The recently activated Kepler Mission is already paying off great dividends. The deep space observatory has reportedly found up to 140 planets that may be habitable, Earth-like bodies. This is just after six weeks on the job.
These are but a part of over 700 new planets identified by the mission.
Dimitar Sasselov, professor of astronomy at Harvard University and a scientist on the Kepler Mission, noted “The figures suggest our galaxy, the Milky Way [which has more than 100 billion stars] will contain 100 million habitable planets, and soon we will be identifying the first of them.”
What is most revealing for me is how programs like Kepler yield such fantastic results — an argument against the massive cuts imposed on NASA by the Obama Administration. These programs cost a tiny fraction of what we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like national parks, it appears that our most successful programs are the first to be cut by politicians because they lack a powerful lobby in Washington.
Source: Daily Mail
Wootsy,
Its hard to be Humble when you treasure you own company….lol
Anonymously Yours 1, July 28, 2010 at 9:14 am
Woosty,
Talking to yourself?
____________________________
way too often
at least I like the company and the discussions are fairly intelligent 😉
Elaine, my science education in college consisted of a year of geology, a course mockingly referred to as “rocks for jocks” by my science major classmates. Nevertheless, I learned enough that year to recognize that Dr. Morris’ statements regarding the formation of geologic strata are demonstrably false. Furthermore, rational Christian apologetics does not require acceptance of the Bible’s “inerrant authority” on matters of science.
P.S. I see you as a sacred humanities sort of person.
Woosty,
Talking to yourself?
doesn’t anyone believe in a ‘Living G*d’ anymore???
this is like dating a neurotic hung up on a lost lover….the conversation is totally 1 sided from any perspective…..
Part 2
I’m tempted to go back to school to get a Master of Christian Education degree at ICR’s School of Biblical Apologetics.
http://www.icr.org/soba/
I wonder which minor I should choose???
•Genesis Studies
•Creation Research
•Christian School Teaching
•Sacred Humanities
**********
What one will learn about at the School of Biblical Apologetics:
“SOBA’s programs and projects are founded upon an unwavering commitment to the Bible’s inerrant authority and the historical and theological importance of Genesis 1-11, in particular. Its primary focus is to train students to understand and communicate the biblical creation apologetic, especially in a culture where biblical compromise de-emphasizes the importance of the Scriptures in apologetic contexts.”
http://www.icr.org/soba/faq/#q1
Part 1
Here’s a brief excerpt from an article I found at the ICR (Institute for Creation Research):
How Long Did It Take to Deposit the Geologic Strata?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/2478/
The alleged great age of earth’s geologic strata has been characterized by evolutionists as representing millions of years of accumulation of sediments under water. Modern observers are generally willing to recognize evidence of rapid deposition of the strata by catastrophic processes, but insist that great ages passed between depositional episodes. During these long ages, erosion may have occurred, but they say the whole package required great ages.
Creationists, on the other hand, consider that the bulk of earth’s sedimentary rock accumulated rapidly beneath the waters of the great Flood of Noah’s day. One layer followed another in swift succession, sometimes interrupted by brief periods of quiescence, uplift, and erosion. Some time may have passed between depositional events, but these periods were not long, and the bulk of the sedimentary rock record may represent hardly more than one year.
Sorry for typos in last few sentences. I’m pooped.
Slart:
Oh, I see. Thank you for clarifying that.
I guess I’m a creationist, but I’ve never thought myself as an official one or anything like that. It really has not crossed my mind to line up on one side or the other. Whatever the truth is, that is the side I wish to be on because any and all truth is from God. And, clearly, the evidence is still very much in flux.
Actually, I think both sides are probably right. The universe looks to be very old (including the earth) and the Bible doesn’t seem to oppose that.
As Fred Heeren says in his book “Show Me God” “The fact that the word [day] can refer to a great period of time rather than a solar day is clear from its nearby use of Genesis 2:4, which speaks of the “day” that all this creation activity took place”.(Heeren pg 162)
In other words the six days of creation mentioned in the book of Genesis are altogether referred to as a “day” when all was created. So there is room for millions of years in scripture.
Even future events which will go on for even a number of years (like the Great Tribulation) are referred to using the same Hebrew word that creationists use to describe the solar day. Scripture will say something like: in that day (it could be years) thus and so will occur.
But there is evidence of recent things which are not explained by millions of years or the scenario evolutionists or geologist use. I’m sure you are familiar with some of this data from the ICR.
If I had to give my “final answer” as they say in that game show, I’d have to say the universe and earth are very old, but the ancient earth as we see it before us is mixed with younger geologic activity. Even tectonic plate theory (if it is still valid) would suggest a certain amount of youthful structures mixed with the old.
So I think that both time-frames–young and ancient– are seen at the same time.
Hereen says “…the Bible harmonizes with the theory of relativity (“With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day”) and with the laws of thermodynamics (“the heavens will all wear out like a garment”)”. (page 165)
I see much harmony and very rarely any conflict between the Bible and science. I can live with any “conflict”. Christians lived with the much mockery about the “virgin birth” until just recently when science finally caught up with things and showed a virgin could really bear a child. So I trust the Bible even when things are not completely revealed by science.
What is fairly certain from both schools of thought is that the HISTORY of mankind is strictly limited to recent times (several millennium). The written record of human life doesn’t go back hardly at all in comparison to an ancient universe and I think that misleads the creationists.
I also feel that the godless or even the Christian evolutionary types are very unfair in their attacks on creationists. Creationists will hold to what ever the Bible teaches. If it point blank said the universe was 100 billion years old, that would be the ground on which they would stand.
In other words, they are not trying to be intentionally un-scientific. Why would they want to be so mocked? They are, in fact, trying to be precisely accurate. This comports with the best scientific tradition.
Evolutionists and non-creationists have made huge blunders and even perpetuated nasty hoaxes on the public. Yet we don’t see them mocked and derided by their opponents so as to be driven out of the debate and marginalized. Yet, this is done to the creationist as well as the Intelligent Design scientists.
The non-creationists are given a pass on their blunders and hoaxes and the creationists are ridiculed, mocked, and side-lined.
It was Christian certitude that the universe was ordered and knowable that gave confidence to early Christian scientists that logical explanations could be found for the things we see (or even don’t see, like gravity). That certitude made all the difference in separating superstition from science. Christians played a lead role in this advancement.
If one doesn’t believe in God, or in this particular God, they have no assurance or guarantee that the universe might be ordered or knowable. It perhaps just an educated guess.
Or it is just an illusion.
The Christian scientists of the past worked from the foundation that is was not an illusion.
What is hoped is that as creationists develop their theories, their errors will be corrected. Just like the non-creationists.
If creationism were indeed a legitimate scientific theory, there would be reams of peer-reviewed papers and lively debate in standard journals among biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, botanists, chemists and a myriad of other disciplines. There aren’t.
Slarti,
Odd coincidence that. I started reading that last night (after finishing Lewis Black’s hysterical “Me of Little Faith”).
Tootie,
I meant in the remainder of my post – I didn’t want to be accused of painting all Christians with the brush I was using on you and the other wackjob creationists.
Slart:
You wrote: “First off, I’m only referring to creationists …”
I had not even read your post.
Elaine,
I’ve got no problem with someone that chooses faith over facts until they start trying to replace fact with their faith…
Slarti–
Fundamentalists don’t NEED facts–they’ve got faith.
Gingerbaker said:
“Trillion didn’t die when she was eaten by the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal? (My HGTTG exposure is only to the BBC radio theater version, albeit about thirty times) :)”
The only thing consistent about the different versions of Hitchhiker’s is that every one of them differs from each of the others in some way. I’m not sure (my copy of the radio scripts is packed in a POD 800 miles away from me), but I believe that Trillian was spared when the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (who was really a shapeshifter) changed into an escape capsule (or a teleport). At the end of the 5th novel, both Trillian and an alternate Tricia MacMillian were in a bar on Earth (I don’t remember the exact circumstances of this Earth’s existence) which was being destroyed by Greobulan (sp?) death rays. So it goes…
Gingerbaker said:
“And hell of a post, above, Slarty ”
Thanks.
And hell of a post, above, Slarty 🙂
Trillion didn’t die when she was eaten by the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal? (My HGTTG exposure is only to the BBC radio theater version, albeit about thirty times) 🙂
Elaine,
Very funny video. (The same goes for the video posted by {W(t)=c : b < t < now}.)
Elaine said:
“And spare me the part about creation scientists being real scientists.”
Don’t worry, that argument will always end with Tootie looking like a fool…
Tootie,
Don’t you ever get tired of posting the same illogical crap over and over again only to have it debunked? Oh well, once more into the breech…
Tootie posted:
First off, I’m only referring to creationists (or cintelligent designists for those who aren’t careful with the cutting and pasting…) since the vast majority of Christians understand that the creation myth in the bible was not meant to be taken literally and have no problem with the idea that science is a better method of investigating the universe than a myth written by ignorant men thousands of years ago.
Creationists are most certainly not scientists and they utterly reject the scientific world view (at least in any area where it conflicts with their irrational beliefs – and you don’t get to pick and choose what parts of science you want to believe). From the Wikipedia entry on ‘scientist’:
“A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.”
In the first sense, creationists aren’t scientists because reading the bible is not ‘engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge’ but more important, in my opinion, is the fact that creationists shun the scientific method whenever it conflicts with their narrow-minded interpretation of the myths in the bible. So what is the scientific method? Per Wikipedia:
“Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new[1] knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]”
On the subject of hypotheses we find:
“Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.”
If you want me to admit that irreducible complexity and intelligent design are scientific theories, please describe an experiment that could potentially falsify them.
and further:
“Karl Popper’s formulation of hypothetico-deductive method, which he called the method of “conjectures and refutations”, demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). According to this view, a hypothesis cannot be “confirmed”, because there is always the possibility that a future experiment will show that it is false. Hence, failing to falsify a hypothesis does not prove that hypothesis: it remains provisional. However, a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and not falsified can form a reasonable basis for action, i.e., we can act as if it were true, until such time as it is falsified. Just because we’ve never observed rain falling upward, doesn’t mean that we never will—however improbable, our theory of gravity may be falsified some day.”
If there truly were scientists engaged in ‘creation research’ trying to disprove evolution, they would be doing experiments in an attempt to falsify a hypothesis generated by evolution. (For example, the theory of evolution could be falsified by the discovery of a chimera – a species which shows traits from 2 or more distinct lines of descent.) The fact that hundreds of thousands of experiments and other scientific investigations over the last 150 years has completely failed to falsify evolution means that we can count on evolution as a ‘reasonable basis for action’.
The problem with the intelligent design proponents and their theories like irreducible complexity is precisely that they don’t use the scientific method at all. None of the so-called creation scientists have ever produced a falsifiable hypothesis to test their theory nor have they (to the best of my knowledge) ever done a single scientific experiment to provide evidence to support their theories. Clearly whatever they have been doing, it cannot be called science. Furthermore, in my opinion, attempting to pass off untested, unscientific theories as scientific truth is antithetical to the spirit of science and thus can reasonably be called ‘anti-science’. In your posts and links you have shown a willingness (nay, eagerness) to do (figurative) violence to science in your attempt to legitimize your narrow-minded version of the Christian creation myth and so I don’t think that characterizing you as ‘anti-science’ is off-base either.
In my opinion anyone who loves science is naturally appalled by the attack on its very principles that is ‘creationist research’. And the only myths at issue here are the ones written in the bible. Personally, I’ve never seen nor made any slanderous statements about creationists that weren’t supported by the facts.
While that may be true in other instances (personally, I think that cosmologists are way off base in the big bang theory – hopefully the LHC will sort it all out), it’s not the case here. Evolution is accepted as a rigorously tested, unfalsified theory* by all of the scientists in the relevant fields (and the vast majority of scientists as a whole), not just a ‘stubborn elite’ as you put it. If you disagree that evolution is sound science, could you please give me a scientific explanation of why we have a chromosome which is the fusion of a pair of chromosomes in the great apes if this does not indicate that we descended from a common ancestor. In science, all you have to do upend an established theory and ‘get a seat at the table’ (and frequently a Nobel prize) is to perform a repeatable scientific experiment or find a scientific observation (i.e. a scientific fact) that falsifies the theory. The fact that no one has been able to do this in 150 years speaks volumes to me.
*Like the theory of gravity.
No, creationists are unwilling to engage in scientific debate or inquiry – they are not merely disagreeing about the interpretation of experimental results, they are turning a blind eye to a vast amount of experimental evidence and promoting an untestable (and thus unscientific) theory which adds absolutely nothing to our understanding. They are being neither skeptical nor circumspect.
Please take the time to learn about science before making more asinine statements like this. Creationism is like a cancer continually trying to invade the foundations of science. Fortunately there is a way to inoculate our society against this disease that you and your ilk are trying to poison us with – education. Maybe you could try learning something about a topic instead of spewing your narrow-minded, hateful, bigoted ignorance all over this blog.
Buddha said:
“Mostly harmless.”
I just started reading ‘And Another Thing…’ (the sixth book in the Hitchhikers trilogy) – I got the book months ago but got distracted by something shiny… 😉 So far I like it. It seems like Eoin Colfer is doing more of a homage to Douglas Adams rather than trying to imitate his style. So far Arthur, Ford (blissed out on something he was smoking), Trillian, and Random (Arthur and Trillian’s daughter via artificial insemination) have been rescued from the destruction of the Earth (again) by a semi-headless Zaphod in the Heart of Gold… works for me! Do you know where your towel is?
Eric
And I was agreeing with you and regretting, once again, Prof. Turley’s viewpoint about something – thus the reference to having been (and been disappointed) at this site before.
I’m the bad writer here, if anyone is.
And I LOVE the site – and the Professor (usually).