Bob Should Really Learn to be More Hubble

[bob b]

If it is worth asking, it should be worth discussing. A simple yes or no or maybe is not much of a discussion. You have some pathological aversion to a new thread, or do you feel my answer would contribute materially to the subject matter of Bob E's self-reflexive mockery of the HDF?

Your answer might contribute to an understanding of why you reject Christ.

 

[Yorzhik]

HDF waasn't done as a crowd pleaser, it was a scientific endeavor. It was not particularly important to make sure Joe Blow on the street knew the fine points of the area under observation. It was crucial that the scientists know.

Yeah, we know. But at least in layman's terms do we deserve to get a straight answer from the scientists?

And you are dead wrong. The success of HDF was clear enough that it spawned 2 direct follow-on observations by the Hubble itself (HDF-S and UDF), as well as numerous newer efforts by other telescopes (Hawaii, Spitzer, etc.). The flow of technical papers based on this data has been substantial for over 10 years, and will likely continue far into the future. And if you feel my representation of Dr. Margon's statements are not accurate, contact him directly. That is what I did before starting this thread.

Wha…? When was it ever implied that HDF was not a success? And when was it ever implied that Dr. Margon's statements were inaccurate? Since I didn't even imply these things, what is it you say I'm dead wrong about?

 

[ThePhy]

Your answer might contribute to an understanding of why you reject Christ.

At last you are being a bit more forthright. You are not concerned with whether Pastor Enyart makes a mockery out of science, you are only concerned with people’s attitudes towards Christ. May I infer that this is the underlying reason for all your posts – the accurate presentation of science be damned – bring people to Christ even if you do it under a veil of lies and deceit?

 

[ThePhy]

Yeah, we know. But at least in layman's terms do we deserve to get a straight answer from the scientists?

I am having a really hard time feeling that there has been a significant breach of trust with the public on what might have been said to them as to whether or not the HDF region of the sky was truly blank. I suspect it would take some effort to resurrect the press releases and the public statements that were made to the public, and I’ll bet even those varied in what they said. Sorry, but I have more important things to have heartburn over.

Wha…? When was it ever implied that HDF was not a success?

I am gratified to hear that you part company with Knight’s pastor on this.

And when was it ever implied that Dr. Margon's statements were inaccurate? Since I didn't even imply these things, what is it you say I'm dead wrong about?

Ok, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying with: “And that is born out in the statement by the expert you posted”. Specifically, what was not born out by the expert (Margon)?

 

[bob b]

At last you are being a bit more forthright. You are not concerned with whether Pastor Enyart makes a mockery out of science, you are only concerned with people’s attitudes towards Christ. May I infer that this is the underlying reason for all your posts – the accurate presentation of science be damned – bring people to Christ even if you do it under a veil of lies and deceit?

Bringing people to Christ is of course far more important than anything else I can think of, but nevertheless lies and deceit are not legitimate in such efforts.

Neither is the sort of slander which has become your modus operandi on these forums.

 

[ThePhy]

Bringing people to Christ is of course far more important than anything else I can think of, but nevertheless lies and deceit are not legitimate in such efforts.

Can you do us all a favor and clue Knight's pastor in on this please?

 

[fool]

Neither is the sort of slander which has become your modus operandi on these forums.

Could you go ahead and give us a link to where The Phy slanders anybody?
That be great thanx.

 

[Yorzhik]

I am having a really hard time feeling that there has been a significant breach of trust with the public on what might have been said to them as to whether or not the HDF region of the sky was truly blank. I suspect it would take some effort to resurrect the press releases and the public statements that were made to the public, and I’ll bet even those varied in what they said. Sorry, but I have more important things to have heartburn over.

I'm sure it was just generalizing to the public.

But that lack of heartburn over a minor point speaks directly to the major heartburn you seem to be having with Bob.

I am gratified to hear that you part company with Knight’s pastor on this.Ok, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying with: “And that is born out in the statement by the expert you posted”. Specifically, what was not born out by the expert (Margon)?

I would guess Knight's pastor (who also happens to be my pastor), would agree with what I've written so far.

The expert said he didn't really know, and that falls in line with a lack of surety over the distance of each object in the picture.

 

[ThePhy]

From Yorzhik:

But that lack of heartburn over a minor point speaks directly to the major heartburn you seem to be having with Bob.

Your adjectives are well chosen, and I agree with them. A scientist who is talking to the general public about the HDF piece of sky might intentionally describe it as blank, knowing that in reality it is not. But the scientist is not trying to specify the exact optical challenges to the public, he is conveying the idea that most parts of the sky are heavily populated with stars and galaxies visible to even modest telescopes, but the HDF is not. That difference between the technical reality and concept he is trying to convey is, as you say, “minor”.

But Enyart’s representation is in direct opposition to the conclusions about what the HDF showed. That is not a minor point, in fact it is a something his parishioners should have “major” heartburn over.

I would guess Knight's pastor (who also happens to be my pastor), would agree with what I've written so far.

I hadn’t realized that you were also a DBC member. Since your efforts in this thread seem to be directed to finding any way to avoid admitting that the HDF might have been a success, I suspect you are right that Enyart would go along with you. That does not speak well of either your integrity, or that of your spiritual leader. Perhaps he has been successful in gathering to his church those (like you) who dogmatically share his unwillingness to accept anything that conflicts with YEC beliefs.

The expert said he didn't really know, and that falls in line with a lack of surety over the distance of each object in the picture.

In the dialogue from Dr. Margon that I put in my OP, I think this is the part you are referring to:

you see little blobs which we believe are Hubble images of galaxies in the initial stage of assembly

I infer the “lack of surety” you seem to be focusing on is his use of the word “believe”. If I am misreading you, please correct me. But in science, we “believe” to one extent or another almost every result. It is the nature of science that every conclusion is open to later challenge. You will reject every idea and conclusion in science if your criteria is that it has to be “proven” before you will accept it. The aerodynamics that the airplane you fly in relies on a level of belief, not proof. You cannot trust that your battery-operated wristwatch will not suddenly electrocute you if perfect confidence in our understanding of electronic theory is required.

Your incredulity is not shared by those who have actually been dealing with the HDF data. Are you using the lack of perfect confidence in the HDF results as an excuse to avoid having to admit it supports the Big Bang?

 

[bob b]

From Yorzhik:Your adjectives are well chosen, and I agree with them. A scientist who is talking to the general public about the HDF piece of sky might intentionally describe it as blank, knowing that in reality it is not. But the scientist is not trying to specify the exact optical challenges to the public, he is conveying the idea that most parts of the sky are heavily populated with stars and galaxies visible to even modest telescopes, but the HDF is not. That difference between the technical reality and concept he is trying to convey is, as you say, “minor”.

But Enyart’s representation is in direct opposition to the conclusions about what the HDF showed. That is not a minor point, in fact it is a something his parishioners should have “major” heartburn over.I hadn’t realized that you were also a DBC member. Since your efforts in this thread seem to be directed to finding any way to avoid admitting that the HDF might have been a success, I suspect you are right that Enyart would go along with you. That does not speak well of either your integrity, or that of your spiritual leader. Perhaps he has been successful in gathering to his church those (like you) who dogmatically share his unwillingness to accept anything that conflicts with YEC beliefs.In the dialogue from Dr. Margon that I put in my OP, I think this is the part you are referring to:I infer the “lack of surety” you seem to be focusing on is his use of the word “believe”. If I am misreading you, please correct me. But in science, we “believe” to one extent or another almost every result. It is the nature of science that every conclusion is open to later challenge. You will reject every idea and conclusion in science if your criteria is that it has to be “proven” before you will accept it. The aerodynamics that the airplane you fly in relies on a level of belief, not proof. You cannot trust that your battery-operated wristwatch will not suddenly electrocute you if perfect confidence in our understanding of electronic theory is required.

Your incredulity is not shared by those who have actually been dealing with the HDF data. Are you using the lack of perfect confidence in the HDF results as an excuse to avoid having to admit it supports the Big Bang?

Speaking of the Big Bang, do you "believe" in multiple universes? Don't be shy. A simple yes or no will do.

 

[ThePhy]

Speaking of the Big Bang, do you "believe" in multiple universes? Don't be shy. A simple yes or no will do.

I am not conversant enough with the underlying mathematics and physics to make a meaningful judgment on the concept.

 

[Yorzhik]

Your adjectives are well chosen, and I agree with them. A scientist who is talking to the general public about the HDF piece of sky might intentionally describe it as blank, knowing that in reality it is not. But the scientist is not trying to specify the exact optical challenges to the public, he is conveying the idea that most parts of the sky are heavily populated with stars and galaxies visible to even modest telescopes, but the HDF is not. That difference between the technical reality and concept he is trying to convey is, as you say, “minor”.

I'd say this is accurate and we can call this point a done subject.

I hadn’t realized that you were also a DBC member. Since your efforts in this thread seem to be directed to finding any way to avoid admitting that the HDF might have been a success, I suspect you are right that Enyart would go along with you. That does not speak well of either your integrity, or that of your spiritual leader. Perhaps he has been successful in gathering to his church those (like you) who dogmatically share his unwillingness to accept anything that conflicts with YEC beliefs.

What are you saying defines success? Wouldn't it be successfully taking a picture of the deep field? I think it did that very well.

I infer the “lack of surety” you seem to be focusing on is his use of the word “believe”. If I am misreading you, please correct me. But in science, we “believe” to one extent or another almost every result. It is the nature of science that every conclusion is open to later challenge. You will reject every idea and conclusion in science if your criteria is that it has to be “proven” before you will accept it. The aerodynamics that the airplane you fly in relies on a level of belief, not proof. You cannot trust that your battery-operated wristwatch will not suddenly electrocute you if perfect confidence in our understanding of electronic theory is required.

Your incredulity is not shared by those who have actually been dealing with the HDF data. Are you using the lack of perfect confidence in the HDF results as an excuse to avoid having to admit it supports the Big Bang?

Just so you know; you don't ever have to give me the lecture on how science doesn't "prove" anything, that everything stated is a matter of the weight of evidence behind it. If you ever see me use the word "prove" in the context of science, I'm merely using the word as a convention to mean "very strong evidence supporting".

That being said, it's too bad we don't have red shift data on "belief". I'd say the amount of evidence behind the science of distant objects is weak.

 

[ThePhy]

From ThePhy (Previously):

I hadn’t realized that you were also a DBC member. Since your efforts in this thread seem to be directed to finding any way to avoid admitting that the HDF might have been a success, I suspect you are right that Enyart would go along with you. That does not speak well of either your integrity, or that of your spiritual leader. Perhaps he has been successful in gathering to his church those (like you) who dogmatically share his unwillingness to accept anything that conflicts with YEC beliefs.

Yorzhik’s reply:

What are you saying defines success? Wouldn't it be successfully taking a picture of the deep field? I think it did that very well.

I thought my statement about success was clearly describing Pastor Enyart’s attracting YECs to be members of the DBC.

But as you say, a picture of the deep field is also a form of success. That is the opinion of most scientists involved in the project.

If you ever see me use the word "prove" in the context of science, I'm merely using the word as a convention to mean "very strong evidence supporting".

One man’s “very strong” can be viewed by another as “not nearly strong enough”. The HDF data was supportive enough of Big Bang ideas that most scientists were delighted. Do you have any reason to differ that is based on anything but a religious stance that you don’t want to compromise on?

That being said, it's too bad we don't have red shift data on "belief". I'd say the amount of evidence behind the science of distant objects is weak.

The scientists who disagree with you do so by publishing the specific data they found convincing. What is the basis on which your dissenting opinion is based?

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by ThePhy
I thought my statement about success was clearly describing Pastor Enyart’s attracting YECs to be members of the DBC.

Oh, if that is your the definition of success; I should have cleared that up sooner.

Originally posted by ThePhy
But as you say, a picture of the deep field is also a form of success. That is the opinion of most scientists involved in the project.

Is there anyone who doesn't see it as a success?

Originally posted by ThePhy
One man’s “very strong” can be viewed by another as “not nearly strong enough”. The HDF data was supportive enough of Big Bang ideas that most scientists were delighted.

And most scientists were delighted about Nebraska man too. What we don't have, and what we should have because it ought to be easy to do, is a label of the anomalies on a chart.

The reason I know there are anomalies is because we don't have a chart.

ThePhy continues:

Do you have any reason to differ that is based on anything but a religious stance that you don’t want to compromise on?

Yes, the past behavior of scientists that ignore the problems of evo instead of working through them.

Originally posted by ThePhy
The scientists who disagree with you do so by publishing the specific data they found convincing. What is the basis on which your dissenting opinion is based?

Because getting redshift data on particular items is like pulling eyeteeth. I take that back, it's much harder than pulling eyeteeth. And when anomalies arise, they are ignored or excused to death before they are explained; that gives the flavor of a view that is not based on science.

What I hope we find someday is a more reliable way to figure out how far away something is.

 

[ThePhy]

From Yorzhik:

Oh, if that is your the definition of success; I should have cleared that up sooner.

Not a definition, just an example.

From ThePhy (previously)

But as you say, a picture of the deep field is also a form of success. That is the opinion of most scientists involved in the project.

Yorzhik’s reply:

Is there anyone who doesn't see it as a success?

I am not aware of technically qualified people who felt the HDF failed. (And it is obvious that vocal YEC pastors are not “qualified” scientifically to evaluate the HDF).

From ThePhy (previously):

The HDF data was supportive enough of Big Bang ideas that most scientists were delighted.

Yorzhik’s reply:

And most scientists were delighted about Nebraska man too.

If you are reduced to finding an incident in science when the scientists blew it, and using that as an eternal trump card to reject anything else from science you dislike, then I question that you have any specific evidence against the HDF. I saw a bad Christian once, and I am now justified in rejecting any aspect of Christianity I don’t happen to like.

What we don't have, and what we should have because it ought to be easy to do, is a label of the anomalies on a chart.

Do you know this, or are you speaking from just your own limited knowledge of the HDF results? I say this because there are hundreds of technical studies that have come out of the HDF data, and anomalies would be the things that would attract the most attention. Bob b recently tried to make hay of an anomaly - an HDF study that showed some fairly mature galaxies appeared earlier than had been expected.

And remember, the HDF data is freely available for you or any other person who has doubts about what it showed. It has been over 10 years now, and I am waiting for just one person who thinks the HDF was a failure to back his position from the data itself.

The reason I know there are anomalies is because we don't have a chart.

You don’t have a chart. Are you saying that one doesn’t exist? In my OP I linked to the home page of the Hubble science group. If you take the time to look on the net you can a lot of HDF papers. I suspect you have no idea of what those papers have in them.

From ThePhy (previously):

Do you have any reason to differ that is based on anything but a religious stance that you don’t want to compromise on?

Yorzhik’s reply:

Yes, the past behavior of scientists that ignore the problems of evo instead of working through them.

It is interesting that you condemn HDF because of a perceived failure on the part of evolutionists. The only link I can think of between these two that would intertwine them in your mind is a religious one – they both point to ages not acceptable to YEC beliefs.

I would ask for more specifics about the dishonesty of the evolutionists, but that is too far afield from the subject of this thread.

getting redshift data on particular items is like pulling eyeteeth. I take that back, it's much harder than pulling eyeteeth.

This statement is amazing. The HDF is one of the few major astronomical projects I am aware of where the data has been openly available without charge to anyone who wants to play with it for over a decade. What do you want them to do, deliver it to you personally engraved on a silver platter? Perhaps you need to see a dentist about those eyeteeth that are giving you such problems.

And when anomalies arise, they are ignored or excused to death before they are explained; that gives the flavor of a view that is not based on science.

Can you move beyond these bland generic vanilla-flavored smears against the HDF and come up with specifics?

What I hope we find someday is a more reliable way to figure out how far away something is.

As do we all.

But that hope does not mean that our current ideas about distances are just unreliable pie-in-the-sky guesses.

 

[koban]

What I hope we find someday is a more reliable way to figure out how far away something is.

How long do you want to wait?

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by ThePhy
Not a definition, just an example.

Whatever. If you say there is "success" and "failure" then those words need to refer to something. That something is more often than not called the "definition of success"

Originally posted by ThePhy
I am not aware of technically qualified people who felt the HDF failed. (And it is obvious that vocal YEC pastors are not “qualified” scientifically to evaluate the HDF).

Okay, great. I'm pretty sure said vocal YEC pastor and I would just be sticking with them as demonstrated repeatedly on this thread.

Originally posted by ThePhy
If you are reduced to finding an incident in science when the scientists blew it, and using that as an eternal trump card to reject anything else from science you dislike, then I question that you have any specific evidence against the HDF.

First, I've agreed entirely and stated repeatedly that we got a great picture from Hubble (including all the data that came with it). So, no, I wouldn't have any specific evidence against HDF on account'a I agree with it.

ThePhy continues
I saw a bad Christian once, and I am now justified in rejecting any aspect of Christianity I don’t happen to like.

Nice debate tactic. If I had said that one scientist disagreed with all other scientists and therefore your claim that HDF showed old ages of the universe were absurd, then your example would follow. But your example doesn't follow. You should have given your example more thought. A better example would have been to say that the end of the world was predicted to be next year, but that a prediction that the end of the world would come last year was wrong. Now that would follow and I should be concerned about any claim I made to you about the end of the world as a Christian.

So then I ask myself; is ThePhy a good debater and wins debates on his skills rather than the validity of his argument? Or, is ThePhy just not very good at understanding a counter-example in this case? I'm opting for the latter at this time but I'll try to keep my eyes opened to see if this is a trend.

What I was merely pointing out was that scientists being delighted (even a majority of scientists being delighted) does not mean what they are delighted about is correct.

ThePhy continues
Do you know this, or are you speaking from just your own limited knowledge of the HDF results? I say this because there are hundreds of technical studies that have come out of the HDF data, and anomalies would be the things that would attract the most attention. Bob b recently tried to make hay of an anomaly - an HDF study that showed some fairly mature galaxies appeared earlier than had been expected.

I'm speaking from a limited knowledge of HDF results. Even if I did have all the useful data from HDF (and I may have seen most of it for all I know), I don't understand a lot of the information that isn't presented in a format more likely seen in Discover, Popular Science, National Geographic, or an online news report. So you may be right that the more consumer level outlets have just refused to report the anomalies despite their availability. If so, please let the editors know that the anomalies are the interesting parts.

Originally posted by ThePhy
And remember, the HDF data is freely available for you or any other person who has doubts about what it showed. It has been over 10 years now, and I am waiting for just one person who thinks the HDF was a failure to back his position from the data itself.

Failure in this context defined by the data? I don't get it. Anyway, the data I've seen, and it is impressive, is just not something I'm going to spend a semester understanding.

Originally posted by ThePhy
You don’t have a chart. Are you saying that one doesn’t exist? In my OP I linked to the home page of the Hubble science group. If you take the time to look on the net you can a lot of HDF papers. I suspect you have no idea of what those papers have in them.

Don't understand what's in them? Yes, that would be correct. Look, this shouldn't be too hard. Just tag each item on the picture with a distance. Make up new units to make it easy. Do you know where that chart is? I've looked for it and I haven't seen it.

Originally posted by ThePhy
It is interesting that you condemn HDF because of a perceived failure on the part of evolutionists. The only link I can think of between these two that would intertwine them in your mind is a religious one – they both point to ages not acceptable to YEC beliefs.

I would ask for more specifics about the dishonesty of the evolutionists, but that is too far afield from the subject of this thread.

First, can you point out where I condemn HDF? I think I only go as far as to say that redshift data is not as strong a measure of distance as we would like. But that isn't really a condemnation of HDF so much a common understanding among astronomers. But without the foundation of a perceived failure of HDF on my part, the rest of your statement falls apart.

The problem I do have is that the common knowledge of HDF is left in dispute. I would say it is because the gatekeepers of common knowledge aren't sure if they make it clear that it will help their cause (and that cause would be religious if blind faith was the primary definition).

Originally posted by ThePhy
This statement is amazing. The HDF is one of the few major astronomical projects I am aware of where the data has been openly available without charge to anyone who wants to play with it for over a decade. What do you want them to do, deliver it to you personally engraved on a silver platter? Perhaps you need to see a dentist about those eyeteeth that are giving you such problems.

A tagged chart would be nice. How many objects are there? 3000? That's another thing, finding the number of objects should be easy to find, but it isn't. But 3000 objects isn't very many.

Originally posted by ThePhy
Can you move beyond these bland generic vanilla-flavored smears against the HDF and come up with specifics?

Your bias is showing. I'm not smearing HDF, but the spin by the promoters of evo that all is right in evo-land. YEC are thrilled with HDF. Even the ones that can understand all the useful data.

Originally posted by ThePhy
As do we all.

But that hope does not mean that our current ideas about distances are just unreliable pie-in-the-sky guesses.

I would agree with that.

 

[Yorzhik]

How long do you want to wait?

I don't want to wait at all. I want the answer now.

 

[koban]

I don't want to wait at all. I want the answer now.

OK

Twelve miles.






If you want a real, physical, absolute measurement, right now it looks like you're gonna have to wait whatever fraction or multiple of light years the object is from us.

Otherwise you gotta make assumptions and extrapolate.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey ThePhy CLICK HERE.