Exoplanets Intelligent Design News

The planets we don’t know much about are better than Earth?

Spread the love

Well, so says Scientific American:

Planets More Habitable Than Earth May Be Common in Our Galaxy

Planets quite different from our own may be the best homes for life in the universe

Because earthlings still know of just one living world—our own—it makes some sense to use Earth as a template in the search for life elsewhere, such as in the most Earth-like regions of Mars or Jupiter’s watery moon Europa. Now, however, discoveries of potentially habitable planets orbiting stars other than our sun—exoplanets, that is—are challenging that geocentric approach.

The rest is paywalled. But before you get out your credit card, … why does this sound a lot like one of those real estate deals gone bust?

We don’t know if a habitable planet is born every minute, but at least one type of person is.

If you disagree, buy real estate you have never seen. Especially if it is going really, really cheap.

See also: “Behold, countless Earths sail the galaxies … that is, if you would only believe …

and

Don’t let Mars fool you. Those exoplanets teem with life!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “The planets we don’t know much about are better than Earth?

  1. 1
    Petrushka says:

    I have the hard copy of the issue.

    No one is saying you can vacation at one of these planets.

    They are better in one sense: their sun is not going to swell up and engulf them any time soon.

    But then, neither is ours.

    I love science fiction, but our sun will be stable for several hundred million more years.

  2. 2
    tjguy says:

    Planets More Habitable Than Earth May Be Common in Our Galaxy

    Sure. They might, but then again they might not so what is this statement supposed to mean?

    Is it a scientific statement?

    Or how about this one?

    Planets quite different from our own may be the best homes for life in the universe.

    Maybe, but then again, maybe not! Again, what is the point of making such a statement?

    Why do they think this? What evidence do they have to support that idea? None that I know of, but hope springs eternal for Materialists when it comes to the origin of life anywhere in the universe.

    Go find the evidence so you can give a definitive answer as opposed to making silly statements like this!

    They clearly want people to think this idea of life in outer space is very feasible.

    The idea of a planet being habitable is interesting, but there are many factors that make it habitable. Being in the “habitable zone” is not nearly enough.

    The Bible says that God made this earth to be inhabited and clearly the evidence fits that statement.

    Whether there are other habitable planets out there or not, I don’t know. But being habitable is a far cry from actually being inhabited! That tiny little inconvenient fact seems never to get a mention in these types of press releases. Clearly their belief is that life can and probably will evolve if given a chance.

    Remember the discovery of the planet Gliese 581g? Remember the scientist that said he is almost 100% sure there is life on that planet? Now they don’t even know if the planet even exists! So much for his confident sounding claims and amazing belief! Let that be a lesson to us all when discussing unverifiable ideas about life in space.

    And, yes, this is not a scientific statement or fact, but rather, faith masking scientific sounding lingo. The idea of life in outer space is nothing more than a metaphysical BELIEF inherent in the Materialist worldview.

    By the way, here is the exact quote of the scientist I mentioned above:

    “Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent,” said discoverer and astronomer Steven Vogt during a press briefing yesterday. “I have almost no doubt about it.”

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    podcast – “Eric Metaxas: Science Makes the Case for God”
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_52-08_00

  4. 4
    mahuna says:

    The last I heard, rational cosmologists had gotten the Drake Equation up to 45 separate requirements for Life to survive on a planet. Ignoring mere facts, the writer of the article is apparently suggesting that there is something ENTIRELY different from Life on Earth that COULD exist on a planet NOT like Earth. I don’t think that even qualifies as a Theory.

    Back in the 1950s, science fiction writers banged out stuff like that all the time. Much of it died when Earthlings got to see live TV broadcasts from the Moon: the driest, most barren desert anyone could possibly imagine. And pictures from Mars didn’t help. It was clearly as desolate as the Moon. SEEING Outer Space is what killed the Space Program.

    The ONLY reason to even send satellites into space is to look BACK at Earth. The only reason to send humans into space is to confirm the list of BAD things space does to terrestrial life and see if we can discover something ELSE that will kill us out there.

    We currently have a lab rat human on the Space Station for the SOLE purpose of enduring 12 months in micro-gravity and increased radiation high above the Earth. We already know that this is a BAD thing to do because it causes PERMANENT damage to the human body. But somebody wanted to see HOW bad the damage would be. There is no hope of repairing any of the damage. The lab rat is clearly suicidal. That’s what the Space Program has become: a really expensive way to kill yourself.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Be Skeptical of the Hype in the Search for “Earth-like” Planets
    When it comes to exoplanets, “Earth-size” does not mean “Earth-like” – By Guillermo Gonzalez – January 29, 2015
    https://stream.org/skeptical-hype-search-earth-like-planets/

Leave a Reply