Stars science say kicked out of galaxy actually coming in!

[dad]

10 October 2018 dad: Lies about stars, their formation and astronomy being religion.
This is a star. This is the scientific theory for the formation of stars. Astronomy is science, not religion.
Irrelevant to my post: 10 October 2018 dad: A "they were wrong" lie.
The lie was that astronomers were wrong when there was no statement anywhere that incoming hypervelocity stars were impossible and it is reasonable to expect them.

Believe your religion all you like. The basis for distance is simply not supportable.
No one says your religion can't suddenly change stories and invent new belief based scenarios as to why they were wrong.

 

[dgiharris]

Your headline is misleading and mischaracterises both the study and what the researchers are saying about their results.

THat is his super power. He loves to grab science articles, focus on one little "nugget" within the article that "seems" to contradict any scientific theory, then he uses distorted logic to twist said nugget into the smoking gun that proves science is not science -- that is, he desperately tries to equate science with religion. He loves to say that says requires faith just like religion requires faith.

After that false equivalency, he goes on to declare magnanimously that he has shown science to be a fraud...

And then he spouts something or another about him being smarter than the rest of us. The thread descends into those of us with scientific knowledge trying to educate him and point out the flaws in his premises, hypotheses, logic, etc... but to know avail. His brain is coated in bullet proof logic defying teflon-- any point we make bounces and slides right off and his underlying misunderstandings of science are unphased.

so sit back and enjoy the show

 

[RealityCheck01]

Believe your religion all you like. The basis for distance is simply not supportable.

16 October 2018 dad: A repeated astronomy is religion lie and "The basis for distance is simply not supportable" lie.
Astronomy is science. The cosmic distance latter is supported by basic geometry and science.
10 October 2018 dad: Lies about stars, their formation and astronomy being religion.

 

[dad]

16 October 2018 dad: A repeated astronomy is religion lie and "The basis for distance is simply not supportable" lie.
Astronomy is science. The cosmic distance latter is supported by basic geometry and science.
10 October 2018 dad: Lies about stars, their formation and astronomy being religion.

Geometry where imaginary lines have equal time and space. That is fablometry!

Religion.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Geometry where imaginary lines have equal time and space. That is fablometry!

Some irrelevant nonsense, dad.

This is astronomy

Astronomy (from Greek: ἀστρονομία) is a natural science that studies celestial objects and phenomena. It applies mathematics, physics, and chemistry, in an effort to explain the origin of those objects and phenomena and their evolution.

(my emphasis added)

Stating astronomy is a religion once is a bad error because children know that it is a science.. I corrected that error

This is a star. This is the scientific theory for the formation of stars. Astronomy is science, not religion.

Stating astronomy is a religion frequently after you know that it is science should turn an error into a lie.

 

[Dave-W]

My model of God being right is based on Jesus and all the wonderful things He does.

So what does you model of God tell you about those stars?

 

[dad]

So what does you model of God tell you about those stars?

It tells me Jesus made them. It tells me that the bible is right when it says the sun will go out as well as all the stars. Which tells me the models of science are wrong.

 

[Dave-W]

It tells me Jesus made them. It tells me that the bible is right when it says the sun will go out as well as all the stars. Which tells me the models of science are wrong.

OK. But are they in bound or out bound?

 

[dad]

OK. But are they in bound or out bound?

Apparently science interprets the red shifting to mean stars mostly are going out.

But if time did not exist out there as it does here the meaning of shifted light would change drastically.

Besides, we only see stars now, who knows if they were doing the same thing back near when they were made or not?

 

[Dave-W]

Apparently science interprets the red shifting to mean stars mostly are going out.

But if time did not exist out there as it does here the meaning of shifted light would change drastically.

Besides, we only see stars now, who knows if they were doing the same thing back near when they were made or not?

That does not answer the question.
If you do not know then say so.

 

[dad]

That does not answer the question.
If you do not know then say so.

Well, what do you mean by in or out bound?

 

[Dave-W]

Well, what do you mean by in or out bound?

Into the galaxy or out.

 

[dad]

That does not answer the question.
If you do not know then say so.

Well, you asked. If you can't be clear, who cares? Just admit it.

 

[dad]

Into the galaxy or out.

Doesn't the OP say both?

 

[Dave-W]

I was clear

 

[Dave-W]

Doesn't the OP say both?

That was the article you seem to be trying to discredit.

 

[dad]

That was the article you seem to be trying to discredit.

No. I don't really care what they say. The point is that they change their previous fable/story. Now they need to grasp at straws to explain the reason they were wrong. Ha.

 

[Dave-W]

No. I don't really care what they say.

Then why are you wasting your time in this thread??

 

[dad]

Then why are you wasting your time in this thread??

I do not find exposing fable mongers who create lies about creation to be a waste of time. It is actually funny, how absurdly wrong they tend to be.

If you cannot defend your beliefs what are you doing here?

 

[Dave-W]

If you cannot defend your beliefs what are you doing here

The truth does not need my help or defense.