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
Elaine,
Yep, that’s right … Colbert (one of my favorites) …
I believe Slarti tries to educate Tootie … I can understand the desire … someone who thinks things through usually wants the same kind of clarity for others
I was struck by one of Slarti’s insightes a few days ago on a different thread in response to a poster (it might even have been Tootie)
I’ll paraphrase Slarti (and do a piss poor job of it) …
To creationists God created perfection and there was no where to go but downhill … but to evolutionist all was moving from imperfection upwards, evolving. Thus to believe in evolution creationist felt they had to admit to god creating imperfection … an impossible thought for them.
It was really quite profound and Slarti’s actual wording was much better than my paraphrasing … thus in going to Tootie’s gym, Slarti gained intellectual muscle mass … and we benefit.
Tootie on the other hand ……
Blouise–
I thought it was appropriate to post the Basil Marceaux video on this thread–as I’m not sure which unknown planet spawned him.
Blouise–
I saw it on the Colbert Report.
Blouise–
I find there are just too many points to address in Tootie’s extended comments. I DO think that Slarti has well-developed mental muscles…and lots of patience.
I saw that video the other day but I can’t remember which program … was it Maddow? He remembered to smile … a little… and to ask for votes … he’ll get some
… I view responding to posters like Tootie as if one were going to the gym … exercising one’s mental muscles. In that respect, Slarti is a body builder!
My laugh of the day!
I think Basil Marceaux beats Alvin Greene as a “where did this guy come from” political candidate.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hvaeHllwtw&hl=en_US&fs=1]
Elaine,
Write on … I’m reading!
Slarti–
I don’t know how you can continually respond to Tootie. There are often so many contradictions in her comments that I get whiplash from reading them.
**********
Tootie said: “Why do we have to know anything?”
There you have it–one fundamentalist’s attitude…in a nutshell.
**********
I love this one: “The Christian civilizations have advanced science further than few others ever have. This is solid evidence. This is observable information.”
I wonder what the “few others” are…according to Tootie???
**********
BTW, I also wonder why we need advances in science if we don’t need to know anything??? That’s rhetorical. I’m talking to myself.
Tootie,
Look dear, I love you like a brother and I don’t want you to think that I’m attempting to lead you into sin but all the protestant faiths grew out of catholicism and, if one of the most famous Catholic Popes can be believed:
“It has served us well, this myth of Christ.” Leo X (Pope during Luther’s time)
… well ……
Slart:
I need to correct myself. I said
“…I read it [the Bible] for my spiritual edification and enjoy it when science confirms it. ”
I should have been more precise.
It would have been better to say “…I read it for my spiritual edification and enjoy it WHENEVER science confirms ANYTHING WRITTEN THEREIN.”
For example, science has confirmed that a woman can have a baby without having coitus with a man. Maybe I should say the Bible has confirmed what science has finally discovered? Yes, that would be the better way to present the idea. Science finally catches up to how God does things. And that is really what I believe. I stated it badly (as I often do).
You tell me that you do not “believe” in evolution but that it appears to be a good explanation for how life exists. The scientific method is irrelevant if evolution is true and I think it would be wise of you to disassociate yourself from evolution because it cancels out the need for any scientific method.
Why do we have to know anything?
The lower creatures and plants don’t have to know anything to survive. They just react. There is no reason (according to observation) to believe that humans need to know anymore than they already do even in primitive conditions. Even if they have the capacity to live longer than 100 years, they tend not to.
We all die anyway, right?
I presume you borrow the modern scientific method from Christians (Roger and Francis Bacon) in order to explain what you think is true or factual. Then you abandon the foundation providing us the best means ever discovered thus far (seemingly according to you) that permits us know that we know what we know.
Without Christianity (which also provides the certitude that knowing anything is important and that the universe is already ordered and will continue to be) what do you have to stand on?
You will not be able to continue your pursuit of the truth (scientific or otherwise) unless you get back on the solid ground you once stood. The Christian civilizations have advanced science further than few others ever have. This is solid evidence. This is observable information.
Heeren interviews Arno Penzias
Hereen: “What do you feel makes physicists think there must be some sort of ultimate, short explanation for all the laws of nature…”
Penzias: “That really goes back to the triumph, not of Copernicus, but really the triumph of Kepler. That’s because, after all, the notion of epicycles and so forth goes back to days when scientists were swapping opinions. All this went along until we had a true bigot, a true believer, and this was Kepler. Kepler, after all, was the Old Testament Christian. right? He really believed in God the Lawgiver. And so he demanded that the same God who spoke in single words and created the universe is not going to have a universe which has 36 epicycles in it. And he said there’s got to be something simpler and more powerful.”
Penzias says “Kepler got it out of his belief in the Bible, as far as I can tell. This passionate belief turned out to be right.”
And “…scientists have adopted Kepler’s faith, without the cause.”
It appears you have too.
Do other religions and world-views practice good science. Well, now they do. They are able to because of the many devout Christians who were sure there were natural laws to pursue (because God was a law maker and giver). Even the godless can do it now thanks in large part to Christians who were scientists. WHAT people do with it science is now the biggest problem.
Faith in the God of the Bible is intimately associated with many of the greatest scientists and scientific discoveries. Christianity and science are natural companions.
Mespo(2^9)(3^6),
As with my posts on the 9/11 thread, I have no expectation of changing Tootie’s mind, I just don’t want the bile she spews to go unanswered. In any case, if Tootie is true to her previous form, it’s about time for her to loose interest in this thread and wander away (something she presumably does when she is unable to answer my arguments) and I will be able to ignore her until she pops up again and posts some more drivel…
Tootie,
As promised, I asked my cousin (who has a PhD in biblical studies) about the camel and the eye of the needle – he feels that Jesus was saying that worldly pursuits interfere with spiritual ones. He mentioned that some scholars put forth the ‘eye of the needle’ = night gate theory, but said that there was no archeological evidence to support it (his exact comment was that ‘people should just let Jesus use hyperbole’). He also mentioned that the early church (as shown in Acts) was a very communal organization – so you’ve got a choice now: was Jesus a socialist or a communist? One thing is for sure – the early church was not made up of a bunch of capitalists… Oh, and since you insist on biblical literalism, I was just curious if you wear clothes made of different fabrics or eat shellfish – I’d hate for you to have to punish yourself for those transgressions according to the bible.
Gyges,
If Tootie truly isn’t evolutionarily ‘wired’ to understand that the concept of morality doesn’t require a god of any sort, then that is all the more reason to make it clear that it is an unhealthy trait for society.
{W(t)=C | b < t < (now)},
You tell your alien overlords that they better not try any probing around me… 😛
BIL,
“Signal Shattered” was a worthy follow up effort. In retrospect, I think the human like nature of the aliens in “Signal to Noise” might be explainable as a side effect of interface.
I also left out Scott Sigler’s “Infected” series, which is a great take on the “War of the Worlds” idea.
Elaine,
Noted and added to the never ending list.
I’ve about decided the most appropriate inscription for my headstone has to be “So many books, so little time.” 😀
Ah … found it …
To whom it may concern:
I’m not on the right thread for book discussions but … the poster who recommended the novel, “On This Rock”, by Dave Leonard … thank you … it’s a great read.
Buddha–
Here’s the title of a book I just finished that is fascinating reading: “Pandora’s Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization.” It was written by Spencer Wells who heads the Genographic Project. I thought anyone who knows what punctuated equilibrium is might enjoy the book.
Why did you have to bring the head of the GOP into this Wootsy?
Tootie posted:
Slart: I believe the Bible is always correct, including when it and science disagree.
Slartibartfast]:Which shows that you are an anti-scientific fool.
But I don’t read it FOR the science, I read it for my spiritual edification and enjoy it when science confirms it.
Slartibartfast]:Science in no way confirms the bible (nor would you want it to, I think – religion wouldn’t be much at all without faith…). The fact that you even look for a correlation between the bible and science is an indication of your muddled thinking about science, in my opinion.
I think you’ve found the poles….;)
lol
Um, perhaps, Elaine. If by “equilibrium” you mean “blood-brain barrier”, then I’d change that “perhaps” to a “more than likely”.