The tools of science

[super animator]

YEC is not based on science. But science can not prove YEC is wrong.

Science also can't disprove Magical pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. So what's your point?

 

[mindlight]

The point carries to the whole starlight issue. Neither side here can PROVE anything relating to deep space starlight travel with the current set of tools we have. What we can do is assess the plausibility of each others speculations. Right now I remain a YEC on this issue because the Bible gives me good reason and science no conclusive reason to doubt this. To be honest the Old Universe mainstream look more plausible regarding the science and their models more convincing but unlike with geocentricism or with flat earth it is not an overwhelming case nor do I really believe it can be made so until we are out there exploring the universe for ourselves.

As for fossils - we had that discussion earlier in the year and there are a different set of issues as my own thread on this explored ad nauseum. Again I walked away from that one thinking - this is not an overwhelming case and indeed there are a large number of holes here.

Also atheists really do need to come up with another analogy than the Flying Spaghetti Monster - he appears way to often in discussions I have and I have even heard Christians quoting him. Cannot you think of a new imaginary creature to disbelieve in - this ones gone off!

 

[Dark_Lite]

geocentricism

How do you know the Earth is not the center of the universe? Perhaps the galaxies aren't actually moving. Maybe they're just shrinking or changing the ways they emit light such that it appears they are moving away.

 

[mindlight]

How do you know the Earth is not the center of the universe? Perhaps the galaxies aren't actually moving. Maybe they're just shrinking or changing the ways they emit light such that it appears they are moving away.

For me geocentricism means that the sun goes round the earth which is an easily disprovable falsehood as the evidence is overwhelming for heliocentricism in our solar system from spacecraft and telescope observations and a basic understanding of gravitys relationship with the mass of an object. I suppose it is possible to envisage a sun orbiting a supersized planet somewhere else but do not know if this has ever been observed. I really do not know if our solar system is the centre of the physical universe. I believe a thing can be really important to God and even of highest significance in His creation without having to be the mathematically verifiable centre of the universe.

The positioning of the earth in space is an incredible miracle conduicive to life on this planet. In pratice it spins and tilts on an invisible axis which allows for the possibility of viable seasons and which maintans a viable global temperature. The moon exactly blots out the sun at a time of an eclipse. Jupiter acts as a great big comet and asteroid hoover protecting the earth from annihilation. If the crust of the earth were just 10 feet thicker then it would probably be too cold here for life.

 

[Dark_Lite]

telescope observations

basic understanding of gravitys relationship with the mass of an object.

I suppose it is possible to envisage a sun orbiting a supersized planet somewhere else but do not know if this has ever been observed.

I'm just going to leave these here for posterity...

I think they prove the point I am trying to make about your nature of light hypotheses. We cannot reproduce the solar system in the laboratory. We have observations of how light works, we have observations of the distant universe. We have a basic understanding of light's relationship with the physical universe. The same reasons with which you reject geocentrism here directly carries over to your nature of light hypotheses, and shows why their logic is flawed.

That's about all there is to it, really...

 

[mindlight]

I'm just going to leave these here for posterity...

I think they prove the point I am trying to make about your nature of light hypotheses. We cannot reproduce the solar system in the laboratory. We have observations of how light works, we have observations of the distant universe. We have a basic understanding of light's relationship with the physical universe. The same reasons with which you reject geocentrism here directly carries over to your nature of light hypotheses, and shows why their logic is flawed.

That's about all there is to it, really...

I disagree of course due to

1) The Solar system is more thoroughly and precisely observed than elsewhere and its observations can be trusted to a greater extent given the distances involved.
2) The visual observations are confirmed by robotic craft which were physically sent to many places in our solar system. So its not just sight and sound
3) All that we observe here is the environs of the same star. So my point about generalising from what we observe here remains.

 

[laconicstudent]

I disagree of course due to
1) The Solar system is more thoroughly and precisely observed than elsewhere and its observations can be trusted to a greater extent given the distances involved.

That's funny. Astronomers seem to think they can do just fine.

2) The visual observations are confirmed by robotic craft which were physically sent to many places in our solar system. So its not just sight and sound

Sight and sound aren't reliable now? You seem to be forgetting all that emission spectra and radiation and other readings as well. And generally, you don't need to send craft to confirm stuff that is patently obvious from simply observation.

Do you need to confirm through touch that your car is really there, and not a holographic trick? Do you trust sight and sound?

3) All that we observe here is the environs of the same star. So my point about generalising from what we observe here remains.

Please don't tell me your arguing for Dad's alternate state creepiness.

There is no reason we can't generalize certain things based on our stellar neighborhood, since all of space operates on the same physical laws and principles; and you'd still be underestimating the capabilities of modern astronomy.

 

[The Barbarian]

The positioning of the earth in space is an incredible miracle conduicive to life on this planet. In pratice it spins and tilts on an invisible axis which allows for the possibility of viable seasons and which maintans a viable global temperature.

I'd be interested in your argument that life would be impossible on Earth, if the Earth's tilt was not the way it is now. Show us.

The moon exactly blots out the sun at a time of an eclipse.

Not exactly, but pretty close. It was different in the past, and will be different in the future. How, exactly, would it rule out life here, if it was different?

Jupiter acts as a great big comet and asteroid hoover protecting the earth from annihilation.

And yet periodically, we take a big hit that causes widespread devastation. And life goes on.

If the crust of the earth were just 10 feet thicker then it would probably be too cold here for life.

The crust of the Earth varies from seven to forty kilometers in different places. No differences in warmth are obvious. Show us.

It appears that you've found an arrow sticking in a tree, and drawn a bull's-eye around it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

1) The Solar system is more thoroughly and precisely observed than elsewhere and its observations can be trusted to a greater extent given the distances involved.

How are you quantifying "more thoroughly and precisely observed?" We have sent craft to most of the celestial bodies but that's about it. How is exploring other celestial bodies going to tell us anything about how light travels?

We have many, many observations (keep in mind this does not include only pictures) from other celestial bodies outside our solar system in the form of visible light, radiation, etc.

2) The visual observations are confirmed by robotic craft which were physically sent to many places in our solar system. So its not just sight and sound

If visual observations from robotic craft are not "just sight and sound," then what exactly are they, may I ask?

3) All that we observe here is the environs of the same star. So my point about generalising from what we observe here remains.

And why wouldn't we generalize from there? It's a star. We know things about this star. There are other stars in the universe. We now know things about other stars. Do you assume that every human being's body has a completely different set of organs? Do you assume that water on Mars is different from water on Earth in its chemical structure? Do you assume the core of the Earth is not hot? After all, we have never been directly to the core of the Earth.

Why must we be physically present to test something? When we follow your logic to its inevitable end we must physically test each and every atom on this planet before we can say for certain that things work the way we know they work. All the evidence we have points to light traveling at a constant speed, and distances being large, and the universe being old.

There is no reason to believe otherwise, except to attempt to justify an old, outdated theory that has been superseded by new evidence.

 

[shernren]

But the way things appear is based on observations made by telescopes so imprecise that they cannot even see the Apollo landers on the moon, an object quite close to us.

NASA - LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites

Quite unfortunate timing.

Deep space remains a mystery and humility about what can be said is the better policy in my view. Too many scientists have spent too long chatting to their colleagues behind locked doors confirming their theories to each other but failing to realise the growing credibility gap between the degree of certainty with which they speak and the relative paucity of real evidence on this.

I accept the universe appears old but the appearance of a thing is not a proof of the thing itself and does not yet remotely challenge a YEC view. The universe we see through a telescope reveals patterns that can be consistently described but could still be misunderstood.

I'm not sure if your viewpoint is coherent. In the first paragraph I've quoted, you say that there is a credibility gap between cosmological theories and observational astronomical evidence. In the second paragraph you "accept that the universe appears old". Which is it?

Is there insufficient evidence for the age of the universe and do you have actual alternative evidence with which you can show that the accepted evidence is wrong?

Or is there actually sufficient evidence for the age of the universe ("it does appear old"), but you disregard the conclusion any way if not on a evidential basis?

In either case, I'm happy to accept that there could be non-scientific reasons to reject what is basically a scientifically ironclad conclusion.

 

[mindlight]

NASA - LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites

Quite unfortunate timing.

Ah so NASA did not fake the Apollo landings - conclusive evidence at last for all those doubters Actually I think photos taken from a couple of hundred miles up by robot craft prove my point. These images are not possible from the most powerfull telescopes on earth or earth orbit. So there is a considerable imprecision to the only real tool we have to observe the stars with- the telescope. We have more intimate knowledge and more precise imagery of the solar systems key tourist attractions only because we have had our robot ships taking holiday snaps for us over the last 40 years. We have nothing like this outside the solar system

I'm not sure if your viewpoint is coherent. In the first paragraph I've quoted, you say that there is a credibility gap between cosmological theories and observational astronomical evidence. In the second paragraph you "accept that the universe appears old". Which is it?

cosmological theories that rely on imprecise observation are incredible by definition. But the observations that we can make - blurry and far away as they are do appear to indicate the universe is old.

Is there insufficient evidence for the age of the universe and do you have actual alternative evidence with which you can show that the accepted evidence is wrong?

Or is there actually sufficient evidence for the age of the universe ("it does appear old"), but you disregard the conclusion any way if not on a evidential basis?

In either case, I'm happy to accept that there could be non-scientific reasons to reject what is basically a scientifically ironclad conclusion.

There are good non scientific reasons to reject a theory based on imprecise observations and guess work - yes. Plausibility levels are just not high enough to make the case overwhelming.

 

[mindlight]

That's funny. Astronomers seem to think they can do just fine.



Sight and sound aren't reliable now? You seem to be forgetting all that emission spectra and radiation and other readings as well. And generally, you don't need to send craft to confirm stuff that is patently obvious from simply observation.

Do you need to confirm through touch that your car is really there, and not a holographic trick? Do you trust sight and sound?



Please don't tell me your arguing for Dad's alternate state creepiness.

There is no reason we can't generalize certain things based on our stellar neighborhood, since all of space operates on the same physical laws and principles; and you'd still be underestimating the capabilities of modern astronomy.

You make astronoomy sound like the pitch I would expect from a car salesman. "Trust me this is the best theory on the market today. You will not get a better deal anywhere else."

"No thanks" I reply "I am still looking."

 

[mindlight]

How are you quantifying "more thoroughly and precisely observed?" We have sent craft to most of the celestial bodies but that's about it. How is exploring other celestial bodies going to tell us anything about how light travels?

We have many, many observations (keep in mind this does not include only pictures) from other celestial bodies outside our solar system in the form of visible light, radiation, etc.

If visual observations from robotic craft are not "just sight and sound," then what exactly are they, may I ask?

For one thing they are a lot more precise e.g. they can actually see the landers on the moon. Also didn't we land ships on Mars, Venus Titan et al and even take soil samples on two of those (little difficult on Venus I grant you)

And why wouldn't we generalize from there? It's a star. We know things about this star. There are other stars in the universe. We now know things about other stars. Do you assume that every human being's body has a completely different set of organs? Do you assume that water on Mars is different from water on Earth in its chemical structure? Do you assume the core of the Earth is not hot? After all, we have never been directly to the core of the Earth.

Why must we be physically present to test something? When we follow your logic to its inevitable end we must physically test each and every atom on this planet before we can say for certain that things work the way we know they work. All the evidence we have points to light traveling at a constant speed, and distances being large, and the universe being old.

There is no reason to believe otherwise, except to attempt to justify an old, outdated theory that has been superseded by new evidence.

This is a powerful argument and you might even be right but I do not find it an overwhelming case cause at the end of the day noone really knows if these assumptions are valid ones. However reasonable they sound they may be untrue. The discussions about dark matter and energy are a case in point. If 96% of whats out there does not have an electromagnetic signature then what really do we know about what is out there if we can only imprecisely observe the electromagnetic spectrum and generalise from our more initimate experience of it here on earth.

 

[Dark_Lite]

For one thing they are a lot more precise e.g. they can actually see the landers on the moon.

I think it's more of the fact that the space telescopes are designed specifically to look in to deep space and have much better things to be doing than looking at lunar landing sites. The Hubble is busy almost all the time. It's so busy that to get even a small amount of observation time, you have to go through several proposals.

Also didn't we land ships on Mars, Venus Titan et al and even take soil samples on two of those (little difficult on Venus I grant you)

Yes, we have landed on those. Not sure about Venus. But what does a soil sample have to do with the speed of light?

This is a powerful argument and you might even be right but I do not find it an overwhelming case cause at the end of the day noone really knows if these assumptions are valid ones. However reasonable they sound they may be untrue.

This is a very odd stance to adopt.

The discussions about dark matter and energy are a case in point. If 96% of whats out there does not have an electromagnetic signature then what really do we know about what is out there if we can only imprecisely observe the electromagnetic spectrum and generalise from our more initimate experience of it here on earth.

Dark matter and dark energy are very mysterious, and quite possibly not even what we think they are, but I still wonder why that would affect the way light travels in the interstellar medium if it permeates such a vast majority of the universe. If it is that plentiful, then it's probably in our solar system as well, leaving my original point strong.

 

[laconicstudent]

You make astronoomy sound like the pitch I would expect from a car salesman. "Trust me this is the best theory on the market today. You will not get a better deal anywhere else."

Except you can actually read their research, check their math for yourself.

And they aren't trying to sell you anything, they are telling you what the facts are based on observation and experimentation.

"No thanks" I reply "I am still looking."

Enjoy your arguments from personal incredulity.

 

[teddyv]

Ah so NASA did not fake the Apollo landings - conclusive evidence at last for all those doubters Actually I think photos taken from a couple of hundred miles up by robot craft prove my point. These images are not possible from the most powerfull telescopes on earth or earth orbit. So there is a considerable imprecision to the only real tool we have to observe the stars with- the telescope. We have more intimate knowledge and more precise imagery of the solar systems key tourist attractions only because we have had our robot ships taking holiday snaps for us over the last 40 years. We have nothing like this outside the solar system

The large earth-based telescopes and even the Hubble are not designed for detecting small objects on the moon or even looking at the major planets in the solar system. They are all about gathering the most light possible from extremely faint objects.