Did Biblical events really exist?

[Arch Enemy]

Nazareth did exist, it is currently existing today. http://www.nazareth.muni.il/home.html

 

[DonRicardo]

Nazareth did exist, it is currently existing today. http://www.nazareth.muni.il/home.html

Yes, you're right. Nazareth was still too small to be included within the list of towns. Notion of the settled Nazareth only came between 600-900 BC, I think.

But here are some other facts, which I haven't mentioned yet:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

This article shows that the name "Jesus", as well as "son of father", "son of God", was used in several stories, which means some gospel writers derived their influence of other previous writings.

More evidence is:

- If Jesus was such a wonderful man - he feeded once 4000 and another time 5000s with food - how come no one wrote something down? Bible is the only script.

Here you can find more proof:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html#BJ

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but this is negative evidence (dis-suggesting his existence).

 

[Arch Enemy]

Many stories in the Bible are pretty much metaphors and stories stretched by the Catholic Church in order to "top" over religions. Alot of things that Jesus said, he didn't actually say. They took the true image of Jesus and morphed it into a pious, serious man.

There's no doubt in my mind that there was a "Jesus".

 

[kal-el]

Yes, IMO everything in the Bible did indeed happen. How they happened might be a different story though. You have to remember the times when the 66 books of the Bible were written. It was anywhere between 4000 and 6000 years ago. This was a primitive and no-technology time, and absence of this technology, IMO is the "key" to understanding what the authors were conveying. For example, there were no houselights, streetlights, searchlights, neon signs, jets, planes, helicopters, or missiles. I believe when someone tried to describe something that is flying, spinning, glowing,and flashing in the sky, it can only be described in the terms related to things in that person's environment, things they are aware of. Never having seen a kite in the sky, the description can be all over the place. There was nothing even close technologically to liken it to. That IMO, is why we read that there are clouds, whirlwinds, chariots, and platforms.

 

[Thinker]

Yes, IMO everything in the Bible did indeed happen.

I think the description of the sun standing still in the sky and then starting
again a day later is fairly clear. "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven,
and hasted not to go down about a whole day." - or something like that.

So the energy of rotation of the earth would have had to have been
dissipated in <12 hours and then reapplied to get the world spinning again, all
without the significant events that such an expenditure of force would
create: earthquakes, tidal waves (whole oceans moving), general destruction
of the crust, massive volcanic activity everywhere,...

I'm sure if the biblical writers had actually observed the sun standing still,
they would also have mentioned how lucky they were to survive the resulting
global catastrophe.

You still believe everything in the bible really happened?

 

[kal-el]

I think the description of the sun standing still in the sky and then starting
again a day later is fairly clear. "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven,
and hasted not to go down about a whole day." - or something like that.

So the energy of rotation of the earth would have had to have been
dissipated in <12 hours and then reapplied to get the world spinning again, all
without the significant events that such an expenditure of force would
create: earthquakes, tidal waves (whole oceans moving), general destruction
of the crust, massive volcanic activity everywhere,...

I'm sure if the biblical writers had actually observed the sun standing still,
they would also have mentioned how lucky they were to survive the resulting
global catastrophe.

You still believe everything in the bible really happened?

Of course I do, but again I say it is the primitive authors flawed descritpions of events. Why does it have to be a supernatural force able to keep the sun shining bright in the sky?

 

[DonRicardo]

Of course I do, but again I say it is the primitive authors flawed descritpions of events. Why does it have to be a supernatural force able to keep the sun shining bright in the sky?

Obviously you failed to read what he meant. Thinker quoted a part of the Bible where the writers stated that the sun stood still for a certain period.

This is impossible, because this would mean that the Earth does not rotate anymore.

Again, you probably didn't read all the arguments I wrote above (those of the Arc of Noah and Jesus). The Arc of Noah and others are simply impossible to have happened. An ocean cannot vaporise.

 

[Thinker]

Of course I do, but again I say it is the primitive authors flawed descritpions of events. Why does it have to be a supernatural force able to keep the sun shining bright in the sky?

I would not describe forgetting to mention the near destruction of the planet
as "flawed". It would be rather like survivors of the Asian tsunami talking about
birds being startled and saying nothing about water.

Until I am given evidence to the contrary, I would call it supernatural to stop
the Earth spinning, start it up again 24-odd hours later, and have no other
effects that even primitive reporters would have been able to describe
accurately, because I know of no natural forces that could do it.

 

[kal-el]

Originally posted by Thinker
because I know of no natural forces that could do it.

Exactly. We Don't know. I'm sure there's someone out there with more capablities, intelligence, and technology that is far superior to our own out there. To think that we are alone in the universe is ignorance, and narrow-mindedness. I'm sure there's frogs in the bottom of ponds wondering if there's other frogs in other pods out there.

 

[128shot]

I sit here knowing full well that someone out in the universe is sitting under a tree, eating an apple saying

"Naw, there is nobody else out there"

 

[Thinker]

Exactly. We Don't know. I'm sure there's someone out there with more capablities, intelligence, and technology that is far superior to our own out there.

Please do not misinterpret my words. In order to explain the event which you
believe actually happened, you have to postulate tremendous forces that
can reduce the angular momentum of the Earth to zero very quickly without
causing a catastrophe (and then restore it). There is no evidence at all that
this can be done; all the evidence we have indicates that it is impossible. On
the other hand, my explanation for the event is quite simple: it never
happened; it's a myth made up to show the power of a mythical god. As I
don't need to invent new physics, Occam's razor would lead us to
accept my explanation as the more likely.

To think that we are alone in the universe is ignorance, and narrow-mindedness.

Indeed it is, as is to believe that there's some supernatural entity that works
magic and created everything.

I'm sure there's frogs in the bottom of ponds wondering if there's other frogs in other pods out there.

I doubt if frogs wonder about anything.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I highly doubt there is such other beings out there(aliens).

Gen1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth

God said earth not earths or He didnt name other essential planets that would imply life on them. He mentioned one significant planet and a significant heavens which is ominous and to our knowledge is infinite.

However, your right we dont have any actual proof other wise. But we dont have proof that we do.

 

[Thinker]

I highly doubt there is such other beings out there(aliens).

Gen1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth

God said earth not earths or He didnt name other essential planets that would imply life on them. He mentioned one significant planet and a significant heavens which is ominous and to our knowledge is infinite.

So you interpret your book as good evidence that there are no intelligent
beings elsewhere in the universe? I do not, just as I would not consider other
ancient myths as evidence.

You are right in saying that we have no proof either way, so talking about
that is pointless. Instead it is better to consider the likelihood of life
elsewhere.

The evidence we have indicates that life started very soon after the
formation of the Earth. This suggests that it isn't all that difficult to
get life started. We know of (literally) astronomical numbers of galaxies
each with billions of stars. We are starting to get evidence that planets
seem to be common. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there must
be huge numbers of planets in the universe. We have no reason to think that
Earth is in any way special, so again it is likely that there are many, many,
Earth-like planets in the universe. As we think life is not difficult to start, it
follows that it is likely there are many planets with life.

None of that presupposes any supernatural forces. It is based on evidence
accumulated and tested over many years by the scientific community.

It is possible that we are the only life in the universe, but our current
knowledge suggests that such a state is highly improbable.

 

[DonRicardo]

Exactly. We Don't know. I'm sure there's someone out there with more capablities, intelligence, and technology that is far superior to our own out there. To think that we are alone in the universe is ignorance, and narrow-mindedness. I'm sure there's frogs in the bottom of ponds wondering if there's other frogs in other pods out there.

I think not:
1. The earth exists 7 billion years (approximately)
2. The universe exists 10-14 billion years.

This means our Earth could be one of the OLDEST PLANETS, at least somewhere in the oldest range. Our Earth is really somewhere relatively close to the center of the universe, considering its age.

3. Do 14-7 = 7 billion years. Now you still have to substract the time it takes in order to transform energy into mass; that is the creation of planets.
4. Now take the "chance" of life:
a. there must be amino acids and h20 molecules in order to form organic cells
b. there must be an atmosphere
c. there must a bright star with the planet flying in its orbit
d. temperature must be moderate

Consider life a a "JACKPOT". What are the chances?

I state that we are the most intelligent, high-teched species in this universe - maybe there could be more of them.

I highly doubt there is such other beings out there(aliens).

Gen1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth

Genesis is full of crap. Even most christians only see it as a fable.

Genesis gives a definition of "day", because in a certain sentence it is together with "season" and "year".

Considering this, Genesis states the Earth was built in 6 days, which is false, because scientists compared the ages of material.

I really doubt if there is one true fact in Genesis at all. I read the first five pages and I could write 2 pages of my own, proving that it is false. The Bible is, in my opinion, a gospel based upon his precedents. The name "Jesus" was mentioned before in other literature. This again suggest that the whole story of Jesus was made up.

God said earth not earths or He didnt name other essential planets that would imply life on them. He mentioned one significant planet and a significant heavens which is ominous and to our knowledge is infinite.

Heaven (sky) is not infinite. THe universe keeps expanding (it gets thinner in density) at increasing rate. Unless you consider that both space and time are infinitely divisible, you cannot state nature as infinite.

However, your right we dont have any actual proof other wise. But we dont have proof that we do.

THe whole book (Bible) and religion are based upon no proof. Why don't we abandon it first, until some evidence shows up? Science was based upon observations; religion was made up. Unless any observation or evidence is shown, I think, we should reject its entire content.

Imagine we can adapt infinite number of statements, because you can't disprove them:
- a pink unicorn is blowing soap bells
- a purple elephant created the universe
....

That's religion (based upon no proof).

 

[Thinker]

I think not:
1. The earth exists 7 billion years (approximately)
2. The universe exists 10-14 billion years.

This means our Earth could be one of the OLDEST PLANETS, at least somewhere in the oldest range. Our Earth is really somewhere relatively close to the center of the universe, considering its age.

Please explain how you get from 70%-50% to "one of the oldest"? At best,
for your point of view, your figures would put 30% of the universe as being
older. Similarly, even making the hugely unwarranted assumption that age
relates to position in the universe, how do your figures suggest that we're
"relatively close to the center of the universe"?

3. Do 14-7 = 7 billion years. Now you still have to substract the time it takes in order to transform energy into mass; that is the creation of planets.

OK - let's play and assume your dates come from the Big Bang theory.
Current ideas suggest all the matter in the universe existed
0.4M (that's million, not billion) years after the BB. No time at all on a scale
of billions of years. First generation star (and therefore planet) formation
would have been complete before 1 thousand million years had passed.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_timeline#The_Epoch_of_Nucleosynthesis:_3_minutes

4. Now take the "chance" of life:
a. there must be amino acids and h20 molecules in order to form organic cells

Not very difficult to do. Try looking here:
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/pr.html
The chances of this are extremely high.

b. there must be an atmosphere

Several of the planets and even moons in our solar system have
atmospheres, so again, it appears to be a likely occurrence.

c. there must a bright star with the planet flying in its orbit
d. temperature must be moderate

I don't know where "bright" comes into it. I assume you mean there needs
to be a planet at a distance that gives similar temperatures to Earth.
We are almost daily finding more and more planets, and this indicates that
they are common. There are so many stars that the chances of a huge
number such planets are high.

Consider life a a "JACKPOT". What are the chances?

If you bother to look at it properly, the chances are as close to certainty as you could want.

 

[DonRicardo]

Please explain how you get from 70%-50% to "one of the oldest"? At best,
for your point of view, your figures would put 30% of the universe as being
older. Similarly, even making the hugely unwarranted assumption that age
relates to position in the universe, how do your figures suggest that we're
"relatively close to the center of the universe"?

The older the material, the closer to the center. The big bang is an explosion or expansion, thus it starts at the core. The explosion starts from core and expands. THe material that is older must be closer towards the center.

OK - let's play and assume your dates come from the Big Bang theory.
Current ideas suggest all the matter in the universe existed
0.4M (that's million, not billion) years after the BB. No time at all on a scale
of billions of years. First generation star (and therefore planet) formation
would have been complete before 1 thousand million years had passed.

Well, yes, I said one of the "oldest". Thus I mean relatively old.

Our Earth is really somewhere relatively close to the center of the universe, considering its age.

Not very difficult to do. Try looking here:
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/pr.html
The chances of this are extremely high.

This is not an argument. Scientists created the process themselves. I mean that amino acids have to come from another location (it was an asteroid) and merge with H2O atoms. How great is the chance nature causes this process?

No other planets with life have been found so far.

Several of the planets and even moons in our solar system have
atmospheres, so again, it appears to be a likely occurrence.

Yes, but they don't have amino acids AND H20 molecules. The chance that all requirements appear at the same planet is quite small, isn't it? Can you find me another planet that has ALL of these? If not, then you're wrong.

I don't know where "bright" comes into it. I assume you mean there needs
to be a planet at a distance that gives similar temperatures to Earth.
We are almost daily finding more and more planets, and this indicates that
they are common. There are so many stars that the chances of a huge
number such planets are high.

You understood me completely wrong. Suppose a planet has amino acids and H20 and even an atmosphere. What if it doesn't have a star around which it orbits? The chance of having ALL requirements is quite small. That's why I summed them up.

If you bother to look at it properly, the chances are as close to certainty as you could want.

The chance that there is MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE THAN US is very small. That was the main idea that I was wanting to express.

Because, like you say if there remains even a 30% of planets that are older than us, you have to combine these with all the requirements that are needed to create life. These are:
1.
a. there must be amino acids and h20 molecules in order to form organic cells
b. there must be an atmosphere
c. there must a bright star with the planet flying in its orbit
d. temperature must be moderate

Such planets have not been found yet and even if they are, are they older than ours?

2. Now combine this with the chance of life evolving intelligent.

On Earth a meteor crashed that caused an enormous amount of dust. Only small animals could survive and they evolved, because they became more intelligent because of this. Without this crash dinosaurs would still have lived and man would not exist.

Again, how great is that chance?

3. THere is a chance that planets are destroyed or that a certain disaster causes an evolving life form to extinguish.


May I assume that we are the most advanced/intelligent species in THIS universe - for now?

 

[kal-el]

I highly doubt there is such other beings out there(aliens).

Gen1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth

God said earth not earths or He didnt name other essential planets that would imply life on them. He mentioned one significant planet and a significant heavens which is ominous and to our knowledge is infinite.

However, your right we dont have any actual proof other wise. But we dont have proof that we do.

Genesis 1:26
Let Us make man in our own image after our own likeness

This verses says it all. Even though the Bible does have many misconceptions, it states very clearly that this "omnipotent" God, in which you believe, is but one of many. Maybe they're not God's at all?

Originally posted byThinker
Please do not misinterpret my words. In order to explain the event which you
believe actually happened, you have to postulate tremendous forces that
can reduce the angular momentum of the Earth to zero very quickly without
causing a catastrophe (and then restore it). There is no evidence at all that
this can be done; all the evidence we have indicates that it is impossible. On
the other hand, my explanation for the event is quite simple: it never
happened; it's a myth made up to show the power of a mythical god. As I
don't need to invent new physics, Occam's razor would lead us to
accept my explanation as the more likely

It seems like you are labeling the event "impossible" because of our current level of scientific knowledge, don't you think that someone out there has technology and knowlege that makes ours look primitive?

Indeed it is, as is to believe that there's some supernatural entity that works
magic and created everything

Exactly. I totally agree.

 

[DonRicardo]

This verses says it all. Even though the Bible does have many misconceptions, it states very clearly that this "omnipotent" God, in which you believe, is but one of many. Maybe they're not God's at all?

What if the entire Bible is a piece of imagination?

It seems like you are labeling the event "impossible" because of our current level of scientific knowledge, don't you think that someone out there has technology and knowlege that makes ours look primitive?

You misunderstood what Thinker meant. Certain events cannot occur, because nature has limits. I'll give you a very clear example:

Faster than light travel is not impossible, because information (energy) can only be transported at the speed of light. When information is fired faster than light, it will either red- or blue-shift, causing to lengthen the light beam. The head or tail, which is lengthened, will not carry information.

No matter how sofisticated man or any other race can be, we are bound to limits. We are constructed of particles ourselves and cannot superceed natural limits.

If the Earth stops rotating, it would have desastrous consequences. Claiming that it is possible without having caused any disastours is granting supernaturality.

 

[kal-el]

This verses says it all. Even though the Bible does have many misconceptions, it states very clearly that this "omnipotent" God, in which you believe, is but one of many. Maybe they're not God's at all?

What if the entire Bible is a piece of imagination?



You misunderstood what Thinker meant. Certain events cannot occur, because nature has limits. I'll give you a very clear example:

Faster than light travel is not impossible, because information (energy) can only be transported at the speed of light. When information is fired faster than light, it will either red- or blue-shift, causing to lengthen the light beam. The head or tail, which is lengthened, will not carry information.

No matter how sofisticated man or any other race can be, we are bound to limits. We are constructed of particles ourselves and cannot superceed natural limits.

If the Earth stops rotating, it would have desastrous consequences. Claiming that it is possible without having caused any disastours is granting supernaturality.

As far as we know, faster than light travel is impossible. But again, that is insinuating that we are the supreme intlligence in this vast universe of ours, and no intlligent life exists elsewhere. How do you know that somewhere out there, other beings hav'nt discovered that it is indeed possible to go faster than light. Just because our current level of science cannot detect something, you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is indeed impossible. Electrons existed before the atom was discovered, but the scientists back then couldn't detect them, so they thought it was impossible for anything to be smaller than the atom. The same thing with the distant galaxies our deep-space telescopes have recently revealed- they were there all along, we could not see them before because of our level of science. So scientists thought it impossible, and they concluded that ours was the only galaxy.

This logic applies to everything. Our solar system is part of a galaxy, which is part of a universe. And this universe cannot exist in nothing. It is one universe among an infinite number of them, which together make up something bigger, which itself is part of something even bigger, and so on.

 

[DonRicardo]

As far as we know, faster than light travel is impossible. But again, that is insinuating that we are the supreme intlligence in this vast universe of ours, and no intlligent life exists elsewhere. How do you know that somewhere out there, other beings hav'nt discovered that it is indeed possible to go faster than light. Just because our current level of science cannot detect something, you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is indeed impossible. Electrons existed before the atom was discovered, but the scientists back then couldn't detect them, so they thought it was impossible for anything to be smaller than the atom. The same thing with the distant galaxies our deep-space telescopes have recently revealed- they were there all along, we could not see them before because of our level of science. So scientists thought it impossible, and they concluded that ours was the only galaxy.

Light speed has been tested in labs already. By firing a laser beam at faster than light speed, only the head moved faster and the mid, which carries the information, keeps its light speed. So the beam lengthens itself. The head of the beam is actually nothing, it carries no information (molecules). This is definitely proof.

If mass is moving at light speed, only energy can remain. Moving faster than light is simply impossible, because at the light speed itself all mass is converted already. Higher rate cannot exist.

We cannot "move" faster than light, but we can across a greater distance than light would in a certain time. There are two possibilities:
- Wormholes (shortcuts in universe, considering a worm biting a hole through the crust of an apple)
- teleport (tested on a laser beam already)

The arguments you gave are only observations of existing particles and phenomenons. They have nothing to do with scientific laws. I was mentioning a scientific law. The speed of light was proposed by Einstein far before it was ever tested. It was inaccurate with approximately 0.1 %, I think. Later it was tested and indeed, nothing can move faster than light. Most even claim that we cannot fire an object at light speed, because it would require almost infinite amount of energy.

Another example of natural limit is human intelligence. Molecules can move at a certain speed only. Thus our thinking processes cannot be enhanced infinitely.

This logic applies to everything. Our solar system is part of a galaxy, which is part of a universe. And this universe cannot exist in nothing. It is one universe among an infinite number of them, which together make up something bigger, which itself is part of something even bigger, and so on.

This has nothing to do with the above. But I have been thinking that our universe might yet be another particle or certain force that moves within a huger particle. We can only confirm this, if we are able to exit our universe.

Both space and time are infinitely divisible. I think it's more logic - indeed - to consider them as infinitely constructable.

 

[Thinker]

Light speed has been tested in labs already. By firing a laser beam at faster than light speed, only the head moved faster and the mid, which carries the information, keeps its light speed. So the beam lengthens itself. The head of the beam is actually nothing, it carries no information (molecules). This is definitely proof.

This makes no sense to me at all; it is neither logical nor grammatical. It
certainly isn't proof of anything.

If mass is moving at light speed, only energy can remain. Moving faster than light is simply impossible, because at the light speed itself all mass is converted already. Higher rate cannot exist.

According to Einstein, energy and mass are equivalent. To get something
moving at the speed of light would require infinite energy (= infinite mass).
As far as I know, there is nothing preventing objects moving faster than
the speed of light - they would just have had to have been moving that
fast from the beginning.

We cannot "move" faster than light, but we can across a greater distance than light would in a certain time. There are two possibilities:
- Wormholes (shortcuts in universe, considering a worm biting a hole through the crust of an apple)
- teleport (tested on a laser beam already)

Again, this is close to incomprehensible. You seem to be suggesting that
a light beam (laser) can travel faster than light!

The arguments you gave are only observations of existing particles and phenomenons. They have nothing to do with scientific laws. I was mentioning a scientific law. The speed of light was proposed by Einstein far before it was ever tested. It was inaccurate with approximately 0.1 %, I think. Later it was tested and indeed, nothing can move faster than light. Most even claim that we cannot fire an object at light speed, because it would require almost infinite amount of energy.

"almost infinite" is an interesting term - care to define it? See above: moving
something at the speed of light, according to Einstein, would require infinite
(i..e, unbounded) energy.

Another example of natural limit is human intelligence. Molecules can move at a certain speed only. Thus our thinking processes cannot be enhanced infinitely.

I fail to understand your logic again. What has the speed of molecules to do
with enhancing thinking? The brain is a highly parallel computer; its
performance rate has little to do with the processing rate of individual
neurons.

Both space and time are infinitely divisible. I think it's more logic - indeed - to consider them as infinitely constructable.

On what grounds do you make that assertion?

 

[SKILMATIC]

This verses says it all. Even though the Bible does have many misconceptions, it states very clearly that this "omnipotent" God, in which you believe, is but one of many. Maybe they're not God's at all?

Yes but read verse 27 it refers back to singular. In the english langauge you cant be inconsistent with pluralities. You must be constant. It would be grammatically incorrect to go from a singular noun to plural much like verbs. You cant change from a singular verb to plural. The same analogy goes for linking vers to subjects they must share the same plurality. Does that make sense?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Don ricardo, the bIble is based on more proof than evolution. please tell me your claims and support it with evideniary suppor that this earth was produced by a big bang.

You have to have some faith. God isnt going to spell things out for you. However, he makes some things evident that he is infact real. To say jesus never existed is very asserting considering there is no such fact to support such a clai but there are hundreds of thousands of supports for the fact that he did exist on this earth.

Please I would appreciate if you brought this forum facts instead of your own personal opinions. Cause they mena nothing to me. All I care about is facts.

 

[Thinker]

Don ricardo, the bIble is based on more proof than evolution. please tell me your claims and support it with evideniary suppor that this earth was produced by a big bang.

It would be helpful if words like "proof" were not thrown around with such
abandon. Proof is a very strong concept. Something is only a proof if there
is no possibility of error in the explicit steps going from axioms to conclusion.
If you have a proof, everyone has no choice but accept it; only a fool
would argue against the theorem of Pythagoras. There are very few
occasions when the term "proof" can be used in the natural sciences.
More often, we have to make do with convincing demonstrations leading
to a high degree of probability that something is the way we believe it to be.

What I think you are trying to claim is that there is more evidence
for the correctness of the bible than there is for evolution. If this is
not what you mean, please correct me, but do not use the word "proof".

The evidence that leads the overwhelming majority of scientists to
consider evolution a valid theory (used in the strict scientific sense) is
extensive and open to scrutiny and refutation. It is not difficult
to find a huge number of references to this on the web. As nobody has
managed to refute the evidence, the theory stands.

Note that the word "theory" in this context does not mean what laymen
would understand. A theory is not simply an idea; that is an hypothesis.
A theory is an hypothesis that is supported by extensive evidence, fits
the known observations, and has made validated predictions.

What greater evidence do you have (note evidence, not belief or hopes) that
anything in the bible, save a small number of vague historical references,
is likely to be true?

 

[Thinker]

The older the material, the closer to the center.

Justify that. If everything started in one explosion, everything is the same
age!

The big bang is an explosion or expansion, thus it starts at the core. The explosion starts from core and expands. THe material that is older must be closer towards the center.

If you knew anything about BB you would know that the idea of a "core" is nonsense.

Well, yes, I said one of the "oldest". Thus I mean relatively old.

Please say what you mean. "one of the oldest" implies little is older. I would
not call a minimum of 30% (your figures) as a little.

This is not an argument. Scientists created the process themselves.
I mean that amino acids have to come from another location (it was an
asteroid) and merge with H2O atoms. How great is the chance nature causes
this process?

Your dismissal of a scientific demonstration that natural processes can
create amino acids shows that you are not interested in debate about the
issue.

We know that amino acids and water occur in space:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2558

We know that water occurs in space:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brian.kilby/astro/1998/june/water.html

How great is the chance that nature causes this: 100%.

No other planets with life have been found so far.

And this shows what exactly?

Yes, but they don't have amino acids AND H20 molecules.

Please give your evidence for this claim. Titan (a moon of Saturn) is thought
to have amino acids and is know to have water:
http://www.es.ucl.ac.uk/research/planetaryweb/undergraduate/dom/weathering_titan/chap8.htm

The chance that all requirements appear at the same planet is quite
small, isn't it?

No, despite all your posturing it is very high.

Can you find me another planet that has ALL of these? If not, then you're wrong.

I'd bet on Titan. Anyway, just because I can't show you an example of
something it doesn't mean it can't exist. As long as its existence doesn't
violate know principles, it is possible.

You understood me completely wrong. Suppose a planet has amino acids and H20 and even an atmosphere. What if it doesn't have a star around which it orbits? The chance of having ALL requirements is quite small. That's why I summed them up.

I would be happy to exclude all objects that do not orbit stars from the
discussion. We are still left with a vast number of objects to consider. The
chances of some having life are very high.

The chance that there is MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE THAN US is very
small.

Please explain why. I have shown your arguments about probabilites to be
specious. Some concrete evidence or reasoning would be helpful.

Because, like you say if there remains even a 30% of planets that are older than us, you have to combine these with all the requirements that are needed to create life. These are:
1.
a. there must be amino acids and h20 molecules in order to form organic cells
b. there must be an atmosphere
c. there must a bright star with the planet flying in its orbit
d. temperature must be moderate

Such planets have not been found yet and even if they are, are they older than ours?

All of these points a..d have reasonably high probabilities, however, why do
you keep insisting that life can only evolve on planets older than the Earth?

It appears that life appeared on Earth within the first 2 billion years of its
existence. Any similar planets between two and five billion years younger
than earth could easily have generated life.

On Earth a meteor crashed that caused an enormous amount of dust. Only small animals could survive and they evolved, because they became more intelligent because of this. Without this crash dinosaurs would still have lived and man would not exist.

The point of this is what? If the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out then we
would probably not be here discussing things; I suspect intelligent dinosaurs
would.

3. THere is a chance that planets are destroyed or that a certain disaster causes an evolving life form to extinguish.

Indeed there is. Life on Earth seems to have survived many such disasters.

May I assume that we are the most advanced/intelligent species in THIS universe - for now?

No.