[Rob Instigator]

so what? the fucker was reborn like it wasn't nothin'. How can you murder the undead? That bastard made his 12 butt buddies eat his blood and his flesh.

[!@#$%!]

so he's being recycled?

that's a fucking tough gig

[Rob Instigator]

we are all being recycled.

we are all actually being CYCLED.

someday in the hopefully distant future my molecules will be ingested by creatures who will then be ingested by other creatures who will then shit those molecules and those will be sucked up by plants which will be cooked for the Pope's dinner, and then the Pope will shit me out.

[!@#$%!]

well, not really, our selves aren't being recycled, it's just the carbon & other materials, but even that isn't permanently attached to us so it isn't "us". we're just a stopping station.

on the other hand. the one-and-only-son-of-god has to make appearances in billions and billions of words, and get sacrificed all over again, the poor fucker.

i don't envy him one bit. okay, he was with monica bellucci in a movie-- i do envy that-- a lot.

[Rob Instigator]

I want to be under Monica Belluci in a movie


who can say that our "selves" are not purely a result of the conglomeration of our molecules? No one.

[!@#$%!]

there are no individual molecules calling themselves rxtt and signing paintings, the self is an emergent system not the molecules themselves. so there is no other rxtt being reused elsewhere as a train conductor or soldier of fortune or chef, although his fart molecules may very well land on the pope's head (i actually like this pope a little bit, so i hope you ate something nice). the self is a mental fiction in a way, just like el hijo ungénito de dios padre (ja ja), but that self-fiction i've never seen recycled, except in a kieszlowski movie where monica bellucci unfortunately wasn't, although twins like to fuck with people pretending to be each other when they are bored.

[Rob Instigator]

you should see my electron shells

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

you should see my electron shells

the only concha i'll get close enough to inspect is monica bellucci's. she is our true goddess. praised be her holy grotto!

 

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

 

The analysis also identified 603 potential exoplanets, including 10 Earth-size candidates orbiting in a habitable zone.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sc...#axzz2jncZqBZB

A separate analysis by Borucki's Kepler team announced 833 new planetary candidates, bringing the total to 3,538.

All the rest (the billions mentioned) was speculation based around estimates on certain stars, and the study itself was sort of haphazard in its approach and methodology. I'll wait until they actually start counting these exoplanets rather than estimating their existance before I sip on the kool-aid err.. celebratory champagne

[Rob Instigator]

Planet of sound found on the Dennis Miller show http://youtu.be/SvKCJDUBE2w

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i many how many special sons of god each one contains.

 

[Rob Instigator]

Golden Record
http://goldenrecord.org/

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Ultimately, the authors of the Nature paper put the inner edge of the habitable zone – the edge closer to the sun – at 0.95 AU. The difference, 0.04 AU, doesn’t sound like much, but comes out to 3.7 million miles – and it gives Earth a decent amount of breathing room.
“This has strong implications for the possibility of liquid water existing on Venus early in its history, and extends the size of the habitable zone around other stars,” the Nature study authors wrote.
But it also means that the estimated 22 billion Earth-like planets around sun-like stars, based on a minimum distance from the sun of 0.5 AU, “could be too high by a factor of almost 2,” Kasting and Harman said.


http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...#ixzz2nOEz96Jt

Hmmm.. so one shakey paper published gets all kinds of international media attention pontificating about "billions" of exoplanets based on extremely limited data from a now non-functioning telescope, and lo-and-behold another paper disputes those findings...

[floatingslowly]

since the 60's, Venus, at 7.1(+) AU has been considered just inside the Goldilocks Zone by most scientists.

based upon solar flux and the luminosity of the stars which Exoplanents orbit, this can shrink to .5 AU.

not all suns are the same.

I believe that so-called "shakey paper" to be erroring too far on the side of caution.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Hmmm.. so one shakey paper published gets all kinds of international media attention pontificating about "billions" of exoplanets based on extremely limited data from a now non-functioning telescope, and lo-and-behold another paper disputes those findings...

what did you expect? science is one continuous testing and retesting and discussion--a neverending inquiry that never settles. isn't that fucking refreshing?

[Rob Instigator]

Alien Jesus made life for all.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Alien Jesus made life for all.

 

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

what did you expect? science is one continuous testing and retesting and discussion--a neverending inquiry that never settles. isn't that fucking refreshing?

 

Yes, precisely was my point initially weeks ago when so many posters here were going bat-shit about all these supposedly newly discovered planets, even while it was all pure speculation, estimates, and projections (which are subsequently being refuted by concurrent research)

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Yes, precisely was my point initially weeks ago when so many posters here were going bat-shit about all these supposedly newly discovered planets, even while it was all pure speculation, estimates, and projections (which are subsequently being refuted by concurrent research)

you remind me of those krazy kreationists who dismiss evolution because "it's just a theory"

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

you remind me of those krazy kreationists who dismiss evolution because "it's just a theory"

Methinks you're projecting too much of your internal reflections, believe it or not, in the Orthodox Church we fully accept the Big Bang Theory albeit in the context of God as the Creator of that process and potentially biological evolution as well, however and again, yes indeed please don't let hubris get ahead of yourself, these are in fact just theories and as you've mentioned, true science is to to be open-minded enough even to accept that theories change and evolve (pun intended) and are not static, concrete, or somehow Divinely indisputable....

I think sometimes to miss my point not noticing the forest for the trees, I am NOT anti-science, but sometimes "popular science" is well, scientifically inaccurate