2 proofs that nature was designed

klutedavid said:

I thought that the orbit of Pluto was not in the plane of the other planets? That being one of the main reasons.

Click to expand...

It was likely given consideration but didn't make the final cut.

Speedwell said:

Klutedavid is not the only one. A number of creationists who come to this forum seem to believe that the change in Pluto's classification is significant in some way.

Click to expand...

Some way? Proof that science is all lo here, and, lo there,
with evolution next to fall!
Apparently its been all over the creationist sites,
it's a bit of a stretch to think so many thought of it as
a blow against science on their independent own.

If astronomers had just thought of referring to all
orbital bodies as "go aroundy things" there'd be no
need to change or make distinctions, and the niggling
nabobs would have no complaints.

klutedavid said:

Cosmology will outgrow that subset and become the dominant discipline.

Click to expand...

Okay then. Whatever makes you happy.

Literally, cosmology by definition can only be a subset of astronomy.

klutedavid said:

Cosmology deals with the physical situation that is the context in the large for human existence: the universe has such a nature that our life is possible. This means that although it is a physical science, it is of particular importance in terms of its implications for human life.

Click to expand...

Got a source for this?

Here's the definition I found:


And the woman who wrote that has a Bachelor's degree in astrophysics, so I think it's safe to say she knows a lot more about it than either you or me.

Kylie said:

Got a source for this?

Here's the definition I found:

Cosmology is a branch of astronomy that involves the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. According to NASA, the definition of cosmology is "the scientific study of the large scale properties of the universe as a whole." (Source)​

And the woman who wrote that has a Bachelor's degree in astrophysics, so I think it's safe to say she knows a lot more about it than either you or me.

Click to expand...

Well we are not of to a good start, but I agree with the contrary. Cosmology is a superset, not a subset. Astronomy in this case is where the X is when. Cosmology is the greater, such as how X came to be where it is. Klutes argument is poor, but you are making a mistake.

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

Well we are not of to a good start, but I agree with the contrary. Cosmology is a superset, not a subset. Astronomy in this case is where the X is when. Cosmology is the greater, such as how X came to be where it is. Klutes argument is poor, but you are making a mistake.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but when a person who has a degree in astrophysics disagrees with you, I'm gonna go with her, since it's a safe bet that she knows the subject a lot better than you.

Of course, if you have some qualifications that leave you in a better position to describe it accurately, please feel free to share them.

Astronomy is an umbrella term.
Astrophysics is a branch of astronomy while cosmology is a branch of astrophysics.

Just to confuse the issue a bit.
Astrophysics as the name implies is a branch of physics but cosmology is taught at post grad level either as a branch of applied mathematics or physics.

Kylie said:

Sorry, but when a person who has a degree in astrophysics disagrees with you, I'm gonna go with her, since it's a safe bet that she knows the subject a lot better than you.

Of course, if you have some qualifications that leave you in a better position to describe it accurately, please feel free to share them.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll leave this to the Mandela effect. I remember Cosmology as the superset. But I might have been in an alternate universe.

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

OK, I'll leave this to the Mandela effect. I remember Cosmology as the superset. But I might have been in an alternate universe.

Click to expand...

*Screams*

Kylie said:

Okay then. Whatever makes you happy.

Literally, cosmology by definition can only be a subset of astronomy.

Click to expand...

I will raise you on your Bachelor degree.

Paddy Alton, PhD in Astrophysics. (Quora)

Astronomy is vast in scope. It covers everything from observations of the Sun, planets, asteroids, comets etc, to exoplanet detections around nearby stars, to X-ray observations of gas falling into supermassive black holes millions of light-years distant, to studies of the cosmic microwave background (the ‘afterglow’ of the Big Bang. The photons we detect that comprise the CMB started their journey over 13 billion years ago).

Cosmology is, specifically, the study of the entire universe - the big picture of what it looks like - as opposed to the study of any individual object, such as a galaxy or planet. It can, therefore, be a subset of astronomy (e.g. the aforementioned CMB tells us a lot about the beginning of the early universe). However, modern cosmology makes use of simulations as well as observations - these are a useful tool, since they allow you to follow the evolution of the universe over time, whereas observations can only provide snapshots of particular bits of the universe at particular times). I argue that while these are definitely astrophysics (the wider field of which astronomy is a subset), they are not astronomy as such.

(This is why we generally call ourselves astrophysicists, rather than astronomers, even if — like me — we actually do use observations in our work)

So you may need a reset.

klutedavid said:

I will raise you on your Bachelor degree.

Paddy Alton, PhD in Astrophysics. (Quora)

Astronomy is vast in scope. It covers everything from observations of the Sun, planets, asteroids, comets etc, to exoplanet detections around nearby stars, to X-ray observations of gas falling into supermassive black holes millions of light-years distant, to studies of the cosmic microwave background (the ‘afterglow’ of the Big Bang. The photons we detect that comprise the CMB started their journey over 13 billion years ago).

Cosmology is, specifically, the study of the entire universe - the big picture of what it looks like - as opposed to the study of any individual object, such as a galaxy or planet. It can, therefore, be a subset of astronomy (e.g. the aforementioned CMB tells us a lot about the beginning of the early universe). However, modern cosmology makes use of simulations as well as observations - these are a useful tool, since they allow you to follow the evolution of the universe over time, whereas observations can only provide snapshots of particular bits of the universe at particular times). I argue that while these are definitely astrophysics (the wider field of which astronomy is a subset), they are not astronomy as such.

(This is why we generally call ourselves astrophysicists, rather than astronomers, even if — like me — we actually do use observations in our work)

So you may need a reset.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but he even admits that this is his own opinion, not something that is necessarily shared by the rest of the field. And he doesn't even seem to be entirely convinced, since he himself says, "It can, therefore, be a subset of astronomy..."

klutedavid said:

I will raise you on your Bachelor degree.

Paddy Alton, PhD in Astrophysics. (Quora)

Astronomy is vast in scope. It covers everything from observations of the Sun, planets, asteroids, comets etc, to exoplanet detections around nearby stars, to X-ray observations of gas falling into supermassive black holes millions of light-years distant, to studies of the cosmic microwave background (the ‘afterglow’ of the Big Bang. The photons we detect that comprise the CMB started their journey over 13 billion years ago).

Cosmology is, specifically, the study of the entire universe - the big picture of what it looks like - as opposed to the study of any individual object, such as a galaxy or planet. It can, therefore, be a subset of astronomy (e.g. the aforementioned CMB tells us a lot about the beginning of the early universe). However, modern cosmology makes use of simulations as well as observations - these are a useful tool, since they allow you to follow the evolution of the universe over time, whereas observations can only provide snapshots of particular bits of the universe at particular times). I argue that while these are definitely astrophysics (the wider field of which astronomy is a subset), they are not astronomy as such.

(This is why we generally call ourselves astrophysicists, rather than astronomers, even if — like me — we actually do use observations in our work)

So you may need a reset.

Click to expand...

How is this consistent with your sweeping statement?

Cosmology will outgrow that subset and become the dominant discipline.

Click to expand...

If you look a the history of astronomy and how it has branched out over the centuries into various disciplines you will find a very different picture.

First of all notice cosmology has been around for thousands of years before astrophysics evolved as a separate subject in the mid-19th century.
The cosmology of this early period is Babylonian and Greek cosmology which was based on naked eye observations as was positional astronomy from which it branched.
Observational cosmology has continued over the centuries with the telescope and astroimaging.
This alone tells you cosmology can never become a "dominant" discipline as it is a branch of observational astronomy.

Physical astronomy began with the invention of the telescope; astrophysics was born when astronomers were able to combine telescopes and spectroscopes.
The measurement of redshift in the spectra of galaxies led to the development of cosmological models to explain this measurement.
Cosmological models such as the Big Bang theory are a branch of astrophysics as opposed to observational cosmology.
Cosmological models are not shown as a branch of astrophysics in the illustration as astrophysics is itself a vast subject.
Perhaps it provides the reason behind Alton's comment since it is not possible to exclusively pigeon hole cosmological models to observational astronomy.

Equivocation Wars

I too have many Christian friends who align themselves with evolution, but they frequently mean something else - ie a God-directed evolutionary process whereby God gives it a kick every so often to keep it on course.

True evolution's hypothesis is for undirected change with no external agency. I suppose you could from the perspective of logic posit that God has been watching the footie these last 14 Billion years and has never had anything to do with the process; a sort of absenteeist version of theism. But my friends wouldn't buy into that either.

Kylie said:

Evolution is atheism in disguise?

How do you figure this? My husband is a Christian and he thinks evolution is the correct explanation.

Or do you think that anything other than a literal interpretation of the Bible is atheism?

Click to expand...

I too have many Christian friends who align themselves with evolution, but they frequently mean something else - ie a God-directed evolutionary process whereby God gives it a kick every so often to keep it on course.

True evolution's hypothesis is for undirected change with no external agency. I suppose you could from the perspective of logic posit that God has been watching the footie these last 14 Billion years and has never had anything to do with the process; a sort of absenteeist version of theism. But my friends wouldn't buy into that either.

May the facts be with you said:

I too have many Christian friends who align themselves with evolution, but they frequently mean something else - ie a God-directed evolutionary process whereby God gives it a kick every so often to keep it on course.

True evolution's hypothesis is for undirected change with no external agency. I suppose you could from the perspective of logic posit that God has been watching the footie these last 14 Billion years and has never had anything to do with the process; a sort of absenteeist version of theism. But my friends wouldn't buy into that either.

Click to expand...

My husband has a similar position. He thinks evolution is happening, and God steps in every now and then to give it a helping hand in the direction he wants it to go.

I asked him why, if God has a specific goal in mind, he didn't just create that end goal right at the start. He wasn't able to think of an answer to that.

duplicated so deleted

duplicated so deleted

May the facts be with you said:

I too have many Christian friends who align themselves with evolution, but they frequently mean something else - ie a God-directed evolutionary process whereby God gives it a kick every so often to keep it on course.

Click to expand...

perhaps that's what has happened, but there is no necessity for it.

True evolution's hypothesis is for undirected change with no external agency. I suppose you could from the perspective of logic posit that God has been watching the footie these last 14 Billion years and has never had anything to do with the process; a sort of absenteeist version of theism. But my friends wouldn't buy into that either.

Click to expand...

Yes, that really is kind of lame, but you have to be pretty ignorant of theology to fall for that as the only alternative to divine intervention on the material plane.