Planet - Page 13

08-10-2007, 05:48 PM

So what are you extrapolating from that article, Xans? A planet exists that theoretically shouldn't given it's density....this can only mean one thing - the universe never changes and was created as is 6,000 years ago. (dusts hands off) Another great day for creationists.

anthonyjfuchs · 08-10-2007, 06:32 PM

Nah, Xans is just pointing out the obvious: that science doesn't have every answer to every question in the universe just yet.

Like I said; that's the beauty of science. Job security.

nkb · 08-10-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Xans wrote

Quote:

nkb wrote

Quote:

The Power of Greyskull wrote

And Xans, you are making positive assertions surrounding your 'hydroplate theory' which would put the burden of proof in your court. This is, in essence, a testable hypothesis....

Greyskull,
You probably missed it, but Xans already provided his proof for "hydroplate ~~uneducated guess~~ theory".
I will explain it to you very slowly, so that you might understand it:

They drilled a very deep hole, and found water.

That's it, pretty conclusive, no more evidence needed. Do try to keep up.

More evidence is needed moron. I said the hydroplate theory was a possible explaination just like plate tectonics is. Neither have been completely proven yet.

The guy who considers a "theory" about the earth's crust floating on a layer of water, until it was released on command by the Big Boy, calls me a moron? Have you auditioned for "Last Comic Standing"?

Tell me, genius. was the hydroplate "theory" formulated based on observations and evidence, or was it an attempted explanation for the origin of all the water necessary for a world-wide flood?

nkb · 08-10-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Xans wrote

Quote:

nkb wrote

Quote:

Xans wrote

I used to be an atheist...

I call MAJOR BULLSHIT on that one.

Because atheism is perfect and no one, after having tasted it's perfection, could possibly leave it's fold. To steal a line from Star Trek: "believing one's self to be perfect is often the sign of a delusional mind".

I have made no such claims about atheism or myself. All I'm saying is that I seriously doubt your claim that you were an atheist at any point in your life, based on your arguments presented on this forum.

If you don't mind, give us a quick synopsis of your life, as in what religion you were raised in, why you rejected that religion (and the accompanying god figure), and how you saw the light and became a Christian.

Choobus · 08-10-2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

nkb wrote

The guy who considers a "theory" about the earth's crust floating on a layer of water, until it was released on command by the Big Boy, calls me a moron? Have you auditioned for "Last Comic Standing"?

surely "last cumdrinker chugging" would be more apropos.

Sternwallow · 08-10-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

nkb wrote

Quote:

Professor Chaos wrote

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

idiology

:lol:

The first instance I thought it was a typo. When I saw a second instance, I realized Sterny was being clever.

Should this be listed in the RA Terminology thread? Did you come up with this one, Sternwallow?

The word came to me unbidden and was simply too apt to repair.

Sternwallow · 08-10-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Xans wrote

More evidence is needed moron. I said the hydroplate theory was a possible explaination just like plate tectonics is. Neither have been completely proven yet.

The movement of tectonic plates is regularly observed and the plate boundaries are well known. What about the fact of plate tectonics is still in question for you?

Sternwallow · 08-10-2007, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Xans wrote

Quote:

nkb wrote

Quote:

Xans wrote

I used to be an atheist...

I call MAJOR BULLSHIT on that one.

Because atheism is perfect and no one, after having tasted it's perfection, could possibly leave it's fold. To steal a line from Star Trek: "believing one's self to be perfect is often the sign of a delusional mind".

The bullshit is not an expression about the perfection of atheism, it is profound doubt that you were an atheist in any meaningful sense of the word.

Sternwallow · 08-10-2007, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Xans wrote

Quote:

myst7426 wrote

Xans, you would be more well-known than Einstein if you proved the theory of evolution or plate tectonics wrong.

And you'd be more well known then Jesus if you proved God didn't exist. Every single grade school textbook would mention you and your groundbreaking discovery. Shut up and go do it. You have a long way to go. And while you're at it, learn about shifting the burden of proof to the one who's not making the claim.

Stop demanding that we prove God does not exist! It makes you sound like a petulant child.

Sternwallow · 08-10-2007, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Xans wrote

Quote:

myst7426 wrote

Quote:

Xans wrote

Not earth. From the link on the first post in this thread:

Dubbed TrES-4, the planet is about 1.7 times the size of Jupiter and belongs to a small subclass of "puffy" planets that have extremely low densities.

The finding will be detailed in an upcoming issue of Astrophysical Journal.

"Its mean density is only about 0.2 grams per cubic centimeter, or about the density of balsa wood," said study leader Georgi Mandushev of the Lowell Observatory in Arizona. "And because of the planet's relatively weak pull on its upper atmosphere, some of the atmosphere probably escapes in a comet-like tail."

The planet's large mass-to-density ratio makes it an anomaly among known exoplanets, and its existence cannot be explained by current models.

Xans, cite a scientist who says the models are COMPLETE.

They're not complete. Make sure you don't present them as such.

No scientist does. You have no point.

Sternwallow · 08-10-2007, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Xans wrote

Quote:

myst7426 wrote

Quote:

Xans wrote

And you'd be more well known then Jesus if you proved God didn't exist. Every single grade school textbook would mention you and your groundbreaking discovery. Shut up and go do it. You have a long way to go. And while you're at it, learn about shifting the burden of proof to the one who's not making the claim.

1) It's not my burden, I could care less. Lack of evidence usually leads to non existence when dealing with fairy tales.

2) Xans, you have evidence available to you to examine for evolutions, plate tectonics, etc., I don't, except the Bible. The Bible is no better than your dumb clains.

Just as it's not my burden to prove the theory of evolution or plate tectonics is wrong. I find the evidence for both theories lacking.

If you claim that they are wrong, and especially if you claim, as you have, that the existing evidence proves them wrong, it IS your burden to supply or identify that evidence.

Sternwallow · 08-10-2007, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Xans wrote

Quote:

myst7426 wrote

When was this planet discovered? How far away is it?

Do you expect a probe to be sent today and arrive tomorrow?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292305,00.html

Quote:

I want an explanation of Ichusaa in 10 mins or all of your god claims are automatically wrong.

You're begging the question, another fallacy. I'll leave Ichusaa to explain itself.

Ichusaa is a god as real and as powerful as yours. Do you claim that it fits in your model of deities? Or should your model be revised to take it into account?

Quote:

GO GET PUBLISHED

So you can ignore the publication.

"...study team member Edward Dunham, also of the Lowell Observatory. "Problems are good, though, since we learn new things by solving them.""

Your oppostition to learning new things is noted.

Xans · 08-11-2007, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

Quote:

Xans wrote

Quote:

myst7426 wrote

1) It's not my burden, I could care less. Lack of evidence usually leads to non existence when dealing with fairy tales.

2) Xans, you have evidence available to you to examine for evolutions, plate tectonics, etc., I don't, except the Bible. The Bible is no better than your dumb clains.

Just as it's not my burden to prove the theory of evolution or plate tectonics is wrong. I find the evidence for both theories lacking.

If you claim that they are wrong, and especially if you claim, as you have, that the existing evidence proves them wrong, it IS your burden to supply or identify that evidence.

I don't hold a belief they're wrong, I simply lack a belief in them.

Since it's you who hold a belief in them, it's your job to explain yourself. Even if you have no explanation now, you have faith one will be found that fits with your beliefs. I just hope it's not a blind trust.

Sternwallow · 08-11-2007, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Xans wrote

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

Quote:

Xans wrote

Just as it's not my burden to prove the theory of evolution or plate tectonics is wrong. I find the evidence for both theories lacking.

If you claim that they are wrong, and especially if you claim, as you have, that the existing evidence proves them wrong, it IS your burden to supply or identify that evidence.

I don't hold a belief they're wrong, I simply lack a belief in them.

Since it's you who hold a belief in them, it's your job to explain yourself. Even if you have no explanation now, you have faith one will be found that fits with your beliefs. I just hope it's not a blind trust.

I have a reasonable expectation that humans will discover facts that will enhance our knowledge. I do not have faith in scientific things because I know that there is a finite possibility that some condition may arise where they are not applicable. I trust my chair because I know how it is constructed and have had success with it many times, but, this time, metal fatigue might cause it to break under me. The odds are better than 1:1000 (3 years daily testing) that I am safe. It is far from a blind trust. I have a verifiable recorded history with that chair that it has performed as designed many times and failed none. Can you say that God's performance history is independently verifiable or is your trust blind?

For the BB I offer all of the evidence that radio-astronomy, astronomy, geology, physics, QT have accumulated independently supporting it. New information, once it is verified and more completely studied, could cause an adjustment to BB. Certainly, if many 15 billion year old galaxies are found, it would not disprove the BB, only require a modification (which science would quickly and happily make). A theory that does not conform to the data is worse than useless, it is religious (believed on faith in spite of the evidence).

In order to not believe that evolution, to pick one, is not a fact, you need reasons to reject the mountains of evidence that support it. What reason refutes, for instance, that the world is in excess of 100 million years old, given the countable strata, many different and cross-checked rock age determinations, hydrology of river formation, mineral decay rates, cosmic ray impacts ...?

Ignoring data is not a wise basis for faith.

Choobus · 08-11-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

I trust my chair because I know how it is constructed and have had success with it many times, but, this time, metal fatigue might cause it to break under me. The odds are better than 1:1000 (3 years daily testing) that I am safe.

Oh, Sterny! Come on now, I'm sure you want to rethink that.

Think of it this way: if you accept that the chair is indeed going to fail one day, the more you test it, the more likely it is that you are approaching that failure, so that the odds you refer to are in fact a countdown to failure. Induction has that lovely property of being able to change at any time....