Hd 209458

[Sternwallow]

Xans wrote

You confuse the models of cosmo-evolution with the models of bio-evolution.

To what model of change in the universe over time do you subscribe (and yet insist on calling it evolution which has a different meaning in science)?

And I compared water and the easter[sic] bunny because neither were detected.

You don't see the poor logic of comparing something that might easily happen in a short time with something that simply can't possibly happen?

Actually, I said they're[sic] may be water on HD209458b. The reason I said that is because there may be water not because I like the way it sounds. Also, we'll see if this guys[sic] new theoretical model holds true.

You suggested, with no evidence to support you, that finding water on HD 209458 was as unlikely as finding an Easter Bunny. That is equivalent to saying that it is impossible to ever find water on that planet. You are, therefore, wrong since many planets with water are known.

Furthermore, you are wrong about the relevance of any surprise that cosmologists might feel since there are many known planets without water.

[Sternwallow]

Xans wrote

Because there "may" not have been.

That's what "may" means, silly!

[Kate]

[Sternwallow]

Rocketman the Sequel wrote

I could put a back beat to that and we could go gold kid--gold I tells ya.

Don't do that or Xans will claim it was divinely inspired and that he deserves a cut.

[Choobus]

did Xans see the hidden message I wonder?

[Smellyoldgit]

Choobus wrote

did Xans see the hidden message I wonder?

My eyesight's not what it was - give him a clue.

[Choobus]

if god wants him to see it then he will

[Sternwallow]

Choobus wrote

did Xans see the hidden message I wonder?

I doubt that he did. It took me a good five minutes to spot it. "Xans, Why Not Fuck Off Now You Cunt?", right?

[Xans]

Sternwallow wrote

To what model of change in the universe over time do you subscribe (and yet insist on calling it evolution which has a different meaning in science)?

The young earth creationist model. Also, google the term "evolution of the universe" and see how many hits you get.

You don't see the poor logic of comparing something that might easily happen in a short time with something that simply can't possibly happen?

Even though it's about as unlikely as abiogenesis, the easter bunny living on a gas giant is possible. And there cannot be poor logic in stating a fact.

You suggested, with no evidence to support you, that finding water on HD 209458 was as unlikely as finding an Easter Bunny.

Actually, I suggested that things we have no evidence to support can be assumed to exist. You just didn't catch it.

That is equivalent to saying that it is impossible to ever find water on that planet. You are, therefore, wrong since many planets with water are known.

Furthermore, you are wrong about the relevance of any surprise that cosmologists might feel since there are many known planets without water.

Yes, this thread is so long because it's irrelevant.

[Smellyoldgit]

Sternwallow wrote

I doubt that he did. It took me a good five minutes to spot it. "Xans, Why Not Fuck Off Now You Cunt?", right?

Correct Stern - - but the twerp obviously missed it, :)

[Xans]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Correct Stern - - but the twerp obviously missed it, :)

No, I got the hidden message. It's noted.

[Sternwallow]

Xans wrote

The young earth creationist model.

As a complete creation, per Genesis, the many easily observable characteristics that require ages in excess by factors of millions, are not explained in natural terms, YEC is not an adequate hypothesis. It could only be saved if you could show some or any supernatural effects on a natural system.

Even though it's about as unlikely as abiogenesis, the easter[sic] bunny living on a gas giant is possible. And there cannot be poor logic in stating a fact.

The Easter bunny, a strictly terrestrial mental construct that never existed, could not possibly live in an extra-solar-system gas giant. Whatever we might find there, however much it might look like a rabbit, would not be the Easter Bunny.
Since there are some existing molecules that self-replicate, the possibility that some distant replicating molecule was a very small modification of a complex, but non-replicating molecule is substantial. It is logically more likely than the existence of something that doesn't exist.

Actually, I suggested that things we have no evidence to support can be assumed to exist. You just didn't catch it.

I didn't need to catch it, it isn't true in general and it is tremendously not true if there is evidence against it. You can't seriously claim to assume the existence of everything for which there is no evidence. That is stupid.

You are also wrong in claiming that cosmological surprise is unusual or significant.

With this last post, you have destroyed any hope for reason. Now, since doing so cannot interfere with our defunct, formerly rational dialog, I am no longer bound to civility, dummy.

[Choobus]

Sternwallow wrote

I doubt that he did. It took me a good five minutes to spot it. "Xans, Why Not Fuck Off Now You Cunt?", right?

:lol::lol:

Shit! :o I missed the forest for all those trees! :lol:

Given the propensity for christards to re-define the simplest words to biblical conformity (and therefore linguistic deformity), she may well have seen it, but is unlikely to have understood it. "Perhaps" you should have put it in quotes.