Could life exist on other planets? John Harris

work on this recording, and I'm going to work on Facebook Live.

OK, you're going to keep working on it? OK, so let's go ahead and move forward, and we'll see what we can do.

OK, all right, so I'm Terry Camarazel, representing the Creation Fellowship of Santee, California.

And we are happy tonight that we have John Harris with us as our speaker.

John Harris is the director of Living Waters Europe, and he's also the founder and CEO of Creation Science UK.

John was originally trained as an analyst software designer using at least half a dozen different computer languages, and he has run his own

IT business for over 23 years. As a Christian apologist,

John speaks at conferences, events, and churches throughout the UK, as well as teaching monthly classes and apologetics.

He also leads street teams in open air and one -to -one witnessing in London. And he has hosted two

Living Waters Ambassadors Academies in Europe, the first one in France in 2016 and the second one last year in the

UK. Earlier this summer, I heard John give a talk at the Living Waters Evolution Exposed online conference.

So we reached out to him to come share more in -depth on the same topic he presented that day, which is, could life exist on another planet?

So we are happy to have him. Again, we are recording. And John's format is going to be that his presentation will be a little bit on the shorter side so that he can leave a lot of room for Q &A.

So if you do have any questions during that time, you can put them into the chat. And we'll keep recording during the

Q &A tonight. So if you would like to turn on your microphone and or camera to ask your questions yourself, you can, or else you can put your comments in chat, your questions in chat, and then

I'll ask them on your behalf. So with that, John, go ahead. Hi, everybody.

It's great to meet you all. Thank you so much for inviting me, even though it's nearly 3 AM in the morning.

If I fall asleep, I blame it on somebody else. I blame it on Terry. Guys, to start with,

I'm going to share my screen so you can see exactly what's going on. So give me a second.

I'm hoping that this is going to work. And if I start speaking and you cannot see it, then please interrupt me so that I can fix it.

So here we go. All right. So I assume this is working. Otherwise, somebody would have interrupted by now.

Good. You're good, John. You're good. It's good to know. Give me a second. Let me change camera angles so that everybody can see me properly.

There you go. Good stuff. So good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are.

Good to see you all. And thank you very much for inviting me for this talk. We're going to do a talk on a very interesting topic that many people may have thought about but don't really talk about much.

Could life exist on another planet? And with life, I mean intelligent life, like us, could there be aliens on another planet?

Well, it seems to me how you answer this question is dependent on your worldview. That's basically what you believe and what you think life started.

There are really only two main worldviews here to take into account. You're either an evolutionist and believe that life could spontaneously generate from non -living matter.

Or you are a creationist who believes that life is created by a personal, powerful being with an intelligent mind.

What other choices do we have, really? It's either by coincidence or by design. And by design, I mean a designer.

And by a designer, I mean God. So it's either by coincidence or by God. Now, if you're an evolutionist and watching this,

I assume your answer to this question will have to be, well, yes, as far as you're concerned. If life exists on this planet through random chance mutations and natural processes, then why wouldn't life like us exist on another planet, given the right conditions of course?

So if the conditions are right, then life should or could exist somewhere else, right?

Now, on the other hand, if you're a Christian, you might be thinking, well, why not? We know God is all powerful and able.

So if he wanted to, he could create life on another planet. If he can, then why wouldn't he?

Now, is there a way we can know if God did or would create life on another planet?

Well, that's what we'll see in just a minute. But first, let's answer the question from the evolutionary worldview.

What are the chances, knowing what we know, that life could exist on another planet? Now, for the sake of the evolutionists,

I'm going to be very kind here, which is what I'm going to do throughout this talk. I'm going to make a lot of uncomfortable allowances.

I'm going to ignore lots of important stuff, like, for example, the law of biogenesis, which tells us that life can't start from non -life.

This is the law that tells us that no matter how suitable a planet is, life wouldn't just automatically start or exist.

That wouldn't even happen here on Earth, which is 100 % suitable for life. If you destroy all life on Earth, that would be, if you destroy all life of Earth, it will just die.

Earth will become barren. It wouldn't just spontaneously exist again, even though it's super suitable for life.

Now, in case you're interested, this whole idea that life could just spontaneously exist from nothing has been disproven as early as 1968 by Francisco Redi, an

Italian physician. And this is what he said. He proved that the higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously by demonstrating that maggots come from eggs of flies.

But believe it or not, because some people just never give up. In 1745,

John Needham, an English naturalist and biologist, tried to disprove Francisco Redi's experiment. He added a chicken broth to a flask and boiled it.

He then let it cool and waited. Microbes grew, and he proposed it as an example of spontaneous generation.

But in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani, Italian biologist and physiologist, repeated

Needham's experiment, but removed all the air from the flask. But this time, no growth occurred.

What a surprise. And finally, in 1864, Louis Pasteur, he nailed it once and for all.

He did a series of experiments similar to those performed earlier by Needham and Spallanzani. Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life.

Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase, omni vivum ex vivo.

In Latin, life is from life. But of course, evolutionists never give up. Those who support the idea of spontaneous generation claim that this did not apply to microbes.

So they tried and tried to prove it with experiments. Two of the famous guys who did this are called

Franz Schulz and Theodore Schwann, but they never succeeded. So Dr.

Walt Brown, I don't know if you know him, he has a degree in mechanical engineering. He says these things.

Spontaneous generation, which is the emergence of life from non -living matter, has never been observed.

All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently, it is called the law of biogenesis.

The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from non -living matter through natural processes.

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis. However, some say that future studies may show life could come from lifeless matter, despite virtually impossible odds.

Others are aware of just how complex life is and the many failed and foolish attempts to explain how life can come from non -life.

They duck the question by claiming that the theory of evolution doesn't begin until the first life somehow arose.

Still others say that the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

Okay, so he's saying, give it up, guys. It's the law. Life, we have to live with it.

The whole idea originally came from the worshipers of idols who believed that the goddess

Gaia can make life from stones. Well, at least these pagans believe that someone, a goddess, made life from stone rather than from nothing.

That's still better than evolutionists that have to say that it's an unguiding force. But for the sake of working out the probability of life existing on another planet,

I'm going to ignore this law. This is one of those allowances I'm going to make, even though this law has never been falsified and it's always been verified.

I'm also gonna ignore something else. I'm gonna ignore what they call the information found in DNA. We all know that DNA is complex structure that holds the blueprint for life.

It's literally like a manual that you would use to build something sophisticated like a robot.

It even tells us the order of each part, how each part should be built and put together.

It's full of information. And by the way, we have a whole scientific field dedicated to support this understanding of information.

It's called information science. I'm specifically referring to a very special type of information called prescriptive information, not

Shannon or functional information. That's for people who study the information science here. This is the prescriptive information is what we find functioning in the

DNA. So in fact, the DNA is so packed with so much intelligent information, we call it the language of life or the book of life.

We have always seen that this kind of prescriptive information comes from an intelligent mind.

This means again, life couldn't just pop into existence on its own. So again, I'm ignoring this fact along with many other laws we have that make life possible in the first place.

So these are all the allowances I'm making. In fact, this is such a big deal. These laws that make life possible, such a big deal that makes people like this

English astronomer, Fred Hoyle say, a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

Fred Hoyle is saying, look, it feels like someone is deliberately making these figures work. It's so precise, it cannot be an accident.

They're all beyond question. Yet I'm going to ignore all of them because that's what evolution evolutionists actually do.

When talking about life on this planet or any other planet, they ignore all these facts. I don't think you can be fairer than that.

Okay, so what are the chances that intelligent life like ours or aliens could exist on another planet from the evolutionary worldview?

Well, to start with, the conditions have to be right. Now, what are the conditions? Well, we call these the factors or elements or parameters.

For example, we need to be in the right location in the galaxy. We need to be in the circumstellar habitable zone from the sun we call the

Goldilocks zone. Otherwise, Earth will be too hot or too cold. It must have a planetary system with a giant planet to shield the inner planets from too many common impacts.

It must orbit the right kind of star, not too hot or not hot enough. It must have a moon to stabilize the tilt of its axis so that it can have moderate seasons.

That it's a terrestrial planet, solid like a rock, with a crust that's thick enough for tectonic activities with enough heat inside the planet to circulate the liquid ion to generate magnetic field.

We need the right kind of atmosphere with enough oxygen to allow complex organisms to survive. It must have enough water and enough continents to support life like ours with just the right amount of volcanic activity for sole mineralization and allow carbon and vapor to go back into the atmosphere.

I'm not kidding you. The list just goes on and on. And they have to all be there all at the same time for life to be supported.

There are so many things that need to be right for life to exist that we have a name for this.

It's called the Anthropic Principle. By 2001, we found we need 153 fine -tuning factors for life on Earth.

By April 2004, the numbers shot up to 322 parameters.

In the future, who knows, we might find even more factors or parameters. What you see in the background are the parameters in small font because there are so many of them to fit in the screen.

But having said all that, now, for the sake of being extra kind, which I said

I'm gonna be doing all along here in this talk to give as good a chance as possible, I'm only going to use the smaller list of 2001 with 153 parameters.

So what are the chances that a planet would have one of these elements? All right, for this,

I'm gonna do something seriously crazy. I'm going to assume that a planet has only one in 10 chance of having any one of these factors or elements.

That's got to be more than fair, right? Now, that would be great if we only needed one element to match.

But with 153 of them, once you start multiplying these probabilities together, the chances of getting a planet with all these parameters becomes very, very, very slim.

The actual probability is one chance in 10 to the power of 153. That's one followed by 153 zeros.

Now, that's just an unimaginable small chance. But some of you are going to say, now, hang on a minute,

John. I get it. That would make the likelihood of life existing on another planet very small or impossible.

I get it. But surely that depends on how many stars and planets we have, right? Well, that is right.

So let's have a look to see how many stars we have. Now, according to the European Space Agency, it says we have somewhere between 10 to the power of 24 and 10 to the power, between 10 to the power of 24 stars in the universe.

But like I said, to be extra kind, I'm going to go with a higher number, giving more chance.

I'm going up with the 10 to the power of 24. That's one followed by 24 zeros.

This gives us more stars to work with. But now you're gonna say, okay, wait a minute,

John, that's talking about stars. Well, how about planets? How many planets do we have?

Okay, that's a fair question. And that's where we go to NASA. Apparently, we do have an idea of how many planets exist out there.

They say the average number of planets per star is greater than one. There you have it.

The average is greater than one, but obviously less than two. Otherwise they would have happily said the average is greater than two.

But for the sake of being extra generous, like I said, we're gonna keep being as extra generous as we can to make this work.

Let's pretend we have as many as 1 ,000 planets per star. That means we have 1 ,000 more planets than we have stars.

Now that is a lot of planets. But can you see how that didn't even touch the surface of what's needed?

The odds are still too low. Let me see if I can help you appreciate the magnitude of this number.

I feel we need to clarify this. They tell us that the universe is about 13 .8 billion years old.

That's what they say. And so we're taking this from the evolutionary point of view. And according to NASA, space .com

and the BBC, wherever you look, they all say the universe is actually 92 billion light years in diameter.

Since we are roughly in the middle, it makes the edge roughly 46 billion light years away from Earth.

That means if we were to travel at the speed of light in one direction, that's more than 186 ,000 miles per second.

That's very fast. It will take around 46 billion years to reach the edge of the universe that we can see.

That's very, very far. Here's a side note. They tell us that young Earth creationists who believe in 6 ,000 year old universe are absolutely unreasonable because clearly there are stars 13 .8

billion light years away. But the edge of the universe is 46 billion years away, not 13 .8

billion light years. Don't they have the same problem? The universe is clearly much, much, much larger than the age they claim it to be.

Why is that a problem for us, but not them? It's obviously because it's expanding. But if that's the case, then why can't the expansion also work for young Earth creationists?

Why is it okay for the evolutionists to have a universe larger than it's 13 .8 billion years old, but not okay for the creationists to have a universe larger than 6 ,000 years old?

Whatever allowance they are making for themselves could also apply for the creationists and it should work.

Now, the reason why we measure things in light years is because everything is so far away.

If we measure things in miles, well, the numbers are just too large to work with. One light year is 6 trillion miles away.

So you can imagine how many miles 92 billion light years would be. So it will be really crazy to measure the universe in any other unit of measure than light years.

But that is exactly what I'm going to do now, to make a point, to show you how large this number that we're dealing with is.

I'm going to measure the universe in inches. That's going to be a lot of inches. When I do that,

I get 10 to the power of 28. That's one followed by 28 zeros. Each time you add a zero, please remember this, the number is 10 times greater, not just double.

It's 10 times greater than the previous number. So you can imagine how large 10 to the power of 153 is.

Here's another example to help you appreciate the magnitude of this number. I'm going to keep doing this until I drill it and make you hopefully understand what odds we're dealing with here.

What are the chances of winning the lottery? Now, imagine this. Imagine winning the state lottery by finding the winning ticket in the street, and then continuing to win the lottery every week for a thousand years by finding the winning ticket in the street each time.

I mean, I'm not kidding. You're not even having to buy this thing. You're walking down the street, you're finding a winning ticket, and you find a ticket, and it happens to be a winning one.

The chances of that happening every single week for a thousand years is one chance in 10 to the power of 65.

That's one followed by 65 zeros. Now, compare that to one chance in 10 to the power of 153.

So the chances of winning the lottery every single week by finding a random ticket in the street is greater than the possibility of finding life on another planet.

Are we getting this? In fact, as a number, 10 to the power of 153 is larger, listen to this, than the total number of atoms we have in the entire universe.

That's right. You heard me right. It's much, much larger than the atoms we have in the universe.

Let me show you. The total number of atoms in the entire universe, and believe me, someone has already worked this out, is 10 to the power of 80.

That's it. 10 to the power, that's one followed by 80 zeros. But we're talking about 10 to the power of 153.

You see what I mean? 10 to the power of 153 is like double. It's not like double or quadruple times more, oh no.

It's 10 times more than a trillion, a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times greater than the number of atoms in the universe.

So if we, if you were to have as many planets as there are atoms in this universe, which would clearly be impossible, it's just you can't have as many planets as you have atoms, you would still not have enough planets to come anywhere near bringing that probability even close to finding a planet suitable for life.

Can you now see the problem? But please remember, I've been very generous all along with all these figures in favor of the evolutionists.

If we were to work with the actual figures and the factors given to us so far, and compare them with the life -supporting bodies we live, we have in the universe, that's planets, taking everything into account, the probability of finding a suitable planet is less than one chance in 10 to the power 282.

That's even greater. That's less than one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion chance that life would exist on any planet or any rock anywhere in this universe by pure chance.

Do I need to make my, I'm hoping that my point is made clear. How unlikely is it that life could exist on another planet?

If that didn't quite do it for you, I'm gonna go seriously crazy now. This is gonna be the ultimate, the ultimate measure here.

If you would fill all the empty spaces, right, in this universe with atoms, so you take the empty space, we've got planets, we've got stars, we've got galaxies.

If we take the spaces in between and fill this up with atoms, the total number of atoms will be now in our universe in total one followed by 112 zeros.

That's still way less than 10 to the power of 282. So even if you were to fill our universe with as many planets as these number of atoms, it won't be anywhere near close.

Let's go slightly crazier here with our comparison to finish off blowing your mind.

If you were to fill every empty space in our universe with atoms, like we said just a minute ago, then create as many universes as you have atoms, making sure that each universe itself is full of atoms like ours, and then you take each atom and magically take all the atoms combined, magically change each one of them to a planet.

You know how many planets you will have now? You will have 10 to the power of 224.

That's still nowhere near close enough to 10 to the power of 282.

That's still much bigger. Do you know how much bigger this is than that number?

Do you know how many more of these planets and universes you need that we just worked out? You need 10 times a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, billion, more planets than all these planets and universes put together.

William Dembski, who is an American mathematician, philosopher, and a theologian, worked out that anything with a probability of one chance in 10 to the power of 150 is not possible.

He said this, anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time.

By any conceivable specifying agent, by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history.

You know what I think? I think it's game over. Basically, if there is intelligent life out there, it's not going to make it.

That alien will be homeless. Or if they did exist, it was a miracle, in which case we're back to God creating them.

It just couldn't exist by pure chance. Now, don't forget, right from the beginning, we ignored important laws, like the law of biogenesis and the information found in the

DNA that tells us that life couldn't just pop into existence from natural processes. And not to mention ignoring various other laws that makes life possible in the first place.

So now, what we want to know is this. If life couldn't exist on another planet by coincidence, then who's to say that God didn't create life on another planet himself?

Let's now have a look at whether God would create life like us on another planet. Why wouldn't

God just choose to create life somewhere else, like he did here on earth? What's the problem with that? Well, there is an obvious problem with this idea that this physicist actually gets.

His name is Paul Davies, who's not a Christian. He said, Christianity is, in particular, has difficulties with regard to the very special role that Jesus Christ plays.

If they wish to retain Jesus Christ as their savior, is he the savior of mankind only or of all sentient beings throughout the universe?

Or will each community have its own savior? Doesn't it all start become a little ludicrous?

So this unbeliever is saying, did Jesus die for all these aliens or are they doomed without a savior?

And if they are doomed, wouldn't that be unloving? It just doesn't make sense. So he's raising interesting points here.

But why is he saying that? Well, he's saying that because of this. If aliens were to exist, then they are affected by the fall of Adam because the

Bible says, through one man, sin entered the world. Everything was affected, including plants like thorns and thistles.

In fact, the whole creation groans. That includes galaxies. Everything will eventually perish, including the earth and the heavens.

So that will include any life on another planet. And eventually everything will be burnt up when

God creates a new heaven and new earth. So their fate will be almost certainly death. Therefore, any life

God created on another planet is affected by the fall and have the same predicament as we do.

So the first question is, why would God create people who are affected by Adam's sin and not try to save them?

But of course, he could create intelligent life if he wanted to, like us, and destroy it if he wants to. But that would seem a little cruel, doesn't it?

It doesn't seem compatible with a maximally great being who has maximally great attributes like love.

But now I hear you say, now, wait a minute, John, why can't God send a savior there too? Why does a savior only have to exist here on earth?

Well, that's easy. Let's see if we can answer that. Because the Bible says that Jesus died once and for all, and for all time.

That means he never had to go through death and the cross again. We have verses for that. The Bible says

Jesus did not have to suffer repeatedly, and that Jesus had to be our kinsman redeemer.

Now, this is very important. With Jesus being born through Mary, he could represent humanity. So Jesus' death could not apply to those aliens, even if they did exist.

And on top of that, the Bible makes no provision for God to redeem any other species any more than to redeem fallen angels.

So it's unlikely that Christ is going to do that. And also the church is the bride of Christ and it's likened to marriage.

So it's unlikely that Christ is going to be a polygamist with many other brides from other planets.

So taking all this into consideration, I would say it's unlikely that Jesus went to another planet and suffered and died another death to save some other species in some other place in this universe.

So if I had to choose one way or another, I would say that it is very unlikely that God would create life on another planet.

Therefore, the answer as far as I'm concerned, it's a no. The Bible tells us that God has lavished his love on us and that we are the apple of his eye.

We are the crown and principle part of his creation, creating things for our benefit, giving dominion over them.

So could life exist on another planet? It doesn't matter how you look at it. The odds appear to be stacked up against it.

So apologies to all you Star Trek fans out there. Based on those probabilities alone, I don't think you'll find any aliens out there.

I'm also sorry to say that E .T. does not have a home. He does not have a phone and neither does he nor his friends actually exist.

I hope that's been helpful and informative. So hopefully we'll be able to help with any questions.

So over to you, Terri. Okay, so if you guys have some questions, you can put them into the chat or we can also go ahead and I'll look for some raised hands.

I can't see your videos, but if you wanna raise your hand, like if you open your participants tab, you people in Zoom, if you open your participants tab, then there's a button at the bottom that says raise hand and you can raise your hand that way.

I have a question to start with. So why couldn't God create other forms of non -intelligent life?

Yes, you mean like bacteria, right? Sure. That would be, that would solve the problem,

I guess, wouldn't it? That would solve the problem that God could create bacteria life and therefore he doesn't have to rescue them and he just does that.

Okay, let me just see. I think I've got a slide for this.

So that would be this one here. Could God create non -intelligent life or bacterial life on another planet?

Why wouldn't he do that? I mean, why would that not be possible? We got a few reasons for that. I mean, we can't rule out these things, but we can logically work through them.

So according to Gill's exposition of the entire Bible, man is the principal part of creation and for the sake of whom the world and all things in it were made and which being finished, he is introduced into it as into a house ready prepared and furnished for him.

So this tells us a couple of things. It tells us that God spent creation week preparing it for mankind, his crown and glory, and that God created everything for mankind's benefit and mankind's enjoyment, even the microscopic bacterial so that we cannot see are made for our benefit.

For example, they form symbiotic relationship in our stomach to help us digest our food and they're involved in recycling nutrients in the environment.

Of course, we can't rule it out. The possibility that God could have created bacteria or non -intelligent life on another planet, but it seems very unlikely knowing the purpose of living things and their relationship with us.

That would be kind of my understanding of why I would reject that. It makes a lot of sense.

Here's another question. Why couldn't silicon -based life form exist on another planet?

Yes, and you know what? It happens quite a lot that people actually would say that.

Can you still hear me? I'm just swapping cameras so that I could show the details I wanna show you.

Why couldn't other intelligent life exists such as silicon life sprays? Now, first of all, I mean, it is something that people say immediately when you show them the facts, which is normally a good sign when somebody says that.

It means you made a good case for why life as we know it couldn't exist on another planet.

Otherwise they would attack your reasoning and calculations, wouldn't they? So that would be the first point that will attack your reasoning and your formula and your calculation.

So in a way they're agreeing that life as we know it could not exist on another planet. But now they're saying, well, what about some other form of life?

Some form of life that we don't know, some other form of life. But when we talk about life on another planet, we are usually talking about life as we know it.

Silicon -based life form, life is, is that something as we know it? Well, no, we don't know any silicon -based life form.

So what's the problem with talking about life as we don't know it? Well, the first problem is how do we know if it's real life?

I've not seen silicon -based life intelligent form. So how are we going to talk about another life form that we're not familiar with?

Maybe it's not life at all, but it just looks like life. And how would we know? Robots, for example, move and think like humans and they appear intelligent.

Does that mean they are alive? What's the definition of life? That starts changing as well.

Now, if we're gonna talk about life as we don't know it, then of course you can make anything happen. If we're going to accept any definition as intelligent sentient beings, maybe a rock is a life form.

Maybe a spaghetti is an intelligent life form. I mean, if we're gonna change the definition, then how do we know that we have an intelligent life form or not?

If that's not, I mean, we don't call that science. It's a fairy tale on top of another fairy tale. I mean, the nature of fairy tale is that you can make anything possible.

You just come up with a good story and suddenly you've got life. If anyone pulls that card on you saying that some mysterious life form can exist in some other way, then simply thank them because they've just agreed with you that they agreed that intelligent life as we know it couldn't exist on another planet.

Otherwise, why even mention it? Why pull that card? It's clearly impossible. Now, silicon -based life form, is that even possible?

I mean, check out this table here that I got. It shows us that we have more silicon on earth than carbon, yet life on earth is carbon -based.

But funny enough, the universe has more carbon than silicon. It's the other way around. That means you would expect life on earth to be silicon -based because we have plenty of it.

And life in space to be carbon -based. So why assume that life would ever be silicon -based in space?

Surely you would expect it to be carbon -based seeing it's full of it, right? You can see it on the table there. The numbers are much, much bigger.

Even on earth, life is carbon -based even though we have plenty of silicon.

So how much more in space where there is plenty of carbon?

So it's strange thing to claim that life could be silicon -based in space if that's more possible than carbon.

Silicon -based life form are even less likely in space, making the odds even worse. The only place we see silicon -based life forms is in science fiction films.

That's where this idea belongs. It's a fiction, it's not science. Now, I don't know if you want me to go ahead and explain why people say it.

I mean, if you wanna know scientifically why people say it, I mean. Yes, I do. Because I have heard that on many sci -fi programs.

And when Terry actually said that, I almost fell off my chair. Why do they even go there for silicon?

Yeah, why silicon -based? Why some other base? Why not come up with some either idea? But silicon -based.

Like plastic. Yeah, like plastic, for example. Like some other formula.

So come up with some other element in the periodic table. Why silicon in the first place? Well, the reason why they're like silicon -based life forms is because of this.

Carbon and silicon share many characteristics. Each has a so -called valence of four, meaning that individual atoms make four bonds with other elements forming chemical compounds.

Each element bonds to oxygen. Each forms long chains called polymers in which it alternates with oxygen.

They give many reasons why silicon life would not exist that I don't have time to go into, but they make it very clear here.

The fact that silicon oxidizes to a solid is one basic reason as to why it cannot support life.

So this report, the Scientific American Report, is giving you a reason why they find the idea attractive because of the way it bonds with oxygen and the valence of four, and the ability to bond in the same way as carbon does.

But then the same report tells you why it doesn't work in the first place because silicate compounds that have orthosilicate units also exist in such minerals as feldparks, micas, xylites, or tox.

And these solid systems pose disposal problems for living systems. So this report that's actually promoting the idea and telling you why it's actually suitable.

At the same time, it's telling you why it didn't work or why it doesn't work. And it goes on to say, chemists have worked tirelessly to create new silicon compounds ever since Frederick Stanley Kipping showed that some interesting ones could be made.

The highest international prize in the silicon area is called the Kipping Award. But despite years of work and despite all of regions available, which means despite all the substances and chemicals available to the modern alchemist, many silicon analogs of carbon compounds just cannot be formed.

Thermodynamics data confirmed that analogs are often too unstable or too reactive.

So the same report that's telling you why it's so suitable for life is telling you, well, it's unstable and it's too reactive.

And it develops into something that it doesn't actually, it cannot continue. And this one says the complex dance of life requires interlocking chains of reactions.

And these reactions can only take place with a narrow range of temperature and pH levels.

Given such constraints, carbon can and silicon can't. So in case you missed it, this entire report is saying it just doesn't work.

So it tells you why they think it's attractive. I mean, you can go and check it yourself. The link is there.

You can read the whole article, but it tells you why they think it's attractive. And then they go ahead and tells you definitely doesn't work.

And finally, this air and space website that's all for silicon -based life forms asks whether silicon life forms are even possible.

So this is, it depends sometimes explaining how it would work specifically on a planet called, so this report is particularly talking about how it would work on a planet like Titan, which is suitable for silicon -based life forms.

So remember this report is for promoting the idea silicon life form can exist. And it's telling you where it's possible like in a place called

Titan. And it ends this whole report. I mean, first of all, it tells you about how wonderful this is and how this is all possible and it's great.

And then it ends up with this. Should we expect silicon life on Titan then? Probably not.

So I think it's pretty clear, no silicon -based life is likely to exist on another planet. In fact, it's less likely to exist than carbon -based life forms.

So that's saying something, isn't it? So we're looking at reports that actually is promoting the idea and then it's telling you that it's not likely and that's on the most suitable planet ever.

And that's a very rare occasion because it's not actually a very well available material in space.

Does that help? Okay, you're on mute, Terry. Oh. Oh, there you go.

I clicked it and it didn't work. I'd like to blame you for that, John. Of course.

You make one mistake in life and then they blame you for everything. Okay, I have another question.

Can you explain to us what is Fermi's paradox? Okay, I love

Fermi's paradox. Let me just change it back to my screen here and see if I can make that work. Is that little guy, is the little guy on the screen, is his name

Fermi? Yes, that's him. That's good old Fermi. His full name is

Enrico Fermi. He's an Italian -American physicist. Something happened in the summer of 1990 that created this whole idea of Fermi's paradox.

It's very interesting. Now, remember, this guy's an evolutionist. He believes that the world has been around for billions of years. And he thought of this.

He thought that with the understanding that the whole stars in our galaxy had evolved millions or billions of years ago before us, there would be other intelligent life before us.

So obviously, these intelligent life forms would send exhibitions to colonize other planets.

Why not? You've been around for millions of years and we have technology. If after some time, each colonized planet sends another exhibition to colonize another planet, then within five or 50 million years, all the planets in the galaxies would be colonized.

Give me a second. I don't normally do talks at 3 a .m.

So it's obviously, my body's telling me to clear my throat and say, what's wrong with you? Go to sleep.

So why five to 50 million years? Well, because it depends on whether each civilization doubled every thousand years or every 100 ,000 years or every million years.

He expected our entire Milky Way galaxy to be colonized by the time we came into the scene, by the time we got there.

If that's true, then where is everybody? So he coined this phrase, where is everybody?

So if you hear somebody say, where is everybody? They're basically repeating what Enrico Fermi said. It's actually a paradox.

He's saying, where is it? We're going out there and having a look at planets and it should be all colonized by now. It's only like 50 million years at the most.

So let me show you how this calculation works. Now, this only works for people who really like numbers. I'm gonna try to be as clear as I can.

So this column here is showing the number of years, either in thousands or millions, who cares? I'll tell you what,

I'm gonna work with millions because that really helps evolutionists to give them more time. So I don't think he really cared whether it's thousands of millions.

So the number next to the number one, two, three, four, five on the column is the number of civilizations you expect by the time that number of years have gone through or that many millions of years.

So after 10 million years, we have a thousand civilizations.

After 20 million years, we would expect to have 1 million civilizations. After 30, we'd expect 1 billion.

And after 40 million years, we'd expect 1 trillion. Now you need to know that 1 trillion is up to 10 times more than the stars we have in our own galaxy.

So within less than 40 million years or 40 ,000, depending on how we wanna see it, our entire

Milky Way galaxy would be colonized. After 80 million years, we have more than a septillion civilization.

That's more than the total number of stars we have in the universe, right? That's the number they've calculated. So even within less than 80 ,000 or 80 million years, our entire universe would be colonized.

That's what he's working out with and it's not unreasonable. Now, in case you're interested, I use this number, one octillion planets earlier when

I was being generous and giving the evolutionists thousand more planets than there are stars in the universe. Even then, to colonize that many planets would only take less than 90 million years.

That's it. So whether 80 or 90 million years, these numbers are actually dropping the sea when we compare them to the 13 .8

billion years they give for the age of the universe, especially when they claim life only started 3 .5

billion years ago here on earth. So based on their own skill, life could have easily started 100 million years earlier somewhere else.

So that's all it takes to colonize the entire world. That's if these planets were suitable,

I get that. But let's just pretend they're all suitable. That's the point I'm making. Let's pretend they're also, that's what the paradox is all about.

Let's pretend it's all suitable. Well, life should exist in every one of them by now.

Therefore, the paradox. In case you're interested, the first scientific meeting on the search of extraterrestrial intelligence, we all know as SETI, which had just 10 attendees, just 10 showed up, including

Frank Drake and Carl Sagan, speculated that the number of civilizations was roughly between 1 ,000 and 100 million civilizations in the

Milky Way galaxy. That's just our Milky Way galaxy, right? We're not talking about the whole universe.

Just between 1 ,000, they estimated between 1 ,000 and 100 million. How many civilizations did they find so far?

You guessed it, none. On another occasion, three scientists got together to discuss how many civilizations they would find, and they came up with this.

With very high probability, either intelligent civilizations are plentiful in our galaxy or humanity is alone in the observable universe.

Now, in case you didn't get it, here's John Harris's interpretation. We're either alone or we're not. That's 10 out of 10 for stating the obvious.

So yes, that is the Fermi paradox. I hope that was helpful. Wasn't Fermi part of the nuclear developer?

Wasn't he one that collaborated to develop the nuclear or the atom bomb? Well, you know what?

I don't actually know what else he's done, but there's a whole Wikipedia about him if you just type Fermi paradox and it will tell you everything that he's done and everything he's got involved with and everything that's named after him.

But to me, the fascinating part was the paradox he came up with. And since 1950, no one has ever thought to go back to it and check out these things.

And to be honest with you, we have a lot of paradoxes and a lot of dilemmas in evolution and evolution worldviews that we as Christians ignore.

And it's probably a good time to start bringing those out and highlight to people, well, you really, it just doesn't work.

Okay, somebody I can't hear. There we go. Oh, are you okay?

Yes, good. I just heard a crackling noise in the background. I wasn't sure if it was... I'm blaming you, Terry. I think you did that.

It's not me this time. I'm... Erica, our sci -fi expert on this panel said

Fermi created the first reactor in Chicago. Yeah, I thought he had something to do with nuclear physics.

I interviewed a World War II vet who actually was trained by Fermi at the

University of Chicago. I just didn't put Fermi him and Fermi paradox together, so.

Thank you. Well, is his first name Enrico, do you think? Yes. Oh, is it? Well, it's very likely to be him.

And was it roundabout sort of mid 20th century, do you think? Yeah, it was, let's see, the

World War II vet was 92 and he was going to college in the 40s.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure it's the same person. Erica, you can speak up here anytime or your husband.

Oh, 1930s, I see it. There we go. Okay, 1930s, yes. Yeah, well,

I suppose in 1950s, I'm not sure what age you would be, but 1930s, well. Yeah, well,

I mean, it's a quick Wikipedia check. If you type his name, he's very famous.

He would just come up instantly with when he was born and what he did. So yeah, there will be no confusion about what he did.

Now, please remember the reasons why I quote these people is because they're intelligent.

They know their stuff, right? They're intelligent, they're worthy. They're worthy of quoting because when they say something, it's worth noting what they're saying.

It's like Haldane's dilemma. This is a guy also in the 1950s came up with a dilemma.

Apparently 1950s is a good time to come up with paradoxes and dilemmas, but he also came up with some, but he's like a genius.

But these geniuses, these clever people are working out things that if they reflect reality, we should see it, but it's not reflecting reality, but it's based on an evolutionary worldview that's obviously not helping them to predict the outcome.

I have found that a lot of intellectuals,

I think because they think they're so smart that they couldn't possibly think the

Bible was real. And I think there's a passage in the Bible that tells us, what is it,

Tom found the wise? Yeah, came to be wise, but became fools, yeah? Yes, that's it.

Yes, they profess to be wise, became fools. I think it's Romans chapter one. Okay, do we have some other questions from the audience?

I tell you something that I thought was very interesting, which came as a result of the last talk

I did at the conference at Living Waters. People were typing those and they actually also,

I had messages that came afterwards and they told me, they said, that was the most interesting way of proving

God's existence. They actually came out with it and said, I've never seen this as one way of proving

God's existence, because we exist and the likelihood of us existing is very slim and the likelihood of somebody else or another alien, intelligent alien like us existing somewhere else is not likely.

And I did, that was only the 15 minute version, right? Today is not the 15 minute version. I didn't even expand like I did today.

But even at the 15 minute version, we were getting people leaving comments and people contacted me later saying, this was the most fascinating way of proving

God's existence. And I thought, I never thought of it that way, which I thought it could be a good way of communicating, because people don't mind talking about aliens.

And if they don't mind talking about it, then it's one way of springboarding to the gospel. Sure, I mean, yeah, things that fascinate people and then we can find a way to go back.

That's really great. So, okay, so we're looking to see if anybody else has any questions. How about Diane or James?

If anybody wants to, oh, here we go. Let's see. Brad says, John, your arguments are convincing and impressive.

What do you think about the possibility that another Adam and Eve actually obeyed God's command to not eat from the tree of good and evil?

They should be living happily ever after with no need of a savior. Okay, well, this is really interesting.

And to be honest with you, why not? I mean, if you want to put a scenario in where they say, well, people, there is no, let me tell you the problem with this one.

And the problem with this has already been answered in my talk. This whole world is gonna be set on fire and destroyed, right, the universe, all the galaxies and everything.

God's gonna create the new heavens and new earth. Are they going to go down with the rest of us?

Or are they gonna make it? I don't, so that's one thing to consider.

Are they affected by this whole, God is gonna destroy the whole world and start it all over again, making us a promise?

They will be raptured. I can read that here, I'm reading it. Will they be raptured?

Now, you see, will they be raptured? Well, you see, I mean, it's a hypothetical scenario. I can't think of why that would happen.

My question would be, well, in that case, there could be unlimited number of those somewhere, because why not?

I mean, there could be more, but we don't have any place. Seeing that God has given us dominion over all things, does that mean we have dominions over them?

So it kind of raises a lot of theological questions. But yes, it is a very interesting thing to raise.

And of course, no one will know the answer until the end, but I would say it's unlikely. And also

I feel a bit jealous. Why would Adam and Eve in that planet get it right and not in our planet? So I would be filing a complaint if that was true somewhere.

I'm thinking you clearly have not seen TOS Star Trek episode

Mirror, Mirror. I haven't, no. I highly recommend it.

Is that something like a different dimension where something happens, or is it literally another planet?

Parallel universes. Oh, parallel universes. Okay, well, I don't even know if that's real.

So I know the universe I live in exists, but I'm not sure about the next one.

So one universe is too many. There's a lot of talk now on multiverse.

And I watched this show called Into the Multiverse, and it's all speculation, but how demons and angels move about so quickly is that they open a door here, step through it to a door to another part on the planet.

There's been, and I've been hearing some prophecy speakers talking on mini raptures, like people in the

Bible having been scooped up and then dropped somewhere else. And they actually say that in the

Bible. I don't, I'm not good at remembering things, but prophecy speakers were referring to that as like mini raptures.

A guy on one area of the earth would be picked up and well, Enoch too, went up and just these, and so now these multiverse people are saying that what was happening back in the

Bible is that these people were being put in through a door and then another door was opened up and then they came out in another place on earth.

I'm just throwing that out there. That's kind of, I'm really into sci -fi. I tell you what

I try to resist doing. I try to resist coming up with good stories. I try to resist saying,

I try, because I mean, evolutionists do this all the time. They come up with a scenario that we've never seen and they say, well, what about this scenario?

And I don't think it's a case of whoever comes up with the best story or whoever comes up with a story that could possibly be true.

There's a difference between something that's possible and something that's reasonable. And if you're gonna make a claim, then the claim has got to be supported with something other than you saying, well, what about if this did exist?

Well, hypothetical scenarios we can create all day long. I mean, do we have any evidence that there is another dimension or there is another universe?

I would say, well, I have no experimental way of finding out, but do I believe that there's another dimension?

Well, I would say yes, because I would call heaven another dimension. So if you're saying that demons go from heaven to earth and they interact, well, sure, why not?

Because we know the universe, we know that dimension exists and maybe that's where they live and they come and visit us every now and then and cause havoc.

So, but in terms of a universe like ours existing somewhere else, it will be like hearsay.

It's kind of like a story. And we try not to make up stories. We try to give good reasons for our claims.

So if we have a good reason for a claim, then it becomes a reasonable claim. If we don't have any good reasons for the claim, it becomes a hearsay, gossip, or we can't really go with the story.

And then suddenly it causes somebody to stumble because they come up with a scenario. What if that happened? Oh my goodness, obviously

God doesn't love us and we're all doomed. You know, something, they come up with dramatic conclusions.

So I try to say to people, if you're gonna say something exists, then do you have any good reasons for it?

Is it more, is it reasonable rather than just possible? Do you, can you prove it using evidence or at least to have a claim that's reliable that we can follow?

Otherwise it's just a story. And of course it's great. We can all tell stories. I mean, I can make up a story in my next talk.

So it's, so yes, I'm with you. I sympathize with the idea, but I reject those that I cannot prove or cannot support really.

Yeah, and I like that. And I'm very reluctant to believe something that doesn't really seem feasible, but it makes for a good story.

It makes good entertainment. And Diane, yeah, well, and Diane pointed out that C .S.

Lewis even wrote a trilogy of books on that topic. He has a sci -fi trilogy.

Yeah, that's right. And we love stories, but we gotta be able to differentiate between science fiction, a story, a made up story and the reality, something that's something we can actually see, observe and test and demonstrate or something we can support biblically.

Otherwise, every man for himself, they all come up with a story. And the man who comes up with the best story, his theory is the best.

And of course, that's not how we know how things are true or false. That's right. Okay, so let's see.

Does anybody else have a question right now? We're waiting. Or if you wanna unmute and thank our guest, he's up in the middle of the night.

Hi, if we're done with questions or people are uncomfortable asking them because they know that we're streaming, we could go ahead and end that.

We could put a close on our live stream and end the recording.

And then we can have just a little bit of more comfortable time. Does that sound good? Done. Live stream is over and I will end my recording.