NASA Discovers First Earth-Sized Planet in The "Habitable Zone"

NASA Discovers First Earth-Sized Planet in The "Habitable Zone"

"Kepler-186f" confirms that planets the size of Earth exist in the habitable zone of stars other than our sun.

Anyone who knows anything about space, knows that planets that can sustain life like Earth can are an extreme rarity in our universe. Essentially, they have to fit into the "habitable zone" -- the perfect distance from a sun where liquid water can pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. We've found some planets in the zone before, but now, NASA's Kepler Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered the first Earth-size planet. Introducing Kepler-186f, which may well become our new home when we bleed this one completely dry.

Previous planets discovered in the zone have all been at least 40 percent larger in size than Earth, so understanding their makeup is challenging. Kepler-186f should prove less of a challenge, and research suggests that a planet of its size is likely to be rocky.

"The discovery of Kepler-186f is a significant step toward finding worlds like our planet Earth," said Paul Hertz, NASA's Astrophysics Division director at the agency's headquarters in Washington. "Future NASA missions, like the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite and the James Webb Space Telescope, will discover the nearest rocky exoplanets and determine their composition and atmospheric conditions, continuing humankind's quest to find truly Earth-like worlds."

Kepler-186f resides in the Kepler-186 system, about 500 light-years from Earth in the constellation Cygnus, meaning it will probably be quite a long time before we're actually able to find a way to get there.

"Kepler-186f can be thought of as an Earth-cousin rather than an Earth-twin. It has many properties that resemble Earth," said Thomas Barclay, research scientist at the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute at Ames.

Source: NASA

Permalink

Cool. Between this and the formation of a new moon around Saturn there's a lot to talk about in space news right now. Still, we can't really say too much about this exoplanet without actually sending a probe there, and that's going to be a long way off. Still, nifty. Now to play some Kerbal.

For me, it's not a proper planet until it features in a Die Roten Punkte song.
(Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo_r4OoMvvY )

shirkbot:
Cool. Between this and the formation of a new moon around Saturn there's a lot to talk about in space news right now. Still, we can't really say too much about this exoplanet without actually sending a probe there, and that's going to be a long way off. Still, nifty. Now to play some Kerbal.

If you like Kerbal, I recommend you try Space Engineers. It's like first person kerbal space program, with you as the Kerbal. Or maybe Kinetic Void if you prefer the combat side a lot more.

Or you know, mod the crap out of Kerbal. Nothings more fun than shooting down an auto-pilot passenger plane with a one man Kerbal jet of lazers and death.

OT:

Waaaait. This is a damned conspiracy! First, Civ: Beyond Earth, telling us all about how an apocalypse is going to happen and we are going to fly to a new Earth, then NASA discovers an Earth.

People of Erf, it's only a small time until the apocalypse comes. And when it does, I'll be ready! With extra tinfoil, that is.

Hey I can see my house from here.

Holy shit! I know it was statistically inevitable to find another planet that's mildly like earth... but wow. This is monumental. We should really focus on trying to improve our optics now, I desperately wanna see this thing.

Steven Bogos:
when we bleed this one completely dry.

A bit pessimistic a viewpoint, wouldn't you say? However this does behoove us to actually go to this new planet. Which is always a bonus.

Be cool if I'm around long enough for this planet to be explored some day. Wonder if its yet another endless death ball of shit weather and toxic fumes and molten water or actually has some kind of atmosphere/land mass like earth or something.

Of course if such a planet existed and it even had foliage or lifeforms of some type, chances are they'd all be super hostile regardless of intelligence level to our very presence. And we humans certainly wouldn't be the friendly visitor types if we ever did find a habitable planet also.

Yay, we found Alpha Centauri!

All that's left now is to rush the Science Victory!

In all seriousness, this is very interesting news indeed.

[small]It's fun to live in the future :)[/small

We aren't getting there any time soon. Let's do the math!

The fastest space vehicle we have ever launched (the Helios 2) moved at 150,000 miles per hour (of course it was cheating and using the gravity of the sun to do so, but let's just assume we can get a spacecraft to move that fast on its own).

One light year is 5.88x10^12 miles, multiply that by 500, you get 2.94x10^15 miles. Divided by 150,000 mph give you 1.96x10^10 hours, or roughly 2.2 million years.

Finding these planets is cool and all, but unless and until we have some kind of breakthrough in propulsion which allows us to increase our speed by a couple of orders of magnitude, it's all academic (and even then, you are talking about generational ships, we're not zipping there in an afternoon).

Somebody go invent the warp drive already :)

You know another planet that's near earth-sized and technically in the habitable zone of it's sun? Venus... otherwise known as 'murder world'.

Also the place is 500 lightyears away.. that's sorta not even worth bothring to note. Thats so far away that even if we could send a probe at light speed theres a good chance that no one would be able to understand the language the probe was beaming back in. Much less remember that there's a probe in the first place. Seriously. 1000 years.

It's the sort of discovery that is a non-discovery. No one questioned that there were earth sized planets in the universe that exist within the habitable zone... that was a given... me thinks we need less money in NASA and more money on sustainable energy research. Just sayin....sure it's not as flashy but guess which field will actually have an impact on humanity.

BigTuk:
You know another planet that's near earth-sized and technically in the habitable zone of it's sun? Venus... otherwise known as 'murder world'.

Also the place is 500 lightyears away.. that's sorta not even worth bothring to note. Thats so far away that even if we could send a probe at light speed theres a good chance that no one would be able to understand the language the probe was beaming back in. Much less remember that there's a probe in the first place. Seriously. 1000 years.

It's the sort of discovery that is a non-discovery. No one questioned that there were earth sized planets in the universe that exist within the habitable zone... that was a given... me thinks we need less money in NASA and more money on sustainable energy research. Just sayin....sure it's not as flashy but guess which field will actually have an impact on humanity.

How very unimaginative. 500 light years is actually not that much.

Your kind of thinking is actually what holds humanity back!

Nimcha:

BigTuk:
You know another planet that's near earth-sized and technically in the habitable zone of it's sun? Venus... otherwise known as 'murder world'.

Also the place is 500 lightyears away.. that's sorta not even worth bothring to note. Thats so far away that even if we could send a probe at light speed theres a good chance that no one would be able to understand the language the probe was beaming back in. Much less remember that there's a probe in the first place. Seriously. 1000 years.

It's the sort of discovery that is a non-discovery. No one questioned that there were earth sized planets in the universe that exist within the habitable zone... that was a given... me thinks we need less money in NASA and more money on sustainable energy research. Just sayin....sure it's not as flashy but guess which field will actually have an impact on humanity.

How very unimaginative. 500 light years is actually not that much.

Your kind of thinking is actually what holds humanity back!

If we could accelerate a probe to 1% of light speed (which we can't) it would take 50,000 years for it to get there. And now we have fired a missile carrying a kinetic force comparable to a strategic nuke at our new neighbors, hope we don't accidentally hit something. And then we have the problem that in 50,000 years who will be listening when the probe gets there? Sure, we could just do the plaque thing, but I don't much like the idea of giving aliens our home address blindly.

So yeah. Don't do a probe. We have radio telescopes for a reason.

Wonderful, now all we need to do is increase the speed of light so it's easier for us to travel within in.

To the science labs!

BigTuk:
Also the place is 500 lightyears away.. that's sorta not even worth bothring to note. Thats so far away that even if we could send a probe at light speed theres a good chance that no one would be able to understand the language the probe was beaming back in. Much less remember that there's a probe in the first place. Seriously. 1000 years.

It's the sort of discovery that is a non-discovery. No one questioned that there were earth sized planets in the universe that exist within the habitable zone... that was a given... me thinks we need less money in NASA and more money on sustainable energy research. Just sayin....sure it's not as flashy but guess which field will actually have an impact on humanity.

As another person on the internet said, "There are almost certainly dozens of planets in the universe that once held intelligent life, but are now barren and dead because they decided space travel wasn't economically viable."

Granted, we do need to work on conservation so we can make it to the point where we can escape this rock, but if the species is going to survive for any significant period of time, space travel is the only thing that truly matters in the long run.

As for the distance, it's sort of a non-issue until we can come up with a means of travel that doesn't involve traditional movement and speed. It really doesn't matter whether it's this planet of Alpha Centauri, the distances are just too far for any normal propulsion that we can currently think of. But I trust that it will happen just as it has a hundred times before.

I hope it is habitable. I want to see creationists justify the "we are special snowflakes" argument then.

Akichi Daikashima:
Yay, we found Alpha Centauri!

All that's left now is to rush the Science Victory!

That's usually when I score a political victory. Mwahahahahahaha!

BigTuk:
You know another planet that's near earth-sized and technically in the habitable zone of it's sun? Venus... otherwise known as 'murder world'.

And "technically" is kind of an important thing here. It's on the edge of the habitable zone at the points it's within it. And the rest of the time, it's not.

But even then, there's a reason they haven't declared that this is a habitable planet off the bat. Just being in the habitable zone isn't really a guarantee. It is, however, a cool discovery that would provide further evidence for a lot of models predicted. Even if we can never go there or even make contact with life (assuming any exists, it is still worth knowing about.

But then, how many times in human history have we dealt with things that were beyond our grasp?

Gabanuka:
Wonderful, now all we need to do is increase the speed of light so it's easier for us to travel within in.

To the science labs!

This is why we need a libertarian President. He will let the free marketdetermine the speed of light, unlike this socialism of a "constant" speed of light in a vacuum.

RON PAUL 2012!

If this planet is in the Cygnus constellation, whatever ship that first reaches it must be named the Rocinante.

LazyAza:
Be cool if I'm around long enough for this planet to be explored some day. Wonder if its yet another endless death ball of shit weather and toxic fumes and molten water or actually has some kind of atmosphere/land mass like earth or something.

Of course if such a planet existed and it even had foliage or lifeforms of some type, chances are they'd all be super hostile regardless of intelligence level to our very presence. And we humans certainly wouldn't be the friendly visitor types if we ever did find a habitable planet also.

You'd think with all the dang movies we've made on the subject someone in charge would approach the situation cautiously but friendly.

Zachary Amaranth:
I hope it is habitable. I want to see creationists justify the "we are special snowflakes" argument then.

Science article shows up.
Takes cheap swipe at creationists and by proxy religion.
Makes total sense because this is the internet and we have to constantly be assholes to those types of people at all times and let them know they aren't welcome here or on this planet.

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:

As another person on the internet said, "There are almost certainly dozens of planets in the universe that once held intelligent life, but are now barren and dead because they decided space travel wasn't economically viable."
snip

As for the distance, it's sort of a non-issue until we can come up with a means of travel that doesn't involve traditional movement and speed. It really doesn't matter whether it's this planet of Alpha Centauri, the distances are just too far for any normal propulsion that we can currently think of. But I trust that it will happen just as it has a hundred times before.

Comparatively one could postulate that those that once held intelligent life died off because they blew all their resources on space travel instead of environmental sustainability.

As for non-traditional movement. Yeah.. unless physics stops being what it is.. that's not gonna happen.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Nimcha:

BigTuk:
You know another planet that's near earth-sized and technically in the habitable zone of it's sun? Venus... otherwise known as 'murder world'.

Also the place is 500 lightyears away.. that's sorta not even worth bothring to note. Thats so far away that even if we could send a probe at light speed theres a good chance that no one would be able to understand the language the probe was beaming back in. Much less remember that there's a probe in the first place. Seriously. 1000 years.

It's the sort of discovery that is a non-discovery. No one questioned that there were earth sized planets in the universe that exist within the habitable zone... that was a given... me thinks we need less money in NASA and more money on sustainable energy research. Just sayin....sure it's not as flashy but guess which field will actually have an impact on humanity.

How very unimaginative. 500 light years is actually not that much.

Your kind of thinking is actually what holds humanity back!

If we could accelerate a probe to 1% of light speed (which we can't) it would take 50,000 years for it to get there. And now we have fired a missile carrying a kinetic force comparable to a strategic nuke at our new neighbors, hope we don't accidentally hit something. And then we have the problem that in 50,000 years who will be listening when the probe gets there? Sure, we could just do the plaque thing, but I don't much like the idea of giving aliens our home address blindly.

So yeah. Don't do a probe. We have radio telescopes for a reason.

Light is faster than any radio wave...as far as I know and it takes 500 years to get there and 500 back. That's 1000 year round trip as for the probe. Even if someone was listening, who'd understand it? I mean it'd take 50,000 to reach and lets assume another 500 years for the signal to get back... how much has language on earth changed in 50,000 years? I mean considering most of the languages from even 2000 years ago are dead.

Nimcha:

How very unimaginative. 500 light years is actually not that much.

Your kind of thinking is actually what holds humanity back!

You can imagine all you like buut, reality will always be reality. As a species we aren't likely to get off this rock. FOr three reasons.

One all our neighboring planets will kill us without very very strict atmospheric control. 2. Even if we did wind up surviving here's a funny thing, it'd lead to a species divergence. To adapt to things like the difference in gravity, the whole recirculated air and watter, the biologically sterile environment humans would physiologically change and thus eventually become a new species after about a 100 generations.

So humans will only ever be on earth...

BigTuk:

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:

As another person on the internet said, "There are almost certainly dozens of planets in the universe that once held intelligent life, but are now barren and dead because they decided space travel wasn't economically viable."
snip

As for the distance, it's sort of a non-issue until we can come up with a means of travel that doesn't involve traditional movement and speed. It really doesn't matter whether it's this planet of Alpha Centauri, the distances are just too far for any normal propulsion that we can currently think of. But I trust that it will happen just as it has a hundred times before.

Comparatively one could postulate that those that once held intelligent life died off because they blew all their resources on space travel instead of environmental sustainability.

As I said, we absolutely need to work on conservation until our technology can advance enough, but the primary point of the statement is that no planet can maintain a species forever.
Space is the only long term answer.

As for non-traditional movement. Yeah.. unless physics stops being what it is.. that's not gonna happen.

It's nonsensical to try and say something cannot happen at any point in time with knowledge based in a fixed period of time.
Human history is a litany of breakthroughs that people couldn't imagine or thought impossible. It may not happen within our lifetimes, out children's lifetimes or our great great great grandchildren's lifetime, but it's naive to try and state that it can't ever happen.

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:

BigTuk:

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:

As another person on the internet said, "There are almost certainly dozens of planets in the universe that once held intelligent life, but are now barren and dead because they decided space travel wasn't economically viable."
snip

As for the distance, it's sort of a non-issue until we can come up with a means of travel that doesn't involve traditional movement and speed. It really doesn't matter whether it's this planet of Alpha Centauri, the distances are just too far for any normal propulsion that we can currently think of. But I trust that it will happen just as it has a hundred times before.

Comparatively one could postulate that those that once held intelligent life died off because they blew all their resources on space travel instead of environmental sustainability.

As I said, we absolutely need to work on conservation until our technology can advance enough, but the primary point of the statement is that no planet can maintain a species forever.
Space is the only long term answer.

As for non-traditional movement. Yeah.. unless physics stops being what it is.. that's not gonna happen.

It's nonsensical to try and say something cannot happen at any point in time with knowledge based in a fixed period of time.
Human history is a litany of breakthroughs that people couldn't imagine or thought impossible. It may not happen within our lifetimes, out children's lifetimes or our great g
reat great grandchildren's lifetime, but it's naive to try and state that it can't ever happen.

How would you know I mean earth has had life for a couple 100 million years and it's still going strong and so very will could other planets....our definition of life much like our definition of intelligence is very limited.

When we say life what scientists mean is earth-life and when we say intelligence they mean 'human intelligence'. Now seriously... when you say it like that it sounds narrow doesn't it. It's like saying 'all numbers I've ever seen are divisible by two... thusly all numbers are divisible by two and anything that is not divisible by two is not a number'.

Secondly, no species remains the same long term, any species that does is pretty much an evolutionary failure and is doomed to extinction regardless of where it is. Humans aren't going to be around for ever... we will either die off, by replaced or undergo evolutionary changes over time to the point that our distant ancestors have as much to do with us as a house cat does to a lion, or as much as we do to a rhesus monkey.

Either way humans probably have another 100,000 years left tops.. I for one would like to think that we are paving wave for the true intergalactic badass since any living organism that replaces us will have to out-think, out-build, out-breed, out-kill and most importantly Out-crazy us. Think about that. I mean seriously think about it.

BigTuk:

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:

BigTuk:

Comparatively one could postulate that those that once held intelligent life died off because they blew all their resources on space travel instead of environmental sustainability.

As I said, we absolutely need to work on conservation until our technology can advance enough, but the primary point of the statement is that no planet can maintain a species forever.
Space is the only long term answer.

As for non-traditional movement. Yeah.. unless physics stops being what it is.. that's not gonna happen.

It's nonsensical to try and say something cannot happen at any point in time with knowledge based in a fixed period of time.
Human history is a litany of breakthroughs that people couldn't imagine or thought impossible. It may not happen within our lifetimes, out children's lifetimes or our great g
reat great grandchildren's lifetime, but it's naive to try and state that it can't ever happen.

How would you know I mean earth has had life for a couple 100 million years and it's still going strong and so very will could other planets....our definition of life much like our definition of intelligence is very limited.

I'll concede the point that we don't really have a benchmark of how long a planet can last, but two facts still need to be taken into account.

First, the period of time life has existed on Earth isn't really meaningful. Humans were the first species to truly use the resources of the planet and even then, only really significantly in the last few thousand years.

Second, the resources here are finite. Period. We will run out. When that happens, we can either go back to huts, or expand outward.

It's also a non-resource issue. Human beings explore. It's what we do. It's ingrained in us to want to seek the unknown and make it known. I'll be damned if we're going to stop with Earth.

Secondly, no species remains the same long term, any species that does is pretty much an evolutionary failure and is doomed to extinction regardless of where it is. Humans aren't going to be around for ever... we will either die off, by replaced or undergo evolutionary changes over time to the point that our distant ancestors have as much to do with us as a house cat does to a lion, or as much as we do to a rhesus monkey.

I think this is a fundamental difference in our views and what we're talking about.

I simply see "Humans" as us and anything we may eventually evolve into.

It's really just an issue of wording.

Either way humans probably have another 100,000 years left tops.. I for one would like to think that we are paving wave for the true intergalactic badass since any living organism that replaces us will have to out-think, out-build, out-breed, out-kill and most importantly Out-crazy us. Think about that. I mean seriously think about it.

That'd make for a pretty sweet fiction story, though I have a hard time seeing anything else evolving to intelligence with humanity's current grip on the planet.

Although it could be an end of human civilization type deal. Nuclear war maybe? I, for one, will welcome our new Super Mutant overlords.

LazyAza:
Be cool if I'm around long enough for this planet to be explored some day. Wonder if its yet another endless death ball of shit weather and toxic fumes and molten water or actually has some kind of atmosphere/land mass like earth or something.

Of course if such a planet existed and it even had foliage or lifeforms of some type, chances are they'd all be super hostile regardless of intelligence level to our very presence. And we humans certainly wouldn't be the friendly visitor types if we ever did find a habitable planet also.

being fair, we arent colonialist assholes anymore

Today, Mars. Tomorrow, the Kepler! Bwa ha ha ha haaa!!

I love science and all the neat things it can do for us.

KazeAizen:

Science article shows up.
Takes cheap swipe at creationists and by proxy religion.
Makes total sense because this is the internet and we have to constantly be assholes to those types of people at all times and let them know they aren't welcome here or on this planet.

You know, that would make more sense if you weren't doing exactly what you were accusing me of. Practice what you preach.

But I'll get to your strawman, why not. I don't care if they exist or what they believe, but I have had this argument rammed down my throat by creationists showing up on science articles to take "cheap swipes" at science and scientists. What you call a cheap swipe on my behalf is actually "honesty." I really want to see this argument justified given the circumstances and the potential circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything like : I think creationism is a valid ideology." I think it's stupid[1]. But that in no way translates to "you're not welcome here."

There are a lot of things I disagree with people on, even amongst my friends. I'm curious as to why you had to try and make this into something bigger than it actually was.

[1] which is not to say you have to be stupid to follow it, before anyone goes there

Great. Now, someone go back in time and kill Albert Einstein before he discovers that annoying Theory of Relativity that makes it impossible for us to go beyond the Speed of Light, making it feasible for us to go to this planet.

I mean... that's how it works, right?

... Right?

OK, in all seriousness, I'm under the belief that, at least some point in my life, we'll at least colonize some celestial body outside our own, so seeing us already discovering Earth-like planets is always interesting news. Here's hoping that we capitalize on this news sometime in even the distant future.

Zachary Amaranth:

KazeAizen:

Science article shows up.
Takes cheap swipe at creationists and by proxy religion.
Makes total sense because this is the internet and we have to constantly be assholes to those types of people at all times and let them know they aren't welcome here or on this planet.

You know, that would make more sense if you weren't doing exactly what you were accusing me of. Practice what you preach.

But I'll get to your strawman, why not. I don't care if they exist or what they believe, but I have had this argument rammed down my throat by creationists showing up on science articles to take "cheap swipes" at science and scientists. What you call a cheap swipe on my behalf is actually "honesty." I really want to see this argument justified given the circumstances and the potential circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything like : I think creationism is a valid ideology." I think it's stupid[1]. But that in no way translates to "you're not welcome here."

There are a lot of things I disagree with people on, even amongst my friends. I'm curious as to why you had to try and make this into something bigger than it actually was.

When someone says "we are special snowflakes." when talking about people that believe in the creation you cannot tell me that doesn't sound like a bit of an asshole comment if you actually do believe in it. I've seen so much of it I'm sick to freaking death of what appears to be almost everyone taking almost any chance they get to find a way to insult and or otherwise find excuses to show that they are "smarter" than us by going "Look here! Is this in your precious book? This science proves your fairy tale is bullshit. Take that."

From what I've seen anyone on the web that takes any kind of shot at religion and or creationism imply that those kinds of people are stupid bone headed monkeys and are not welcome on the web. I've been there and done that dance so many times. I should've practice what I preach and I am sorry. I let my emotions get the best of me this time. Still one thing I don't understand what exactly did you mean by "special snowflake"? Creationists believe that this is the only habitable planet and can be the only one or something?

[1] which is not to say you have to be stupid to follow it, before anyone goes there

NuclearKangaroo:

being fair, we arent colonialist assholes anymore

Only because we ran out of stuff to colonize.

MXRom:

NuclearKangaroo:

being fair, we arent colonialist assholes anymore

Only because we ran out of stuff to colonize.

theres the moon, and we made it illegal to claim it as territory of any country

KazeAizen:

Zachary Amaranth:

KazeAizen:

Science article shows up.
Takes cheap swipe at creationists and by proxy religion.
Makes total sense because this is the internet and we have to constantly be assholes to those types of people at all times and let them know they aren't welcome here or on this planet.

You know, that would make more sense if you weren't doing exactly what you were accusing me of. Practice what you preach.

But I'll get to your strawman, why not. I don't care if they exist or what they believe, but I have had this argument rammed down my throat by creationists showing up on science articles to take "cheap swipes" at science and scientists. What you call a cheap swipe on my behalf is actually "honesty." I really want to see this argument justified given the circumstances and the potential circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything like : I think creationism is a valid ideology." I think it's stupid[1]. But that in no way translates to "you're not welcome here."

There are a lot of things I disagree with people on, even amongst my friends. I'm curious as to why you had to try and make this into something bigger than it actually was.

When someone says "we are special snowflakes." when talking about people that believe in the creation you cannot tell me that doesn't sound like a bit of an asshole comment if you actually do believe in it. I've seen so much of it I'm sick to freaking death of what appears to be almost everyone taking almost any chance they get to find a way to insult and or otherwise find excuses to show that they are "smarter" than us by going "Look here! Is this in your precious book? This science proves your fairy tale is bullshit. Take that."

From what I've seen anyone on the web that takes any kind of shot at religion and or creationism imply that those kinds of people are stupid bone headed monkeys and are not welcome on the web. I've been there and done that dance so many times. I should've practice what I preach and I am sorry. I let my emotions get the best of me this time. Still one thing I don't understand what exactly did you mean by "special snowflake"? Creationists believe that this is the only habitable planet and can be the only one or something?

There referring to young earth creationists, I.e. the loonies who believe the earth is only 4 thousand years old. And people who put space travel as a worthless feat.

In short the crazy people who lie or are stupid. In which it is justified to insult them I think. It we were talking about the more sane religious folk you probably have a point. But we are talking about the people who are considered by most to be crazy.

[1] which is not to say you have to be stupid to follow it, before anyone goes there

NuclearKangaroo:

MXRom:

NuclearKangaroo:

being fair, we arent colonialist assholes anymore

Only because we ran out of stuff to colonize.

theres the moon, and we made it illegal to claim it as territory of any country

That's because there is no reason to be on the moon except to make some giant superweapon.

MXRom:

NuclearKangaroo:

MXRom:

Only because we ran out of stuff to colonize.

theres the moon, and we made it illegal to claim it as territory of any country

That's because there is no reason to be on the moon except to make some giant superweapon.

and the fact it was made illegal during the cold war should speak by itself

Orks da best:

KazeAizen:

Zachary Amaranth:

You know, that would make more sense if you weren't doing exactly what you were accusing me of. Practice what you preach.

But I'll get to your strawman, why not. I don't care if they exist or what they believe, but I have had this argument rammed down my throat by creationists showing up on science articles to take "cheap swipes" at science and scientists. What you call a cheap swipe on my behalf is actually "honesty." I really want to see this argument justified given the circumstances and the potential circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything like : I think creationism is a valid ideology." I think it's stupid[1]. But that in no way translates to "you're not welcome here."

There are a lot of things I disagree with people on, even amongst my friends. I'm curious as to why you had to try and make this into something bigger than it actually was.

When someone says "we are special snowflakes." when talking about people that believe in the creation you cannot tell me that doesn't sound like a bit of an asshole comment if you actually do believe in it. I've seen so much of it I'm sick to freaking death of what appears to be almost everyone taking almost any chance they get to find a way to insult and or otherwise find excuses to show that they are "smarter" than us by going "Look here! Is this in your precious book? This science proves your fairy tale is bullshit. Take that."

From what I've seen anyone on the web that takes any kind of shot at religion and or creationism imply that those kinds of people are stupid bone headed monkeys and are not welcome on the web. I've been there and done that dance so many times. I should've practice what I preach and I am sorry. I let my emotions get the best of me this time. Still one thing I don't understand what exactly did you mean by "special snowflake"? Creationists believe that this is the only habitable planet and can be the only one or something?

There referring to young earth creationists, I.e. the loonies who believe the earth is only 4 thousand years old. And people who put space travel as a worthless feat.

In short the crazy people who lie or are stupid. In which it is justified to insult them I think. It we were talking about the more sane religious folk you probably have a point. But we are talking about the people who are considered by most to be crazy.

And I do consider those kind of people to be crazy so you do have a point. Getting lumped in with them never ever ever feels good. It just baffles me that some people think that way. My mom is pretty dang religious but even she's willing to admit that yeah the Earth is billions of years old. Heck I think my whole family have all reached the point where "the Creation" and "The Big Bang" are one and the same. God created the Earth in 6 days and on the 7th he rested. A day to a God is probably not exactly going to be a day to us pathetic humans eh?

Its all just a nasty cycle. Bible literalists and loonies spout off their nonsense on TV and the radio. Several people, mostly atheists(not judging anyone), come on the net to poke fun at them and then kind of poke fun at the entire group as a whole believing we are all just as insane, immoral, and corrupt as can be when that's just not true. Then I show up and try to defend, sometimes badly like I did this time, and I'm not respected or even seen as worth anyone's time. I just want this dance to end one day.:(

[1] which is not to say you have to be stupid to follow it, before anyone goes there

BigTuk:

How would you know I mean earth has had life for a couple 100 million years and it's still going strong and so very will could other planets....our definition of life much like our definition of intelligence is very limited.

100 million, 200, 300, 400... is not forever. If we want to outlive earth, space is the only answer. and even that is not the answer. entropy will blow out even that, no matter what form of evolution life takes. the only solution that is "Forever sustainable" is reversing entropy.

KazeAizen:

When someone says "we are special snowflakes." when talking about people that believe in the creation you cannot tell me that doesn't sound like a bit of an asshole comment if you actually do believe in it.

I'm not really concerned with what a creationist finds to be an asshole comment. I've seen them take great offense at the notion that we are related to apes (which we are, since we're by definition apes and we are related to other humans). Trying to work around what might offend a given creationist is pointless.

I once offended someone by saying that homosexuals are unlike pedophiles because as a pedophile they felt they were being unfairly derided. I didn't even say that pedophilia was bad in my statement. All I said was that it was different[1]. I've learned that people will take umbrage no matter how nice you are. While I'm not going to specifically be hostile to anyone, nor do I tailor my opinion to the notion others "might" be offended.

However, the argument that we are alone in the universe is a special snowflake argument, literally that we are special and unique in the universe because God loves us/goddidit. Which doesn't even address all creationists, but specifically those who believe in the special snowflake hypothesis. This is completely germane, for the record.

Also, I'm now curious. I have seen the term "special ickle snowflake" applied to feminists and gays on this site routinely over the last month. Where are you when that happens? Or is it different? If so, why is it different? I would think it'd be worse. "ickle" is baby talk, used specifically derisively. I'm yet to see you respond to one of them.

I've seen so much of it I'm sick to freaking death of what appears to be almost everyone taking almost any chance they get to find a way to insult and or otherwise find excuses to show that they are "smarter" than us by going "Look here! Is this in your precious book? This science proves your fairy tale is bullshit. Take that."

Then stop inferring that.

I've been on rants recently on YouTube over the utterly dickish way atheists handle creationists. Several of the notable atheists on YouTube demonstrate that lack of a belief in God can be shared by the stupid as well as the smart. However, I also get where they're coming from: when creationists attack science, they routinely do it from a place that is either dishonest or ignorant. When they attack evolution, they frequently misrepresent it. When they calculate the probability of life emerging, they pull figures from dark places. It's easy to feel smart when someone proudly takes a stance that appears to be ignorance.

However, as I recently said in response to a YouTube video, "just because you're correct doesn't mean you're not a dick."

In fact, for a little more clarity on the subject, allow me to quote a question I recently posed to an atheist on YouTube for one of his Q&A vids:

I saw Matt Dillahunty talking about whether there are atheists who do more harm than good, and he took a stance to the effect of "it takes all kinds." Ideally, that would be great, but we're not in an ideal world. Ultimately, unfair as it is, minority groups tend to be judged by the worst of them--Muslims by terrorists, blacks by violent criminals, and atheists by utter jerks. These are the people I think tend to be remembered when the average person thinks about atheists. It's been said many times about minorities of any stripe: we have to be better.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on the subject.

This isn't exactly the same topic, but it's close enough that it should illustrate my feelings on the matter.

But again, I do draw a distinction between "not being a dick" and "saying things which might potentially offend." Because I can do the former, but the latter is often difficult to predict.

From what I've seen anyone on the web that takes any kind of shot at religion and or creationism imply that those kinds of people are stupid bone headed monkeys and are not welcome on the web.

On the contrary. I want them on the web. They might learn something. Like the actual, non-Ray-Comfort definition of evolution.

Hell, this is one of the reasons I'd like to see their responses to the discovery of life on another planet. To my knowledge, there are three outcomes. The first is that they could ignore it. The second is they merely adapt their claims. But the third....The third is that they actually get exposed to a bit of evidence contrary to their claims. The internet has the potential to be an echo chamber, but I've watched people learn once they get exposed to the greater environment. A lot of people simply do not find themselves challenged, and thus have no grounds to grow or learn.

And to be honest, I'd really like to see YEC die out. I don't care if people believe in God, but YECs are the ones who are promoting that we get rid of our scientific literacy (for the most part). Christians still make up like 70% of scientists (though that number goes down in some fields); Christians are not the problem. Even believing in a Creator God isn't in itself a problem. The idea that the Earth was created six thousand years ago, evolution is a lie, and anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong? That's harmful. Especially if they want it taught in schools. To borrow from Bill Nye, we need scientifically literate people. They make all the cool stuff. Evolution is important to medicine and biology, exploration of space (and we've barely scratched the surface) has given us all sorts of technology, and even understanding the earth is not flat has benefited anyone who's ever used GPS.

Creationists believe that this is the only habitable planet and can be the only one or something?

Some creationists do. I can't speak for all, but there is a common thread that we are alone in the universe because God made this one special place for us. Often this is accompanied by the aforementioned calculations of the rarity of life, which demonstrate a failure to understand probability but also are a bit inane since we have no numbers to use for the calculation. Well, we have A number: the number of known planets with life on them. But that's like calculating the probability of a lottery without knowing how many numbers there are to pick from, how many of those numbers are can be picked on a ticket, etc.

The arguments can be succinctly summed up as "we are alone in the universe, therefore God," or "the odds against us existing are phenomenal, therefore God." Both of which could be altered if we determine this other planet has the capacity to have life. And as long as we have people trying to teach creationism (and specifically, young earth creationism) in school and attacking scientific principles, this is a germane issue. If we revised everything in our scientific understanding because of what contradicts the Bible, we wouldn't even bother with deep space, because nothing more than six thousand light-years is real, anyway. That's a simplistic version of the argument, and doesn't reflect every creationist view[2], but still. It'd be hard, since there are various beliefs as to why the earth is young (or at least, various arguments).

[1] I take issue with anyone who molests kids, but I didn't say anything of the sort in that statement
[2] for example, the belief that the universe was created with age

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here