Author Topic: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...  (Read 364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1335
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4627
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2012, 01:22:12 PM »
It'll be interesting to see what kind of organisms came about there.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2012, 01:55:43 PM »
It'll be interesting to see what kind of organisms came about there.
If any. Just because it might support some extremeophile bacteria and such os no gaurentee that they exist there.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
Re: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2012, 03:41:48 PM »
Hardly a day goes by with out another exoplanet being discovered or described. It's a pretty awesome time.

So you'd think the creationists would be pretty bummed. But no. To them this will be more proof that the universe is young and the Earth is unique and special.

On the AiG website they prove that there is no aspect of planetary discovery that can't be cherry picked, distorted and repackaged as "evidence" of a young divinely created universe.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/exoplanets
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/solar-system
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/04/20/light-extrasolar-planets

To summarize, every any novel (read unexpected) finding proves to them -scientists are dumb -earth is special - GODDIDIT

Fortunately the astrophysicists get to pretty much flat out ignore them. Unlike the biologists and paleontologists that seem to have to fight them out of the classroom every few years.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4627
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2012, 04:11:39 PM »
Indeed.  "Nonetheless, the fact that hot Jupiters exist at all is a challenge to the secular models. However, it is perfectly consistent with the creative diversity we expect from the Lord."  Gimme a break.  I don't actually know of too many (frankly, any) scientists who said that solar systems had to follow the exact model of ours.  And even though it was surprising to find "inner" gas giants, it's hardly a "challenge" to standard astronomical models.  And it's even worse to claim that our solar system is somehow unique, considering we've only found a few hundred exoplanets and our detection methods are still very limited.

And that so-called "average" they came up with in the second link is patently absurd.  We've found a few hundred of these exoplanets, virtually all of which are the same general type of "inner" gas giant, so of course averaging them out is going to result in something that wouldn't work in our solar system.  It's ridiculous to even consider them to be a statistical sample of exoplanets in general, yet somehow, this is evidence that our solar system is unique and young?  And evolution says nothing - at all - about the development of other solar systems, despite their statements to the contrary.  The mere fact that they start talking about naturalistic evolution in the middle of an article about extrasolar planets clearly demonstrates that they don't really understand the subject.

If they had a lick of sense, they'd be patient and let the evidence build up some more rather than coming up with these patently absurd "conclusions".

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2012, 10:42:37 PM »


If they had a lick of sense

then they wouldn't be creationists.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2012, 11:27:21 PM »
It'll be interesting to see what kind of organisms came about there.

I just read the Science Daily article on the planet and the temperature there is 230°C = 446°F.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4627
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2012, 12:55:51 AM »
It'll be interesting to see what kind of organisms came about there.

I just read the Science Daily article on the planet and the temperature there is 230°C = 446°F.
Indeed, but I was thinking more along the lines of extremophiles.

Offline pingnak

Pedantic rant...
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2012, 02:53:53 AM »
I like how article titles almost all tend to tack 'distan't onto exoplanet descriptions.

Heck, even our own moon is 'distant'.  For all of these worlds, we're talking tens and hundreds of light years.  Of course it's 'distant'.  It's a speck barely eclipsing a dot a gazillion miles away.

I'm not shootin' for accuracy here, or even 'real' numbers - what's the point?  Measure 'way the fuck far away like you can't even imagine' down to the millimeter, when you're pointing the telescope at a patch of sky the star and planet occupied centuries ago, because it took light from that star that long to get here?

Calling it 'distant' is like taking an extra step to describe water as 'wet'.  Wet rain wets our town, making it wet out with wet water, wetly.  News at eleven!


Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2012, 03:40:43 AM »
I just looked at the AIG titles.

The Bible story says the universe was planned and the stars are lights for the Earth.

They say that evidence that the solar systems are random and have planets that are useless for the Earth are evidence of God -- the God of Genesis 1 and 2.

But I say that as the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, etc, knew there was a major tutelary God for each planet and there were many other Gods then the existence of exoplanets proves polytheism.[1]

You are going to tell me that lightning has been proven to be electricity but I will dig up the scientific evidence that at a volcano in Iceland (and others I'm sure) there was lightning in the cloud it formed.  This was Vulcan passing on newly forged thunderbolts to Jupiter.
 1. Joking.

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
Re: Distant Waterworld Confirmed...
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2012, 10:43:22 AM »
Indeed.  "Nonetheless, the fact that hot Jupiters exist at all is a challenge to the secular models. However, it is perfectly consistent with the creative diversity we expect from the Lord."  Gimme a break.  I don't actually know of too many (frankly, any) scientists who said that solar systems had to follow the exact model of ours.  And even though it was surprising to find "inner" gas giants, it's hardly a "challenge" to standard astronomical models.  And it's even worse to claim that our solar system is somehow unique, considering we've only found a few hundred exoplanets and our detection methods are still very limited.

At this point they are all unique, right?

And the prevalence of big planets close to their stars, did they ever consider that at a distance of dozens light years or more that planet are hard to see? And that really big planets might be much easier to see than tiny planets. Heck we didn't even see Pluto until 1930 and it's right next door! Doppler, transit and microlensing methods are all biased to detecting planets with short orbital intervals. If a planet only goes around it star every 200 years you'd have to be pretty lucky to catch it in transit from our perspective.

So early numbers are biased toward "hot Jupiters" because "hot Jupiters" are easier to detect than any other class of planets. Did scientists know "hot Jupiters" existed before they got serious about looking for exoplanets? Nope, but they had only one solar system worth of observation to base a hypothesis on. Give them a break. Now they have partial data on almost a thousand, and reason to believe that there are billions more out there.

Meanwhile for the GODsquad, it's hard to be surprised by observations when you make no predictions and have a magic wand you wave over everything that explains everything as unexplainable.