Old 02-23-2007, 04:11 PM   #1
Xans
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,278
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?
Xans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 04:33 PM   #2
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
not as much as your local mental health care workers you dumbass motherfucker.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 05:23 PM   #3
NorfolkAtheist
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Xans wrote
Cosmo-evolutionists sure do have a lot of work ahead of them don't they?
Cosmo-evolutionists? Give me a fucking break.

You're right though, scientists do have work ahead of them, but don't think they won't be able to do it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 05:25 PM   #4
Evil_Mage_Ra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
You sure are a master at not reading the entire article:

Quote:
Furthermore, Scientific American wrote
In a paper published online February 21 by Nature, Richardson's group reports that HD 209458 b's spectrum does suggest the presence of clouds of perhaps 10-micron-wide particles of dustlike silicate, or silicon oxide. According to Fortney, "We know silicate clouds affect the spectra of brown dwarfs at similar atmospheric temperatures."

But Fortney notes that the two planets differ in temperature by 200 K, which suggests clouds of the same composition are not present in both. Because the planets are so close to their suns, the star shine may burn off a haze that also obscures light, he says. Another possibility, he adds, is that the atmospheres might have uniform temperatures all the way down, which would flatten out their light spectra because molecules would not transfer energy as easily.
But for the sake of argument, let's take the data at face value and say that these two planets really do contain absolutely no water. All that would mean is that the current theory of planet formation is wrong and needs to be modified to account for all of the data. What does this have to do with creationism?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 06:09 PM   #5
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
And this is why creationists make poor scientists.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 06:22 PM   #6
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
also why scientists make poor creationists

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 06:45 PM   #7
ShadowofGod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote
not as much as your local mental health care workers you dumbass motherfucker.
:lol::lol: I pity the fool!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 08:20 PM   #8
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Xans wrote
Cosmo-evolutionists --
You must mean "cosmologists." As in the group of scientists who diligently try to understand the formation of cosmic objects.

Because that has nothing to do with the evolutionary model.

Just sayin.

As to missing water: well, I'm sure you'll keep up-to-date on the development of this story, waiting for the annoucement of a perfectly naturalistic explanation. After all, you're really just reporting a story-in-progress.

Like when the police say: "we have no tenable leads at this time in our murder investigation." You obviously wouldn't take that to mean, "No one committed this homicide." You would expect further investigation that would, eventually, lead to the discovery of the killer. Even if the killer was never identified -- like the Zodiac, or Jack the Ripper -- you still understand that a human person did, in fact, commit a physical murder.

Or do you think that the victims of the Zodiac and JtR were actually killed by angels/demons/ghosts/leprechauns simply because a human perpetrator was never conclusive identified?

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 10:06 PM   #9
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
how about the simple fact that science allows us to determine what is in the atmosphere of planets in other fucking solar systems that are free of christologists. jesus H khrist!. That is a step in the right direction.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 01:23 AM   #10
GodlessHeathen
Obsessed Member
 
GodlessHeathen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 3rd notch in the bible belt
Posts: 1,342
Theists should not be allowed to post in the Science forum until they have actually demonstrated that they know something about science.

Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. - Ambrose Bierce
GodlessHeathen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 04:59 AM   #11
Xans
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
Evil_Mage_Ra wrote
You sure are a master at not reading the entire article:

Quote:
Furthermore, Scientific American wrote
In a paper published online February 21 by Nature, Richardson's group reports that HD 209458 b's spectrum does suggest the presence of clouds of perhaps 10-micron-wide particles of dustlike silicate, or silicon oxide. According to Fortney, "We know silicate clouds affect the spectra of brown dwarfs at similar atmospheric temperatures."

But Fortney notes that the two planets differ in temperature by 200 K, which suggests clouds of the same composition are not present in both. Because the planets are so close to their suns, the star shine may burn off a haze that also obscures light, he says. Another possibility, he adds, is that the atmospheres might have uniform temperatures all the way down, which would flatten out their light spectra because molecules would not transfer energy as easily.
But for the sake of argument, let's take the data at face value and say that these two planets really do contain absolutely no water. All that would mean is that the current theory of planet formation is wrong and needs to be modified to account for all of the data. What does this have to do with creationism?
"This" has less to do with creationism and more to do with Cosmo-evolutionist predictions being wrong. And yes water "may" be hiding at HD 209458 but so could the Easter bunny.
Xans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 05:00 AM   #12
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
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.

"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, 05:21 AM   #13
Xans
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote
You must mean "cosmologists." As in the group of scientists who diligently try to understand the formation of cosmic objects.
Call them what you wish, I call them Cosmo-evolutionists because they assume the universe formed/evolved and wasn't created by God.

I have no doubt there will be a naturalistic explanation to this story. Both creationism and cosmo-evolution deal with the universe and because of that either are a natural explanation. I look forward to further investigation.

p.s.
I think all murder victims are killed by human beings. Do you actually think our universe always exists or that it somehow brought itself into existence just because God has never been conclusively identified?
Xans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 05:26 AM   #14
Xans
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,278
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...
Xans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 05:59 AM   #15
Rat Bastard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Kate, oh, Kate....where's a nice troll piccy for "xans", this lump of excrement posing as a psuedo-intellectual rebuker of standard science?
  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 11:49 AM.


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