Seven Earth-Like Planets Found

[RDKirk]

The term "earthlike" needs several conditions to be met. It must be a hard surfaced (rocky) planet not a gas giant. It must be large enough to hold an atmosphere but not so large as to have a crushing gravity. It must orbit in the "goldilocks zone" --- warm enough for liquid water but not so hot as to boil it away. Earth fits those conditions admirably. Mars is just barely within the zone on the cold side while Venus seems to be just outside of it on the hot side.

I understand what you mean, and that's what astronomers mean, but I disagree with such broad conditions being termed "earthlike."

Using what sounds like a "commonsense" term for something that is actually quite distinct from common sense is bad taxonomy.

Scientists ought really to be more closely specific in their terms than that. The commonsense understanding of "Earthlike" would be a condition naturally hospitable to nearly any temperate-zone earth creature.

Mars, for instance, should not be considered "earthlike." They'd be better off creating a scaling system as they do for stars to describe for themselves where such planets would fall on the scale. So call a planet that would be naturally hospitable to nearly any temperate-zone earth creature something like "Class M." Then they could say that "hard surfaced (rocky) planet not a gas giant. It must be large enough to hold an atmosphere but not so large as to have a crushing gravity. It must orbit in the 'goldilocks zone' --- warm enough for liquid water but not so hot as to boil it away" is a planet between classes, say, H to Q.

But using a "commonsense" term for something that actually requires a special understanding of the definition is bad taxonomy.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then perhaps a discussion and debate forum is not the best venue for your efforts. You might follow Ray Comfort's lead and try boardwalks, college campuses or street corners.

I will preach Jesus Christ where I like and do so without your approval. It is not the evidence that is going to convince you. It is Jesus Christ and His love that will convince you (if you are ever open to His love one day).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I see no evidence that the God of the Bible is real. You certainly aren't presenting any evidence.

That would require you to present evidence, which you refuse to do.

I didn't need any evidence in coming to the Lord. So your worldview that you need evidence in order to believe is flawed. I just believed in Jesus and asked Him to forgive me of His sins (According to reading His Word) and I was changed. The evidence came way later for me.

If you are truly desperate for evidences that back up the Bible to lead you to God then check out my post here.

Please take note that I will not debate these evidences with you. If you don't accept them that is because you are looking to not see that God is real and true (and no amount of evidence is going to truly convince you). For the Bible says without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). In other words, you do need to take a step of faith in order for God to be made known to you. This needs to be a total committment and not any kind of dipping your toes in the water to see if it is cold or not.


...

 

[USincognito]

I will preach Jesus Christ where I like and do so without your approval. It is not the evidence that is going to convince you. It is Jesus Christ and His love that will convince you (if you are ever open to His love one day)

Good for you! My advice stands however. If you don't want to engage in discussion or debate then perhaps a discussion and debate forum is not the best venue for your efforts.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't need any evidence in coming to the Lord.

I do.

So your worldview that you need evidence in order to believe is flawed.

Is it flawed?

Do you believe everything you are told without any evidence?

If you are truly desperate for evidences that back up the Bible to lead you to God then check out my post here.

Ron Wyatt's nonsense? He is a known scammer.

Please take note that I will not debate these evidences with you.

That's because you can't defend it. This is why I am an atheist.

 

[keith99]

I understand what you mean, and that's what astronomers mean, but I disagree with such broad conditions being termed "earthlike."

Using what sounds like a "commonsense" term for something that is actually quite distinct from common sense is bad taxonomy.

Scientists ought really to be more closely specific in their terms than that. The commonsense understanding of "Earthlike" would be a condition naturally hospitable to nearly any temperate-zone earth creature.

Mars, for instance, should not be considered "earthlike." They'd be better off creating a scaling system as they do for stars to describe for themselves where such planets would fall on the scale. So call a planet that would be naturally hospitable to nearly any temperate-zone earth creature something like "Class M." Then they could say that "hard surfaced (rocky) planet not a gas giant. It must be large enough to hold an atmosphere but not so large as to have a crushing gravity. It must orbit in the 'goldilocks zone' --- warm enough for liquid water but not so hot as to boil it away" is a planet between classes, say, H to Q.

But using a "commonsense" term for something that actually requires a special understanding of the definition is bad taxonomy.

I somewhat disagree. Earthlike is a somewhat vague term and a somewhat vague term seems appropriate when there is a lot we do not know about a planet.

Science uses common words all the time and in context they have specific definitions.

However Earthlike does sound a bit too good. It raises images of Science fiction worlds that from a close view look immediately habitable.

Perhaps terraformable is better. That would seem to only require that the planet is of the right composition and size that it might be possible to make habitable.

 

[American Deist]

In Genesis God created the heavens and the EARTH (singular). This means that there are no other Earths out there. Sorry to let you down there folks. God and His Word are still true.

There are some issues I want to point out with that line of thought:

1. The biblical authors lived in a time period that believed in geocentricity (Earth was the center of creation). They stood on the ground, looked at the night sky and observed that the "heavens" seemed to move across the sky. From their vantage point, Earth seemed to be the center of it all. The scroll writings reflected what they saw.

What they did not understand was that the Earth rotated. That is why the heavens seem to move across the sky, when in fact it is the Earth that is moving. They did not have telescopes, and so there was no way they could have known any better. When Galileo came along and pointed a telescope at the night sky, he had an "uh oh" moment. The Roman Catholic Church brought him up on charges of heresy because of his accusations denying geocentricity, tried him in court and sentenced him to house arrest until his death 7 years later. Pope John Paul II issued a proclamation 350 years later, stating that Galileo was right.

2. The size of the universe is unfathomable for most people. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains over 100 billion stars. Our Sun (a star) has 8 (9 counting Pluto) planets in orbit around it. If every star has just 1 planet, then that means a minimum of 100 billion planets in our galaxy. Stay with me, because it is about to get interesting!

The Hubble Space Telescope has tracked and photographed over 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe. I say visible because we can't see the end/edge. If you multiple 100 billion stars per galaxy x 100 billion galaxies, you come up with 1+18 zeroes. If only 0.0000001% of those planets have alien life (microbial or otherwise), then that means there are potentially 1,000,000,000 alien civilizations. We are not alone. Unfortunately, we lack the technology to get there at this time.

3. The Autographs are the original biblical writings. They no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed thousands of years ago, so the Bible that you read today is a copy, of a copy, of a copy, and has been translated and transliterated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek. People make mistakes all the time, and it is silly to think that the modern Bible is inerrant, because of human error. I am fine with thinking that the Autographs were inerrant, but that is a moot point since we don't have them. God did not come down from the cosmos and write anything that is in the Bible; humans did all the writing.

4. You can't look at the Bible through a modern lens. You have to put yourself in the mindset of someone living thousands of years ago, without the scientific and medical knowledge that we have today. What they did not understand, we now have knowledge of.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Good for you! My advice stands however. If you don't want to engage in discussion or debate then perhaps a discussion and debate forum is not the best venue for your efforts.

I have debated plenty on this forum on many Biblical topics amongst Christians. I just do not debate with those who reject God because it does not matter what I say or what I show them. They do not want God in their life, so it is futile to debate with them. It is like arguing with a border wall (made out of concrete). They have closed up their borders to God and they are not letting Him in. No amount of evidence is going to convince them because their foundational belief of rejecting God kicks in to reject any evidence presented.


...

 

[dad]

There is only one perspective that counts, the perspective of the atheist. .

Ha

 

[dad]

With stellar transit and Doppler shift data you can determine the size, mass, and orbit of exoplanets. How is that speculation?

False. Transit of things in space does not tell us distance. The underlying belief is that time exists there, so things take so much time to move. The problem is that we don't know how much if any time anything takes there, it is only seen here. So it IS belief.

 

[lesliedellow]

False. Transit of things in space does not tell us distance. The underlying belief is that time exists there, so things take so much time to move. The problem is that we don't know how much if any time anything takes there, it is only seen here. So it IS belief.

100%, undiluted, gobbledegook. When a planet crosses the face of its parent star, the star's brightness dims slightly, which is one of the things which betrays the planet's presence.

 

[dad]

100%, undiluted, gobbledegook. When a planet crosses the face of its parent star, the star's brightness dims slightly, which is one of the things which betrays the planet's presence.

That is fine. But that has nothing to do with whether time exists there. If an ant crosses a tennis ball, we know that the ant transited the ball area. That does not mean we fly a spaceship there hoping it is suitable to relocate the population of earth!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There are some issues I want to point out with that line of thought:

1. The biblical authors lived in a time period that believed in geocentricity (Earth was the center of creation). They stood on the ground, looked at the night sky and observed that the "heavens" seemed to move across the sky. From their vantage point, Earth seemed to be the center of it all. The scroll writings reflected what they saw.

What they did not understand was that the Earth rotated. That is why the heavens seem to move across the sky, when it fact it is the Earth that is moving. They did not have telescopes, and so there was no way they could have known any better. When Galileo came along and pointed a telescope at the night sky, he had an "uh oh" moment. The Roman Catholic Church brought him up on charges of heresy because of his accusations denying geocentricity, tried him in court and sentenced him to house arrest until his death 7 years later. Pope John Paul II issued a proclamation 350 years later, stating that Galileo was right.

2. The size of the universe is unfathomable for most people. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains over 100 billion stars. Our Sun (a star) has 8 (9 counting Pluto) planets in orbit around it. If every star has just 1 planet, then that means a minimum of 100 billion planets in our galaxy. Stay with me, because it is about to get interesting!

The Hubble Space Telescope has tracked and photographed over 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe. I say visible because we can't see the end/edge. If you multiple 100 billion stars per galaxy x 100 billion galaxies, you come up with 1+18 zeroes. If only 0.0000001% of those planets have alien life, then that means there are 1,000,000,000 alien civilizations. We are not alone. Unfortunately, we lack the technology to get there at this time.

3. The Autographs are the original biblical writings. They no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed thousands of years ago, so the Bible that you read today is a copy, of a copy, of a copy, and has been translated and transliterated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek. People make mistakes all the time, and it is silly to think that the modern Bible is inerrant, because of human error. I am fine with thinking that the Autographs were inerrant, but that is a moot point since we don't have them. God did not come down from the cosmos and write anything that is in the Bible; humans did all the writing.

First, I believe the King James is in the inerrant Word of God for several biblical reasons. Even Biblical numerics (that confirms the divinity of the original languages) can also be confirmed in the KJV, too (See the KJV Code on the number 7 by Pastor Mike Hoggard here). In other words, your barking up the wrong tree. For if I could not trust even one word within God's Word within my own language, then what makes me trust the rest of it? Who gets to decide what is correct in God's Word and what is not correct? If the Word of God was only preserved in the original languages like Hebrew and Greek, then that means God requires me to learn another language in order to understand His Word. However, God's Word makes no mention of this within His Word, though.

Second, while the documented evidence by man suggests that no saint in the OT times had any knowledge of how the Earth rotated around the sun, there is no real evidence to suggest that it was not revealed to at least one or a few of God's people. Granted, you may be right. Bible writers may have believed the sun rotated around the Earth, but we really cannot know that unless we have their actual words stating that fact. Anyways, I place more stock in God's Word than I do with man made documents in history that could have been re-written by the victors.

Three, alien encounters (Which is one of the reasons why people are seeking out other habital planets) are demonic deceptions. For the smell of brimstone has been reported in both alien and ghost encounters. The word "owls" sometimes refers to demons in the Bible. Certain owls have almond black shaped eyes like the grey aliens depicted by those who said they encountered aliens. In fact, there is a secular horror move called the "Fourth Kind" that makes a point in it's trailer about how owls are connected to communicating with these aliens (That is done in a disturbing manner). Then there are reports from various Christians who cast out these aliens in the name of Jesus, too. In other words, if the aliens can get you to believe they exist, then you will strive to seek them out thru telescopes, and other means, etc. However, if they are truly demons in disguise, then you would be seeking out the realm of darkness and not the Kingdom of God.


...

 

[American Deist]

First, I believe the King James is in the inerrant Word of God for several biblical reasons.

The KJV was written for the Church of England after its breakaway from the Roman Catholic Church, following King Henry VIII's wanting an annulment of his marriage to Catherine. The Pope said no, and that sparked the split. There were 47 scholars that worked on the KJV, and all 47 were members of the Church of England, commissioned by Henry (can you say biased). The language of the KJV was specifically chosen to make it sound formal for public reading. However, English was not a language during Jesus' time on Earth, so while it may sound like a Shakespearean play, that is not how Hebrew and Koine Greek sound.

Anyways, I place more stock in God's Word than I do with man made documents in history that could have been re-written by the victors.

The Roman Catholic Church, by way of Pope John Paul II, admitted that Galileo was right (geocentricity), the Church was wrong, and that's that. This is a non issue now.

Three, alien encounters (Which is one of the reasons why people are seeking out other habital planets) are demonic deceptions.

Seriously?

I'll entertain this for a moment. I believe in God as the omnipotent Creator of the universe. I am sure you do too. If aliens existed on another planet, then that means God created them as well.

 

[lesliedellow]

The KJV was written for the Church of England after its breakaway from the Roman Catholic Church, following King Henry VIII's wanting an annulment of his marriage to Catherine. The Pope said no, and that sparked the split. There were 47 scholars that worked on the KJV, and all 47 were members of the Church of England, commissioned by Henry (can you say biased).

Whilst I have no sympathy for KJV-Only-ism, the KJV was commissioned by James I, not Henry VIII, as a way of placating the Puritans in his realm. It borrows very largely from Tyndale's translation.

 

[dad]

If aliens existed on another planet, then that means God created them as well.

So what will He do with them when the universe and stars infold like a scroll and exist no more?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I do.

That is tough luck for you. God says in His Word that you already without excuse of knowing His existence by the creation.

Is it flawed?
Do you believe everything you are told without any evidence?

As I said, the evidence for God is all around you. The beauty and wonder of creation.

Ron Wyatt's nonsense? He is a known scammer.

Yes, I am aware he is a known scammer. He was not shown in any of the videos I had provided and nor did he narrate them. Ron's only influence in the Exodus Revealed video is possibly the charriot wheel made out of gold. Whether this was planted by Ron is unknown. However, what Ron could not fake was the location itself. The Israelite's were shut in by the wilderness (rock) as the Bible says and as Josephus (a 1st century Roman Jewish scholar) states. The beach also could fit the number of Israelites who escaped from Egypt. There is a rising up point on the floor bottom of the sea sort of like a pathway for the Israelites to cross. There is coral in the shape of chariot wheels. Then there is Mt. Sinai which is Mount Jabal Al Lawz in Saudi Arabria. The top of the mountain is burned just as the Bible says. There is a cave in the mountain just as it says in the Bible. There is even a huge split looking like rock where Moses hit the rock and the water ran out, as well. There are also other numerous artifacts that were discovered. While these artifacts could have been fakes, you cannot fake natural geography that lines up with the Bible. As for the other video called Mountain of Fire, Ron is in no way affiliated with that video.

That's because you can't defend it.

I have presented the evidence several times on various forums. But again, I do not need to defend these evidences because the creation itself makes you without excuse that there is a God (According to Scripture).

This is why I am an atheist

No. You are an atheist because you choose to be an atheist by willfully ignoring the things of God.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Whilst I have no sympathy for KJV-Only-ism, the KJV was commissioned by James I, not Henry VIII, as a way of placating the Puritans in his realm. It borrows very largely from Tyndale's translation.

Well, I am not KJV-Only. The KJV is merely my final word of authority. I believe in reading Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English in the KJV. Also, I believe the Word of God was preserved perfectly in 4 languages thru out time, as well (i.e. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English).


...

 

[TheOldWays]

I just do not debate with those who reject God because it does not matter what I say or what I show them. They do not want God in their life, so it is futile to debate with them. It is like arguing with a border wall (made out of concrete). They have closed up their borders to God and they are not letting Him in. No amount of evidence is going to convince them because their foundational belief of rejecting God kicks in to reject any evidence presented.

I just do not debate with those who accept the God of the Bible because it does not matter what I say or what I show them. They do not want to explore outside their chosen path, so it is futile to debate with them. It is like arguing with a border wall (made out of concrete). They have closed up their borders to anything but the Christian God and they are not letting anything else in. No amount of evidence is going to convince them because their foundational belief of accepting God kicks in to reject any evidence presented.

See. It's just points of view.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I just do not debate with those who accept the God of the Bible because it does not matter what I say or what I show them. They do not want to explore outside their chosen path, so it is futile to debate with them. It is like arguing with a border wall (made out of concrete). They have closed up their borders to anything but the Christian God and they are not letting anything else in. No amount of evidence is going to convince them because their foundational belief of accepting God kicks in to reject any evidence presented.

See. It's just points of view.

No, it is not. I used to not believe and then I believed one day (which was not something I planned on). After accepting Jesus I could see the Lord working within my life. Then God also showed me at a later time, evidence to prove that His Word is true, as well. So we are not even close to seeing things in a similar way, my friend. Not even close.


...