Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

[Stripe]

...if I were to accept the validty of the orange leprechauns in your attic

Then all hopes of a rational conversation with you are in vain :idunno:

The math equation that might be presented is perfectly accessible and validly constructed. If you are unwilling to accept this simple point, even if you have reason to distrust it's relationship to reality, then you place yourself in the company of the hopelessly intractable.

 

[Dr.Watson]

all hopes of a rational conversation with me are in vain.

Agreed.

 

[Tyrathca]

Tyrathca, let me do you a favor and tell you that I am not reading your posts, at all.

Just save your fingers and debate these things with someone else.

I don't always post to convince the person I'm responding to, I often post with the hope that someone else reading isn't convinced by the falsehoods spouted by those like yourself. (The same goes for this post)

I suspected from the beginning that you were just trying to bait me, despite explicitly claiming you weren't, but felt it would be interesting to humour you anyway. It turns out those suspicions were right, you were never actually interested in discussing this topic.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you were willing to accept the validity of the mathematical challenge to the age of the Earth-Moon system,

Barbarian chuckles:
...if I were to accept the validty of the orange leprechauns in your attic,

Then all hopes of a rational conversation with you are in vain

Until you bring some evidence to the table, you don't have a rational base.

The math equation that might be presented is perfectly accessible and validly constructed.

So was Lord Kelvin's equation by which he "proved" the Earth was no more than about 10 million years old. But the evidence showed that this could not be. Darwin pointed out that the geology and biology of the world could not have happened in a mere ten million years.

And yet the "math equation" was "perfectly accessible and validly constructed."

And then Rutherford discovered radioactivity and the mystery of the missing energy was solved. And Kelvin, to his credit, admitted as much.

In your case, it's the tidal rythmites that show (by way of Kepler's Laws and Newton's theory of gravity) that the recession of the moon has been much slower than the current pace, something easily shown to happen by changing continental shapes.

I doubt if you'll be able to manage as Kelvin did, however.

If you are unwilling to accept this simple point, even if you have reason to distrust it's relationship to reality,

Comes down to that word you hate so much. "Evidence."

then you place yourself in the company of the hopelessly intractable.

Well, you know how unimaginative, and reality-situated barbarians can be.

 

[Tyrathca]

When they get back to work, lets not lower the bar and expect some results on this moon issue. They need to get out of hypothesis land and into a real theory.

It doesn't do you any good if they are all stuck at step one.

More tripe about how science doesn't have all the answers, despite never claiming it does. As usual another creationist acting like gaps in our scientific understanding of a topic is relevant to why we should accept the creationist alternative. It seems hell will freeze over (excuse the pun) before someone is going to cite an argument from the video that explains why we should accept creationism rather than just reject current scientific explanations.

 

[The Barbarian]

But it's kind of interesting to keep asking and see how long they'll dodge it.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2716917]Of course they were created. You're just don't approve of the way He did it.

And you, Barbarian, just don't believe that He did it the way He said He did (Genesis). Peter prophesied of you: "...that scoffers will come in the last days (2 Pet. 3:3). Peter plainly says that "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with WATER" (2 Pet. 3:6). But you scoff at this because God and His word is not your Ultimate Foundation. If your ultimate foundation is not true, then you can't really know anything.

Just curious! You claim a local flood instead of a worldwide flood. Is the coming judgment by FIRE mentioned in 2 Pet. 3:7 going to be a LOCAL FIRE or a worldwide fire?

"Evolutionists" don't study the solar system. Astronomers do. Creationists often conflate biology and science. Biology is just a part of science; there are many other disciplines.

Barbarian, why are you now saying that "astronomers" study the solar system? If you are going to be consistent, shouldn't you post that "astronomy" studies the solar system? Recall that in a previous thread, I could not get you to admit that "science" really does not tell us anything, but that "scientists" using science do. You would not admit to this self-evident truth--not if I held a gun to your head.

So now you have two choices: You can correct yourself and admit that you committed the logic fallacy of reification when you posited that science rather than scientists tell us things. Or you can stay consistently in error by reposting that its "astronomy" that studies the solar system and not "astronomers."

That was Darwin's great contribution.

Darwin was a fool of the first order. I did not say that. I'm just repeating what God said about Darwin. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction" (Prov. 1:7). And Paul also said that Darwin was a fool: "Professing to be wise, he became a FOOL [paraphrased]" (Rom. 1:22).

You call yourself a Christian. If you were, you would believe God and condemn Darwin for the fool that he was. Instead, you're praising him for his "great contribution." Shame on you!

Darwin's false teaching has been the single most destructive force in the history of man. He, with the aid of millions who have bought in to his lie, destroyed the very foundation of Christianity--Genesis. He is responsible for leading tens of millions to an eternity in hell apart from their Creator God. But you deem his false teaching a "great contribution."

Although judgment of the damned will be committed to us Christians (1 Cor. 6:3), I imagine that there will be certain special cases where a door will open behind us and Jesus will appear and say, "I'll handle this one personally." And I'm going to stand back, because there might be collateral damage.

Tom

 

[Stripe]

And you, Barbarian, just don't believe that He did it the way He said He did (Genesis). Peter prophesied of you: "...that scoffers will come in the last days (2 Pet. 3:3). Peter plainly says that "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with WATER" (2 Pet. 3:6). But you scoff at this because God and His word is not your Ultimate Foundation. If your ultimate foundation is not true, then you can't really know anything.

:mock: Barbie.

Just curious! You claim a local flood instead of a worldwide flood. Is the coming judgment by FIRE mentioned in 2 Pet. 3:7 going to be a LOCAL FIRE or a worldwide fire?

:think:

Barbarian, why are you now saying that "astronomers" study the solar system? If you are going to be consistent, shouldn't you post that "astronomy" studies the solar system? Recall that in a previous thread, I could not get you to admit that "science" really does not tell us anything, but that "scientists" using science do. You would not admit to this self-evident truth--not if I held a gun to your head. So now you have two choices: You can correct yourself and admit that you committed the logic fallacy of reification when you posited that science rather than scientists tell us things. Or you can stay consistently in error by reposting that its "astronomy" that studies the solar system and not "astronomers."

:rotfl:

:mock: Barbie.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Of course they were created. You're just don't approve of the way He did it.

And you, Barbarian, just don't believe that He did it the way He said He did (Genesis).

God says that the earth and waters brought forth living things. YE creationists say that life was created from nothing. Because you don't approve of God's way of doing it, you invented your own doctrine.

Peter prophesied of you: "...that scoffers will come in the last days (2 Pet. 3:3).

Peter plainly says that "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with WATER" (2 Pet. 3:6).

Actually, as you learned, the word you revisionists interpreted as "world" actually means "land." Again, you were dissatisfied with what God said about it, and so you "corrected" Him. And of course, I'd be pleased to see your evidence for the idea that if Peter mentions an allegory, that makes it into a literal history.

Your scoffing at His word, notwithstanding.

You scoff at this because God and His word is not your Ultimate Foundation. Instead of taking Genesis as He gave it to you, you've altered it to your liking.

If your ultimate foundation is not true, then you can't really know anything.

Just curious! You claim a local flood instead of a worldwide flood. Is the coming judgment by FIRE mentioned in 2 Pet. 3:7 going to be a LOCAL FIRE or a worldwide fire?

Are you claiming God says which it is? Yet another creationist revision, I suppose.

Barbarian chuckles:
"Evolutionists" don't study the solar system. Astronomers do. Creationists often conflate biology and science. Biology is just a part of science; there are many other disciplines.

Barbarian, why are you now saying that "astronomers" study the solar system?

Because it's true. A radical concept for some, perhaps.

If you are going to be consistent, shouldn't you post that "astronomy" studies the solar system?

More technically, Astronomy is the study of the solar system. Astronomy shows us that the Earth is not the center of the Solar system, as creationists have argued.

Recall that in a previous thread, I could not get you to admit that "science" really does not tell us anything, but that "scientists" using science do.

As you learned, that is wrong. Scientists merely add to the body of knowledge. Astronomy shows us that the solar system is not geocentric. Astronomers gather the body of knowledge we call "astronomy."

You would not admit to this self-evident truth--not if I held a gun to your head.

I don't understand why you have this fixation about changing the meaning of words.

Barbarian on the mechanism of evolution:
That was Darwin's great contribution.

Darwin was a fool of the first order. I did not say that. I'm just repeating what God said about Darwin. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction" (Prov. 1:7).

Where did Darwin despise wisdom and instruction?

And Paul also said that Darwin was a fool: "Professing to be wise, he became a FOOL [paraphrased]" (Rom. 1:22).

Where did Darwin profess to be wise?

You call yourself a Christian. If you were, you would not have made those false accusations. Shame on you.

Darwin's false teaching has been the single most destructive force in the history of man.

Even most creationists would say that was a crazy statement.

He, with the aid of millions who have bought in to his lie, destroyed the very foundation of Christianity--Genesis.

In fact, Darwin's theory is completely compatible with Genesis. But the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is expressly at odds with God's word in Genesis.

He is responsible for leading tens of millions to an eternity in hell apart from their Creator God.

God does not care whether or not you approve of the way He created life. It will not matter to your salvation. But reckless false witness might matter. Best be honest and charitable, if your eternal soul matters to you.

Altough judgment of the damned will be committed to us Christians (1 Cor. 6:3), I imagine that there will be certain special cases where a door will open behind us and Jesus will appear and say, "I'll handle this one personally." And I'm going to stand back, because there might be collateral damage.

The fact that you dwell with such obvious pleasure on your expected power to condemn those who disagree with you to Hell, tells us all we need to know about your relationship to God.

 

[TeeJay]

Barbarian,

So, let's look closely at what you're arguing: Science, not scientists, tell us things. Or scientists using science tell us things. Now two contradictory statements can both be false. But both of these can't be true at the same time in the same way? If you deny this, then this is your second logic fallacy. So, I must ask: Are the laws of logic absolute, universal, and invariant? Or are they simply conventional? By conventional I mean that they are only what society agrees them to be.

Your ultimate foundation is not God or His word. But if it is not, then you can't really do science of any sort. For scientific experimentation to be possible, there has to be uniformity of nature (not uniformitarianism). By uniformity, I mean that the physical laws are law-like and will not change arbitrarily in the future, or the future will be like the past. A creationist has a rational reason to believe that in the future the physical laws will not change. The evolutionist does not. And if you have no rational reason to believe something, then you can't know it's true and it can be true only by accident.

Now evolutionists do believe in the uniformity of nature, but in doing so, they are inconsistent with their worldview. Their worldview can't account for uniformity of nature. So when they rely on uniformity of nature, they are borrowing from the creationist's worldview. In doing so, they show their own wolrdview to be irrational.

Tom

 

[Stripe]

God says that the earth and waters brought forth living things.

It's funny how when the bible says something you can make sound like evolution the bible is a science book, but when it says clearly that the world was destroyed in a flood or that it was created in six days suddenly it is not. :chuckle:

YE creationists say that life was created from nothing. Because you don't approve of God's way of doing it, you invented your own doctrine.

I know of not one YEC who thinks that God did not form man out of the dust of the Earth. And yet it is still no failure to say God created everything from nothing.

You're just being miserable.

Peter prophesied of you: "...that scoffers will come in the last days (2 Pet. 3:3).

:rotfl:

Barbie commonly ignores the parts that he doesn't like. Here's the rest:

...and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of ecreation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But ithe heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.​

Grow up, Barbie. :nono:

 

[The Barbarian]

and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of ecreation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

Actually, as you learned, the word you revisionists interpreted as "world" actually means "land." Again, you were dissatisfied with what God said about it, and so you "corrected" Him. And of course, I'd be pleased to see your evidence for the idea that if Peter mentions an allegory, that makes it into a literal history.

Your scoffing at His word, notwithstanding.

You scoff at this because God and His word is not your Ultimate Foundation. Instead of taking Genesis as He gave it to you, you've altered it to your liking.

I know of not one YEC who thinks that God did not form man out of the dust of the Earth.

Well, let's take a look...

Institute for Creation Research, the largest and most influential YE creationist organization:
Evolution claims that non-living material developed into a living organism and that this simple life developed into fish, then amphibia, then reptiles, then mammals; but the Bible says that God created life from nothing and that he created all living kinds.

There's lots more of it. How much more do you need, Stipe?

You're just being miserable.

You're just being dishonest. Peter prophesied of you: "...that scoffers will come in the last days (2 Pet. 3:3).

Stipe tries his version of a convincing argument:
Grow up, Barbie.

That's our Stipe.

 

[Stripe]

Institute for Creation Research, the largest and most influential YE creationist organization: Evolution claims that non-living material developed into a living organism and that this simple life developed into fish, then amphibia, then reptiles, then mammals; but the Bible says that God created life from nothing and that he created all living kinds.

And I bet if you were to ask they'd freely admit that God also formed them of the dust of the Earth. Like I say, you're just being miserable.

And, as you do not wish to learn, "World" can refer to the entire Earth.

 

[The Barbarian]

And I bet if you were to ask they'd freely admit that God also formed them of the dust of the Earth.

Most YE, even those who pledge loyalty to the ICR, will backtrack quickly when you point out to them that one of their core beliefs is contrary to God's word.

Some of them, thinking themselves wise, try switch the subject to the creation of man, instead of the creation of life.

But the fact remains. "Life ex nihilo" is a foundational belief of YE creationism, and is contrary to God's word in Genesis.

 

[Stripe]

Or you're just being miserable.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, let's look closely at what you're arguing: Science, not scientists, tell us things.

Yep. Science is the body of knowledge found by scientists. Sort of the way that the Bible is the body of knowledge written by men inspired by God. The Bible tells us things also.

Or scientists using science tell us things. Now two contradictory statements can both be false. But both of these can't be true at the same time in the same way?

I don't think semantic tapdancing is going to help you much.

If you deny this, then this is your second logic fallacy.

So your argument is that the Bible can't tell us anything or that the apostles can't tell us anything?

So, I must ask: Are the laws of logic absolute, universal, and invariant?

First figure out the above, and we'll go on to your "laws of logic."

Your ultimate foundation is not God or His word. But if it is not, then you can't really do science of any sort.

And yet there are atheists who do pretty good science. So that's out, too.

For scientific experimentation to be possible, there has to be uniformity of nature (not uniformitarianism). By uniformity, I mean that the physical laws are law-like and will not change arbitrarily in the future, or the future will be like the past. A creationist has a rational reason to believe that in the future the physical laws will not change.

Hmmm...

“God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God.” Duane Gish - (Evolution: The Fossils Say No, page 42)

Nice try.

You guys need to get your story straight and then come back with a logical and consistent story. Then we'll look the evidence for it.

Good luck.

 

[patman]

Not goin' nuts at all. And it's tricky having any kind of a conversation with you when you consistently ignore simple questions and try to lecture people.

Alright. I'll take that into consideration. I would appreciate more detail on how I ignore simple questions and where my lecturing isn't appropriate. Not that I want to spend many posts on this, if it helps steer the conversation in a productive direction then I think it could be necessary.

The person whom has gotten this the worst of my lecturing is Tyrathca. I readily admit that I am now totally ignoring his post (though he isn't on my ignore list). I am just tired of restating the same thing over and over again. I did try to converse with him on content available on the internet but he wasn't willing (the last time I checked) and I don't see the harm in telling him to stop being prejudice in his review of a DVD he has hardly seen half of. He can say whatever he wants about what he has seen, but again he didn't want to do that (because he said my quote was too short, which I thought was funny).

 

[Tyrathca]

Alright. I'll take that into consideration. I would appreciate more detail on how I ignore simple questions and where my lecturing isn't appropriate.

Examples of simple questions ignored:

In post #8 I asked where the positive arguments for creationism were in the video, since they did not appear in the chapters freely available. I am yet to get an answer. I am also yet to get a response to my criticisms of the comments in the chapters I saw, such as the issue of the failure to mention radioactive decay as an additional source of heat for the core of Io and claiming (unsourced) that calculations would have the planet cooling in less than a few million years. Either of these would be good places to start unless you have something else on your mind.

...I'm STILL waiting for an answer to that question. Please don't let this thread crack 200 posts before someone gives even a fraction of an answer.

Examples of lecturing:
Toward me

Tyrathca, why are doing this? We are talking about your review of a DVD you never saw... and your review isn't an opinion based review, this is a falsifiable review. Either it says x y and z or it doesn't. We can prove that by it says x y and z or it doesn't simply by watching it.

This is a documentary that is 105 minutes long. You are quick to judge the entire video based on viewing the introduction is 9 minutes, the Jupiter chapter is 14 minutes long. Based 23 minutes you draw the conclusion that the rest of the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance."

etc etc

Towards Dr Watson

Dr.Watson, You don't know me. You are proving yourself to be prejudice like the other atheist in this thread. Note, not all atheist are prejudice, but so far you and Tyrathca have shown yourselves well.

I believe in evolution on some level happens. I think evolution happens in large steps. I believe God made animals with the ability to evolve. I think modern evidence shows evolution can happen fast, which leads me to think life was designed that way (For example, I think "Junk DNA" will show "spare parts" that an organism can use in times of trouble - which I believe was put there by God as a means of survival). I am also a young earth creationist. Bet you didn't see that coming.

Before you point out my lack of qualifications as a scientist let me do it for you. I am not a scientist. I don't go around telling people to follow my personal theory, nor do I present it as fact. If it is interesting to someone than so be it, if not, fine. I just leave it at what it is, an idea. I'll stop with that disclaimer in place.

etc etc.

-----

I readily admit that I am now totally ignoring his post (though he isn't on my ignore list). I am just tired of restating the same thing over and over again.

Don't worry I'm equally as tired of hearing you restate the same thing over and over again. Though I have tried to give you opportunity to stop and discuss the video and why I'm wrong about it. I even provided specific points that we could start with, but alas you just ignored it and repeated your lecturing...

He can say whatever he wants about what he has seen, but again he didn't want to do that (because he said my quote was too short, which I thought was funny).

Didn't say that, I disliked the question attached to it ("is this stupid?") and thought the quote was otherwise not worth commenting on unless you had some point you wanted to make with it:

"Is this stupid or not" and quoting a small bit of the video doesn't warrant response. It isn't actually a comment about any of mine or anyone elses specific criticisms of the video. Nor do you make any point anyway, it's just a question and not one I'm inclined to indulge you with unless you put some effort to put something forward yourself.(emphasis added)

Answering that question is not only a subjective and definitional opinion but does not appear to progress discussion in anyway. If I wanted single out that quote in his video I would have, please make a contribution of your own as to why you consider [it] worth commenting about and why.(emphasis added)

The problem was with the size of your comment/input as well as the intelligence and value of the question, not the size of the quote itself.

 

[Stripe]

So has anyone come up with anything the video says that is wrong? Seems to me that all of it was evidence against evolution. The problem for atheists is that evolution is the only game in town. If we are to discuss alternatives, they are at a loss. Christians, however, have a story that can accommodate a short history for the solar system. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

So has anyone come up with anything the video says that is wrong?

When asked to tell us one thing about the video that was right, you came up with the old "moon is recessing to fast" story, which is easily refuted by tidal rhythmites, showing the rate of recession was much slower in the past.

Is there anything at all that's demonstrably true that denies current thinking on astronomy?