The Religion Discussion

[slimshiney]

[quote="Duane 3NE 2NR]
NO ONE here ever said science has proven everything - in fact the ones supporting science have bent he most open minded and the first to say they do not know.

hopefully one day soon science will reveal our great Creator to us.
Science has not been too kind to religions though.[/quote]

Duane..i respect your beliefs man....however,.......What happens if science doesn't man?

[bluefete]

bluefete, the young lady's name was Regan MacNeil, right? I've read about that exorcism as well.

Humes & Duane: Thanks but no thanks. That was not the lady's name.

I was quite young at the time but remember reading about it in a book. It was a psychological/psychiatric study and what made it interesting was that everyday a different "character" would manifest. I have been racking my brains to remember the name of the book.

Still can't.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sci_rel.htm

[bluefete]

bluefete,

I feel you is Pastor Cuffie

Boy, doh insult me, nah.

I does wuk with p-squared (and imagine I on a car forum).

[bluefete]

NO ONE here ever said science has proven everything - in fact the ones supporting science have bent he most open minded and the first to say they do not know.

hopefully one day soon science will reveal our great Creator to us.
Science has not been too kind to religions though.

Duane..i respect your beliefs man....however, i'm just asking.......What happens if science doesn't say so...?

Then according to science, there is no logical proof of God's existence, so he does not exist.

Matthew 13:13
: : : 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing
: : : see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand

: : : Jeremiah 5:21
: : : Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

: : : Isaiah 6:9-10
: : : And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not.
: : : Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

[ShIvAm]

dunno if nebody ever come across this email or if it here already but this is worth the read doh mind it long


God vs. Science



'Let me explain the problem science has with religion..' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly.. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him?
Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

Professor: 'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right.. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness?
Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

' yes..

'And is there such a thing as cold? '

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.
The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat , a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest –458 degrees.'

'Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him.
This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. ' Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science say s you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers.
'I guess you'll have to take them on faith..'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

NO ONE here ever said science has proven everything - in fact the ones supporting science have bent he most open minded and the first to say they do not know.

hopefully one day soon science will reveal our great Creator to us.
Science has not been too kind to religions though.

Duane..i respect your beliefs man....however,.......What happens if science doesn't man?

I didnt say it MUST

[Humes]

ShIvAm, that e-mail forward contains several key inaccuracies about science. The arguments about the observation of evolution and the existence of the lecturer's brain are plain wrong.
Don't use biased strawman arguments to learn about what the other side is saying.

And don't use e-mail forwards to learn about anything at all.

[Humes]

I was quite young at the time but remember reading about it in a book. It was a psychological/psychiatric study and what made it interesting was that everyday a different "character" would manifest. I have been racking my brains to remember the name of the book.

But if it was famous, you should be able to google even minor details about it and get a result.

That said, what you're describing there sounds just like the exorcism that inspired the MacNeil story. And that wasn't a study at all...it was a priest giving an account to ghosthunters of some exorcism he claimed he performed on a young boy over the course of a month.

Or probably it isn't that exorcism. Probably you're remembering something totally different. Probably you're lying (and I'm not saying you are). Probably you only saw or heard part of the original account and you filled in the blanks. Either way...how is that unverified info supposed to contribute to this debate?

Yuh see, as you and ShIvAm have shown over the course of a few posts, that's the problem with anecdotes...

[Humes]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sci_rel.htm

bluefete, have you actually read any of those essays, or did you just read the introduction and the title?

In the main, they really don't support your argument of science validating supernatural belief, yuh know. I've been reading that site for years.

Read them.

[bluefete]

I was quite young at the time but remember reading about it in a book. It was a psychological/psychiatric study and what made it interesting was that everyday a different "character" would manifest. I have been racking my brains to remember the name of the book.

But if it was famous, you should be able to google even minor details about it and get a result.

That said, what you're describing there sounds just like the exorcism that inspired the MacNeil story. And that wasn't a study at all...it was a priest giving an account to ghosthunters of some exorcism he claimed he performed on a young boy over the course of a month.

Or probably it isn't that exorcism. Probably you're remembering something totally different. Probably you're lying (and I'm not saying you are). Probably you only saw or heard part of the original account and you filled in the blanks. Either way...how is that unverified info supposed to contribute to this debate?

Yuh see, as you and ShIvAm have shown over the course of a few posts, that's the problem with anecdotes...

Humes: I have not ventured into the realm of probability in this thread. That said - Let me repeat - While I cannot remember the name of the book (I was very young), I clearly remember that it was a STUDY of a young girl with MPD. It was NOT about any exorcism. I also remember that the book had pictures which showed her expressions when different "alters' were present. There were at least six of them with names and when the researchers asked her about the one who was present yesterday, she would answer that that character did not want to come out today and was replaced by one with a totally different personality. Sorry, my friend but if I ever get close to the name of the book, I will post it.

But I was using it as an example to show that we have sanitised "demon possession" into Multiple Personality Disorder.

Next point - I have read the articles on the religion-science website and it makes for interesting juxtapositions. While, to you they seem to support the science argument, I will let other readers decide.

One thing is certain, science will NEVER be able to disprove the existence of God. DEATH will always make sure of that.

[Andy]

This topic is getting sick now............bluefete tried to do something good but as usual 2ner ppl could never give a straight answer.
Simple simple question........"your best encounter with God"

Keep your bullsheit Advise , theory or any other believe you may have..."who de firetruck cares"
And yuh wonder why Trinidad & Tobago is the way it is because of ppl like allyuh.

Please someone delete this trend please !!!!!

[Razkal]

i realize half the ppl in here, regardless of religious beliefs etc clearly have never flipped on the discovery channel or nat geo once in a while

how the hell bluefete asked : "who or what controls gravity?" like it supposed to stump everyone?

dawg, einstein explained gravity in his theory of general relativity, acting on inspiration from newton's work on gravity which quantified it but failed to explain how it was 'transmitted' across the cosmos and exactly how it is brought about...

i can't believe ppl still have these archaic questions plaguing them, when the answers (to some if not all) are quite readily available with a small trip to the library or google


geeeez...do you ppl really open the bible as the universal encyclopaedia britannica?


it now occurred to me why MG was laughing his ass off in here, think i'll join him in car park yes..

[3stagevtec]

i realize half the ppl in here, regardless of religious beliefs etc clearly have never flipped on the discovery channel or nat geo once in a while

how the hell bluefete asked : "who or what controls gravity?" like it supposed to stump everyone?

dawg, einstein explained gravity in his theory of general relativity, acting on inspiration from newton's work on gravity which quantified it but failed to explain how it was 'transmitted' across the cosmos and exactly how it is brought about...

i can't believe ppl still have these archaic questions plaguing them, when the answers (to some if not all) are quite readily available with a small trip to the library or google


geeeez...do you ppl really open the bible as the universal encyclopaedia britannica?


it now occurred to me why MG was laughing his ass off in here, think i'll join him in car park yes..

sig worthy material there!

[Razkal]

Arm yourself with knowledge..

clearly some ppl never got the memo dawg...

[slimshiney]

NO ONE here ever said science has proven everything - in fact the ones supporting science have bent he most open minded and the first to say they do not know.

hopefully one day soon science will reveal our great Creator to us.
Science has not been too kind to religions though.

Duane..i respect your beliefs man....however,.......What happens if science doesn't man?

I didnt say it MUST

I couldn't agree more with you. You didn't say it must....Reason being i highlighted "hopefully"...

I'm asking this to anyone..."What happens if science doesn't?"

[slimshiney]

i realize half the ppl in here, regardless of religious beliefs etc clearly have never flipped on the discovery channel or nat geo once in a while ..

C'mon Geo naked science and discovery ....is d reel flick...

Nevertheless ...i think it's time we drop this topic from the public..It will just keep cycling itself..... Humbly Respect each other for their choices and let's move on....

[Razkal]

^ why should the responsibility to bring truth to centuries of propaganda lie solely on the back of the science community?

more over, what if "science" happens to conclusively disprove the existence of a creator? how widely accepted do you think that will be? LOL..you think the muslims and hindus will convert all their mandirs and masjids to schools? what about the pope? the vatican city?

if science proves god exists conclusively, the scientific community will accept this in light of supporting evidence, no doubt. they have been proven wrong countless times and have always moved forward with new and correct data being brought to light.

i hardly think the religious are capable of such a feat.

[Andy]

Using science to prove God doesn't exist............i say is the Devils way of making man turn there back on God and not to believe in him.

1cent + 1 cent = 2 cents

[slimshiney]

^ why should the responsibility to bring truth to centuries of propaganda lie solely on the back of the science community?

Songs are meant to be sung even if it's not heard...after all... Shouldn't it be the obligation for a "truth" to prevail above any "lie"?........one love.

[Logic42]

i'm interested to here bluefete's views on THIS

[illumin@ti]

Dude, i just dont get you nah

i dont see why religious zealots always try to pound the bible into your head and beat you about the body with it every chance they get. this will go round and round and round. But let me ask you
bluefete, as u so readily spit out the quotes.... its all well and good you can find a verse or passage to cut / copy/ paste here, but ................
did GOD write the bible? or did man write it? (we know the answer)
Are you sure that the God of Christianity is the real god? or should we find salvation in Allah or Bhudda?
For all we know, we could be doing it all wrong all these years.
Why do Some Christians behave as though their faith has a monopoly on salvation?
Why.... if the word is fact according to you and you believe the word without question.... why are there so many different versions, alterations, reprints and contradictions in the word?
shouldnt 2+2=4 in any language?

Man, if you read the Bible and swallowed it all with an open mind, it would read like a disjointed novel about some gloriously fictitious happenings and wild exaggerations of a mans fanatical fanbase.. It looks like a bad gossip publication in the end.

I will say however, the idea of the bible wasnt a bad one, and i think that is where many missed the boat. IMO its a book with a set of stories and fables based on some events and happenings that was intended as a guide to live by. All about fostering good morals. Thats what it is. a book. a book about a man that lived a good life and still got the sh1tty end of the stick. He tried to help people, empathised with them, left a good example of how to stand up as a man and do the right thing and still they nailed his arse to the cross for it. Why? for challenging the establishment?

that doesnt quite cut it for me...

[ShIvAm]

huh Humes, well SOOOOOORRRRYYYYY!

i was neither for god nor science in that post. cause we jus have to face the fact that we would never fully understand anything!

[Razkal]

^ why should the responsibility to bring truth to centuries of propaganda lie solely on the back of the science community?

Songs are meant to be sung even if it's not heard...after all... Shouldn't it be the obligation for a "truth" to prevail above any "lie"?........one love.

whose obligation cupcake?

refer to illumin@ti's post before i get ban for being outta timing

[Humes]

did GOD write the bible? or did man write it? (we know the answer)
Are you sure that the God of Christianity is the real god? or should we find salvation in Allah or Bhudda?
For all we know, we could be doing it all wrong all these years.

One of the best points I've ever heard in this debate is that believers don't really have faith in God.

They have faith in man.

Faith that the men who supposedly received the divine messages and wrote religious texts got it right in the first place, didn't make anything up, hear anything wrong, change anything or misinterpret anything.

To believe in the Bible, you need to have faith in man first, not God.

[Razkal]

^i counter your need for faith in man with the name: "PATRICK MANNING", there we go, no more faith

[slimshiney]

^ why should the responsibility to bring truth to centuries of propaganda lie solely on the back of the science community?

Songs are meant to be sung even if it's not heard...after all... Shouldn't it be the obligation for a "truth" to prevail above any "lie"?........one love.

whose obligation cupcake?

refer to illumin@ti's post before i get ban for being outta timing

that's lil feminine to call a male if it is it's coming from same.......I doubt you're insulting...if so..it's ok..

I was simply referring.....Truth will prevail above a lie. Right? Those that know truth or should i say "perception of truth"...should "sing their songs"...and who ever hear and believe.....It's all well and fine....

it takes something to not be "outta timing".....at least there is some maturity even in wrong intepratation...good life...

[bluefete]

:lol:
Dude, i just dont get you nah

i dont see why religious zealots always try to pound the bible into your head and beat you about the body with it every chance they get. this will go round and round and round. But let me ask you
bluefete, as u so readily spit out the quotes.... its all well and good you can find a verse or passage to cut / copy/ paste here, but ................
did GOD write the bible? or did man write it? (we know the answer)
Are you sure that the God of Christianity is the real god? or should we find salvation in Allah or Bhudda?
For all we know, we could be doing it all wrong all these years.
Why do Some Christians behave as though their faith has a monopoly on salvation?
Why.... if the word is fact according to you and you believe the word without question.... why are there so many different versions, alterations, reprints and contradictions in the word?
shouldnt 2+2=4 in any language?

Man, if you read the Bible and swallowed it all with an open mind, it would read like a disjointed novel about some gloriously fictitious happenings and wild exaggerations of a mans fanatical fanbase.. It looks like a bad gossip publication in the end.

I will say however, the idea of the bible wasnt a bad one, and i think that is where many missed the boat. IMO its a book with a set of stories and fables based on some events and happenings that was intended as a guide to live by. All about fostering good morals. Thats what it is. a book. a book about a man that lived a good life and still got the sh1tty end of the stick. He tried to help people, empathised with them, left a good example of how to stand up as a man and do the right thing and still they nailed his arse to the cross for it. Why? for challenging the establishment?

that doesnt quite cut it for me...

You missed my earlier point. There is only one God. Some religions say there are different forms of God but it all comes back to one God.

[bluefete]

You know it is amazing how God is working through this thread. Even as we debate, he is throwing things out (realtime) in the natural world for us to see evidence of his existence.

THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT YOU DOUBTERS WANTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Humes, MGMan, Razkal & Company, this did not come from the Bible BUT it SUPPORTS the Bible's brief outline of the creation of life.


Take a read of these 2 articles which came out this week in the press.

Life was in the oceans 200m years before oxygen made air fit to breathe

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:30 PM on 14th September 2009


Life existed in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years while the Earth's air was not fit to breathe, research suggested today.

Plant-like bacteria evolved at least 200 million years before oxygen began to build up in the atmosphere, a study has shown.

During this period in its history, known as the Archaean, the Earth was covered by a poisonous smog of methane, ammonia and other toxic gases.


Life first appeared in our oceans during the Archean eon when the moon was far closer to Earth. The air was too toxic for life on land

Similar conditions exist today on Saturn's moon Titan. Life as we know it today could not have survived on the early Earth.

The new study involved an analysis of ancient preserved seabed rocks from South Africa dating back two to three billion years.

US scientists at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, found chemical evidence of nitrogen cycles that could not have taken place without the presence of free oxygen.

Nitrogen cycles relate to the way living things obtain and use nitrogen to produce complex organic molecules. Evidence of nitrogen cycles provides a 'fingerprint' of life.

The researchers, Dr Linda Godfrey and Dr Paul Falkowski, concluded that organisms which produced oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis must have evolved by around 2.5 billion years ago.

Oxygen did not begin to enrich the atmosphere until at least 200 million years later.

The scientists wrote in the journal Nature Geoscience: 'Nitrogen is a relatively inert molecule and has an atmospheric lifetime of the order of around one billion years. In contrast, oxygen.. is highly reactive and must be produced continuously by oxygenic photosynthesis.

'It is unlikely that the gas was present above trace levels in the atmosphere of the Earth during the first two billion years of the planet's history, but when oxygenic photosynthesis first arose on the Earth is not known with certainty."


The comments below have not been moderated.

Actually, this is a truthful article......and precisely in line with the very very brief outline of Creation as described in Genesis. - Art, Austin

Genesis 1 tells us that plants existed before the sun. How is this possible, when plants need sunlight for photosynthesis? It also has land creatures forming before sea creatures--completely opposite to all the evidence uncovered that life began in the seas. Gen. 2:4-7 says that God formed man from the dust BEFORE there were plants! V. 19 has God creating the animals AFTER he creates man. The Bible is unreliable and cannot be trusted. You would be better off with a REAL education instead of relying on ancient myths.

- Vivienne, Arizona, USA, 15/9/2009 22:22

I think the 2 comments above richly illustrate the trend of this thread. Vivienne has it wrong though. Genesis 1:3 shows that God created light before the sun. We do not know what kind of light this was but it sustained his creations until the 4th. day when he created the sun and the moon. On the 3rd. day he created the plants & so on. One day science will be able to explain how plants could survive in this environment prior to the arrival of the sun.

Her 2nd comment is not true. God made man last, after the earth was fully prepared for him.


My comment now - This article fully supports the following:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:20-21)

Note that the winged birds of the air were made AFTER life started in the oceans. All this happened on the 5th day of creation. Whether it represents 5 or 5,000 or 5 billion years, I do not know.

You see the Bible clearly states that life started in the ocean but it took scientists 2,000 years to verify it. HAH!!!!!!




Next article:

More proof we may not be alone: Astronomers confirm first planet made of rock discovered outside our solar system


By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 11:16 PM on 16th September 2009

Astronomers have found a rocky planet in a distant solar system, in a discovery that raises hopes of finding alien life.

Corot 7b is similar in size to Earth, but daytime temperatures of 1,500C mean it is far
too hot for anything to flourish there.

However the discovery suggests there may be planets with more hospitable conditions throughout the galaxy.

Corot 7b orbits a star 500 light years away in the constellation Monoceros.

It is thought to be covered in lava or boiling oceans.

Although scientists have found more than 330 planets outside our own solar system before - including 12 thought to be solid - this is the smallest, and the first one confirmed to be made of rock.

'This is a day we’ve been waiting for a long time,' said Sara Seager, an expert in distant planets at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

'It’s the first definitive rocky world beyond our solar system, and it’s opening a new gate for our research. We’re really, really excited about it.'

Scientists believe that if life begins on a planet, it needs a solid surface to rest on.

The new planet orbits relatively closely to its star - just 1.5million miles away. The Earth, in contrast, is around 93million miles from the Sun.

The researchers say its mass is five times that of the Earth.

'This is science at its thrilling and amazing best,' said Swiss astronomer Didier Queloz, the leader of the team that made the observations.

Most of the 'exoplanets' outside our own solar system are gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn. Only around a dozen rocky planets have been spotted.

However, this is the first time scientists have been able to get an accurate figure for an exoplanet's density - proof, they say, of a rocky planet.

To get their measurements, the astronomers used a high accuracy radial velocity planet searcher (HARPS) - which is a spectrograph attached to the European Southern Observatory's telescope at the La Silla observatory in Chile.

They used 70 hours of observations to measure its density.

'We basically live on a rock ourselves,' said co-discoverer Artie Hatzes, director of the Thuringer observatory in Germany. 'It's as close to something like the Earth that we've found so far. It's just a little too close to its sun.'

The planet - which was found earlier this year - is so close to the sun it completes one solar orbit in 20 hours. By comparison, Mercury - the closest planet to our sun - completes its year in 88 days.

'It's hot, they're calling it the lava planet,' Dr Hatzes said.

Corot 7b is too far away to see through conventional telescopes. Instead, astronomers worked out its mass, size and density by measuring the 'wobble' of its parent star caused by the planet's gravitational pull.

Details of the planet’s mass and density were announced at the European Planetary Science Congress in Barcelona, and will be published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.


Proof of life? An artist's rendition of Corot 7b, the first planet to be discovered outside our solar system that is made of rock. Scientists believe that for life to exist, it needs a solid surface to rest on

[dry]

You know it is amazing how God is working through this thread. Even as we debate, he is throwing things out (realtime) in the natural world for us to see evidence of his existence.

THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT YOU DOUBTERS WANTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Humes, MGMan, Razkal & Company, this did not come from the Bible BUT it SUPPORTS the Bible's brief outline of the creation of life.


.....

yup... fits like a glove

[Silvermike]

persons who believe in god did not acquire this belief based on logic, fact or anything close to what would be concidered reality. Its called faith.

Alast, you cannot motiavate someone to change there point of view based on logic etc. if it was not logic that brought them to their stance in the first place.

science and relgion are ying and yang. dont let tom cruise fool you. fact vs faith never wins. Agree to disagree.