NASA discovers hundreds of new Earth-like planets

[-Cp]

NASA has spotted hundreds of new planets outside our solar system, many of them similar to Earth, in a discovery that has renewed the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Six weeks of data gathered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's deep-space Kepler probe reveal five new solar systems within the Milky Way as well as 700 bodies that could be new planets, the agency confirmed Sunday.

Scientists say 140 of those bodies are considered "Earth-like," meaning their composition could support the development of simple life-forms.

Read the rest at:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20100726/nasa-new-planets-100726/

[PostmodernProphet]

all of them intelligently designed......:poke:

[Gaffer]

all of them intelligently designed......:poke:

....or not.

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=214&dateline=1267738875&type=thumb:poke:http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=23&dateline=1176753843

[pete311]

all of them intelligently designed......:poke:

time to lose the comfort blanket and join us in modern civilization

[darin]

time to lose the comfort blanket and join us in modern civilization

^ time to stop believing all this somehow, magically, appeared perfectly! :) I'd not be surprised if you believed the computer you used to type that response was formed by random chance.

[pete311]

^ time to stop believing all this somehow, magically, appeared perfectly! :) I'd not be surprised if you believed the computer you used to type that response was formed by random chance.

not magic, science

[PostmodernProphet]

not magic, science

uh, there is no science that explains how the universe appeared.....it begins with the second AFTER the Big Bang and proceeds from there....

[PostmodernProphet]

time to lose the comfort blanket and join us in modern civilization

actually, the majority of those of us living in modern civilization believe in intelligent design.....

[pete311]

uh, there is no science that explains how the universe appeared.....it begins with the second AFTER the Big Bang and proceeds from there....

Then you have not researched theoretical physics. Something from nothing is a quantum possibility. Certainly we don't know for sure, but there are models and scientists are working on it. Better than 2000 years of stagnation and mind numbing creeds.


actually, the majority of those of us living in modern civilization believe in intelligent design.....

mmmm, i would challenge that. My thought is that most educated christians don't take intelligent design seriously.

[darin]

not magic, science

Lemme get this straight..

You believe it's 'science' that the universe and everything contained herein suddenly (since the synonym 'magically' offends you)just 'appeared'. Can you point to ONE thing even 1/10th as complex as a mechanical pencil suddenly popping into existence?

I go back to your computer - the very machine you are using right now - doesn't it SCREAM to you of a designer vs. your 'it just happened' theory?

[Kathianne]

Lemme get this straight..

You believe it's 'science' that the universe and everything contained herein suddenly (since the synonym 'magically' offends you)just 'appeared'. Can you point to ONE thing even 1/10th as complex as a mechanical pencil suddenly popping into existence?

I go back to your computer - the very machine you are using right now - doesn't it SCREAM to you of a designer vs. your 'it just happened' theory?

I found this article interesting:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-difference-between-true-science-and-cargo-cult-science/


The Difference between ‘True Science’ and ‘Cargo-Cult Science’
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” is how the great Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman defined science.
July 27, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler

Share |

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” is how the great Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman defined science in his article “What is Science?” Feynman emphasized this definition by repeating it in a stand-alone sentence in extra large typeface in his article. (Feynman’s essay is available online, but behind a subscription wall: The Physics Teacher (1969) volume 7, starting page 313.)

Immediately after his definition of science, Feynman wrote: “When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, ‘Science has shown such and such,’ you should ask, ‘How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?’ It should not be ‘science has shown.’ And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.”...

[pete311]

Lemme get this straight..

You believe it's 'science' that the universe and everything contained herein suddenly (since the synonym 'magically' offends you)just 'appeared'. Can you point to ONE thing even 1/10th as complex as a mechanical pencil suddenly popping into existence?

I go back to your computer - the very machine you are using right now - doesn't it SCREAM to you of a designer vs. your 'it just happened' theory?

No because through my education I have come to the scientific concensus's conclusion. The problem here is we have a collison of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology topics. None of us are experts in these areas but I've read enough books on the subjects along with plenty of philosophy and worldly experienced that lead me to trust in science because it's gotten us pretty far and the explainations while still being worked on make much more sense. Part of my bias is that I am athirst as I see no evidence or need for any particular god.

[darin]

No because through my education I have come to the scientific concensus's conclusion. The problem here is we have a collison of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology topics. None of us are experts in these areas but I've read enough books on the subjects along with plenty of philosophy and worldly experienced that lead me to trust in science because it's gotten us pretty far and the explainations while still being worked on make much more sense. Part of my bias is that I am athirst as I see no evidence or need for any particular god.

...but science doesn't 'prove' or 'say' things magically just happened, as you seem to think it does. My interpretation of science - the logical conclusions I've reached in many areas make it absolutely silly, frankly, to assume this complex system is simply a big, colossal accident.

[Gaffer]

What's NASA doing looking for planets? They are suppose to be pandering to muslims.

[Missileman]

^ time to stop believing all this somehow, magically, appeared perfectly! :) I'd not be surprised if you believed the computer you used to type that response was formed by random chance.

The computer is a human invention...coincidently, so is god.

[PostmodernProphet]

Then you have not researched theoretical physics. Something from nothing is a quantum possibility. Certainly we don't know for sure, but there are models and scientists are working on it. Better than 2000 years of stagnation and mind numbing creeds.

I repeat, there is no science that explains how the universe appeared.........if you would like to link to something that qualifies for science that says differently, I would be glad to discuss it...



mmmm, i would challenge that. My thought is that most educated christians don't take intelligent design seriously.

you aren't serious, are you?.....only 15% of Americans polled believe that humans evolved without the participation of a deity.....even the rate for those who consider themselves liberals is only 36%
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml


No because through my education I have come to the scientific concensus's conclusion.
simply stated, there is no scientific consensus on the issue of origin.....there is some conjecture, none of which is observable or testable under the scientific method.....you see no evidence of a god so you reject him, you see no evidence of a scientific explanation for origin, yet you "trust in science"......you realize, of course, that this is the classic definition of "faith"......


The computer is a human invention...coincidently, so is god.

no recorded patents outstanding.....

[pete311]

This new CNN article is a bit relevant to this topic
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?iref=NS1

[KarlMarx]

If there were no God, it would become necessary for Man to invent Him.

Thus said Voltaire.

Those of us who subscribe to a belief in the God of Abraham are derided by those who claim that they don't believe in any god whatsoever.

I subscribe that those people delude only themselves. They, in fact, do believe in a god, whether it is the god of Science or the god of Materialism.

To those who believe in the God of Science, the answers come from Science, Science seems to be infallible. It seems to me that they believe that there is nothing that logic and human reasoning cannot overcome. If something is unknown, the God of Science will eventually make it known.

Of course, it's not Science that is the true God of this non-religion, it's Man himself. Man has become God in this new religion.... after all, it's Human reasoning that seems to be the pinnacle of knowing.

The problem is that Man when He feels that he has nothing to answer to does not rise to the level of Angels but instead descends to the level of animals....

Indeed, even animals cannot match the cruelty of Man when he feels that He is God. We've seen what a single century of Godless atheism in the form of Communism has done... over 100 million deaths....

Had Man been an atheist at the beginning of time, there would be not a single one of us left today.

If the man who believes in God is a terrible thing, then how much moreso is the man who has made Himself God.

Whether there actually is a God or not is not the point, the fact is that Man needs God if for no other reason than to save Himself from his own nature.

[Missileman]

I subscribe that those people delude only themselves. They, in fact, do believe in a god, whether it is the god of Science or the god of Materialism.

I worship neither...what else ya got?


Whether there actually is a God or not is not the point, the fact is that Man needs God if for no other reason than to save Himself from his own nature.

I'll wager that the percentage of atheists who lead a moral life despite a disbelief in deities is higher than those who live totally sinless because of their belief in deities.

[PostmodernProphet]

This new CNN article is a bit relevant to this topic
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?iref=NS1


Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"

why should we give you gravity, Stephen?......make your own....

[PostmodernProphet]

I'll wager that the percentage of atheists who lead a moral life despite a disbelief in deities is higher than those who live totally sinless because of their belief in deities.

does "lead a moral life" equal "live totally sinless"?.....

are you equally willing to wager that those who lead a moral life despite a disbelief in deities is higher than those who lead a moral life because they believe in deities?......

[SassyLady]

The computer is a human invention...coincidently, so is god.

Or humans are a invention of God...........

[Missileman]

Or humans are a invention of God...........

Well then, that should mean you subscribe to the belief that Zeus invented the Greeks, Jupiter invented the Romans, Anubis invented the Egyptians, and so on.

[Pagan]

Well then, that should mean you subscribe to the belief that Zeus invented the Greeks, Jupiter invented the Romans, Anubis invented the Egyptians, and so on.

Rather amazing that so many believe in an invisible all powerful being who just snapped their fingers and "poof" world was created. That and this all supposedly happened some 10k years ago :lol:

But hey, SciFi author Ron L. Hubbard invented the Thetans and it's a multi billion dollar "TAX EXEMPT" organization.

What better way to fleece the "Herd" than create a mythical being, promise the follower's everything with the promise of rewards after they're dead. :alcoholic:

What a racket ya know ......

[Noir]

Rather amazing that so many believe in an invisible all powerful being who just snapped their fingers and "poof" world was created. That and this all supposedly happened some 10k years ago :lol:

But hey, SciFi author Ron L. Hubbard invented the Thetans and it's a multi billion dollar "TAX EXEMPT" organization.

What better way to fleece the "Herd" than create a mythical being, promise the follower's everything with the promise of rewards after they're dead. :alcoholic:

What a racket ya know ......

Haven't you heard about Hank?...

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

[Pagan]

Haven't you heard about Hank?...

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

:lol::lol:

[SassyLady]

Well then, that should mean you subscribe to the belief that Zeus invented the Greeks, Jupiter invented the Romans, Anubis invented the Egyptians, and so on.

No, it doesn't mean I subscribe to these beliefs at all.

[KarlMarx]

I worship neither...what else ya got?
I did say "delude themselves" didn't I?




I'll wager that the percentage of atheists who lead a moral life despite a disbelief in deities is higher than those who live totally sinless because of their belief in deities.
"You'll wager" means that you're not certain. By whose standard shall we measure this morality? Or is having a standard not allowed either?

That's another problem with atheism, there is no standard of belief, only a one of non-belief. In fact, there must be a body of believers for there to be atheists, come to think of it.

But to return to my original question... how do we measure morality? To answer that, let's ask the question, how do you measure anything?

If you measure length, there must be a standard length of measurement. If you measure time, or volume, or speed, the same holds. There must be a measurement.

Now, let's look at behavior. When it comes to that, there are standards of behavior that we hold onto. Those standards are known as "laws".

So, it follows that for there to be a morality, there must be a measurement of morality. And where would that come from? In our culture, that "somewhere" is the Mosaic Law as established in the Bible.

[Missileman]

No, it doesn't mean I subscribe to these beliefs at all.

So in every case except the ancient Jews, man invented gods? That makes sense to you? Really?

[Missileman]

"You'll wager" means that you're not certain. By whose standard shall we measure this morality? Or is having a standard not allowed either?

"I'll wager" absolutely means I'm certain. As for a standard, we can use the morals achieved by your average Christian and I'll still win the wager.


So, it follows that for there to be a morality, there must be a measurement of morality. And where would that come from? In our culture, that "somewhere" is the Mosaic Law as established in the Bible.

Since so very little of Mosaic law is actually codified into U.S. law, how about we measure with something more grounded in reality...compliance with our local, state, and federal laws.

For the purposes of this argument, can we agree to define a moral person as one who is law abiding?

[PostmodernProphet]

Since so very little of Mosaic law is actually codified into U.S. law, how about we measure with something more grounded in reality...compliance with our local, state, and federal laws.


unless you're unaware of what "mosaic law" means your statement makes no sense....I'll grant you the"Honor the Lord your God" isn't there and "make no graven images", but what about the other eight?....