I agree, unfortunately. I wonder how I would feel if I had a pastor that had said the same things that Bob has on many of these subjects. I do know that there would come a time I would have to do something, even it was just to quietly shut the door as I walked out of the church for the last time, knowing that I expected honesty in the portrayal of science as well as scripture, and that was not forthcoming in that church.Granite said:
Bob Should Really Learn to be More Hubble
- Thread starter ThePhy
- Start date
- Status
One Eyed Jack
New member
What would you be doing in a church anyway, ThePhy? I thought you were an atheist.
Bob's statement is saying that NASA failed?ThePhy said:
The hyperbole I would be talking about would be a statement something like: "NASA predicted they would see only young galaxies and they were wrong"
No, ThePhy, when that picture first came out it was touted as a picture from a blank spot in the sky and that the objects were from the outer reaches of the galaxy. And no, I don't get my information from only creationist sources.ThePhy said:
The data from the picture didn't take 10 years to analyze.
I didn't say all the analysis was done by atheists. But those that believe the athiest worldview cannot be trusted with correct interpretation. And there is no doubt that the atheist world view is in the majority.ThePhy said:
And in my opinion anyone who values their employment in this context better be careful if they oppose the answers that agree with the atheist world view. And beyond that even if they are not threated at their job for taking a contrary view, they won't get published.
Other than Yorzhik's responses, the rest of you have utterly embarassed yourself. No one has even attempted to respond. Most of you can't even argue for yourselves. That's why you grow strangely silent and say "well talk to Bob" when an argument is presented. This clearly demonstrates that the lot of you a) don't understand what you're talking about b) can't think for yourselves c) can't be bothered to read more than a children's book worth of words, and d) will continue your blind support of the one who continues to push his foot further and further down his esophagus every time he tries to talk science.
Calling him a butthead because his post was too long for you to read? Don't have the attention span? That's just downright intellectually pathetic.
It's based on the observation that the farther a galaxy is the faster it is receeding.
I was about to head to bed when I foolishly checked ThePhy's last post, on this thread, and saw that he was taking Bob Enyart to task for something he said about far distant galaxies being found looking similar to nearer ones.
This is really funny, because I was discussing something similar on a thread I started called "Mature Galaxies in the Beginning" in the Religion section and had presented recent data that supported my contention. ThePhy tried for a while to wheezle out of the references I gave, but then apparently gave up and disappeared.
So now I find him over here trying to peddle his same old story to another audience!!
So figure.
This is really funny, because I was discussing something similar on a thread I started called "Mature Galaxies in the Beginning" in the Religion section and had presented recent data that supported my contention. ThePhy tried for a while to wheezle out of the references I gave, but then apparently gave up and disappeared.
So now I find him over here trying to peddle his same old story to another audience!!
So figure.
Last edited:
Mr. 5020 said:
He must be referring to the fact that I got the thread title wrong. It was "Mature Galaxies in the Beginning" instead of "Mature Galaxies in the Early Universe" (This was the title I believe of my first posting in the thread which came from a science news article which claimed that astronomers were surprised to find such mature galaxies as far back as they can see in their telescopes, and that this may require them to revise their theories about how quickly galaxies can form.
If you are really interested go over to the Religion section to the referenced thread and see for yourself who is honest and who is "covering up".
This is a very slick bait-and-switch, Johnny. You know that I used the word "assumption." The observation regarding farther galaxies moving faster cannot necessarily be implied for these deep space objects if no parallax measurements have been done on a significant amount of them.Johnny said:
This is just a cursory assessment of mine. Do you disagree or disagree with it?
Mr. 5020 said:
The cover of Science News has a strange cartoon explained on the inside in an article by Ron Cowen:
The implications of this finding should be obvious to anyone with half a brain who is not hopelessly dogmatically attached to current theories: astronomers don't really have a valid theory that tells them how old a galaxy is.
Last edited:
Yes.fool said:
Not quite. But everything from an Atheist must be checked first to see whether it is interpretation that will be evidence concerning the athiest worldview, and if it is, then the information must be confirmed.
The reason this must be is because the athiest worldview is not inconsistant with lieing to prop up the athiest worldview.
Are you denying that it was common knowledge at the time?ThePhy said:
BTW, it will help to know how long after the pictures were published that the redshift data came out. Also, is there a place to find the objects listed with their distance data? Is there a list of objects that have not had their redshift data added to them?
From Yorzhik:
With the rare exceptions of those I know personally, or have some inside knowledge on, I have no idea of the theological leanings of the scientists I rely on. And I don’t care. If they can demonstrate that they operate under the rules of science, they have qualified in my book.
And of my colleagues, I don’t recall having heard any of them say that they judged a scientific article with the theology of the author in mind.
Can you show that the scientific community requires that “the information must be confirmed” based on people’s theology?
Interesting claim. Tell you what. How about looking at the next 500 per-reviewed technical articles in scientific journals and tell me which of them were written by atheists, and which were penned by believers?
With the rare exceptions of those I know personally, or have some inside knowledge on, I have no idea of the theological leanings of the scientists I rely on. And I don’t care. If they can demonstrate that they operate under the rules of science, they have qualified in my book.
And of my colleagues, I don’t recall having heard any of them say that they judged a scientific article with the theology of the author in mind.
Can you show that the scientific community requires that “the information must be confirmed” based on people’s theology?
Let’s consolidate this minor dispute between Yorzhik and I on the HDF
(And just for info – the term “HDF” in the astronomical community has come to mean the region of sky that the Hubble did it’s original long look into, as well as the Hubble results themselves from that exposure. So you often see mention of things like the Keck telescope in Hawaii looking at the HDF).
Originally Posted by ThePhy:
But our question is not what “common knowledge” is now, or even after the HDF exposure. Did NASA know before they selected that HDF region of sky that it had galaxies visible to ground-based telescopes?
I will leave it to you to dig into the technical reports detailing the rationale behind the HDF selection.
But some relevant background – Prior to the choice of the “blank region” of sky, there was some rather heated debate in the astronomical community over just where the Hubble should be pointed. Some were vying for the field of view to include one or another of the most distant QSOs (quasars) that were known at the time, so that at least something believed to be very very distant was in the field of view.
Since the advent of man looking at the heavens there have been projects to map the sky to the limits of the then-available viewing instruments. Examples – many objects in the sky are given “Messier” numbers, like M31 (The Andromeda Galaxy). These numbers were assigned by an 18th century astronomer, and they were intended to identify things that were visible in early telescopes, but had already been looked at and found to be not worth further investigation (a claim that later was shown to be enormously shortsighted). Messier was encouraging the astronomical community to not waste its time studying indistinct boring unchanging things as it mapped the heavens. Another example – in the 1930 Edwin Hubble himself exhaustively catalogued a limited region of the sky in which he added over 40,000 galaxies to the list.
The density and types of galaxies and objects observed in various parts of the sky has been crucial to understanding about the structure of the universe. Automated telescope surveys have created huge databases of every observable region of the sky.
Now it comes time to decide where to point the Hubble. Do you presume that the selection committee just happened to find the one spot in the sky that had never been deeply surveyed, and since they couldn’t see anything with their backyard binoculars, they said – hey this is it? Probably one of the most important, and expensive, telescope studies ever, and NASA didn’t think it worthwhile to preview that spot of sky to see if something anomalous was lurking just beyond human vision?
Since the object was to look into space as far as possible, it was expected that the hoped-for baby galaxies would be very dim. Rather like a conventional camera, having something bright in the foreground can obscure faint things more distant. So even though the “near” galaxies in the HDF are very distant by usual standards, they were not unknown. NASA was intensely interested in minimizing foreground obscuration, so they wanted to know as much as possible about the HDF field before focusing the Hubble there.
Look at http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/project/field.html. Notice in that brief article when they talk about the field selection for the HDF, they say:
Now your source again, please.
(And just for info – the term “HDF” in the astronomical community has come to mean the region of sky that the Hubble did it’s original long look into, as well as the Hubble results themselves from that exposure. So you often see mention of things like the Keck telescope in Hawaii looking at the HDF).
Originally Posted by ThePhy:
Yorzhik responded:
Since Yorzhik made specific mention of getting his data from other than creationist sources, and he directly countered my claim that the HDF was known to not be completely devoid of astronomical objects before the Hubble was focused there, I asked:
Rather than supply the source for his claim, he said:
Yorzhik, are you saying that you don’t have a specific source, and that you are challenging my claim based on “common knowledge”? I wonder if you were even aware of the HDF prior to say, 5 years ago? Most non-scientists even now don’t know what it is, and even in the scientific community most people outside of astronomy are at best vaguely aware of it.
But our question is not what “common knowledge” is now, or even after the HDF exposure. Did NASA know before they selected that HDF region of sky that it had galaxies visible to ground-based telescopes?
I will leave it to you to dig into the technical reports detailing the rationale behind the HDF selection.
But some relevant background – Prior to the choice of the “blank region” of sky, there was some rather heated debate in the astronomical community over just where the Hubble should be pointed. Some were vying for the field of view to include one or another of the most distant QSOs (quasars) that were known at the time, so that at least something believed to be very very distant was in the field of view.
Since the advent of man looking at the heavens there have been projects to map the sky to the limits of the then-available viewing instruments. Examples – many objects in the sky are given “Messier” numbers, like M31 (The Andromeda Galaxy). These numbers were assigned by an 18th century astronomer, and they were intended to identify things that were visible in early telescopes, but had already been looked at and found to be not worth further investigation (a claim that later was shown to be enormously shortsighted). Messier was encouraging the astronomical community to not waste its time studying indistinct boring unchanging things as it mapped the heavens. Another example – in the 1930 Edwin Hubble himself exhaustively catalogued a limited region of the sky in which he added over 40,000 galaxies to the list.
The density and types of galaxies and objects observed in various parts of the sky has been crucial to understanding about the structure of the universe. Automated telescope surveys have created huge databases of every observable region of the sky.
Now it comes time to decide where to point the Hubble. Do you presume that the selection committee just happened to find the one spot in the sky that had never been deeply surveyed, and since they couldn’t see anything with their backyard binoculars, they said – hey this is it? Probably one of the most important, and expensive, telescope studies ever, and NASA didn’t think it worthwhile to preview that spot of sky to see if something anomalous was lurking just beyond human vision?
Since the object was to look into space as far as possible, it was expected that the hoped-for baby galaxies would be very dim. Rather like a conventional camera, having something bright in the foreground can obscure faint things more distant. So even though the “near” galaxies in the HDF are very distant by usual standards, they were not unknown. NASA was intensely interested in minimizing foreground obscuration, so they wanted to know as much as possible about the HDF field before focusing the Hubble there.
Look at http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/project/field.html. Notice in that brief article when they talk about the field selection for the HDF, they say:
Guess how they knew that. Just maybe they actually looked as part of the field selection process?
Now your source again, please.
- Status