Skip to comments.
Are We A Privileged Planet? - (are we "alone" among billions of galaxies, stars & planets?)
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE ONLINE.COM ^
| JUNE 10, 2005
| WILLIAM TUCKER
Posted on 06/10/2005 8:04:42 PM PDT by CHARLITE
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-109 next last
1
posted on
06/10/2005 8:04:43 PM PDT
by
CHARLITE
To: CHARLITE
2
posted on
06/10/2005 8:06:18 PM PDT
by
Archon of the East
("universal executive power of the law of nature")
To: knews_hound; little jeremiah; Evolution
For your interest.
Char :)
3
posted on
06/10/2005 8:06:57 PM PDT
by
CHARLITE
(I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
To: CHARLITE
Are We A Privileged Planet? Nahh... we just have a shitty little test sample.
To: CHARLITE
*cough* most galaxies have between 100 million and 400 billion stars.
Not 100,000 to 1 million.
5
posted on
06/10/2005 8:11:19 PM PDT
by
Crazieman
(If Con is the opposite of Pro, what is the opposite of Progress?)
To: CHARLITE
6
posted on
06/10/2005 8:15:49 PM PDT
by
null and void
(Oh what a tag lined web we weave...)
To: bikepacker67
Maybe you where, but as for me and mine, we where made in the image of God.
7
posted on
06/10/2005 8:17:48 PM PDT
by
champisme
(The more I know, the less I understand.)
To: CHARLITE
Within a week, the Smithsonian had yielded to liberal opinion. Begone Smithsonian. I never knew you.
8
posted on
06/10/2005 8:18:39 PM PDT
by
Luke
(CPO, USCG (Ret))
To: CHARLITE
This is pretty funny:
We know there are billions of galaxies, each of them containing somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 stars. (The Spectator made a telling typographical error when it said there are 1022 visible stars. They meant to say 1022.)
CHARLITE, the second "1022" should look like this: "1022". But what's funny is the egregious order of magnitude error that the writer, Tucker, makes. In fact, a galaxy contains, on average, something like 100 billion stars, not 100,000 or 1,000,000. So, in trying to correct the American Spectator, Tucker makes a bigger error.
As I said, pretty funny.
10
posted on
06/10/2005 8:19:33 PM PDT
by
Aetius
To: CHARLITE
Personally, I prefer the explanation offered in the Book of Job. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? The ways of God are still more mysterious than any of us can comprehend.
Funny he accepts what God says in the book of Job but totally dismisses what God says in the book of Genesis...a pick & choose kind of guy.
To: CHARLITE
Instead, ice floats. Why? There doesnt seem to be any real explanation.Oh, that's easy. There's no such thing as gravity. We all know the Earth sucks to hold things down, ice just isn't as sticky.
12
posted on
06/10/2005 8:25:50 PM PDT
by
quantim
(Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
To: snarks_when_bored
On the original page, he
does type it correctly. It simply didn't translate when I copied it onto the posting form. Perhaps there is a way to write the small "22" (22nd power), but I don't have that capability, and I didn't see that it failed to copy correctly, but if you go to the page, using the link, you will see that he has it right. (Fourth paragraph down the page)
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18579/article_detail.asp
Char :)
13
posted on
06/10/2005 8:27:25 PM PDT
by
CHARLITE
(I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
To: CHARLITE
Yes, I knew that the 22nd power of 10 was correctly represented in the version of the article at the site. That's why I addressed the superscript remark to you (not a criticism, just pointing it out). Keep up your good posting work!
To: CHARLITE
<> May I, personally, prefer Native American legends? I mean, may I prefer them over biblical legends? Is this allowed when creationists take charge of all government and police powers?
15
posted on
06/10/2005 8:33:17 PM PDT
by
thomaswest
(We are all for God. Who claims to know may be questioned.)
To: quantim
I wonder ? if you took 1 oz of water put it in a cup ( first weigh the cup ) and took the same amount of water ( 1 oz ) and froze it, and weigh the froze water, would both be the same weight ? or would the froze water of the same amount ( 1 oz ) weigh less ?
16
posted on
06/10/2005 8:33:47 PM PDT
by
Prophet in the wilderness
(PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
To: CHARLITE
Speaking of observation, I will believe in life elsewhere when I see it. But, IAC, how likely is it on a plant unlike earth in a solar system unlike Sol's in a Galaxy unlike the Milky Way?
17
posted on
06/10/2005 8:37:14 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
(chirho)
To: thomaswest
There is hardly a Native American legend that is not known through the writings of white men, that is through a Christian prism.
18
posted on
06/10/2005 8:39:04 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
(chirho)
To: CHARLITE
We know that given an earth like planet, with a sun like star and a moon like moon, that it is reasonable to guess that it takes over 4 billion years for technologically capable life to form.
We know the dinosaurs had 200 million years to develope technology and they failed.
We know that oceans must fall within a certain salinity and ph levels for complex life to form.
My guess is that in our galaxy, we stand a good chance of being alone and unique.
19
posted on
06/10/2005 8:40:30 PM PDT
by
staytrue
To: Prophet in the wilderness
Water expands as it freezes, forming a crystal structure.
20
posted on
06/10/2005 8:40:57 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
(chirho)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-109 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson