What you aren't being told about astronomy

[DogmaHunter]

A bit like the Big Bang theory then.

No.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is a bate. The consequence depends on the answer you give.

I'm sorry Juve, I'm not in the mood for your silly games today.

 

[Nithavela]

A bit like Bill Nye's style then.

A bit like the Big Bang theory then.

 

[pgp_protector]

if You're getting your astronomy info from images like this

you might need to find better books.
You can start with some of the online free courses like
https://www.udemy.com/astronomy-state-of-the-art/

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Does evolution mean changing with time?

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.

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).

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. 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.

 

[The Cadet]

A bit like Bill Nye's style then.

Is DogmaHunter Bill Nye? Am I Bill Nye? Is anyone here Bill Nye? We're talking about your claims. Your statements. Your statements are ill-supported and blatantly fallacious.

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?

I don't know what the point is, because:

over 2 hours of video

Two hours?! You seriously expect people to watch a 2-hour-long video to be able to understand your claims? I'm not about to waste two hours of my life watching a documentary by a creationist. If you summarize his claims and his evidence here, then I'll gladly address them.

As for the recession problem, I have no idea what the recession problem is, because you haven't explained it. When I googled "moon recession problem", the first three results were web pages pointing to an old creationist claim about how the moon is receding too quickly for the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, and thoroughly debunking it. In order:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_recede.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Recession_of_the_Moon

And then an article from Creation.com, repeating the same nonsensical claim.

It really does make me wonder - why are you waiting for us to fact-check your claims, when you could easily do it yourself? These arguments were debunked in the 1980s, when they were first presented.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I can't even be bothered to come up with a good Uranus joke for this.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sorry Juve, I'm not in the mood for your silly games today.

whenever you are ready.

 

[Loudmouth]

How about 8...

"The Origin and Evolution of The Solar System" by Michael M. Woolfson
"Evolution of Stars: The Photospheric Abundance Connection" by G. Michaud
"Chemical Evolution of Galaxies" by Francesca Matteucci
"Solar System Evolution - A New Perspective" by Stuart Ross Taylor
"Stellar Structure and Evolution" by Rudolf Kippenhahn
"Dynamic Evolution of Star Clusters - Confrontation of Theory and Observation" by Piet Hut and Junichiro Makino
"Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Bulges" by Martin Bureau and E. Athanassoula
"Galaxy Formation and Evolution" by Houjun Mo

Those titles are using the verb "evolution". Spike is using the title "evolution", referring to the theory in biology. They are not the same.

 

[Loudmouth]

This kind of evolution is not observable.

Since when does the scientific method require you to observe a theory? Observations and theories are different things.

So, it seems the word evolution should be first applied to those systems that the changes within are observable. Biology should be the last one which is eligible to use this word.

Biology was the first scientific field where the term "evolution" was widely used, which is why any reference to the theory of evolution without any further context refers to the theory in biology.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not according to Spike's video.

The accuracy of scientific theories is not determined by youtube videos. It is determined by evidence. Please pick one of your points and present the evidence cogent to your argument.

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 recession of the moon argument was refuted decades ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

 

[Loudmouth]

It is a bate. The consequence depends on the answer you give.

Funny how you can never answer questions asked of you.

 

[Loudmouth]

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).

They don't use it in that way. They are using the verb. Spike is using the noun, in reference to the theory of evolution which is a theory in biology.

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.

We are pointing out that anyone familiar with science would not make such errors.

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).

We are still waiting for you to present specific evidence.

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.

That is completely off topic. We don't have to know where the universe came from in order to date rocks or determine if species share a common ancestor. This is what we mean by the Gish Gallop, where you continually change the topic so you don't have to address specific refutations.

In reality, they don't have any idea, just like they don't have any idea how the first life came about.

We don't need to know how life came about in order to determine if life evolved, or how old the Earth is.

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.

What evidence have we rejected?

 

[The Cadet]

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).

Well, to be fair, you gave us nothing to work with. If you had made coherent arguments, we could have addressed those. But you didn't. Instead, you offered us a long list of barely coherent claims with nothing to back them up, and a two-hour-long video that you ought to know by now nobody will watch.

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.

What a weak argument. We've only seen a tiny fraction of the matter on earth (almost all of it is hidden away in the mantle and core), but that doesn't prevent us from understanding what we have seen. And what we have seen points conclusively to a single, inescapable conclusion. There's a reason that essentially all of science, with only a handful of religiously motivated exceptions, has agreed on these conclusions. The time for rational scientific debate ended long ago. What's left is nonsensical PRATT arguments like the recession rate of the moon, made by people whose interest in the science comes from one place and one place only: they want to tear it down because it does not fit their preconceived notions.

 

[majj27]

What the heck it's a slow day at work... I'll take a quick stab off the top of my head.

Answers in BOLD.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MERCURY
Evolution says it can’t be dense, but it is. - Lighter materials ejected during accretion seems to be the supported cause, according to data from Messenger.
Evolution says it can’t have a magnetic field, but it does. -Mercury's molten core should yield a field, so yeah, no real problem there.
Volatile elements discredit the solar nebula model. - Nope. Lots of ways for volatiles to arrive on a planet.
Magnetism and geological activity make it look young. - "Looks young" is scientifically not evidence of much.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT VENUS
It should have lots of similarities to earth, but it doesn’t. - Why should it be similar to Earth?
Even evolutionists admit that its surface is young. - Super-high pressure, super-high temps and a heavy drizzle of acid tends to do that to a planet.
It’s consistent with a young solar system. - Also consistent with an old one.

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. - Why shouldn't it? Right temp and pressure for liquid water. Seems fair it would have stuck around.
Its magnetic field is young. - This is probably based on Barnes, who measured the wrong thing.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT THE MOON
Evolution can’t explain its origin. - Collision, most likely.
Evolution can’t explain its geology or ghost craters. -The LHB explains this perfectly well.
Evolution can’t explain its recession. - Tidal friction

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MARS
Liquid water is not possible on Mars. - Well, not NOW. The atmosphere is basically gone.
Global flood on Mars but none on earth? - Evidence of water does not equal "Global Flood" And why would what happens on one planet be required to happen on another anyway?

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER
According to evolution, it can’t be made up of what it’s made up of. - Actually Jupiter works just fine.
No planetesimals were available to build Jupiter. - Seems based on the assumption that planetary orbits are static, instead of changing. Changing orbits solves this.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER’S MOONS
Ganymede should have a magnetic field, but it doesn’t. - Actually yes it does.
Callisto shouldn’t be geologically active, but it is. - Actually no it isn't
Europa disproves long-age crater counting. - Europa seems to be ice-on-liquid. Combined with tidal distortions, the surface is being constantly re-paved, as it were
IO looks young. - Looks prove nothing. Actually the surface IS young, thanks to IO being stretched like taffy and volcanically active as all get-out

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT SATURN AND ITS MOONS
The migration problem. -Grand Tack Hypothesis tackles this quite nicely.
Saturn’s magnetic field doesn’t match evolutionary theories. - Can't find any arguments for or against this at the moment
Enceladus is young. - Based on heat? If you go by that, Enceladus is 30 million years old. But yeah, that's currently unknown.
Titan is young. - Why? Because of the atmosphere? Surface venting replenishes, as found by Cassini.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT URANUS AND ITS MOONS
Evolution says it shouldn’t be rotating sideways, but it is. - Got knocked about during an orbit shift
Evolution says it shouldn’t have a magnetic field, but it does. - Humphreys got it wrong with assumption of a constant exponential decay.
Evolution implies it should be radiating energy, but it isn’t. - Yeah, that's weird. Neat, huh? Doesn't imply Anything other than "huh, that's werid".
Miranda is a mystery for evolutionary models. - Yep, there are several competing hypotheses for this, from tidal forces to impact shattering.

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT NEPTUNE
It looks young – not billions of years old. - Because of the winds? That's momentum conservation and convection processes.
Its magnetism defies evolution.- Again, Humphreys got it wrong with assumption of a constant exponential decay.
According to evolution, it can’t be there at all! -???? couldn't figure out what you were saying. That it shouldn't be where it IS, or that there should be no Neptune at all?

PROBLEMS FOR THE OORT CLOUD THEORY
It’s never been seen. - Neither has gravity, but the effects can be found for both.
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. -Basically restating the first point, with the same answer.

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

 

[SepiaAndDust]

What the heck it's a slow day at work... I'll take a quick stab off the top of my head.

Answers in BOLD.

Awesome!

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

tried to ridicule Spike for not knowing what he is talking about.

Because he doesn't. Taking information from experts and misrepresenting it and twisting the facts is dishonest.

other accusations usually fly out, like "gish galloping"

A two hour video of misinformation is gish galloping. Don't expect anyone to waste their time when your summary of volume one can be easily be refuted. Here is just one example:

WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MARS
Liquid water is not possible on Mars.

Wrong.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars

or accusing Spike of being unqualified

Because he is.

(as I pointed out before, he doesn't have to be, because he uses material by experts in their respective fields

And misrepresents them. Is he willing to put his explanations through the peer review process or are you going to fall back on the "but peer review is bias!" conspiracy nonsense? All science is subjected to that process. A young physicist has a new hypothesis on how life began. Do you think he has a scientific consensus that agree with him? Absolutely not. He has to demonstrate this hypothesis to be true. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
Is Spike willing to be subjected to the peer review process? If not, he won't be taken seriously.

and puts it all together in a way that anyone can understand).

Translation "Knows how to misrepresent science and easily trick the laymen's ear. Looks like it worked on you.

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.

Name one scientist that has made this claim and has a scientific consensus.

Since they have rejected God as a possible explanation, they just have ever more wild and speculative guesses to try to explain everything

You're going to fall for the God of the gaps fallacy? How many times has science given a natural explanation that was once thought to be the workings of a deity? A lot. If you fall for this fallacy, then your God will continue to retreat into more gaps as science learns more. Where are you going to put him next if the physicist mentioned earlier answers the origin of life question?[/QUOTE]

 

[Gracchus]

I don't think there is any such fact around. Could you give one example?

I could give one, but that would be dismissed as you know very well. And there are too many to cut and paste. Some instances of speciation are listed here along with background information on criteria. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I post this, even though I know you will never consider any evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

I could give one, but that would be dismissed as you know very well. And there are too many to cut and paste. Some instances of speciation are listed here along with background information on criteria. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I post this, even though I know you will never consider any evidence.

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.

 

[florida2]

You realise of course that you have just demonstrated that you have not even read the opening paragraph properly and also confirmed what I predicted. Here are the relevant words again: "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:"

Yes, and?

We're talking about science, in which evolution has a very specific meaning.

The general media is not a good source of scientific information. Scientific terms are not always used accurately and there is often a large amount of hype surrounding any announcements. You also say about 'many' in the media. So if some people have published work bandying about the term evolution willy-nilly then it's ok for him to do the same? If his excuse was because of the consensus of peer reviewed scientific journals and textbooks then I would take a different stance.

Funnily enough the best source of scientific information in scientific papers and textbooks. We're on a science forum so it makes sense to actually use the correct terminology.