Slashdot Mirror
Solar System Fossils Found By Hubble
segment writes "Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered three of the faintest and smallest objects ever detected beyond Neptune. Each lump of ice and rock is roughly the size of Philadelphia and orbits just beyond Neptune and Pluto, where they may have rested since the formation of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. The objects reside in a ring-shaped region called the Kuiper Belt, which houses a swarm of icy rocks that are leftover building blocks, or "planetesimals," from the solar system's creation. The results of the search were announced by a group led by Gary Bernstein of the University of Pennsylvania at a meeting of NASA's Division of Planetary Sciences in Monterey, Calif."
"I have the same issue with people like you who assume God didn't create everything."
Or people like the original poster who can twist any subject into a platform to bash people who do not have the same religious views as the poster.
"Solar System Fossils Found By Hubble"
When I saw this in my newsfeed I thought they'd found an alien fish or lizard.
I can show you many sources inside and outside the US government.
Really? You can show demonstrable facts that link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda from reliable sources? Please post your evidence, I am genuinely interested.
I can supply evidence of the British Prime Minister and ally of the USA, Tony Blair, saying there is no link. Also other presidents of other countries. Also people within the intelligence communities of both the USA and other countries. Please supply your evidence.
Can't you say something about the origin because of the orbit of the rock and the other rocks around it? Isn't it unlikely that all the rocks in the belt entered the sun's orbit from the same direction with and with the same velocity? If not, they'd be orbiting all over the place, like comets, not organized in a neat belt.
However, I would argue that we do not know how most parts of the human body work. If we did, we could, for instance, stop aging and death, or accomplish still more mundane things like cure diseases such as AIDS without effort. For certain, there would be a great many researchers out of work by now. Add to that the notion that all man's great "inventions" are simply copies of things found in nature: if it requires intelligence to copy these things, is it not logical to conclude that there was originally an intelligence to think them up in the first place?
Now, as coincidence would have it, I am an electronics engineer. But for the answer to your question on the atomic workings of electricity, I think you meant to say that you are not a physicist, did you not? Nevertheless, I believe that it is safe to say that we do know exactly how electricity works. On the other hand, how electricity relates to the other forces in the universe is not known (see: Einstein's failed attenmpt at a Unified Field theory). While I used a completely acceptable linguistic device to emphasize the [currently] incalcuable difference between two things, you were factually incorrect. I point this out because it seems to be your basis for undermining my position, and not to be a twit and one-up you.
My original point was to highlight the irony that evolutionists and creationists are equally dependent upon faith, and as such, neither can accuse the other of being closed-minded or unscientific, despite the evolutionists' claim that they are of a higher intellectual caliber than creationists. I also underscored the basic difference between science and religion: How? vs. Why?. These two disciplines have different objectives and thus cannot be held to the same metrics. Relevence to the source post is that saying that the existence of ice cubes in space proves that life evolved from non-life requires a bit of an intellectual stretch, to say the least.
If evolution were "fact", then it would be possible to reproduce the process experimentally. To be scientific "fact", we must, by definition, know exactly "how" and thus be able to reproduce the action -- or at the very least prove the observed effect is reproducable, which has never been done, despite the popular folklore-based belief that it has). But this has yet to be done (hence it is still theory). Stanley Miller came as close as anyone when he "created" amino acids from "organic soup". But it was quickly proven that the solution the amino acids were in would prevent them from coalescing into anything, but rather, they could only decompose. He ended his career in utter frustration over this point. But the one pro-creation element in all his experiments that could not be avoided: Who did Miller himself represent in the experiment if not an intelligent creator? In the actual event, who takes the place of Miller?
> To stop terrorism, of course, as Saddam Hussein was a major source of it.
The sad irony is that the only terrorists operating out of Iraq were the Ansar al Islam, which arose in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region under the no-fly zone, and could not have existed without American bombers to hold Saddam in check. (FYI, terrorists hated Saddam almost as bad as they hate us.)
> Anti-imperialism was also a goal too, given Saddam's track record of attacking neighboring countries with the goal of annexing them.
Novel concept: combat imperialism by overthrowing other governments and setting up your own in their place. I suppose we should applaud the Romans for fighting imperialism in their many wars with the Parthians, Sassinids, and various Hellenistic empires.
> (he still claimed Kuwait as his own land, and still was committed to the goal of conquest of Israel and extermination of the Israelis).
He certainly wasn't making much progress at those goals, was he. If we're going to deploy force against big-talking fuckwits, Saddam is far from the only person who needed to worry about it. Yet somehow I'm missing all the others in the news...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade