Keys to life? Scientists explain how newly-discovered exoplanets could be habitable

[james bond]

My take is we were probably never meant to live on multiplanets if the fine tuning theory holds. However, today's science does not discuss the fine tuning theory since it's made by creation scientists. Thus, today's secular science continues to believe there are planets such as Mars and now these exoplanets that we can colonize. I don't think there is an official position by creation scientists on it, but it could be we may be able to reach these very distant planets sometime in the future, but to live on them would be another matter. I think the Bible supports life on Earth and that's about it.

Keys to life? Scientists explain how newly-discovered exoplanets could be habitable
Keys to life? Scientists explain how newly-discovered exoplanets could be habitable

 

[ScienceRocks]

Seriously, what is the limit? We can make our own environment if the atmosphere isn't 100% perfect.

Because one believes in god doesn't mean we shouldn't explore his universe...

 

[james bond]

Seriously, what is the limit? We can make our own environment if the atmosphere isn't 100% perfect.

Because one believes in god doesn't mean we shouldn't explore his universe...

Again, explore is one thing. To be able to colonize is another.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We won't know if those planets can support human life until we find out how much CO2 is in the atmosphere

 

[yiostheoy]

Approaching this issue from the perspective of pure probability alone, combined with the almost infinite vastness of the Universe especially in deep space, it is certain that other carbon and water based life forms exist somewhere else in the Universe. And probably all over it.

 

[james bond]

We won't know if those planets can support human life until we find out how much CO2 is in the atmosphere

Can you elaborate what you mean?

 

[james bond]

Approaching this issue from the perspective of pure probability alone, combined with the almost infinite vastness of the Universe especially in deep space, it is certain that other carbon and water based life forms exist somewhere else in the Universe. And probably all over it.

Didn't you watch my video. Pure probability states there won't be life. The evidence backs this up as we have SETI and have not made contact. Even atheist scientist, Carl Sagan, died believing this with no evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We won't know if those planets can support human life until we find out how much CO2 is in the atmosphere

Can you elaborate what you mean?

Microscopic changes in CO2 are transforming Earth from a habitable Paradise into a Global climate warming change nightmare, threatening our 6th and last extinction

 

[james bond]

We won't know if those planets can support human life until we find out how much CO2 is in the atmosphere

Can you elaborate what you mean?

Microscopic changes in CO2 are transforming Earth from a habitable Paradise into a Global climate warming change nightmare, threatening our 6th and last extinction

Just wanted to make sure. CO2 makes plants and animals who eat plants grow. What you are referring to is the climate change hypothesis. Since evoultion took millions of years, you won't have to worry about it for millions and millions of years. Also, the rich businessmen hypocrites who promote climate change continue to not practice what they preach personally and continue to fly in their private jets putting out more CO2. My experimental proof is in the vids below. It's better to eat organic and natural foods than the GM products that evolutionists and these business people promote. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson promotes GMO foods. GM foods will not feed the world. That's a myth.

 

[pinqy]

Approaching this issue from the perspective of pure probability alone, combined with the almost infinite vastness of the Universe especially in deep space, it is certain that other carbon and water based life forms exist somewhere else in the Universe. And probably all over it.

Didn't you watch my video. Pure probability states there won't be life.

No it doesn't. It can't. We know life is possible, so we can't say the probability of another example somewhere in the vast universe.

The evidence backs this up as we have SETI and have not made contact.

No, that's only evidence that there is no intelligent life using technology that would radiate signals we would detect X number of years ago.

Even atheist scientist, Carl Sagan, died believing this with no evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[james bond]

Approaching this issue from the perspective of pure probability alone, combined with the almost infinite vastness of the Universe especially in deep space, it is certain that other carbon and water based life forms exist somewhere else in the Universe. And probably all over it.

Didn't you watch my video. Pure probability states there won't be life.

No it doesn't. It can't. We know life is possible, so we can't say the probability of another example somewhere in the vast universe.

The evidence backs this up as we have SETI and have not made contact.

No, that's only evidence that there is no intelligent life using technology that would radiate signals we would detect X number of years ago.

Even atheist scientist, Carl Sagan, died believing this with no evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Again, fine tuning has probability on its side. I think you're stating life is possible because of vastness of the universe, but Carl Sagan died being wrong. So will you. If other carbon and water based life forms exist or probably all over it, then where is your evidence? Do you believe in things without any evidence? Being Christian with a good deal of science knowledge, where have I heard this before ha ha? What is your background? Evolutionist? Science knowledge? Atheist? Other?

The rest I'll accept as your opinion.