What you aren't being told about astronomy

[Astrophile]

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER’S MOONS
Ganymede should have a magnetic field, but it doesn’t.

In fact Ganymede does have a magnetic field; its intrinsic magnetic moment is about 13 trillion T.m³. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_moon#Magnetosphere

 

[Astrophile]

Give your money to Playboy, right?

No. I use my money to buy real astronomy books.

 

[florida2]

In fact Ganymede does have a magnetic field; its intrinsic magnetic moment is about 13 trillion T.m³. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_moon#Magnetosphere

You mean to say that a creationist copy and pasted a large number of unevidenced claims and also failed to check their validity?

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

 

[Astrophile]

Not according to Spike's video. Yes, there are several theories, but they all have problems. The recession problem is just one of them. In a sentence, how to you answer that particular point?

The Moon's recession is due to transfer of angular momentum as a consequence of tidal friction in the Earth's seas.

 

[Astrophile]

It does in these astronomy videos. The point that Spike makes right at the beginning is that he is only using the term because secular astronomers often use it in that way (to mean change over time). He then provides some examples, which I quoted.

'Evolution is the wrong word here, but I think I know what you and Psarris mean by it. It might be better to say something like 'Astrophysicists say, etc.', or 'Scientists say, etc.'.

Notice how those who support secular views immediately pounced on this term and tried to ridicule Spike for not knowing what he is talking about. When that doesn't work, other accusations usually fly out, like "gish galloping" or accusing Spike of being unqualified (as I pointed out before, he doesn't have to be, because he uses material by experts in their respective fields and puts it all together in a way that anyone can understand).

Mr. Psarris does have to be qualified. Astronomy is a very large subject, which needs many years of study. People who try to talk about astronomy without a thorough education in it merely show off their own ignorance. This is particularly true of people who have an axe to grind, as Mr. Psarris does.

I find it incredible that it is postulated that only 4% of the universe is known, the rest being Dark this or Dark that and yet, based on that 4%, secular scientists can claim to have the truth about how the origin of the universe came about. In reality, they don't have any idea, just like they don't have any idea how the first life came about.

This is irrelevant. We are discussing anomalies in the solar system, not dark matter and dark energy or the origin of the universe. Stick to the point.

Since they have rejected God as a possible explanation, they just have ever more wild and speculative guesses to try to explain everything, "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth" as 2Ti 3:7 tells us.

You are quite right. I have rejected God as a possible explanation for physical phenomena, and have never regretted it; in many years of studying astronomy, I have yet to find a phenomenon that has failed to yield, at least in part, to natural explanation. In my experience, bringing in the supernatural merely leads to confusion.

 

[Gracchus]

Speciation beyond bacteria is a speculation, not an observed fact.

It has been observed in both plants and animals. See the link I provided.

Speciation of bacteria is only observed in laboratory. It is not observed in the field.

Speciation in bacteria is problematic, since they do not usually reproduce sexually.

If you care to get into details, I will be with you until I can not handle the knowledge any more.

It is apparent that you are already unable to handle the knowledge.

In any case, the science under discussion in this thread is astronomy.

 

[pat34lee]

"Evolution is only what I say it is". Not really.

There are 6 types of evolution, more if you count separate theories.

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Chemical evolution
3. Stellar evolution
4. Organic evolution
5. macro-evolution
6. micro-evolution (adaptation)

6 is the only actual scientific evolution.
the rest are fairy tales.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

"Evolution is only what I say it is". Not really.

Nah. If the source in the OP wasn't intentionally trying to deceive, he'd have called it stellar evolution and not simply evolution.

Guy's a liar. Drop him like a bad habit.

 

[Tiny Bible]

On a more general note, I know that posting a huge number of claims and arguments with little to no backing and expecting your opponent to come up with refutations sounds like the most convincing thing in the world, but really, it comes across as desperate. It's not the 80s anymore, people know what a Gish Gallop is. Normally, I'd do what I always do with a Gish Gallop: I'll take one point, refute it, and then ask the poster to either defend the point or admit that they were wrong. But the points raised are so fundamentally unsourced and nonsensical (evolution says mercury can't be dense? Mercury is not a species of organism, it is a planet, and as a result, evolution has nothing to say about it) that even that seems like too much work.

When come back, please provide argument.

On a more specific note, this is your second post in this particular thread. And thus far you've not proven you know anything other than to write condemning personal attacks against the OP.
If you wish to be taken seriously maybe stop with the childish name calling and allusions that you know something and prove it.

 

[majj27]

"Evolution is only what I say it is". Not really.

There are 6 types of evolution, more if you count separate theories.

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Chemical evolution
3. Stellar evolution
4. Organic evolution
5. macro-evolution
6. micro-evolution (adaptation)

6 is the only actual scientific evolution.
the rest are fairy tales.

I'm assuming you're pulling this list from somewhere like CreationToday.org. Something akin to this:

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

Out of those, while a lot of people use the word "evolution" in this way, it's usually a colloquial shorthand for something else. For example, "organic evolution" isn't actually a thing. The proper term is "abiogenesis". Likewise, "stellar evolution" is a colloquialism often used when someone discusses Stellar Formation. Stars are individual objects - they do not evolve in a scientific Theory of Evolution sort of way. And I've never even heard of someone talking about "chemical evolution". That makes pretty much no sense to me. Chemicals and elements don't evolve, they combine or break down. And "cosmic evolution" is just Cosmology.

Which kind of just leaves the last two. Both of which are contained in the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

-J

 

[ViaCrucis]

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MERCURY
Evolution says it can’t be dense, but it is.

Statements like this are why we need to start giving awards to the most stupid things said on this board. This is absolute gold.

For what it's worth, I didn't read past this comment. My brain wasn't going to allow it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Statements like this are why we need to start giving awards to the most stupid things said on this board. This is absolute gold.

The entire summary is basically "This is what science says, but it's wrong. Checkmate, experts"

 

[Norbert L]

For those who enjoyed the first two DVD's of Spike Psarris's series on astronomy, there's great news - Volume 3, "Our Created Universe" has just been released and is available online (I've just ordered my copy, but demand is likely to be very high). Here's a summary of the conclusions from Volume 1, "Our Created Solar System" concerning problems with explaining the origin of the solar system without a Creator and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:-

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MERCURY
Evolution says it can’t be dense, but it is.
Evolution says it can’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Volatile elements discredit the solar nebula model.
Magnetism and geological activity make it look young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT VENUS
It should have lots of similarities to earth, but it doesn’t.
Even evolutionists admit that its surface is young.
It’s consistent with a young solar system.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT EARTH
It shouldn’t have any water, but it has huge amounts, enough to cover the entire surface to a depth of over a mile if the earth’s surface were flat.
Its magnetic field is young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT THE MOON
Evolution can’t explain its origin.
Evolution can’t explain its geology or ghost craters.
Evolution can’t explain its recession.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MARS
Liquid water is not possible on Mars.
Global flood on Mars but none on earth?

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER
According to evolution, it can’t be made up of what it’s made up of.
No planetesimals were available to build Jupiter.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER’S MOONS
Ganymede should have a magnetic field, but it doesn’t.
Callisto shouldn’t be geologically active, but it is.
Europa disproves long-age crater counting.
IO looks young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT SATURN AND ITS MOONS
The migration problem.
Saturn’s magnetic field doesn’t match evolutionary theories.
Enceladus is young.
Titan is young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT URANUS AND ITS MOONS
Evolution says it shouldn’t be rotating sideways, but it is.
Evolution says it shouldn’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Evolution implies it should be radiating energy, but it isn’t.
Miranda is a mystery for evolutionary models.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT NEPTUNE
It looks young – not billions of years old.
Its magnetism defies evolution.
According to evolution, it can’t be there at all!

PROBLEMS FOR THE OORT CLOUD THEORY
It’s never been seen.
Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud: its properties; its origin; its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct, observational evidence for its existence.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT COMETS AND TNO’S
TNO’s look young, not old.
Comets contradict the evolutionary model.
Short-period comets shouldn’t be here if the solar system were really billions of years old.

What you aren't hearing about agnosticism. Despite the increase, influence and popularity of secular humanism within the physical and life sciences through the last few centuries. A modern version of agnosticism is increasing and influencing more and more people. It's the type of worldview that can influence both Christian and Atheist alike when it comes to making conclusions about the tommorrowland of what pure science can predict.

 

[Armoured]

For those who enjoyed the first two DVD's of Spike Psarris's series on astronomy, there's great news - Volume 3, "Our Created Universe" has just been released and is available online (I've just ordered my copy, but demand is likely to be very high). Here's a summary of the conclusions from Volume 1, "Our Created Solar System" concerning problems with explaining the origin of the solar system without a Creator and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:-

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MERCURY
Evolution says it can’t be dense, but it is.
Evolution says it can’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Volatile elements discredit the solar nebula model.
Magnetism and geological activity make it look young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT VENUS
It should have lots of similarities to earth, but it doesn’t.
Even evolutionists admit that its surface is young.
It’s consistent with a young solar system.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT EARTH
It shouldn’t have any water, but it has huge amounts, enough to cover the entire surface to a depth of over a mile if the earth’s surface were flat.
Its magnetic field is young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT THE MOON
Evolution can’t explain its origin.
Evolution can’t explain its geology or ghost craters.
Evolution can’t explain its recession.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MARS
Liquid water is not possible on Mars.
Global flood on Mars but none on earth?

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER
According to evolution, it can’t be made up of what it’s made up of.
No planetesimals were available to build Jupiter.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER’S MOONS
Ganymede should have a magnetic field, but it doesn’t.
Callisto shouldn’t be geologically active, but it is.
Europa disproves long-age crater counting.
IO looks young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT SATURN AND ITS MOONS
The migration problem.
Saturn’s magnetic field doesn’t match evolutionary theories.
Enceladus is young.
Titan is young.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT URANUS AND ITS MOONS
Evolution says it shouldn’t be rotating sideways, but it is.
Evolution says it shouldn’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Evolution implies it should be radiating energy, but it isn’t.
Miranda is a mystery for evolutionary models.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT NEPTUNE
It looks young – not billions of years old.
Its magnetism defies evolution.
According to evolution, it can’t be there at all!

PROBLEMS FOR THE OORT CLOUD THEORY
It’s never been seen.
Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud: its properties; its origin; its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct, observational evidence for its existence.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT COMETS AND TNO’S
TNO’s look young, not old.
Comets contradict the evolutionary model.
Short-period comets shouldn’t be here if the solar system were really billions of years old.

"Evolution" is a biological theory, and has nothing to do with planetary formation, so no, evolution doesn't say the things you claim it says. [/thread]

 

[Armoured]

Speciation beyond bacteria is a speculation, not an observed fact.
Speciation of bacteria is only observed in laboratory. It is not observed in the field.

If you care to get into details, I will be with you until I can not handle the knowledge any more.

Incorrect

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

However, even if true, so what? If it's possible in the lab, it's possible in the field. The crux of the Creationist position is that it shouldn't be possible at all.

 

[Hoghead1]

It sure sounds like Spike Psarris is into creation science. You should check him out more carefully, especially his credentials. And yes, the term "evolution" can be and is applied to the cosmos. In fact, the whole universe can be viewed as a huge organism. And no, it would be very difficult to observe evolution in the lab, except with bacteria. You would have to have a lab and an observer that lasted for millions of years. In Russia, they have been experimenting to see if you can change a fox into a dog. this research ahs been gong on since about 1950. They have gotten some very interesting results so far, but still have a ways to go. That's what I mean when I say it would take a long, long laboratory experiment. Anyhow, what creation-science people fail to mention is that no one ever directly observed God creating the world in six days either.

 

[Hoghead1]

OK, I checked out Spike Psarris. Totally bogus source. BA in electrical engineering. Sorry, not near enough credentials to swim with the sharks in these waters. To get my attention, you would have to show at least a Ph.D. and evidence of scientific publication in peer-reviewed journals. Spike is just another rather entertaining conspiracy theorists about the space program, much like Bob Lazar.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course, speciation is a process that's too slow, too intermittent and too subtle to actually be able to be observed in the flesh. But an inability to observe something does not necessarily mean it cannot be an established fact. We can follow a trail of evidence, draw on our experience and our knowledge, and use our powers of deduction to fill-in the gaps.

This may be true for one incidence, such as God, or Dark energy. But it is certainly very very doubtful for millions of incidences that all assumed to follow the same mechanism and the same path. Think about what biological evolution is trying to explain: from trilobite to human. If this is not a kind of faith, I don't know what

No, in that sense, even one or two actual observations would be way insufficient. Needless to say none.

 

[Larniavc]

Notice how those who support secular views immediately pounced on this term and tried to ridicule Spike for

Christians as well, I think you'll find.

Spike is not being criticised because atheists are big meanies but that Spike is wrong and both the religious and the non-religious can see that.

You can't play the atheist bully card, just yet.

 

[juvenissun]

The theory of evolution is restricted to the field of biology. More specifically, biological diversity and development as it applies on this planet.

Any problem with the title of this textbook?