Menu Bar
Christopher Hitchens on the Cosmos and the End of the World
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Hitchens tackles the Cosmos and the inevitable. Nothingness is coming. Think! No need to repent. This sample is from the Hitchens-Boteach Debate.
Nov 28, 2008 2:49 AM
Re: Christopher Hitchens on the Cosmos and the End of the World
Clearly not a scientist.
"other planets inhospitable to life"
Well, that hasn't been proven chris, lot of scientists suspect there is life in the deep seas under the ice covers of neptune, and perhaps some of the moons.
"other planets inhospitable to life"
Well, that hasn't been proven chris, lot of scientists suspect there is life in the deep seas under the ice covers of neptune, and perhaps some of the moons.
Re: Christopher Hitchens on the Cosmos and the End of the World
I don't think Hitchens claims to be a scientist.
Though he is in the right by saying other planets in our near proximity are inhospitable as, you said it yourself, there isn't any concrete evidence to suggest that there could be. The idea that there may be life in the sub-ice seas of Europa is intriguing but we're far from getting any solid evidence that would put the widely held belief of the improbability of our existence into question.
Though he is in the right by saying other planets in our near proximity are inhospitable as, you said it yourself, there isn't any concrete evidence to suggest that there could be. The idea that there may be life in the sub-ice seas of Europa is intriguing but we're far from getting any solid evidence that would put the widely held belief of the improbability of our existence into question.
By: Shiggety
Re: Christopher Hitchens on the Cosmos and the End of the World
I like his point. Just think it's a bit early to claim that life is inhospitable because the other planets are too hot or too cold.
Deep Sea life exists on earth without the sun, living in temperature extremes. under thousands of pounds of pressure. There is greater biodiversity on those places then anywhere else on earth. It's possible that life started in those places, and evolved into more moderate conditions.
We're looking at it from our point of view being the norm, but in actually, we maybe the anomalies, living on land in moderate temperatures.
Deep Sea life exists on earth without the sun, living in temperature extremes. under thousands of pounds of pressure. There is greater biodiversity on those places then anywhere else on earth. It's possible that life started in those places, and evolved into more moderate conditions.
We're looking at it from our point of view being the norm, but in actually, we maybe the anomalies, living on land in moderate temperatures.
Re: Christopher Hitchens on the Cosmos and the End of the World
That's just it.
We're not the center of the universe.
We're not the center of the universe.
By: DaveoftheRave
Re: Christopher Hitchens on the Cosmos and the End of the World
I find Mr. Hitchens beliefs and attitude as replusive as those he preaches so bitterly against. Here, he takes some observational science and combines it with the theoretical, manufacturing one theory describing the ultimate fate of the Universe. Great. Problem is that he presents it as dogma. He should take a look at the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity. Much more appealing than a singularity appearing from nowhere eventually expanding into oblivion.
Granted, the concept of "Intelligent Design" is not science and in no way proves the existence of God. But isn't this concept of "Poor Design" fundamentally similar in failing to disprove the existence of God.
Fundamental Theists are dipshits and so are Strong Atheists (at least this one)
Granted, the concept of "Intelligent Design" is not science and in no way proves the existence of God. But isn't this concept of "Poor Design" fundamentally similar in failing to disprove the existence of God.
Fundamental Theists are dipshits and so are Strong Atheists (at least this one)
By: 11Rich
Re: Christopher Hitchens on the Cosmos and the End of the World
You're shifting the burden of proof. It is not incumbent upon Hitchens to disprove anything. "Poor design" is not meant to be a disproof of god, it is simply a refutation of the other side's teleological argument.
By: quisph
