

But they do have a point. The attempts to justify the claim that Jesus IS Jehovah or an avatar of Jehovah are more than a bit strained. Paul sure didn't go that way.

In any case you and others have forgotten that Abraham saw Jehovah just when Jehovah and two angels were legging it down to Sodom to check out some nasty rumors. Abraham even washed the feet of Jehovah.

Starts here
Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2011
Ends here
Gen 18:33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
And for some odd reason I have yet to have this discussion with a single Christian that remembered this passage without prompting. Then again it isn't really odd that a Literalist would want to forget this one.

Of course that has a problem with the Bible also saying that no one has seen the face of God.

And then there is the other question.

Cain was cursed to wander for the rest of his life. How do you reconcile that with his marrying, having children that were followed for many generations, and founding a city?

Ethelred
Bog_Mire
not rated yet May 22, 2011
Johannes414, just cut to the chase and detail how the archaeologist's methods in validating Biblical events/persons/descriptions that you espouse differ from those which show Human existence on Earth 50 000 years + ago. which you claim is trickery.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2011
Each of [the gospels] have the distinct profile of an eye witness account, as scholars admit.
Uh no scholars say something quite different:

""Matthew" probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the 1st century; the anonymous author drew on a number of sources, including the Gospel of Mark, the sayings collection known as the Q source, and material unique to his own community"

According to Irenaeus, Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that this gospel was by John Mark, the companion of Saint Peter in Rome [...] A number of modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian around AD 70"
Cont-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2011
"[...]According to Raymond E. Brown, it is not impossible that Luke was the author. According to the majority view, the author is simply unknown."

"The gospel [of John] is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that commentators treat the four books together, yet according to most modern scholars John was not the author of any of these books."

-More lies. You think you're preaching to the choir here padre?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2011
A contradiction occurs when one gospel writer would have written A, when another would have written non-A. But this is not the case with the gospels.
-You mean like this?
6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

-or this?

35) Can all sins be forgiven?  (Acts 13:39)  All sins can be forgiven.  Great, Im happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29)  Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) May 22, 2011
The above exerpts from
http://www.evilbi...ions.htm