Clear Signs of Water

[Lionking]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070711/ ... bfwF3737YB

Scientists have found the spectral imprints of water vapor in starlight filtered through the atmosphere of a giant gas planet outside our solar system.

Combined with a study announced earlier this year, the new finding provides strong evidence that extrasolar planets are as rich in water as the worlds in our solar system, scientists say.

The finding is detailed in the July 11 issue of the journal Nature.

Interesting

[Tikker]

don't let the god mongers find out

[Narrock]

don't let the god mongers find out

Why not? That wouldn't disprove any religious beliefs.

[Ginzburgh]

It might suggest there is life on other planets.

[Tikker]

that and prove that life rose independently on multiple planets~

[Martrae]

Not necessarily. I don't recall the Bible saying that Earth was God's only creation.

[Ginzburgh]

Hrrm...I thought it did.

[Narrock]

Even the most hardcore religious zealots would be remiss to not acknowledge the possibility that there could be life on other planets.

[Ginzburgh]

I guess I stand corrected. I thought that the religious people thought we were the center of the universe and that there is no life on other planets.

[Tikker]

well, everytime their doctrine is disproved, they just reinterpret it to make it sound like that's what they really meant all along

check out guys like Galileo for reference

[Narrock]

I guess I stand corrected. I thought that the religious people thought we were the center of the universe and that there is no life on other planets.

There was a guy on Coasttocoastam a couple months ago (who claimed to be a Christian) who said he had an out-of-body experience via remote viewing, and that he floated up to the moon and saw the "dark side of the moon" and saw buildings, structures, and strange beings similar to the typical alien drawings we've all seen. He said one of the beings saw him and it was reading his mind, so he got scared and came back to his body.

As funny and wacky as that all sounds, I would really like to know what NASA REALLY knows and has seen.

[Lyion]

well, everytime they're doctrine is disproved, they just reinterpret it to make it sound like that's what they really meant all along

check out guys like Galileo for reference

A guy who was a devout Roman Catholic. He remained a Catholic but rejected blind allegiance, which is still a good mindset for today. Although that pendulum swings both ways, even though some interpret it very shallowly.

Science currently has 0.0000000000000000000001% understanding of sentience, and that's giving them more credit than they deserve. That's great and enough proof for those who are angry about the philosophical meaning of life, but it simply reaffirms the belief structures of those of us with faith.

[Tikker]

whoa whoa

how does the lack of scientific understanding of sentience somehow reaffirm that those that believe in the mystical invisible man are correct?

[Lyion]

Your post to me was wrongly stating science goes against religion. That's just how I interpreted it.

If anything, science and specifically mathematics leans towards proving their is a God. The problem is on both sides there are people using science to push agenda's versus the overall search for truth.

My point is just our knowledge of science and the universe is staggeringly small. Anyone with a science degree understands just how little we know of things, and that knowledge is fluid.

Anyways, religion is moreso philosophical and deals with the meaning of life. It can intersect with science, but it's become sad that so many have such angst and hostility towards one or the other, when they are mutually exclusive and should work hand in hand.

Zealouts, zealouts everywhere....

[Tikker]

how does math lean towards proving there is a god?

I really want to hear the answer to that one

[Jay]

Surprised Arlos isn't all over this thread by now.

[Harrison]

I'm surprised this exact same argument has spawned once again within a 3 month span.


Oh wait, I'm not.

[Tikker]

I'm surprised that finawin popped in to contribute nothing, yet somehow try to insinuate that he's generally not the root of all stupid.


Oh wait, I'm not.

[Arlos]

I was swamped at work today, or I would've commented earlier. I think it's an awesome result, though I caution people to remember that you need water + terrestrial type planet to have any realistic chance of life. Remember, there's a fair amount of water vapor in the atmosphere of Jupiter, but we're not exactly looking there for signs of living organisms.

Water in the atmosphere of a gas giant is significant, but not OMGWTFBBQ-level, as we know there's water out there in the galaxy, cause we've seen it, and it's a natural inference that at least some other solar systems would contain it.

The only religious people I can see this disturbing are the young-earth creationists, really. But given that those people are easily at least as deluded and insane as those who believe that the Earth is flat, who cares what rationalizations they use to fit this into their world view?

I will say that the cases of Galileo and Copernicus, however, are vivid examples of how the dogmatic excesses of organized Christianity run riot can be horrifically detrimental. Such dogmatism is incredibly stifling to independent and scientific thought, and indeed, was hellish to any person or group who dared disagree with the official position of the church. (see: Spanish Inquisition + burnings at the stake elsewhere in Europe. Hell, they burned alive someone who dared suggest that the lights in the sky were other stars, with their own solar systems). This is all part of why I split from Christianity, actually. Yes, I know they don't burn heretics at the stake any more, but especially now under Pope Palpetine, I truly believe they wish they still COULD....

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Tikker, it's not really a good argument either way, but from raw statistical mathematics there would be a higher probability of a creator than there not being a creator. I'm sure you can find articles leaning either way, but from my background in math and what I understand this is the case.

Again, this is just a mathematical proof argument, and not too much more in depth than our knowledge of sentience.

[Tikker]

BELIEVER: How do you *know* there is no god? What proof
do you have?


ATHEIST: How do you *know* there is no Easter bunny? How
do you know there is no Santa Claus? Have you disproved
the existence of Thor and Osiris?


BELIEVER: Be serious! Those are just myths made up by
men. I'm talking about god!


ATHEIST: Well, the burden of proof is on you to prove
that a deity exists. I don't have to prove a negative.
The burden of proof is always on the person who alleges
the existence of something.


BELIEVER: I don't buy that. You have to *prove* that my
god does not exist.


ATHEIST: Your god? Singular? How do you know there aren't
lots of gods? Have you disproved the existence
of goddesses?


BELIEVER: Don't be silly! I'm talking about the existence
of god -- the creator of the universe.


ATHEIST: Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! You're talking
about *me*!


BELIEVER: Since when are you god?


ATHEIST: Since just a bit more than an infinite length
of time. Of course, I created *you* just three minutes
ago.


BELIEVER: That's crazy! I'm fifty-seven years old!


ATHEIST: Of course you *think* you are: I created those
memories in you, and I altered everyone else's memories
also, to make it appear that you were around before three
minutes ago.


BELIEVER: I suppose you created my birth certificate too!
What evidence do you have to support such an absurd idea?


ATHEIST: Ah! So you're beginning to understand that the
burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim of
god's existence. Don't you think you should try to
disprove the claim that I am god?


BELIEVER: Well, maybe. If you're god, why don't you
perform a miracle?


ATHEIST: Good question. Unfortunately, I don't do
miracles anymore. I could if I wanted to, but I've
decided that from now on, people have to believe in me
through faith. Being god, I've just now read your mind
and I see you're thinking that you might be able to
torture me into confessing that I'm not god. Well, scrap
that idea! I might very well decide to pretend to be in
pain and confess all sorts of silly things. But believe
me, I would punish you for eternity after you die!


BELIEVER: Hey, that's not a legitimate argumentation.
There's nothing I could ever do to disprove your claim
of divinity. You could always wriggle out of it by
claiming you'll show me after I'm dead!


ATHEIST: Very true! You're learning how impossible it is
to prove a negative. But you're learning one even more
important lesson.


BELIEVER: What's that?


ATHEIST: You're learning that it is stupid to argue about
propositions that can't be tested even in the
imagination. For every test you could imagine to try, I
could come up with a way to evade your net -- in just
the same way as the preachers tell me *your* god doesn't
want to get involved in *my* tests. My claim to divinity
can't be tested. Your claims of the divinity of Jehovah
or Jesus can't be tested either. If I call upon your god
to strike me with lightning if I'm wrong, I guarantee
nothing will happen. Your god won't get involved any more
than I will. Claims that can't be tested even in the
imagination are meaningless. They can't even be false.
We don't need to waste our time trying to disprove them.
You aren't going to waste your time trying to disprove
my claim to divinity, and no sane person will waste time
trying to disprove the existence of your untestable god.
Of course, when you accidentally make a claim about your
divinity nominee that is testable, sane people might take
the time to show you how the test results turn out to be
negative. But in general, no one is going to waste time
trying to prove that Jehovah and I are not gods.



Copyright American Atheist Press

[Ginzburgh]

Wow, I wonder if they could have made the "Believer" sound any more like a second grader.

[Martrae]

They could have given the 'Believer' a lisp, I guess.

[Harrison]

I'm surprised that finawin popped in to contribute nothing, yet somehow try to insinuate that he's generally not the root of all stupid.


Oh wait, I'm not.

At least I, unlike you, understand the basics of our written language. I know their difficult to understand. They're is definitely no excuse for you.

[Ginzburgh]

Now now, their is no reason to be a dick about it Harrison.