Old 02-24-2007, 06:20 AM   #16
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,568
Is it possible to set up a perma-link for the little twat ?

He'll like it here - http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/11/23...nut-continuum/

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 06:25 AM   #17
Rat Bastard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I love it! Looks like the old Choobus chart.......cues music.....

I can't say much for that little troll xans' wankery, but he's quite up there in the wingnuttery. He should get out more, I guess.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 07:34 AM   #18
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Xans wrote
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Quote:
Xans wrote
The atmospheres are most notable for what they lack: "We find no evidence for water in the spectrum, and all the theorists will tell you that there should be water (in the form of vapor) in the atmosphere[s] of these planets,"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...0F154D9C9A7D67

Cosmo-evolutionists sure do have a lot of work ahead of them don't they?
Let's see, the very first instances of information about extra-solar planet atmospheres is unexpected and, like all information, tentative. So we will jump on it as scientifically proven that there is no water on any planet outside the solar system and we will demand an explanation how life could evolve anywhere when there are places in the universe without water.

Yes, it will be difficult for cosmologists to explain how a planet that may have formed in a region of space without water would not have any in its atmosphere. Or maybe not...

This kind of stupidity proves that Adam and Eve did NOT eat of any fruit of knowledge and therefore God doesn't exist.
You would think since the universe formed/evolved, planets with a crap load of hydrogen and oxygen in em would have water... silly me. Or maybe not...
Hydrogen and oxygen dissociate in water to their individual molecules at high temperatures as you can demonstrate for yourself in an appropriate experiment or you can look it up or both. I saw nothing in the news item that suggested either hydrogen or oxygen being present. So the lack of water, with or without hydrogen and oxygen being present is not remarkable.

You know, of course, that the universe is evolving (changing) right now and the evidence is that it has been changing for 13+ Billion Years. We can observe even stars being born contrary to the notion that creation was complete shortly after it began. The changes we can observe show no sign of being intelligently or otherwise directed. There is no evident goal for the universe, especially no interest on the part of the universe in the welfare of one species out of thousands on one planet of hundreds in an obscure region of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. Even where there is some regularity in the universe, there is no apparent design, intelligence or direction. And none is needed.

Just a side recommendation: say change when you mean change and evolution when you mean biological change over time. Non-theists almost universally assume that "evolution" means biological evolution.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 07:41 AM   #19
Evil_Mage_Ra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Xans wrote
"This" has less to do with creationism and more to do with Cosmo-evolutionist predictions being wrong.
Scientific predictions are often wrong, and theories need to be adapted to account for new data. That's how science works.

What was the creationist prediction on the matter, by the way?

Quote:
Xans wrote
And yes water "may" be hiding at HD 209458 but so could the Easter bunny.
Or maybe even God. ;)

But at least we know that water even exists in our Universe, and that it seems to be fairly common, which brings us to your next statement......

Quote:
Xans wrote
You would think since the universe formed/evolved, planets with a crap load of hydrogen and oxygen in em would have water... silly me. Or maybe not...
It would be a reasonable (but not necessary) prediction. But since silicate dust actually was detected on HD 209458b, and since silicate dust is opaque, it is also reasonable to postulate that water actually is present on the planet, but is being obscured by the dust layer. So here we have (at least) two hypotheses as to what's actually going on: one is that the water is present but hidden, the other is that water is not present and the hydrogen and oxygen observed are parts of different molecules. These will serve as a stepping-point for further experiments which will confirm or reject one or the other hypotheses (or possibly both). Again, that's just how science works.

Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Hydrogen and oxygen dissociate in water to their individual molecules at high temperatures as you can demonstrate for yourself in an appropriate experiment or you can look it up or both. I saw nothing in the news item that suggested either hydrogen or oxygen being present. So the lack of water, with or without hydrogen and oxygen being present is not remarkable.
Hydrogen and oxygen were observed earlier on HD 209458b, which is what led to the prediction of water in the first place:

Press release suggesting the presence of hydrogen.
Press release suggesting the presence of oxygen (and carbon).
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 08:05 AM   #20
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Is Xanny going to post something every time Scientismo-Evolutionists get something "wrong"? And if not wrong, per se, but when a Cosmo-Dawininianist prediction isn't fully borne out in every detail, are we going to get a Xanny post to inform us of this failing?

Where will this end? If Xanny has a shread of intellectual integrity, eventually she will learn something about the way science works. Here's a prediction: I doubt it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 08:14 AM   #21
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Evil_Mage_Ra wrote
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Hydrogen and oxygen dissociate in water to their individual molecules at high temperatures as you can demonstrate for yourself in an appropriate experiment or you can look it up or both. I saw nothing in the news item that suggested either hydrogen or oxygen being present. So the lack of water, with or without hydrogen and oxygen being present is not remarkable.
Hydrogen and oxygen were observed earlier on HD 209458b, which is what led to the prediction of water in the first place:

Press release suggesting the presence of hydrogen.
Press release suggesting the presence of oxygen (and carbon).
Got it, thanks.:)

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 08:16 AM   #22
Evil_Mage_Ra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Quote:
Evil_Mage_Ra wrote
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Hydrogen and oxygen dissociate in water to their individual molecules at high temperatures as you can demonstrate for yourself in an appropriate experiment or you can look it up or both. I saw nothing in the news item that suggested either hydrogen or oxygen being present. So the lack of water, with or without hydrogen and oxygen being present is not remarkable.
Hydrogen and oxygen were observed earlier on HD 209458b, which is what led to the prediction of water in the first place:

Press release suggesting the presence of hydrogen.
Press release suggesting the presence of oxygen (and carbon).
Got it, thanks.:)
No problem. I thought I should mention something before Xans did. :cheers:
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 09:13 AM   #23
Xans
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Hydrogen and oxygen dissociate in water to their individual molecules at high temperatures as you can demonstrate for yourself in an appropriate experiment or you can look it up or both. I saw nothing in the news item that suggested either hydrogen or oxygen being present. So the lack of water, with or without hydrogen and oxygen being present is not remarkable.
The two suns the planets orbit closely have hydrogen and oxygen, the stable building blocks of water.

"We had expected this tremendous signature of water and it wasn't there," said Carl Grillmair of the California Institute of Technology and Spitzer Science Center.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5207-3612r.htm
Quote:
Just a side recommendation: say change when you mean change and evolution when you mean biological change over time. Non-theists almost universally assume that "evolution" means biological evolution.
Don't assume so much, problem solved. Atheists don't have a monopoly on terms. Trust me, if atheists still thought the universe was static, I wouldn't call them evolutionists.
Xans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 09:20 AM   #24
Xans
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
Evil_Mage_Ra wrote
What was the creationist prediction on the matter, by the way?
That the universe didn't form/evolve over billions of years and that any attempt to explain the universe in such a way will lead to stumbling block after stumbling block the more we learn. Bring on the new discoveries, creationists welcome it. Let's take a better look at HD.
Xans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 09:25 AM   #25
Xans
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
Is Xanny going to post something every time Scientismo-Evolutionists get something "wrong"?
Yes?
Xans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 09:30 AM   #26
ShadowofGod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Xans wrote
Quote:
Evil_Mage_Ra wrote
What was the creationist prediction on the matter, by the way?
That the universe didn't form/evolve over billions of years and that any attempt to explain the universe in such a way will lead to stumbling block after stumbling block the more we learn. Bring on the new discoveries, creationists welcome it. Let's take a better look at HD.
Stop it, you're killing me!
You creationists couldn't get a clue during clue mating season in a field of clues if you smeared your body in musk and did the clue mating dance.

When your pathetic sky-daddy was handing out brains , you must have outside picking your nose.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 10:28 AM   #27
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Xans wrote
Call them what you wish, I call them Cosmo-evolutionists because --
Because you want to shoehorn them into your own misconception of an idea. Very well.

You are now a Christo-evolutionist.

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 11:04 AM   #28
Evil_Mage_Ra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Xans wrote
Quote:
Evil_Mage_Ra wrote
What was the creationist prediction on the matter, by the way?
That the universe didn't form/evolve over billions of years and that any attempt to explain the universe in such a way will lead to stumbling block after stumbling block the more we learn. Bring on the new discoveries, creationists welcome it. Let's take a better look at HD.
Except this discovery isn't really a stumbling block at all. If there's a layer of dust obscuring the signal, then we can neither confirm nor deny directly the presence or absence of water on HD 209458b, though it may be possible do do it indirectly in a future experiment. As far as direct observation of water is concerned, HD 209458b is literally a black box.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 11:05 AM   #29
DrunkMonkey
Alcoholic Primate
 
DrunkMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College
Posts: 1,737
Quote:
Xans wrote
Don't assume so much, problem solved. Atheists don't have a monopoly on terms. Trust me, if atheists still thought the universe was static, I wouldn't call them evolutionists.
Well, in that case Creationists don't have a monopoly on terms. I hereby proclaim that all creationists will now be called "convicted serial rapists" and thus according to the law, they should all be sent to jail immediately. In addition, "creationism" will now be known as "pigs flying".

Xans, you believe that pigs fly? Are you retarded? The cops should be to your house in no time seeing as you are a convicted serial rapist.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." -Richard Dawkins
DrunkMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 11:25 AM   #30
Hertzyscowicz
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 204
Xans, you might be interested in the other side of the coin; Here is a list of refutations to Creationist claims. Now muster what little intellectual honesty you have left and read through the list.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." ~Albert Einstein
Hertzyscowicz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational