I'm quickly losing hope with this Congress, day 2 and we're already doing the present a bill partisan BS.

Gas giants usually occur outside the "Goldilocks" zone. So those moons would be ice cold. Ignoring that. You have a object that is not always being hit by the sun, as the moon would be going through the planet's shadow. And then, you have that moons tend to be tidally locked to the planet.

The post is certainly ironic given the first sentence...I'll give him that.

That's a pointless debate. Prove that life can exist there and maybe the debate is meaningful. Further, there's no sense in spending time exploring a gas giant over an earth like one for intelligent life. You go to the earth like planet and find no intelligent life (or life), oh well. But there's still a chance you could colonize it. The gas giant there's no second place for not finding life.

I'm confused how religion is to blame here? It seems, financial cost, will power, and a host of more basic/physical restrictions prevent this.

Just scooting this in here, Titan is a moon.

It's not an iron dense world, the magnetic field would be weak wouldn't it? Meaning that things are being inundated with too much solar radiation; preventing life. Or most importantly, human ability to colonize.

And what happens if there's a drop in lottery spending?

You're right that the scientific method is not moot when one is studying the issue. But that's not what's happening here. We're not sitting down with a computer, collecting or chunking raw data. We're debating an issue. It's not scientific, it's logical maybe, but not scientific.

I sincerely apologize for the confusion I seem to be giving you. But I was only commenting on the last bit of your comment involving your science professor. Your professor was right, science isn't meant to prove things. It's meant to say, here's what's happening. If what's happening doesn't match what you thought was going to, the next question is, why is this happening? Wash, rinse, repeat until you can form a hypothesis that will be correct. But science is not what's being done here.

The first option is always to break. Contrived example I think goes to you, lol.

Considering all the manner of crazy monsters that people thought existed in Europe prior to ever seeing giraffes, I'd say your biologist friend is either an anomaly or full of crap.

Osmosis Jones bro...

Why do you assume the ATF is against gun ownership?

Woah there skippy, I think you're overreacting. I'm not making an argument about whether more guns equals less violence. I'm merely pointing out that this is more akin to a debate scenario. First person merely has to present proof to support their claim, not prove the proof is proof. The person arguing against the claim must deconstruct their proof.

  You can't just say, well it's statistical data so you're probably wrong and then dismiss the claim. And it isn't a scientific hypothesis, so any definition of proof per scientific terminology is moot.

No, it's just the printing press was invented 300 years prior to them. And what Gutenberg's press did was enable the Bible to be produced in the vernacular for more people. Helping to cause the Protestant Reformation. It also enabled academics to print papers, etc. Leading to the scientific revolution and Enlightenment period.