RIP Frank Drake

[Shadowy Man]

In decades long since past, atheists giggled that "the universe is so huge, with billions of stars that no intelligent creator would have bothered to waste all that matter and energy just for us."

Fast forward to today and the Anthropic Principle, a statistical study of physical constants fine-tuned to an impossible degree.

What is the atheist response? Why there are an INFINITE NUMBER of universes and WE just HAPPEN to be in the *right* one, wink, nudge, giggle.

That and the Quantum Vacuum made everything. This is *science* atheist style.
No basis, no common sense, just semantics and snarks.

Roughly 75% of Nobel Laureates believe in Nature's God. So much for the atheist snark of Christianity and science being mutually exclusive.

http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com

Christian god is the same as “nature’s god”?

And you know that Nobel Prizes are given to non-scientists, too, right?

Also, I have known and worked with scientists who are Christian.

 

[bilby]

In decades long since past, atheists giggled that "the universe is so huge, with billions of stars that no intelligent creator would have bothered to waste all that matter and energy just for us."

Fast forward to today and the Anthropic Principle, a statistical study of physical constants fine-tuned to an impossible degree.

What is the atheist response? Why there are an INFINITE NUMBER of universes and WE just HAPPEN to be in the *right* one, wink, nudge, giggle.

That and the Quantum Vacuum made everything. This is *science* atheist style.
No basis, no common sense, just semantics and snarks.

Roughly 75% of Nobel Laureates believe in Nature's God. So much for the atheist snark of Christianity and science being mutually exclusive.

http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com

Reality isn't a democracy. If everyone in the entire world believes something that's untrue, that thing remains untrue.

 

[steve_bank]

The hunt for habitable planets may have just gotten far more narrow, new study finds | CNN

In a new study of a world orbiting the most common type of star in universe — a type of system scientists have long theorized could support life — researchers found no indication such a planet could hold onto an atmosphere at all.

www.cnn.com

CNN —

The hunt for planets that could harbor life may have just narrowed dramatically.

Scientists had long hoped and theorized that the most common type of star in our universe — called an M dwarf — could host nearby planets with atmospheres, potentially rich with carbon and perfect for the creation of life. But in a new study of a world orbiting an M dwarf 66 light-years from Earth, researchers found no indication such a planet could hold onto an atmosphere at all.

Without a carbon-rich atmosphere, it’s unlikely a planet would be hospitable to living things. Carbon molecules are, after all, considered the building blocks of life. And the findings don’t bode well for other types of planets orbiting M dwarfs, said study coauthor Michelle Hill, a planetary scientist and a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Riverside.

“The pressure from the star’s radiation is immense, enough to blow a planet’s atmosphere away,” Hill said in a post on the university’s website.

M dwarf stars are known to be volatile, sputtering out solar flares and raining radiation on nearby celestial bodies.

 

[Swammerdami]

Casual writing is generally impossible to decode without a key. That doesn't mean communication is impossible with a scientific mind, though--there is a language in common. Math, physics, and chemistry are common to all species--while the names will obviously differ what they describe will not.
xt in terms of a semantic linkage.

Whales, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and porpoises are species unfamiliar with physics, math and chemistry. What leads you to believe that IF something is out there, it can even see? Why would you make such a presumption? Why would it be more advanced than we are, and even if it is and can see and understand, you made no mention of turnaround time much less its unfamiliarity with us, our DNA and are particular habits, diseases and problems.
Hundreds of millions of dollars squandered and nobody in that realm has a problem with throwing good money after bad, after all, THIS is what they call *science* and it is super hallowed.

I've never seen the 2006 film of A for Andromeda. Is this it? Such a scenario MIGHT give pause to SETI enthusiasts. (ETA: VERY different iirc from the sci-fi novel I read long long ago.)

As for the billions "wasted" on space exploration and the search for massive bosons — I don't have a problem with that. Society wastes billions appeasing the lusts of NBA and NFL fans; why not let science nerds have some fun too?