[NGTM-1R]

Yeah, I don't really see why they need to explain it.

Now if there was actually stuff living there, that might be an issue.

[SpardaSon21]

And going with Scotty's argument, just because the Bible said Man was made in God's image does not mean God could not have gotten inventive with other creations.

//Pedant

[iamzack]

Yeah, I don't really see why they need to explain it.

Now if there was actually stuff living there, that might be an issue.

Typically, they claim that the earth is so perfectly suited to life that it *must* be by design. If there are tons of other habitable planets... **** makes us so special?

Being pedantic for a moment, the Bible never said that the Earth was the only habitable planet God made.

Seems like kind of a big thing to leave out.

[General Battuta]

omg i'm dumb

[Scotty]

Seems like kind of a big thing to leave out.

Why would it have mattered to anyone living way back when?

[General Battuta]

lololololol, cancel

[Retsof]

did someone hack Batt's account?

[ssmit132]

Or is it idiottuta?

[iamzack]

Seems like kind of a big thing to leave out.

Why would it have mattered to anyone living way back when?

Same reasons it matters to us now?

[Dilmah G]

Guys, bashing a 2000 year old Religious document is just as productive as waving that 2000 year old document around as fact. Do we need to have this discussion here on the exoplanet thread?

[General Battuta]

did someone hack Batt's account?

No, I'm just very dumb.

[NGTM-1R]

Typically, they claim that the earth is so perfectly suited to life that it *must* be by design. If there are tons of other habitable planets... **** makes us so special?

That's not actually Biblical in any way, shape, or form, as I like to point out to them.

Also, we're still at one of...I think we've breached the 200-exoplanet mark now.

[Klaustrophobia]

Z do you HAVE to continually turn completely unrelated subjects into religion bashing?  really.  give it a rest PLEASE.

ontopic:  cool.  i'll have to see if my astrophysics professor has any thoughts. 

those percentages are probably a wee bit generous.  althought the point remains, the sheer number of stars would suggest there are other habitable/inhabited planets SOMEWHERE.  but unfortunately, unless warp drives/stargates ARE possible, two planetary civilizations will probably never meet (in person).

[karajorma]

Seriously? We're still talking habitable zones?

For ****'s sake!

[watsisname]

What's wrong with talking about habitable zones?  Sure, just because a planet is within the "habitable zone" doesn't mean it is actually habitable, nor does a planet being outside that zone make it necessarily uninhabitable.  But the zone does give us a good indication of whether or not the planet is able to sustain liquid water on the surface.

Also, we're still at one of...I think we've breached the 200-exoplanet mark now.

490 as of this writing.   And that's going to go up a lot with the newer Kepler data.

I also finally found the publication for this one. D:  Hurrrng

[Nuke]

im skeptical that a tidally locked planet would be habitable. it suggests that it lacks a molten core and thus magnetic field to protect it from the solar wind and cosmic rays. it would also play havok on the planets weather patterns. so i dont think this planet would be majorly habitable.

How are creationists going explain this away? "God made more planets because he knew we'd use this one up and would need a new home. Therefore environmentalists are evil!"

environmentalists are evil. we should be exploiting the earth. not protecting it. a harsher planet could only make better people. sooner we get off this rock the sooner we can bring democracy to other aliens (by nuking them). theology doesnt play into this at all (unless we seed the aliens with a fake religion in order to control them)

[watsisname]

im skeptical that a tidally locked planet would be habitable. it suggests that it lacks a molten core and thus magnetic field to protect it from the solar wind and cosmic rays.

Not at all.  The reason it is tidally locked is because it is close to its star, so the gravitational tidal forces are stronger -- strong enough to lock the rotation in the amount of time that the planet has existed.  It has nothing to do with it having a molten core or not.  The earth would be tidally locked, too, if it were closer to the sun.

Correction:  Sorry, I misread.  The planet would still have a molten core, but it probably wouldn't be rotating quickly enough (this planet rotates once in 37 days) for that core to produce a magnetic field, so you're right.  That said, habitability at this point depends mainly on whether or not this planet has an atmosphere to block the radiation.  Further study would be needed.

it would also play havok on the planets weather patterns. so i dont think this planet would be majorly habitable.

Nope, sorry.  This subject has been heavily researched.  I'll quote the publication I had just linked to.

Gliese 581g is likely to have evolved to a spin-synchronous configuration, leading to
one hemisphere of the planet lying in perpetual darkness. Joshi et al. (1997) presented
three-dimensional simulations of the atmospheres of synchronously rotating planets in the
habitable zones of M dwarfs and concluded that such tidally-locked planets can support
atmospheres over a wide range of conditions, and despite constraints involving stellar
activity, are very likely to remain viable candidates for habitability. Joshi (2003) presented
a more sophisticated three-dimensional global atmospheric circulation model that expanded
on the previous work of Joshi et al. (1997) and evaluated the climate of a spin-synchronous
planet orbiting an M dwarf star. The results of that study reinforced the conclusions of
Joshi et al. (1997) that synchronously rotating planets within the circumstellar habitable
zones of M dwarf stars should be habitable.

[Liberator]

Umm, doesn't the rotation of the Earth have a good deal to do with the magnetic field that protects us from the more violent of the suns foibles?

[General Battuta]

Umm, doesn't the rotation of the Earth have a good deal to do with the magnetic field that protects us from the more violent of the suns foibles?

Nope. It's the rotating core that does that. But then again, I don't know whether you'd still have a rotating core on a tidally locked planet (which still rotates, but just does so in phase with its orbit), so you may ultimately be right.

[iamzack]

Wasn't a religion bash, was a creationist bash. I really am very curious about what their explanation is going to be.