God not needed in Earth Formation

[AV1611VET]

Good cuz that was really hard to type.

(I felt bad when I wrote it, just because of the various Christian friends of mine whom I respect and with whom I've had many interesting discussions of religion.)

Hopefully, I'm on that list too. If not, what am I doing wrong; and I'll give it some heavy consideration?

Please note --- I have stopped with the "scientists".

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Researchers have discovered two planets in a solar system 5,000 light-years away that appears to be structured in significant ways like our own.
I suppose this raises interesting questions for creationists, such I why would their magical mystical god create solar systems other than our own, I mean it was all created for us, so who or what are these other solar system for. In science the answer is much more forthcoming, i.e. our solar system including the Earth are nothing special and it would be expected to find billions of other solar systems just in our galaxy, never mind the billions of other galaxies all adding up to trillions of solar systems.

The planets described in this study were found with a technique called "microlensing," in which the gravity of the star and planet act as lenses, magnifying the light from a background star. By studying the complex patterns of the magnified light as the planetary system moves in front of the distant background star, scientists can determine the properties of the planets and their star. Only six planets have been discovered using the microlensing method. The discovery of this system from such a small sample of detections may indicate that solar systems like ours are common. (Science)

LINK

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Recent observations and new computer modeling has strengthened the growing expectation that a bounty of fledgling planets, perhaps even some the size of Earth, exist around newborn stars. New search methods and more powerful telescopes could soon allow astronomers to find these nascent worlds.
Around a young, nearby and common sort of star, astronomers last week announced they'd found a leftover disk of dusty debris from which planets may be forming.
And in separate work, theorists modeled how stellar dust disks might be probed for just-born Earth-sized worlds using NASA's new Spitzer Space Telescope. Meanwhile, as the number and types of stars known to have disks grows, researchers expect to begin doing serious comparisons to learn about the range of scenarios that might be involved in building planets.
Garden variety
The latest discovery involves a dim star, called an M-type, that is 33 light-years away. It is the closest and youngest star known to have such a circumstellar disk, as the plane of material is called.
The star is catalogued as AU Microscopium and referred to as AU Mic.
Some 85 percent of all stars in the galaxy are M-type. AU Mic is half as massive as the Sun and one-tenth as luminous. It is about 10 million years old, an infant in star years.
"Gas that once surrounded the star has mostly disappeared, perhaps by forming gas-giant planets," explained study leader Paul Kalas of the University of California at Berkeley. "The system has become a planet preschool."
Immature gas giant planets, assuming they are there, would still be dissipating heat generated by their gravitational contraction, Kalas told SPACE.com . Meanwhile, comets and asteroids circling the star are likely colliding, creating the dust that's been observed. Some of these might gather to form rocky, Earth-sized planets.
This is how planets are thought to have formed in our solar system, which is 4.6 billion years old. But the details of planet formation are not known, making the newly spotted, developing system an interesting case study.
Other types of stars have similar disks. In 2002, for example, astronomers made a strong case -- based on dust clumping -- for a Saturn-sized planet around Fomalhaut, the 17th brightest star in the sky and one that is more than twice as massive than our Sun.
AU Mic's disk is interesting because it is such a common type of star.
"For the first time we have discovered that a nearby M-star, AU Mic, is surrounded by a dust disk that indicates the existence of asteroids and comets orbiting the star," Kalas said. "In principle, small bodies such as asteroids and comets can join to form even larger objects such as planets."


LINK

AU Microscopium with clearly visable dust ring

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

First image of a planet orbiting a star simular to our sun

Astronomers have revealed what could be a historic first picture of a planet outside our solar system orbiting a sun-like star.
- Historic 'first picture'
- Planet 500 light years away
- Temperature up to 1500 degrees
Located about 500 light years from Earth, the planet is about eight times the mass of Jupiter and extremely hot, with temperatures reaching a sizzling 1500 degrees.
Its parent star has a weight similar to the sun - about 85% the sun's mass - but is much younger, only about 5 million years old compared to the sun's 4.5 billion years.

LINK


Science give us new planet; creationists give us bull excrement.

 

[Naraoia]

First image of a planet orbiting a star simular to our sun

Is that picture for real?

Wow. I checked the Gemini website, and apparently it is. Just... wow.

*sets wallpaper*

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Is that picture for real?

Wow. I checked the Gemini website, and apparently it is. Just... wow.

*sets wallpaper*

Yes it is real, another first for science.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yes it is real, another first for science.

What makes you so sure a suitably devout person like AV can't find it already in the book o' Job or one of the books of the Bible, huh?

Smartypants.

(PS: Cool pic! Thanks for posting it!)

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay --- you found a planet in space orbiting a sun in space.

Please excuse me while I faint as well ---

Keep them SETI fires lit!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Okay --- you found a planet in space orbiting a sun in space.

Please excuse me while I faint as well ---

Keep them SETI fires lit!

At least when Bala'am's ass spoke it had a point.

 

[Naraoia]

Okay --- you found a planet in space orbiting a sun in space.

Please excuse me while I faint as well ---

Keep them SETI fires lit!

AV dear, my reaction wasn't to finding a planet around another star. It was about the image.

<sarcasm>I can't imagine why anyone would find it absolutely amazing that we can take pictures like this of planets hundreds of light years away. </sarcasm>

It's a bit like staring down a microscope into a whole new world, only I had no idea we could do something like this with stars until I saw this picture.

And whatever made you bring up SETI...

 

[AV1611VET]

AV dear, my reaction wasn't to finding a planet around another star. It was about the image.

<sarcasm>I can't imagine why anyone would find it absolutely amazing that we can take pictures like this of planets hundreds of light years away. </sarcasm>

It's a bit like staring down a microscope into a whole new world, only I had no idea we could do something like this with stars until I saw this picture.

And whatever made you bring up SETI...

Did you see the post above yours? (Post 24)? Did you see what it was comparing this discovery to? I'd say the "bull excrement" would be more beneficial than a planet orbiting a "sun-like star" - (whatever that is).

And as far as my reference to SETI is concerned, it is one of my pet theories that scientists HAVE to come up with something (anything) every once in awhile in order to justify their research (you know why).

We wouldn't want them to go the way of SETI, and loose their tax status, would we?

This is why science makes one "discovery" after another.

 

[atomweaver]

Did you see the post above yours? (Post 24)? Did you see what it was comparing this discovery to? I'd say the "bull excrement" would be more beneficial than a planet orbiting a "sun-like star"- (whatever that is).

Bold emphasis mine. Did you see that post above Naraoia's, AVVET? (Post 24)?

Its parent star has a weight similar to the sun - about 85% the sun's mass - but is much younger, only about 5 million years old compared to the sun's 4.5 billion years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bold emphasis mine. Did you see that post above Naraoia's, AVVET? (Post 24)?

What is a "sun-like star"? If a star, by definition, is a sun, isn't "sun-like star" redundant? That's like eating "fruit-like grapes".

 

[atomweaver]

What is a "sun-like star"? If a star, by definition, is a sun, isn't "sun-like star" redundant? That's like eating "fruit-like grapes".

Maybe the fact that it wasn't capitalized made you miss that "The Sun" is actually a proper name for a specific star, namely the star at the center of Earth's solar system. A star is not by definition "a sun".

Does that help?

 

[Naraoia]

Did you see the post above yours? (Post 24)?

I thought I was justified in thinking that you responded to mine - what with all the fainting...

Did you see what it was comparing this discovery to? I'd say the "bull excrement" would be more beneficial than a planet orbiting a "sun-like star" - (whatever that is).

Perhaps a new planet isn't the most useful scientific discovery ever (but then there are probably many discoveries that didn't seem all that useful at the time, only to find their uses later). But it is still new knowledge. I think ChordatesLegacy's point was that science leads us to new knowledge (useful or not), whereas creationism... well, I regret to admit I agree with the part about bulls.

But then I'm of the view that knowledge and understanding are good things. Maybe you disagree.

And as far as my reference to SETI is concerned, it is one of my pet theories that scientists HAVE to come up with something (anything) every once in awhile in order to justify their research (you know why).

I hope that's not suggesting that scientists only pop out results to get your tax money. I hope.

(FYI, I tend to think SETI is a waste of resources, but that's only my subjective less-than-half-informed opinion.)

We wouldn't want them to go the way of SETI, and loose their tax status, would we?

I personally want evo-devo research to continue so I can get into it when I grow up (But then evo-devo research tends to yield results, so I'm not really worried)

This is why science makes one "discovery" after another.

I think you've just insulted every single scientist on this board and elsewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe the fact that it wasn't capitalized made you miss that "The Sun" is actually a proper name for a specific star, namely the star at the center of Earth's solar system. A star is not by definition "a sun".

Does that help?

.

First image of a planet orbiting a star simular to our sun

Astronomers have revealed what could be a historic first picture of a planet outside our solar system orbiting a sun-like star.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you've just insulted every single scientist on this board and elsewhere.

Then get a copy of Scientific American and see if I'm wrong.

Read through the articles where a great discovery is made, then, embedded somewhere down in the ariticle will be a paragraph or two saying something to the effect of, "Not everyone agrees with this. Leading scientist, Dr Gnosis, says this may not be the case."

Makes you wonder why they even put it in there, if it's not unanimous.

I know --- science doesn't work that way --- but I got tired of being captivated by their cover stories, only to find out in the article that it may not be the case.

To me, today's scientists work on the PUBLISH OR PERISH PRINCIPLE; and because of it, we have a lot of junk science bloating around.

 

[Naraoia]

Then get a copy of Scientific American and see if I'm wrong.

Read through the articles where a great discovery is made, then, embedded somewhere down in the ariticle will be a paragraph or two saying something to the effect of, "Not everyone agrees with this. Leading scientist, Dr Gnosis, says this may not be the case."

Makes you wonder why they even put it in there, if it's not unanimous.

That's not a problem in itself. Results have to get out there (at least to other people in the field) before they can become unanimous or rejected. And of course the media jump on them, often too early.

I know --- science doesn't work that way --- but I got tired of being captivated by their cover stories, only to find out in the article that it may not be the case.

I try not to get too captivated by cover stories (heck, New Scientist discovers the secret of the universe every second week). If I view them as interesting possibilities that makes the whole thing even more exciting. It's a bit like waiting for the next book in my favourite series and theorising on what could be revealed in it. Dunno, I think that's fun.

To me, today's scientists work on the PUBLISH OR PERISH PRINCIPLE; and because of it, we have a lot of junk science bloating around.

I'm afraid that's truer than I'd like it to be. If that's all you meant then apologies for getting so upset.

Maybe this forum makes me paranoid.

And I'm too afraid that in a few years I'll become another publish-or-perish scientist.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Maybe the fact that it wasn't capitalized made you miss that "The Sun" is actually a proper name for a specific star, namely the star at the center of Earth's solar system. A star is not by definition "a sun".

Does that help?

Atom, remember AV's knowledge of astronomy is limited to "colloquialisms" and he thinks the most important "discovery" in astronomy is the "definition of the word 'Planet' and the classification of Pluto".

I remember some pointing out that the Sun's name really is "Sol", hence our "Solar system". But I don't know if any of that is true or if it even matters.

AV, as for your question, Atom and others are right, the Sun is our specific star. All stars are stars but not all stars are The Sun.

Just like my dog, "Aleistar Growley", is a terrier but not all dogs are terriers.

See?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Then get a copy of Scientific American and see if I'm wrong.

OHMYGOSH! AV, you're RIGHT! Scientists discover new things and their knowledge grows and advances!

Unlike some Christians who seem incapable of learning!

Read through the articles where a great discovery is made, then, embedded somewhere down in the ariticle will be a paragraph or two saying something to the effect of, "Not everyone agrees with this. Leading scientist, Dr Gnosis, says this may not be the case."

That's horrible that they'd be honest! At least a good theologian never brooks the possibility that they could be uniquely interpretting something or...gasp...that not everyone who is thinking could disagree with them!

Makes you wonder why they even put it in there, if it's not unanimous.

Not surprising that you would wonder about this. You see in science we all learn from reading each other's research. That's what keeps us from becoming stagnant and unchanging and wind up having to make up stories to justify an idea that has long-since been disproven or shown to be questionable at best.

It's called "learning" and it's a wonderful thing, but it does require work. So we don't expect weak-minded folks to be up to the task.

I know --- science doesn't work that way --- but I got tired of being captivated by their cover stories, only to find out in the article that it may not be the case.

Reality is hard! Best to have your minister feed you ONE line of thought and then NEVER QUESTION IT. That's safest. That way your soul is perfectly preserved undefiled while your intellectual skills rot.

God gave you a brain for a reason...maybe that reason simply is to provide some weight to your head.

To me, today's scientists work on the PUBLISH OR PERISH PRINCIPLE; and because of it, we have a lot of junk science bloating around.

Sure there's a lot of junk out there. No question. But at least it's out there and the way science works is people can pick it apart and question it. That's how science has made the advancements that religion has often worked quite hard to stop.