Frank Robert
Well-Known Member
- Feb 18, 2021
- 2,389
- 1,169
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It was likely given consideration but didn't make the final cut.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It was likely given consideration but didn't make the final cut.I thought that the orbit of Pluto was not in the plane of the other planets? That being one of the main reasons.
Some way? Proof that science is all lo here, and, lo there,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.
Cosmology will outgrow that subset and become the dominant discipline.
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.
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.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.
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.
OK, I'll leave this to the Mandela effect. I remember Cosmology as the superset. But I might have been in an alternate universe.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.
I will raise you on your Bachelor degree.Okay then. Whatever makes you happy.
Literally, cosmology by definition can only be a subset of astronomy.
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.
How is this consistent with your sweeping statement?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.
Cosmology will outgrow that subset and become the dominant discipline.
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?
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.
perhaps that's what has happened, but there is no necessity for it.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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?