Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New solar system near by with 7 planets, three habitable.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Perhaps, but that wasn't what he wrote. The gravitational effects themselves don't preclude life, although if they cause wobble that affects the twilight zones then that might. Or might not, depending on how great the wobble is and how fast it occurs. Jupiter's moons are in a similar resonance, and they don't wobble much. Agreed, unless the life is sheltered somehow. But my point was simply that the author is wrong on some specifics, including that periodic gravitational effects do not rule out the possibility of life.
    well he actually said would make oceans impossible. I don't really understand that. so I will agree with you on that.

    I don't know if his conclusions are right either. They are just as much guesses as Nasa's are. The fact is we just don't know enough to make any real predictions. That is what my original point was, that scientists tend to go too far in making guesses and making them sound like probabilities or actualities when they are just pie in the sky guesses. I am just advocating for science reporting that is more factual based and not so sensationalist.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Genetic fallacy. Address the article, don't shoot the source. The points it makes are scientific facts (coolness of the star, distance from the star, tidal locking, radiation flares, etc) - the likelihood of life on those planets is very small, They are not "earthlike" in anyway other than size.
      The source, ‘Reasons to Believe’ has a religious agenda which renders its focus and conclusions questionable. Its “mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature”.

      http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

      In short, its primary purpose is a religious one, not a scientific one.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        The source, ‘Reasons to Believe’ has a religious agenda which renders its focus and conclusions questionable. Its “mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature”.

        http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

        In short, its primary purpose is a religious one, not a scientific one.
        Many companies and organizations have "mission statements".
        Every organization or person has an "agenda", whether stated or not.

        The question is not whether or not we agree with their agenda. The questions are whether or not the data that Reasons to Believe has presented is accurate, and whether or not their interpretation of the data is correct.

        You need to address the data rather than appeal to the genetic fallacy.
        Last edited by Kbertsche; 03-15-2017, 12:33 AM.
        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
          Many companies and organizations have "mission statements".
          Every organization or person has an "agenda", whether stated or not.

          The question is not whether or not we agree with their agenda. The questions are whether or not the data that Reasons to Believe has presented is accurate, and whether or not their interpretation of the data is correct.

          You need to address the data rather than appeal to the genetic fallacy.
          Facts as understood and presented by Republicans are not understood and presented in the same way by Democrats due to the different underlying agendas. The same applies to right-wing news outlets vis-a-vis left wing ones. And the same applies to scientific facts as understood and presented by an organisation with the stated "mission to spread the Christian Gospel". It's not that they will necessarily be wrong, but they will be 'spun' in such a way as to further their cause. Hence, if it's scientific knowledge you're after your best off going to a scientific outlet, not a religious one.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            The source, ‘Reasons to Believe’ has a religious agenda which renders its focus and conclusions questionable. Its “mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature”.

            http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

            In short, its primary purpose is a religious one, not a scientific one.
            You continue to attack the source and thus commit the same fallacy.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Facts as understood and presented by Republicans are not understood and presented in the same way by Democrats due to the different underlying agendas. The same applies to right-wing news outlets vis-a-vis left wing ones. And the same applies to scientific facts as understood and presented by an organisation with the stated "mission to spread the Christian Gospel". It's not that they will necessarily be wrong, but they will be 'spun' in such a way as to further their cause. Hence, if it's scientific knowledge you're after your best off going to a scientific outlet, not a religious one.
              I thought your original argument was that science was based on facts and therefore better than religion. Now you are arguing that these facts are not actually true but "spun" to fit agendas. Kinda like I was saying in the first place about the overly optimistic articles "spinning" the facts to make it sound like these planets are earthlike and could support life, when the actual facts are "we don't know" - and you are making the same accusation against an article that says the opposite, that they can't support life. I agree with you! We just don't know! in either case!

              Result: you have now just agreed with me and believe that science is not all cut and dried but facts can be presented in a biased manner and spun to make a narrative that is not necessarily true.

              Tassman shoots himself in the foot, once again!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Facts as understood and presented by Republicans are not understood and presented in the same way by Democrats due to the different underlying agendas. The same applies to right-wing news outlets vis-a-vis left wing ones. And the same applies to scientific facts as understood and presented by an organisation with the stated "mission to spread the Christian Gospel". It's not that they will necessarily be wrong, but they will be 'spun' in such a way as to further their cause. Hence, if it's scientific knowledge you're after your best off going to a scientific outlet, not a religious one.
                Define "scientific outlet". Many scientists both past and present (e.g. the late Carl Sagan and Fred Hoyle, and currently Hawking, Dawkins, Meyers, Harris to name a few) exhibit significant bias towards the atheist point of view.

                Remembering that Hoyle the atheist was adamantly against the Big Bang over and against Lemaître the catholic priest, and not the least of reasons was it's 'religious' implications as regards an origin for the universe.


                "Bias" exists everywhere. Atheistic "Bias" in science is just as much a problem, if not more so, than Religious "Bias" as might be perceived somewhere like 'Reasons to believe'.


                It is very, very hard to be truly objective in one's interpretation of the data over and above one's fundamental beliefs. And this is true independent of ideological position - with the true correlation being more likely that the stronger one holds to a specific ideology, REGARDLESS of what that ideology is, the MORE difficult it is to be truly objective in ones evaluation of the facts independent of that ideology.

                Jim
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 03-15-2017, 01:47 PM.
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I thought your original argument was that science was based on facts and therefore better than religion. Now you are arguing that these facts are not actually true but "spun" to fit agendas. Kinda like I was saying in the first place about the overly optimistic articles "spinning" the facts to make it sound like these planets are earthlike and could support life, when the actual facts are "we don't know" - and you are making the same accusation against an article that says the opposite, that they can't support life. I agree with you! We just don't know! in either case!

                  Result: you have now just agreed with me and believe that science is not all cut and dried but facts can be presented in a biased manner and spun to make a narrative that is not necessarily true.
                  No that‘s not the argument. The argument is that science for sciences’ sake, as per the OP, does not equate with the spinning of science to “spread the Christian Gospel", which is the stated goal of your ‘Reasons to Believe’ website..
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    No that‘s not the argument. The argument is that science for sciences’ sake, as per the OP, does not equate with the spinning of science to “spread the Christian Gospel", which is the stated goal of your ‘Reasons to Believe’ website..
                    sorry Tassman, you can't have it both ways. You can't say oh well the stuff I believe is true objective facts, but the stuff you believe is subjective nonsense because it is spinning the facts. The source in the OP is doing just as much spinning. That is what I have been complaining about this whole thread. In fact I admit the second source that you think is spinning the facts is also spinning the facts. I think they both are. They each have their own agendas and just use the facts that suit that agenda to "spin" the story they want. The first uses facts to spin a tale of earthlike planets that have oceans and life. The second uses other facts to say no there is no life or oceans possible.

                    The TRUE OBJECTIVE science fact is: NASA found 7 rocky roughly earth-sized planets orbiting close around a cool star at a distance that usually means liquid water can occur under the right circumstances.

                    That's it. We know nothing more. Anything else is pure speculation.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      sorry Tassman, you can't have it both ways. You can't say oh well the stuff I believe is true objective facts, but the stuff you believe is subjective nonsense because it is spinning the facts. The source in the OP is doing just as much spinning. That is what I have been complaining about this whole thread. In fact I admit the second source that you think is spinning the facts is also spinning the facts. I think they both are. They each have their own agendas and just use the facts that suit that agenda to "spin" the story they want. The first uses facts to spin a tale of earthlike planets that have oceans and life. The second uses other facts to say no there is no life or oceans possible.

                      The TRUE OBJECTIVE science fact is: NASA found 7 rocky roughly earth-sized planets orbiting close around a cool star at a distance that usually means liquid water can occur under the right circumstances.

                      That's it. We know nothing more. Anything else is pure speculation.
                      Nonsense! The OP simply states that “Nasa astronomers discover new solar system called Trappist-1 where life may have evolved on three out of seven of its planets”. And there are well established good scientific reasons why scientists believe this "may" be the case, as already discussed, considerably more reasons than the unsubstantiated position that we’re “specially created” and "unique"...for which there’s not a shred of verifiable evidence.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • My "I told you so" moment:

                        =============


                        It's unlikely that the TRAPPIST-1 planets support life
                        Two different studies on the system make that clear.

                        Two separate teams at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics say the behavior of the star makes it less likely than we'd thought (or hoped) that the system could harbor life. The star in question, TRAPPIST-1, is a red dwarf that is much fainter and cooler than the Sun. Therefore, to be in the habitable zone, planets must be much closer to the star than the Earth is to our sun.

                        The news is grim: The UV radiation the habitable zone planets experience is much greater than Earth's. "Because of the onslaught by the star's radiation, our results suggest the atmosphere on planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system would largely be destroyed," says Avi Loeb, coauthor of a paper published in the International Journal of Astrobiology. The team estimates that the likelihood that life could exist on TRAPPIST-1's habitable zone planets is just 1 percent, as compared to the likelihood for life existing on Earth.

                        https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/13/...-support-life/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          My "I told you so" moment:

                          =============


                          It's unlikely that the TRAPPIST-1 planets support life
                          Two different studies on the system make that clear.

                          Two separate teams at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics say the behavior of the star makes it less likely than we'd thought (or hoped) that the system could harbor life. The star in question, TRAPPIST-1, is a red dwarf that is much fainter and cooler than the Sun. Therefore, to be in the habitable zone, planets must be much closer to the star than the Earth is to our sun.

                          The news is grim: The UV radiation the habitable zone planets experience is much greater than Earth's. "Because of the onslaught by the star's radiation, our results suggest the atmosphere on planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system would largely be destroyed," says Avi Loeb, coauthor of a paper published in the International Journal of Astrobiology. The team estimates that the likelihood that life could exist on TRAPPIST-1's habitable zone planets is just 1 percent, as compared to the likelihood for life existing on Earth.

                          https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/13/...-support-life/
                          You've got to BELIEVE, Sparko. Life is OUT there!
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • From your source:

                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Three of the new planets are said to be particularly promising because they could sustain oceans.
                            Three habitable planets, sure.

                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of Nasa’s Science Mission Directorate, told a press conference in Washington: “This gives us a hint that finding a second Earth is not a matter of ‘if’, but ‘when’.”
                            Now this is a real leap of faith.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Actually many stars that supported life have existed in the distant past and have become star dust for other stars.
                              Zero evidence for this.
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                                Zero evidence for this.
                                Correct. To date this is the only planet and our sun the only star in the universe that has been shown to harbor life. Though we now know that there are several moons and possibly underground aquifers on mars that at least appear to be conditions under which life could survive. And at this point, we do not know how likely or unlikely it is for life to form naturally.

                                Jim
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X