Planet

[Mog]

myst7426 wrote

idiot. did you even go to college. the degrees are named "of science" or "of art" for the most part. Hell, you can get a bachelor of science in history or economics if you want to. the difference between "of science" and of "of art" are the elective classes one takes, usually. the difference usually entails a foreign languange. a student usually has the choice to get a BS or BA. most business concentrations are "of science" only.

Myst, yes I went to college. Did you lose any sense of humor there? Was I supposed to lose mine? Or do you just like getting on people's nerves? I mean, "Dumbass", "Idiot", whats with the insults, Myst?

[ubs]

Accounting isn't a job, Mog. It's a lifestyle. I think maybe you've finally crossed the line.

ubs wrote

Accounting isn't a job, Mog. It's a lifestyle. I think maybe you've finally crossed the line.

The first rule about Accounting is you don't talk about Accounting...

[nkb]

myst7426 wrote

idiot. did you even go to college. the degrees are named "of science" or "of art" for the most part. Hell, you can get a bachelor of science in history or economics if you want to. the difference between "of science" and of "of art" are the elective classes one takes, usually. the difference usually entails a foreign languange. a student usually has the choice to get a BS or BA. most business concentrations are "of science" only.

Which makes it all the more stupid that you would write "accounting science". Are you trying to legitimize your major somehow? Do you think Choobus will accept you as a peer if you can convince him that you are a scientist?

[nkb]

Xans wrote

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

Cosmo-evolutionists have some "esplainin" to do.

Please, please, please, can you explain to us what the purpose of posting these articles is?

You do understand that it is in no way an argument for your retarded beliefs, right?

[Xans]

myst7426 wrote

yes they do (astro-physicists, not cosmo-evolutionists). since they don't have to have a complete understanding of the universe, they shall study this situation and offer an explanation when they gather enough evidence to do so.

It's only the astro-physicists who make cosmo-evolutionist claims that have some explaining to do. And I wish them all the luck in the universe.

If cosmo-evolutionists found a Nissan Skyline on a distant planet, I'm sure they'd study the situation and offer an explanation as to how the Nissan Skyline like feature on the planet slowly evolved over millions/billions of years. It would be quite an interesting and complicated story I'm sure. The explanation would most likely involve the introduction of "car matter". "Car matter" being similar to "dark matter" that takes the form of various car like shapes. "Car matter" is the ticket because it's impossible "someone" "put" the car like object there.

where in the bible does it recite properties of the planet mentioned in the article?

Nowhere that I'm aware. However neither the article nor my post mentions the Bible.

[Xans]

antix wrote

Scientists found something unexpected? Damn. Science is through. Finished. Kaput. May as well pack up and go home.

It's only the unexpected if you expected something in the first place. Perhaps a little less expecting is in order.

[Xans]

nkb wrote

Please, please, please, can you explain to us what the purpose of posting these articles is?

You do understand that it is in no way an argument for your retarded beliefs, right?

I'm not making an argument or even posting about a belief I have. I'm stating that people with a belief in cosmo-evolution have some explaining to do. As someone who simply lacks a belief in cosmo-evolution, I'm under no burden to make an argument. I can just sit back, relax and demand proof/explanations, kinda like an atheist. In fact I have a comfortable atheist "relaxing chair" on order, I can't wait. Please, please, please don't shift the burden of proof, it's unsightly.

[Mog]

Xans wrote

I'm not making an argument or even posting about a belief I have. I'm stating that people with a belief in cosmo-evolution have some explaining to do. As someone who simply lacks a belief in cosmo-evolution, I'm under no burden to make an argument. I can just sit back, relax and demand proof/explanations, kinda like an atheist. In fact I have a comfortable atheist "relaxing chair" on order, I can't wait. Please, please, please don't shift the burden of proof, it's unsightly.

Xans, how does this planet contradict this so called "cosmo-evolution"? How does this planet confirm your "cosmo-creation". Is the basis of your belief just science-nihilism? As in "I don't like the conclusions based on scientific evidence, lets look for any possible anomalies that I can find to tear this down?"

Xans, what dort of explanations do you get when you google TrES-4? Do the astronomers say "Hey, this is unexpected! It must be the work of god?" or do they come up with an ad-hoc explanation that they will alter when they get more information? Science doesn't mean that we'll have all our answers on a platter, you know.

[Xans]

Mog wrote

Xans, how does this planet contradict this so called "cosmo-evolution"?

That planet doesn't contradict cosmo-evolution, it's just makes it more complicated at best and far fetched at worst.

How does this planet confirm your "cosmo-creation". Is the basis of your belief just science-nihilism? As in "I don't like the conclusions based on scientific evidence, lets look for any possible anomalies that I can find to tear this down?"

That planet doesn't confirm or un-confirm "cosmo-creation". And to answer your question, no. I love conclusions based on scientific evidence. What I don't like are conclusions based on assumptions.

Xans, what dort of explanations do you get when you google TrES-4? Do the astronomers say "Hey, this is unexpected! It must be the work of god?" or do they come up with an ad-hoc explanation that they will alter when they get more information? Science doesn't mean that we'll have all our answers on a platter, you know.

Cosmo-evolutionists have all the answers when it's time to brain wash the masses. But when they're questioned, they conveniently don't have all the answers and are shocked at the suggestion that they should. I'd love a little honesty from time to time. Just the facts, leave the assumptions for theoretical science and/or Star trek.

[Mog]

That planet doesn't contradict cosmo-evolution, it's just makes it more complicated at best and far fetched at worst.

There is nothing wrong with "complicated", and "far-fetched" is an opinion. We think that god is "far-fetched" so already any explanations that you have is already at its worst.

What the hell is a cosmo-evolutionist? Oh wait, they only exist in the theists mind. Please cite a cosmo-evolutionist Xans. Example: "Cosmo-evolutionist, Joe Blow, offers this explanation..."

While you are at it, look up the definition of evolution from a scientific dictionary. It has nothing to do with planets.

Have you ever been to college? Professors don't brainwash students. They teach them things that have a lot of evidence to support it. However, in the advances classes, professor do discuss things that do not currently have evidence but scientists are in the process of studying. Why? Scientists actively study the unexplained. Students need to be aware of ongoing studies because they may participate in that study as either a grad student or after school.

Your conspiracy theory is just stupid. Go take a class at Liberty University and compare it to a real university. They probably do more preaching in biology class about the evils of evolution than actually teaching.

Xans, your argument is pathetic. I know of a way better unexplained planetary property you could use. The creationists and IDiots would love to use it as evidence of a creator. Too bad they don't know about. I have never seen them cite it. It even exists in our solar system. Can you guess what I am talking about?

[Choobus]

Everyone knows that astrophysicists are idiots. Durrr.

[nkb]

Xans wrote

I'm not making an argument or even posting about a belief I have. I'm stating that people with a belief in cosmo-evolution have some explaining to do. As someone who simply lacks a belief in cosmo-evolution, I'm under no burden to make an argument. I can just sit back, relax and demand proof/explanations, kinda like an atheist. In fact I have a comfortable atheist "relaxing chair" on order, I can't wait. Please, please, please don't shift the burden of proof, it's unsightly.

The only thing that is unsightly is when you post something.

1. There is no such thing as cosmo-evolution. No matter how many times you say it, it will not make it true. If you're using this made-up term to try to get a rise out of people here, all you are accomplishing is to reinforce what a retarded Christ-puncher you really are.

2. You are trying to equate believing in the accuracy of a scientific theory, based on available evidence, with believing in a deity, with absolutely no evidence. Sorry, that's not going to fly.
The difference is that no scientist believes dogmatically in anything scientific, because the door is always open to new evidence. If the new evidence contradicts an earlier theory, then it will be adjusted, as necessary.
Can you say that about your God belief?

3. You can sit back and demand all you want, you self-centered, egotistical prick. Believe it or not, these scientists will search for an answer, even without your demands, because they have an interest in getting the most accurate explanation possible. If you want to sit back and nitpick at stuff that you don't understand to begin with, knock yourself out, but, no matter how much new evidence comes out that forces astrophysicists to alter their theories, it is very unlikely to substantiate your childish worldview.

What has been painfully obvious from your very first post, and you reinforce daily, is that you really don't have the first clue about science, do you?