‘Potentially Habitable’ Planet Discovered Orbiting Nearby Star

File under: Funding ploy...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-30/-potentially-habitable-planet-discovered-orbiting-nearby-star.html

--
Respectfully,

JD

Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine

Excellent Article on the "New Atheism"

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today's most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one's conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

full article here
--
Respectfully,

JD

Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine

Al Mohler on Stephen Hawkings

The God of the Bible is not merely a First Cause — He is the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of all that is, who rules the universe by His Word. Christians must recognize the "God of the gaps" as a false idol of theological surrender. Furthermore, Christians must also understand that any scientific admission of God as a possible First Cause without continuing rule over creation is no cause for celebration. The triune God cannot be reduced to a First Cause among other causes.

Full article here

Amazing insight into Stephen Hawkins - by his former wife

As Stephen became more famous, his associations changed to more and more eminent scientists, which Jane had to admit she did not find appealing. The contrast between her old friends and the world's leading scientists who became their friends (as Stephen became increasingly renowned in his field) was enormous. Their old friends were able to talk intelligently about many things and show a 'human interest in people and situations'. In contrast, as a whole, their new friends were 'a dry, obsessive bunch of boffins', little concerned with people, but rather very concerned with their personal scientific reputations. She adds, 'They were much more aggressively competitive than the relaxed, friendly relativists with whom we had associated in the past' (p. 296). Their old friends' dedication to science verged on the dilettante in comparison with the 'driving fanaticism' of their new friends (p. 296). Jane stresses that she concluded that

'Nature was powerless to influence intellectual beings who were governed by rational thought, [but] who could not recognize reality when it stood, bared before them, pleading for help. They appeared to jump to conclusions, which distorted the truth to make it fit their preconceptions' (p. 312).

Although many other women might have left Stephen because of his intolerable attitude toward her, and especially what she represented, she stuck by her husband through everything. It was he who left her for another woman. She tried in vain to reconcile with Stephen—his terms were, he would live at home with his family for part of the week, and the rest of the week he would live 'with his ladylove' (p. 574). This was unacceptable to Jane. His selfishness and hedonism had shown through again.

Article here

--
Respectfully,

JD

Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine

Symbaloo.com is a great link management site!

I like Symbaloo.com - iPod like interface to organize your bookmarks online - I even added a Reformed, etc webmix - give it a try!

Good article on Stephen Hawkins latest pronouncement

I will gladly listen to Stephen Hawking when he holds forth on matters of theoretical physics, but he’s as qualified to talk about philosophical and religious issues as any college freshman. There is a qualitative difference between the sciences, which speak of objects, forces, and phenomena within the observable universe, and philosophy or religion which speak of ultimate origins and final purposes. Science, as such, simply cannot adjudicate questions that lie outside of its proper purview—and this is precisely why scientists tend to make lots of silly statements when they attempt to philosophize.

article here