Article: Scientists may find life on Earth-like planets covered in oceans within the next few years

[Hollie]

If the whole world thought like you, then there is no need to ask questions you worthless, spineless, cowardly and ignorant POS. I'll just say you look it up to you from now on. That'll be my answer to you from now on China man. I won't ask you any more questions nor reply to you China man.

Like I said, bash your face in with a sledgehammer b/c your brain is desiccated.


Yep. Just continue to believe in your atheist lies.


The main point is to teach creation science in public schools, just the science parts.

The slogan ''creationer science'' is simply a burqa for fundamentalist christianity. There is no science. The courts have repeatedly exposed the fraud of creationers slapping phony labels bible teaching in their attempts to force christianity into the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

 

[Wuwei]

If the whole world thought like you, then there is no need to ask questions you worthless, spineless, cowardly and ignorant POS. I'll just say you look it up to you from now on. That'll be my answer to you from now on China man. I won't ask you any more questions nor reply to you China man.

Like I said, bash your face in with a sledgehammer b/c your brain is desiccated.

I don't know why you are so testy. Your question was, "How did Max Planck come up with it?" I went ahead and answered your question in detail. Didn't you finish reading what I wrote about what Planck contributed? What more did you want?

Yep. Just continue to believe in your atheist lies.

Just what are the lies? Quantum Electrodynamics? The Standard Model of particles? Most of today's scientists don't believe YEC?

The main point is to teach creation science in public schools, just the science parts.

Just the creation science parts? Like radiological dating using heavier elements is a lie? Like the speed of light was different in the past? Nobody is going to teach that.

.

 

[james bond]

You are using no logic. You have no grasp of the rules of logic nor of any terms relating to logic. You know less than nothing about science and get your late-in-life subpar education from creationer blogs. You actually have net negative knowledge about any scientific topic. You know nothing correct, and everything you think you know is wrong. Net negative knowledge.

What this means is that it would take a LOT of time and work just to elevate you to the net scientific knowledge of a newborn baby, or a moldy piece of bread, which is zero net knowledge.

It's science and perfectly logical. We have Earth and still we see no life from non-life in the 4.5 B years you claim. Wouldn't you think it would happen more than once as science is valid through repeatable observations.

Yet, I'm the one who's been providing the evidence for creation science as well as atheist science as I'm the one who found about radiometric dating of meteors in 1956, i.e. the basis for today's evolutionary long time and old Earth, and that the radiometric dating process is not valid.

Thus, how can I have net negative knowledge for pointing out evolutionary findings and errors in their methods?

 

[james bond]

I don't know why you are so testy. Your question was, "How did Max Planck come up with it?" I went ahead and answered your question in detail. Didn't you finish reading what I wrote about what Planck contributed? What more did you want?

Just what are the lies? Quantum Electrodynamics? The Standard Model of particles? Most of today's scientists don't believe YEC?

Just the creation science parts? Like radiological dating using heavier elements is a lie? Like the speed of light was different in the past? Nobody is going to teach that.

.

It's insulting and disrespectful to me when you just say look it up myself when I politely asked a question. It makes me think you just want to discuss what you want and ignore what I'm thinking. I think I answered practically all of your questions and politely rebutted your points. It makes me think you just want to discuss what you want and ignore what I'm thinking. It's you who brought up the topic. It's very frustrating, insulting and pisses me off.

Now, you ask more questions when I'm pissed off with your dumb stand offish behavior. You are really a piece of work. I doubt others enjoy discussing things with you when you state look it up yourself to their questions when they're trying to understand your point as have conversation.

 

[Wuwei]

It's insulting and disrespectful to me when you just say look it up myself when I politely asked a question. It makes me think you just want to discuss what you want and ignore what I'm thinking. I think I answered practically all of your questions and politely rebutted your points. It makes me think you just want to discuss what you want and ignore what I'm thinking. It's you who brought up the topic. It's very frustrating, insulting and pisses me off.

Now, you ask more questions when I'm pissed off with your dumb stand offish behavior. You are really a piece of work. I doubt others enjoy discussing things with you when you state look it up yourself to their questions when they're trying to understand your point as have conversation.

Sorry you felt insulted. Your question was, "How did Max Planck come up with it?" I went ahead and answered your question in detail. Didn't you finish reading what I wrote about what Planck contributed? What more did you want?

 

[james bond]

The slogan ''creationer science'' is simply a burqa for fundamentalist christianity. There is no science. The courts have repeatedly exposed the fraud of creationers slapping phony labels bible teaching in their attempts to force christianity into the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

The battle will continue on as new students will continue to question the origins of evolution as there is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis nor finding any form of life elsewhere. I think eventually the court will discover evolution and evolutionary thinking involves the atheist religion, too, as no observable evidence is found in our solar system for abiogenesis.

 

[Wuwei]

I think eventually the court will discover evolution and evolutionary thinking involves the atheist religion, too

Holly posted a link with 10 court cases. One of the cases that was rejected was founded on the idea that evolution is a religion. The court found that evolution was not a religion.

 

[james bond]

Sorry you felt insulted. Your question was, "How did Max Planck come up with it?" I went ahead and answered your question in detail. Didn't you finish reading what I wrote about what Planck contributed? What more did you want?

I would like you not to insult me and others by saying look it up yourself to their question on a topic. It's not like I was asking a myriad of stupid questions, but looking for an answer, see your POV and to continue conversation.

As for Max Planck and the ultraviolet catastrophe, you need to realize creation science has to do with true and real science. I may not know everything that Max Planck came up with, but I can learn. He discovered the quanta. What do you think? Does it explain how light is a wave and also a point? He explained how light could be separated from the dark with the quanta acting as oscillators.

The creation websites are valid science websites that show how God explained his thinking and science, i.e. we found and learned about science from his thinking as explained in the Bible.

 

[james bond]

Holly posted a link with 10 court cases. One of the cases that was rejected was founded on the idea that evolution is a religion. The court found that evolution was not a religion.

Evolution and today's science is based on atheism. That is a religion. Today's scientists have eliminated God as the creator. The fight will continue and eventually it will be discussed again in the Supreme Court.

 

[Hollie]

The battle will continue on as new students will continue to question the origins of evolution as there is absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis nor finding any form of life elsewhere. I think eventually the court will discover evolution and evolutionary thinking involves the atheist religion, too, as no observable evidence is found in our solar system for abiogenesis.

Your conspiracy theories are in the wrong forum.

There is no battle to continue as the fundie ministries have lost every attempt to force christianity into the public schools. ID'iot creationists made no attempts to conceal their religious fundamentalism early in their attempts to force christianity in the public schools. they flatly admitted it. They then invented new names for their religious agenda as a means to fraudulently represent christianity as something it is not: science.

Flat Earth thinking is not going to be any discovery made in a science classroom.

 

[Wuwei]

As for Max Planck and the ultraviolet catastrophe, you need to realize creation science has to do with true and real science. I may not know everything that Max Planck came up with, but I can learn. He discovered the quanta. What do you think? Does it explain how light is a wave and also a point? He explained how light could be separated from the dark with the quanta acting as oscillators.

Actually Planck considered what he did as a mathematical trick to get theory to agree with certain experiments. When others, Schrodinger, Born, Einstein, etc. made the leap that energy was indeed quantized, Planck vehemently rejected it. Planck preferred the classical electromagnetic ideas of Maxwell. So he did not realize the implications of his own work.

Einstein went further to explain the "Photoelectric Effect", a puzzling oddity, as an experiment that actually showed the quantum nature of light was real. He got the Nobel Prize for that.

It is not understood what light actually is. They began the mathematics of how light behaves - that light behaves like a wave while going through space, and behaves like a specific packet of energy (called a photon) only when it is emitted or absorbed by matter. Light should not be considered as photons traveling through space. Experiments resulting from Bell's theorem confuses things even more, but that's a complex story.

It was Einstein who linked the atomic oscillators of the atoms in material with the nature of thermal spectral emissions. He published it in a seminal paper.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Enlighten us, where do the phrases "BELIEVE they could (support life)", "LIKELY common throughout space".......exist in actual science?

That isn't science. Those are not theories, laws, or even hypotheses. Those are the opinions of the scientists, based on all the evidence available. Your question is very, very stupid.

Its not science when you attempt to compare observable examples of life on earth with other planets that can't be OBSERVED

But they can be observed. We can see how large they are, how far away from their stars they are, and then determine temperature ranges. We can use spectra to find compounds in their atmospheres, like certain compounds that may be biomarkers. So you again commented without having any idea what you are talking about.

One can't help but laugh every time one of these "scientific articles is parroted as some type of evidence.

Which was not the case in this thread. that is just something you pulled right out of your ass, because you ran out of things to say and want to shit on science. And that is because you are beholden to iron age religious dogma that you should have outgrown long ago.

 

[james bond]

Flat Earth thinking is not going to be any discovery made in a science classroom.

I knew you couldn't help yourself from bringing up your fundie science of the flat Earth Flattie Hollie.

 

[james bond]

Actually Planck considered what he did as a mathematical trick to get theory to agree with certain experiments. When others, Schrodinger, Born, Einstein, etc. made the leap that energy was indeed quantized, Planck vehemently rejected it. Planck preferred the classical electromagnetic ideas of Maxwell. So he did not realize the implications of his own work.

Einstein went further to explain the "Photoelectric Effect", a puzzling oddity, as an experiment that actually showed the quantum nature of light was real. He got the Nobel Prize for that.

It is not understood what light actually is. They began the mathematics of how light behaves - that light behaves like a wave while going through space, and behaves like a specific packet of energy (called a photon) only when it is emitted or absorbed by matter. Light should not be considered as photons traveling through space. Experiments resulting from Bell's theorem confuses things even more, but that's a complex story.

It was Einstein who linked the atomic oscillators of the atoms in material with the nature of thermal spectral emissions. He published it in a seminal paper.

.

Thank you. As I see it, the important point is these were all creation scientists in the age of atheist Darwin or coming from his time. Can you really call Darwin a scientist when he was so wrong?

 

[james bond]

That isn't science. Those are not theories, laws, or even hypotheses. Those are the opinions of the scientists, based on all the evidence available. Your question is very, very stupid.

Heh. This is your typical rebuttal to those who know more than you. You have demonstrated yourself to be beyond stupid many, many, many times.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Lol. Wake me up when it happens.

We will not find any type of life on other planets, even exoplanets.

Party pooper! Wet blanket! They want to believe!

 

[james bond]

How can you be my BFF if you exhibit such non-christian emotional vitriol. But you don't even do your ranting correctly. How can you have light before space and time. You might recall that light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Miles=space; second=time. Do you understand? Light needs space and time before it can exist, not the other way around.

And also, creation science is an oxymoron.

.

We had to have the EMS first. God used it to separate the light and dark matter in order to start space and time. Then we need the space to expand it into the universe as we know it. Then light as we know it today can start going 186,000+ mps. It's a theory. Creation science is valid.

Why don't you explain in terms of evolutionary thinking how space, time and your 186,000 mps light started?

 

[james bond]

Party pooper! Wet blanket! They want to believe!

Fort Fun Indiana wants to believe? Wake me up when that happens. He is supposed to watch to see if abiogenesis ever happens in the afterlife. I think there he can get billions of years, but it's dark and fiery there I think.

 

[Wuwei]

Thank you. As I see it, the important point is these were all creation scientists in the age of atheist Darwin or coming from his time. Can you really call Darwin a scientist when he was so wrong?

Darwin was not an atheist. He said, (Wikipedia)

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."​

As far as other scientists,

"Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time"​

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

Tuesday is the 210th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults say humans have evolved over time.

www.pewresearch.org

Pope Francis said,

“Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of [divine] creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve.”​

Pope Francis: Evolution and Big Bang Theory Are Real

Big Bang theory and evolution "do not contradict" the idea of creation, Pope Francis told a Vatican audience, saying God was "not a magician."

www.nbcnews.com

I don't understand why you are fixated on whether a scientist believes in creation or not. If the science is well done, it should not matter.
.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Francis said,
“Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of [divine] creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve.”

I tended to agree with what you said in this post until this quote.

Papa Francis is in no way Christian. I've never believed that anyway, but this quote proves it.

It is impossible to be a Christian and believe the myth of evolution