Silvestru

Hmm I get that but Mars has a Liquid core. Does it have to do anything with it's rotation speed as well? Update: I found some information regarding the Magnetic fields of our Solar system planets. Mercury has a magnetic field. It's not super strong (possibly because it rotates fairly slowly), but it does exist. Venus does not have a magnetic field. We're fairly sure the core is liquid metal, so for some time scientists believe it lacked a magnetic field because it rotated too slowly. It now seems to be the case that because its interior has such an even temperature throughout, there's little to no convection going on in the core. Earth has a magnetic field. In fact it's very strong for our size, possibly because we rotate at a decent rate, and there's a strong thermal gradient between the center and outer edge of the core. Mars does not have a magnetic field. It almost certainly did once - we still see crustal remnants of this ancient field in some rocks - but then its liquid metallic core cooled and solidified. Jupiter has a magnetic field. It's incredibly strong - much stronger than any other planet. This is probably because about ~70% of the radius is filled with liquid metallic hydrogen, and the planet rotates very quickly. Saturn has a magnetic field. Similar to Jupiter, Saturn's interior is filled with liquid metallic hydrogen (although not quite as much), and rotates quickly. Curiously, unlike any other planet in our solar system, its magnetic axis and rotation axis are almost perfectly aligned...we don't know why. Uranus has a magnetic field. This is a bit odd, since Uranus is not large enough to have the pressures required for metallic hydrogen. We currently believe this is because there is an "ionic ocean" beneath the atmosphere. Essentially this is a mix of water, ammonia, ammonia hydrosulfide, etc. Technically you do not need to have a rotating, liquid metal to generate a magnetic field - just a rotating, electrically conductive fluid. Neptune has a magnetic field. Similar to Uranus, most likely caused by a deep ionic ocean. Now my mind is going to places like is there any way of reintroducing a magnetic field to a planet? Is it possible to increase a planets core temperature without sabotaging surface conditions?

I was recently reading about Terra-forming Mars and possible colonization. I saw that a big problem with this is that Mars does not have a magnetic field which makes dangerous radiation reach the surface. Why do some planets have a magnetic field and some don't? I found this theory as a reference but there are smaller planets than Mars that do have a magnetic field so it does not hold up. http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm

I feel the same about words like Assertive and Buttons. Just foul...

"In medieval times, no one understood how planets and stars could move in their orbits, so angels were thought to guide them in paths along crystal spheres circling the earth. But with the work of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, the motion of the planets was explainable by the action of gravitation. Isaac Newton, even though he was the one who first discovered the law of gravitation and applied it to the motion of planets, still thought that a supernatural being was required to periodically adjust orbits. But later French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace showed that the instabilities that Newton worried about would iron themselves out." Do you see a pattern here? We introduce God whenever we fail to find a reasonable explanation or a logical answer. It's natural. (I am not dismissing the great work of the above scientists in any way shape or form) I am just trying to prove a point.

While that is certainly a possible case for some theories, the fact that you can fit all your scientific "knowledge" on a post stamp give you no right to say that. You are dismissing science because you do not understand it.

As predicted: Do you also believe in Alchemy? Mysticism? Because Newton sure did.

@Anonymous Participant Let's be honest. It's your very attitude that partially dismisses your argument. If I would ask members of this forum to provide evidence for a real science experiment or observation I would be provided with research papers and documentation and patience (as I experienced many times) not with: "trust me I know better" arguments for your ID beliefs.

*ignorance towards Can you give a few examples so we can give arguments against this statement please? I am sure you will say Newton and I will give you a God of the Gaps argument.

@Anonymous Participant I think your beliefs cannot survive a collision with real science. "If you have so little faith in your faith, so little belief in its strength and beauty and inner radiant truth that you don't believe it can deal with, oh, say the real world ... then exactly what the hell kind of religion are you following anyway?"

The Laryngeal nerve.

Can you please provide such evidence? I do not see it's evidence. Only if you are referring to the laws of nature as this intelligence.

So what do you understand by Intelligent Design then?

Give me the facts, man. Imagine I want to understand you and you need to show me why you believe what you believe. Stop arguing and give me facts to support your opinion.

I am definitely not a scientist. But I can make an accurate opinion for myself with the help of scientists. This is not base on trust or faith. Again, please provide some undeniable data and facts for your nonsensical assumptions and I will renounce my belief in science and join your creationist ID philistine club.

Actually Science teaches you to question everything and test for yourself what others claim so ... yeah.... There are many religious people in the science community. You need to show facts/data for your assumptions. That's why I am more inclined to believe hundreds of years of continuous research (despite being oppressed by religion) than assumptions made out of ignorance and fear. The way I see it, religion has had a very dismissive attitude towards science not the other way around.

Please learn to quote properly. I'm afraid someone will think that your comments in my post are mine. It claims no such thing. "The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state." - This is not my opinion. Please do some research. Plus you are contradicting yourself in this comment. "no nothing just all matter and energy contained within an infinitely tiny singularity" To be blunt, this forum is not for you.

That's such a nonsensical argument. I can make a "Intelligent Design" show about Smart Hippos that work in Graphic design and use that to dismiss your beliefs. Is the inflation of a balloon an explosion in your eyes? It's a less loose analogy of the Big Bang than an explosion in my opinion. We don't know what was before the Big Bang. No one Claims that. Can you show the source for this please? "All of our known physical laws including GR (which have so far assumed spacetime to be smooth and quite flat) breakdown at singularities due to the infinite curvature of spacetime. Hence, we say, "One second after the big bang..., An hour after the big bang..., etc." Because, we simply don't know what happened at the instant of big bang. If there were events before the big bang, we cannot use those events to determine what happened in its future, because our laws don't work at singularities." Can you provide your source please? The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state . How do you define a change of complexity in this case? Are we more complex if we increase are distance from each other and cool down?

All other things aside, who would you buy it from? After you would buy it, you could not do anything about it anyway. You can just think now that you own the sun if you want and it would have no impact on any of our lives unless you also invest in a Dyson Shell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

I think there is a lack of motivation to learn here, on Earth. As a dumb example, after the movie Top Gun, there was a huge influx of Americans trying to become fighter pilots. Or a better one after Sputnik, the Science and Science fiction sectors received a great increase in attention and motivated people to learn/read/

You are right Area 54. It was a bit too strong. How would you teach someone how to think? Can you describe this in a realistic way that could be implemented?

Not true, just one example, Dolphins but there are many more. BTW Dolphins also present homosexual behavior. Also not true. Please show a source for this. Here I presume you dropped something on your keyboard and accidentally pasted gibberish it in your post.

And is this creator sentient? Does she have a mind of her own, a conscience? Can you please describe her?

I have read about many religions and many great representatives of said religions. Funny enough the most inspirational religious figure I read about is a fictional(aren't they all?) character from a tabletop game called Warhammer 40.000. The Emperor of Mankind brought "a rationalist, atheistic faith in science and technological progress that rejected all the vestiges of human irrationality and superstition, including all forms of religious faith." (The Emperor Himself declared that Mankind would never be free to progress and advance to its destined position as the pre-eminent intelligent species in the Milky Way Galaxy until "the last stone from the last church was cast down onto the last priest." He had already purged ancient Terra of all its ancient religions and superstitious beliefs by the time the Great Crusade began, even going so far as to personally witness the destruction of the final church on Terra's ancient soil after engaging its resident holy man, Uriah Olathaire, in a battle of ideas, wit and dogma. The worship of the Emperor as a God was strictly forbidden under the doctrine of the Imperial Truthand and was considered a serious crime.) What is your opinion on this subject. Should belief in the irrational be encouraged or purged through education?

Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor — but they have few followers now. - Arthur C. Clarke Anonymous Participant, you seem like a rational person aside for the whole ID. Tell me, if you never heard of your God and just stumbled on an old dusty book called the "Bible" in a library and you read it. Would you go: wow that is a great science fiction collection of stories or would you make it your new religion and start preaching ID on a science forum?