Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[=JAWS=tom{ASN}]

Mmm köttbullar.

[IJO sha-quan-jone]

As for me, I home school. I get to study what I want(well, sorta. I get the chance to pick what I want to study more than others at least), and I happen to be fascinated by Astronomy, Geography and Paleontology. I'm not as smart as I sound, and I don't sound all that smart.

im home schooled too

[Yanoda]

Not sure if anyone read/heard of it, but NASA was able to identify an extraterrestrial planet (Kepler-22b) with mild temperatures of 262 Kelvin and orbits in the Habitable Zone of its star. It could very likely be able to have the conditions for Life to develop.
Kepler 22 Star and Kepler 22b planet stats: http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/kepler22b/
Published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1640

2 Earth sized planets were found a few days ago (Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f), though they are too close to the their star so temperatures are too high (~600 Kelvin -100 Kelvin) for liquid water to exist. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/keple ... ystem.html

Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Not sure if anyone read/heard of it, but NASA was able to identify an extraterrestrial planet (Kepler-22b) with mild temperatures of 262 Kelvin and orbits in the Habitable Zone of its star. It could very likely be able to have the conditions for Life to develop.
Kepler 22 Star and Kepler 22b planet stats: http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/kepler22b/
Published Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1640

2 Earth sized planets were found a few days ago (Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f), though they are too close to the their star so temperatures are too high (~600 Kelvin -100 Kelvin) for liquid water to exist. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/keple ... ystem.html

Cheers

Yanoda

That's very interesting! I hope the knowledge of space will develop at an increasingly large rate over the next few decades.

[THEWULFMAN]

I'm so glad the Kepler telescope is doing what it was designed to do, finding Earth sized planets. We usually only detect gas giants using a radial velocity method, which also only gives us the orbital distance, period, and minimum mass. Using the transit method, which is how Kepler 22b was found, we get the planets radius as well, but also hints about its atmosphere.

[Yanoda]

Science. It Works!


Cheers

Yanoda

[Col. Hstar]

Science. It Works!


Cheers

Yanoda

Yes science works, evolution does not.
Evolution is not based on evidence that has been tested and proved, creating life from lifeless er. it has failed the 3rd step.

Origin of life is not the only thing.
Think about some of the parts that make up the human body, eyes, heart, the brain. A telescope takes a designer, as would an artificial heart. no computer today can match the potential of the human brain. All these items are miracles by themselves, Its hard to accept that each of these came by the product of chance, it's even harder to believe that by chance these organs all came together to work perfectly, giving us life as we know it.

Looks like evolution belongs on the faith side of your chart

and BTW I have not seeing evidence that contradicts creation

[THEWULFMAN]

no computer today can match the potential of the human brain.

It depends on what you mean by potential. We have super-computers that can match (and surpass) the processing power of the human brain now. "Potential" in the sense that you probably mean would require an Artificial Intelligence program. Technically speaking, a program is not a computer. A program is just binary code, stored in various ways. The code is technically speaking not part of a computer. It is stored in the computer, and makes it function, but is not the actual computer itself. Also, we're getting close to creating independantly thinking A.I.

and BTW I have not seeing evidence that contradicts creation

I have not seen evidence that contradicts my theory that Earth happens to be 400 light years away from Kashyyyk and that Bigfoot's are actually Wookie's stranded here on Earth, so it must be true. Saying there's no evidence to contradict something as an arguement for it being true is one of the most absurd things creationists do. Well guess what? There's also no evidence that evolution doesn't exist either. The only difference is there is hard evidence for evolution, but there isn't any hard evidence for creation. Show me the real evidence, that you can hold in your hand, and then we'll talk.

Again, to be clear, I am a Christian. I am not an atheist.

[Yanoda]

Yes science works, evolution does not.
Evolution is not based on evidence that has been tested and proved, creating life from lifeless er. it has failed the 3rd step.

Origin of life is not the only thing.
Think about some of the parts that make up the human body, eyes, heart, the brain. A telescope takes a designer, as would an artificial heart. no computer today can match the potential of the human brain. All these items are miracles by themselves, Its hard to accept that each of these came by the product of chance, it's even harder to believe that by chance these organs all came together to work perfectly, giving us life as we know it.

Looks like evolution belongs on the faith side of your chart

and BTW I have not seeing evidence that contradicts creation

Sorry to burst your bubble but the 'Theory of Evolution' has under gone those very processes of the image for almost 200 years now. There are several if not many evidences/data that verifies the existence of Evolution. DNA mapping/heredity, Fossil Mapping, Geologic history are just a few of these evidences that Evolution has occurred. Or are you saying that bacteria that become resistance to antibiotics have not evolved/adapted?

For Creationism (or any idea) to be viable, one needs to have evidence of it, no evidence means that the idea/assumption is not viable. Those who claim Creationism is true, have to offer/show evidence to verify the claim (using a over 2000 year old book with stories does not qualify as definite evidence). That is why Evolution is considered more viable in the scientific community than Creationism.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Col. Hstar]

I have not seen evidence that contradicts my theory that Earth happens to be 400 light years away from Kashyyyk and that Bigfoot's are actually Wookie's stranded here on Earth, so it must be true. Saying there's no evidence to contradict something as an arguement for it being true is one of the most absurd things creationists do. Well guess what? There's also no evidence that evolution doesn't exist either. The only difference is there is hard evidence for evolution, but there isn't any hard evidence for creation. Show me the real evidence, that you can hold in your hand, and then we'll talk.

As was the last time please read and understand the context of my comment. I was responding to the stupid picture posted by Yanoda that says creationist completely ignore contradicting evidence. That's where I asked, what contradicting evidence are we ignoring. and the fact that you also point out that there is no evidence evolution exists either, is basicly what I was also trying to say, which means it belongs on the faith side of the graphic as well
And BTW if you want physical evidence of creation you can hold in your hands, I would start by looking at your hands, and how intelligent the design is, or the fact that you are looking at your hands, how nice it is to see them, and not just seeing them in black and white, but in a huge spectrum of colors, that your brain can process and understand (without mind you, any specific "programming" needed)

@Yanoda

I said that evolution has skipped the experiment stage. I am pretty sure it would have been very news worthy if a scientist was able to make a living being from inanimate er. But I haven't seeing this historic article anywhere yet, Have you?

are you saying that bacteria that become resistance to antibiotics have not evolved/adapted?

Last I checked it still bacteria, it hasn't gone from being bacteria to a bird, it's still bacteria. Would you then claim that anyone with a physical deformity is devolving, or not fully evolved? Anyone can make the evidence fit or "adapt" to their theory, but it must be tested, and proved, to be a scientific fact. This is actually a very important point, it is soooo crucial to evolutionist that the evolution theory be viewed as scientific because it gives the air of authority. Without it, evolution just comes off as an argument that there is no God.
Bottom line, no er what you believe, as wulfman said, neither can be actually tested. So Evolution like Creation requires faith.

I can live with that can you?