Those seem like 2 separate claims, and I don't see why one would imply the other.

There are way more than millions of planets out there. There are probably way more than millions of planets with life on them. That doesn't mean planets with life are common, given the size of the universe. And it doesn't mean that we will be able to find any by 2045.

It doesn't matter unless you have a way of showing that on a given planet, the oxygen was produced by life. OR if you just want to assume that any planet with a lot of oxygen must contain life.

Probably a bit better than it is now. 2045 is only 31 years in the future.

That may be true. But there is an even higher correlation between lawless states and the rejection of the rule of law itself. In the united states it is a protected right to own a gun. The argument that the correct way to democratically "fix" this situation if one finds it disagreeable, is to change the law (i.e. the 2nd amendment), rather than simply abandoning the rule of law.

Some are. There is a whole movement dedicated to the idea that child abuse should be illegal, but that information depicting abuse is not the same as the actual abuse that took place.

There are similar lines of reasoning for allowing snuff films, videos of rape, etc.

I have yet to see a single comment from anyone (democrat or republican) arguing that the US government is properly following the 4th amendment.

I'm not sure how this makes not following the 2nd amendment in addition to not following the 4th ok.

The constitution absolutely allowed slavery. It didn't condone it, but allowing the states to decide to have slavery is "allowing" it (i.e. not prohibiting it).

So is what you are saying, that if one were to look for any historical documents linking the 2nd amendment with trying to prevent tyranny, that none would be found because none exist?

I don't think this is a good example. You refer to the slaves in the south as "enslaved citizens". But they weren't really citizens if they were not granted the rights of citizens. For example, they were certainly not granted the rights conferred by the 2nd amendment.

You can't criticize the 2nd amendment for not solving a situation where it was not even in effect. It would be one thing if the slaves were all given guns and slavery just continued to persist.

You might as well criticize the 2nd amendment for not helping the people of North Korea overthrow their government.

I'm sure we will have better telescopes in 2045. We probably would not even be able to detect life on the moon (if it existed) with 2045 telescopes. The reason we can try to detect life on the moon and mars, is because of our ability to send machines with sensors to those places. There is a big difference between having your sensor millimeters away from what you are trying to sense, and light years. The nearest star is 4.2 light years away.

If we are talking about not just life, but intelligent life that wants to be found (e.g. it's broadcasting a signal), that's probably not so common. Even if we found a signal coming from some far away planet that was 100% proof of intelligent life, there is a very good chance that that civilization is long extinct, given the speed of light, and the distance the signal needed to travel.

There is probably a near 100% chance that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. The chances of us finding one of those other intelligent life forms seems to be pretty low.

I don't find it offensive. I think it's just wrong, which has nothing to do with whether something is offensive.

I think there is probably a high correlation between being wrong and being stupid. I wouldn't say that I expect religious people to be that much dumber than non-religious people. I just think they are simply wrong about 1 more thing on average.

Nothing has to happen.

You can have a world with stupidity highly correlated with religion even with people converting to/from religion/atheism and without anyone changing their IQ.

Only if religion caused stupidity. If it is just correlated, then there is no problem.

Being able to detect planets and being able to detect life on those planets are 2 different things.

I would say that by voting for democrats or republicans, you are implicitly supporting a system that allows your vote to legitimize things you don't believe in.

If you vote for Obama, because he supports gay rights more than Mitt Romney, it doesn't mean you support killing people with drones, but it does support the 2 party system that uses your vote for gay rights into a vote for war.

I never said green energy was "unfairly" subsidized. I also never claimed "dirty" energy was not subsidized. I am saying that subsidizing energy production in general is bad, and in the case of green energy it makes more sense to subsidize research, if our goal is to make green technology efficient and viable.

Storing energy is not as hard as people think. Electric batteries are not the only solution. You can convert the energy to mechanical kinetic or potential energy like spinning flywheels or something as simply as pumping water up a hill.

Even if we consider electricity as a basic human right, it is still important to conserve it where possible. If poor people can not afford electricity, then a better solution (although maybe not the best), would be to just send them a government check for the difference in price. For example if a monthly electric bill for a family jumped from $100 to $1000, then send every family a monthly check for $900, and raise the price to $1000. I'll bet this will encourage people to start being more frugal with electricity, while still allowing them the freedom to use all the electricity they were using before, if they still want to.