Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

[Stripe]

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.

We might well be able to have that discussion if you were willing to show a little honesty and humility and concede that the initial mathematical challenge is valid.

I know any number of reasons to question the validity of your "tidal" rhythmites (which are actually wave generated), but there really isn't any point if you're going to continue being an arrogant pratt.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.

We might well be able to have that discussion if you were willing to show a little honesty and humility and concede that the initial mathematical challenge is valid.

If you were honest and humble, you'd admit that reality trumps anyone's reasoning. Calculations are only valid if they are grounded in reality. If you want to calculate how many orange leprechauns there are in America, you have only to multiply the number of houses by the leprechauns per house. And that calculation will be just as valid as your recession of the moon calculation.

I know any number of reasons to question the validity of your "tidal" rhythmites (which are actually wave generated), but there really isn't any point if you're going to continue being an arrogant pratt.

And you'd tell us, but the evil Barbarian won't let you. Yes, we've heard that one before. Guess how that plays with rational people.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes: 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. If you were honest and humble, you'd admit that reality trumps anyone's reasoning. Calculations are only valid if they are grounded in reality. If you want to calculate how many orange leprechauns there are in America, you have only to multiply the number of houses by the leprechauns per house. And that calculation will be just as valid as your recession of the moon calculation. And you'd tell us, but the evil Barbarian won't let you. Yes, we've heard that one before. Guess how that plays with rational people.

Arrogant little upstart. :chuckle:

Oh well. Age and experience will wear those rough edges off you, I'm sure. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian shows Stipe evidence that refutes his new doctrine)

Arrogant little upstart.

Oh noes! The evil Barbarian is using evidence again. How arrogant!

Oh well. Age and experience will wear those rough edges off you, I'm sure.

Hasn't done much over the past six decades. But hey, when I get old, maybe I'll be less of a curmudgeon.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2733851]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.

The Fallacy of Reification: This fallacy is committed when a person attributes a concrete and often "personal" characteristic to a conceptional abstraction. A classic example is the one you used, "science tells us this and science tells us that." But science by itself can't really tell or do anything. It's people using science that tell us things. Reification is acceptable in poetry but should not be used in logical argumentation. Example: "The 'sea' kept calling the captain back to his ship."

Now normally, I would not call a man for using "science" the way you have. But recall that we were arguing if humans had worldviews. You argued that you were neutral and you relied on science to tell you things. And I posted that it was not science that told you things but scientists with worldviews that told you things.

I have given up of ever having you admit to one simple truth. But I do enjoy exposing your inconsistencies and irrationality.

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

As I explained above, our original argument over worldviews was not simply semantic tapdancing. And your kabuki dance will not save you. Now I will ask you again: Can two contradictory statements be both true and false at the same time in the same way?

If not, then you are forced to choose one or the other. Right?

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

Barbarian, how in the world did you conclude this from anything that I posted? Non sequitur. No?

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

Why the hesitancy to answer?

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

Yes! But in doing so they are irrational, arbitrary, and inconsistent within their worldview. If the atheist worldview was true, he could not do science or know anything.

A theistic creatonist has a rational Foundation to believe in uniformity of nature--that the physical laws are law-like and will not change. God has promised us this in His word. He created all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:2) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3), the creationist can expect that the universe will function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore God is consistent (1 Sam. 15:29; Num. 23:19). The theistic creationist can trust that the physical laws will not arbitrarily change tomorrow (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20-21). These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. The theistic creationist can KNOW that the future will be like the past because God has promised him this.

When an evolutionist assumes that the physical laws will not change, he is being arbitrary, inconsistent and irrational within his worldview. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview.

The argment I have just presented also pertains to a theistic evolutionist. If his worldview were true, he could not rationally justify uniformity of nature.

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)

Barbarian, If "we cannot DISCOVER by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God," then why don't you simply believe Genesis and stop using science to argue against how God said He did it?

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.

I don't know who "you guys" are? Evidence will not reconcile our differences. My Ultimate Standard is God and His word. Your ultimate standard is not. You will always interpret evidence different because you have a different worldview. But which worldview is rational, consisent, and nonarbitrary? Not yours.

Before you can be consisent, you have to have a Foundation that is consistent. Before you can be logically, you have to seek the source for logic outside of logic itself. If you attempt to prove logic and reason by logic and reason, then you commit circular reasoning.

God created Adam from the "dust of the earth." Barbarian please don't present me with this straw-horse argument again. Please.

Did Adam's life essence come from the dust of the earth or from God?

Did Adam's ability to reason and reach truth come from the dust of the earth or from the mind of God?

Did laws of logic come from the dust of the earth or from the logical mind of God?

Does morality come from the dust of the earth or from a moral God?

Can a Christian theistic evolutionist, who does not believe in a literal reading of Genesis, justify uniformity of nature in his worldview and remain consistent?

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

The Fallacy of Reification: This fallacy is committed when a person attributes a concrete and often "personal" characteristic to a conceptional abstraction.

Your error is to think that a body of knowledge can't tell you anything. But it can. There's no point in denying it.

Now normally, I would not call a man for using "science" the way you have.

But in this case, playing with semantics is all you have left.

But recall that we were arguing if humans had worldviews. You argued that you were neutral and you relied on science to tell you things.

I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I just said I didn't buy your postmodern claim that people cannot be objective if they do have a particular POV.

I don't think semantic tapdancing is going to help you much.
As I explained above, our original argument over worldviews was not simply semantic tapdancing.

It's what you're doing, for obvious reasons. And no matter how much you want two contradictory statements to be the same, they can't be.

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

Barbarian, how in the world did you conclude this from anything that I posted?

You told me that either science can't tell us anything or scientists can't tell us anything. I just used different examples.

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

Yes! But in doing so they are irrational, arbitrary, and inconsistent within their worldview.

I don't share their worldview, so I have no way of saying.

(Tom insists that creationists accept that all processes are always consistent in nature)

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)

So you're wrong about that, too.

Barbarian, If "we cannot DISCOVER by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God,"

That's the creationist argument. Ask them.

then why don't you simply believe Genesis

As you learned, I accept all of it. You only accept the parts that fit your new religion.

God created Adam from the "dust of the earth." Barbarian

Indeed. If you'll admit that much why not just also accept the way He did it? As you know, the young Earth belief in "life ex nihilo" is directly ruled out by God in Genesis.

Did Adam's life essence come from the dust of the earth or from God?

Like all humans, his body was formed by natural processes, but his soul was given directly by God.

Did Adam's ability to reason and reach truth come from the dust of the earth or from the mind of God?

Did your ability to reason come by virtue of having a brain, or could you reason without one? If you know that, then you will understand.

Can a Christian theistic evolutionist, who does not believe in a literal reading of Genesis, justify uniformity of nature in his worldview and remain consistent?

It is impossible for a Christian to be consistent and interpret Genesis as a literal history.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2734459]Your error is to think that a body of knowledge can't tell you anything. But it can. There's no point in denying it.

Was there a "body of knowledge" BEFORE or AFTER scietists theorized, experimented, discovered, and then wrote this "body of knowledge"?

Checkmate!

But in this case, playing with semantics is all you have left.

Checkmate!

I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I just said I didn't buy your postmodern claim that people cannot be objective if they do have a particular POV.

You accuse me falsely. But I will excuse you because I don't think you know what postmodernism is.

It's what you're doing, for obvious reasons. And no matter how much you want two contradictory statements to be the same, they can't be.

Eureka! So you now admit that the following two contradictory statements: It's true that science tells us things OR it's true that scientists using science tell us things can't both be true at the same time and in the same way?

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

Okay! I see where you're going with this. You're comparing apples and oranges. "Science" is a conceptual abstraction. Scientists using scientific processes arrive at conclusions and tell us things. The Bible is not a conceptual abstraction. It is the inspired word of God recorded by God's men--prophets, apostles, etc. Of course the word of God informs us.

You told me that either science can't tell us anything or scientists can't tell us anything. I just used different examples.

I did not say that. I said that you have two choices: Either science tells us things or scientists using science tell us things.

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

I don't share their worldview, so I have no way of saying.

You don't have to "share" their worldview to know what it is and decide if it is rational, nonarbitrary, and consistent. And in one regard, you do share their worldview. It is Genesis where God promises us uniformity of nature. But you reject a literal reading of Genesis, so you can't rely on that promise. And if you can't, then your have no logical reason to believe that the future will be like the past.

(Tom insists that creationists accept that all processes are always consistent in nature)

No I did not! This is Uniformitarianism (what you as an evolutionist are forced to believe). I specifically said not to confuse uniformity of nature with uniformitarianism. By uniformity of nature I mean that God's physical laws that govern the universe are law-like and will not change tomorrow. God promises this in Genesis.

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)

Barbarian, what in the world are you getting at? You posted this. Of course God's six-day creative process is not happening today. But why? Why? Why? I can answer: God rested on the seventh day from all of His creation. But you can't answer this because you do not read Genesis literally. In your worldview, you can't argue that God rested on the seventh day.

So you're wrong about that, too.

I will be glad to admit I'm wrong if you tell me what I am wrong about and I am indeed wrong. I have that missing gene that enables one to be humble and admit error.

That's the creationist argument. Ask them.

Then why did you post it?

As you learned, I accept all of it. You only accept the parts that fit your new religion.

Is Genesis 8:22 to be taken literally. If not, why not?

Indeed. If you'll admit that much why not just also accept the way He did it? As you know, the young Earth belief in "life ex nihilo" is directly ruled out by God in Genesis.

Barbarian, I asked you not to present me with that straw-horse argument. Why do you keep doing it? Is it desperation on your part? You are not debating other young earthers. You're debating me. I will not respond to this straw-horse argument in the future. You can present it, but it will not be responded to.

Now I ask you: Is Genesis 2:7 to be read "literally" and "historically" or is it allegorical?

Like all humans, his body was formed by natural processes, but his soul was given directly by God.

You answered correctly, because natural processes (matter) can't give you a soul. God affirms this in Genesis 2:7. Now I ask: Is Genesis 2:7 to be read literally and historically or allegorically?

Did your ability to reason come by virtue of having a brain, or could you reason without one? If you know that, then you will understand.

I don't agree with you that "reasoning" is a physical process of chemical motion in the brain. If this were true, then the chemicals in your brain would not move the same as in my brain and we could never agree on any law of logic (which we are having much trouble with presently). Thinking and reasoning is not physical. Your brain is physical. If reasoning was simply chemical actions in the brain (physical organ), then we could never know anything was true. We could not even know that our brains were composed of chemicals.

If you want a real tough nut to chew on: The prophet Samuel reasoned without a physical brain in First Samuel 28:15-19. And all the saints that are with the Lord are presently reasoning without physical brains.

It is impossible for a Christian to be consistent and interpret Genesis as a literal history.

That's not what I asked you. Please answer the question.

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

Was there a "body of knowledge" BEFORE or AFTER scietists theorized, experimented, discovered, and then wrote this "body of knowledge"?

Before. The first scientists started with a body of knowledge from non-scientists.

Tom concedes:
Checkmate!

Thank you.

You accuse me falsely.

Tom, it's still on the board.

It's true that science tells us things OR it's true that scientists using science tell us things can't both be true at the same time and in the same way?

Science can tell us things. So can scientists.

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

"Science" is a conceptual abstraction.

Nope. It's a body of knowledge.

The Bible is not a conceptual abstraction.

It is also a body of knowledge.

I said that you have two choices: Either science tells us things or scientists using science tell us things.

As you learned, they both do.

(Tom says athiests are not logical in their worldview)

Barbarian observes:
I don't share their worldview, so I have no way of saying.

You don't have to "share" their worldview to know what it is and decide if it is rational, nonarbitrary, and consistent.

Well, I guess barbarians are very good at mind-reading.

(Tom insists that creationists accept that all processes are always consistent in nature)

No I did not!

Well, let's take a look...

Tom insists that all processes are always consistent in nature:

When an evolutionist assumes that the physical laws will not change, he is being arbitrary, inconsistent and irrational within his worldview. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview.

Imagine that.

By uniformity of nature I mean that God's physical laws that govern the universe are law-like and will not change tomorrow.

Uniformitarianism means that the laws that govern the universe have been the same since the beginning.

Barbarian notes that Tom is wrong:
“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)

In your worldview, you can't argue that God rested on the seventh day.

I'm just pointing out that you're being illogical and inconsistent.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, I accept all of it. You only accept the parts that fit your new religion.

Is Genesis 8:22 to be taken literally.

Gen. 8:22 All the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, night and day, shall not cease.

I think so. Why wouldn't it be?

Barbarian observes:
Indeed. If you'll admit that much why not just also accept the way He did it? As you know, the young Earth belief in "life ex nihilo" is directly ruled out by God in Genesis.

Barbarian, I asked you not to present me with that straw-horse argument.

It's not going to go away. It's right there in Genesis. You might not like it, but there it is.

You can present it, but it will not be responded to.

I'm not trying to convince you that it's true. I'm just pointing out your unwillingness to accept it.

Now I ask you: Is Genesis 2:7 to be read "literally" and "historically" or is it allegorical?

Of course. All living things were brought forth by the earth. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

Like all humans, his body was formed by natural processes, but his soul was given directly by God.

You answered correctly, because natural processes (matter) can't give you a soul. God affirms this in Genesis 2:7. Now I ask: Is Genesis 2:7 to be read literally and historically or allegorically?

Parts of it are literal, and parts are not. And some we don't know for sure.

Barbarian suggests:
Did your ability to reason come by virtue of having a brain, or could you reason without one? If you know that, then you will understand.

I don't agree with you that "reasoning" is a physical process of chemical motion in the brain.

It is for us. Not for spirits. But we are not spirits. Show me any human who can reason without a brain.

If you want a real tough nut to chew on: The prophet Samuel reasoned without a physical brain in First Samuel 28:15-19. And all the saints that are with the Lord are presently reasoning without physical brains.

See above.

Barbarian observes:
It is impossible for a Christian to be consistent and interpret Genesis as a literal history.

That's not what I asked you.

It's what I'm telling you. Now answer my question.

 

[Stripe]

As you learned, I accept all of it. You only accept the parts that fit your new religion.

Genesis describes how God created everything on Earth in six days. You do not accept this..

It is impossible for a Christian to be consistent and interpret Genesis as a literal history.

As you are unwilling to learn, this is complete hogwash.

 

[some other dude]

As you are unwilling to learn...

That's Barbie, to a T.

You can shove the truth up his rear and he'll twist and squirm and deny it's there.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding Stipe's revisions to Genesis:
As you learned, I accept all of it. You only accept the parts that fit your new religion.

Genesis describes how God created everything on Earth in six days.

We know it's not literal history, since it describes mornings and evenings without any sun to have them. This is why early Christians rejected the idea that it was a literal history.

You do not accept this..

I think they were right. Your new religion won't make any sense, unless Christians are wrong about it.

Barbarian observes:
It is impossible for a Christian to be consistent and interpret Genesis as a literal history.

As you are unwilling to learn, this is complete hogwash.

We're used to people calling Christianity "hogwash." None of us are all that concerned what you think of it.

 

[Jukia]

That's Barbie, to a T.

You can shove the truth up his rear and he'll twist and squirm and deny it's there.

As in the earth is 6000 years old, god created all in 6 days, took a breather for one, got angry at eveyone but Noah and killed all with a flood (even little babies), dinosaurs and men lived at the same time, all were vegetarians until the Fall...that truth?

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian, regarding Stipe's revisions to Genesis:As you learned, I accept all of it. You only accept the parts that fit your new religion.We know it's not literal history, since it describes mornings and evenings without any sun to have them. This is why early Christians rejected the idea that it was a literal history.

But when it suits you, all of a sudden "from the dust of the Earth" is literal. :chuckle:

It seems it is OK for you to pick and choose what is scientifically applicable. But only you.

As in the earth is 6000 years old, god created all in 6 days, took a breather for one, got angry at eveyone but Noah and killed all with a flood (even little babies), dinosaurs and men lived at the same time, all were vegetarians until the Fall...that truth?

Hey! It's Jukia back with nothing to contribute again! How was your vacation?

:think: It a little weird having so many people quoting me in their sigs all in the same place. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding Stipe's revisions to Genesis:As you learned, I accept all of it. You only accept the parts that fit your new religion.We know it's not literal history, since it describes mornings and evenings without any sun to have them. This is why early Christians rejected the idea that it was a literal history.

But when it suits you, all of a sudden "from the dust of the Earth" is literal.

That's figurative, too. God didn't kneel down and mold living things out of dust and poof life into them. He did it His way, using nature as He intended.

It seems it is OK for you to pick and choose what is scientifically applicable. But only you.

C'mon Stipe. Even you know that no one is going to buy your story about that.

It a little weird having so many people quoting me in their sigs all in the same place.

You have to admit that a supposed Christian, thinking the firmament in Genesis refers to the Earth's crust, is pretty funny.

 

[some other dude]

:think: It a little weird having so many people quoting me in their sigs all in the same place. :chuckle:

I think I found a signature line! :banana:


:think: Leave in the typo or not?

 

[some other dude]

Hey! How come my signature line isn't showing up here? It is in other threads.



eta: Oh, I see. It only appears in new posts. Cool.

 

[TeeJay]

Barbarian,

I don't want to waste more time with you. It's not possible to have a rational, honest dialogue with you.

You posted: "Tom insists that all PROCESSES are always consistent in nature." Please show me where I posted that.

So that you would not be confused I showed you the difference between "uniformitarianism" and "uniformity of nature." By "uniformity of nature" I mean that God's PHYSICAL LAWS (NOT PROCESSES) will not change arbitrarily because God upholds His creation by the "word of his power." God promises us this in His word (Gen. 8:22 for example). (I notice you don't interpret this allegorical. Why not?).

In spite of this, you posted: "Uniformitarianism means that the laws that govern the universe have been the same since the beginning." Random House Webster's College Dictionary definition of uniformitarianism: the theory that geological PROCESSES operative in the remote past are no different from the PROCESSES operative now. Why did you do that?

And, I pray that you will accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior in accordance with Romans 10:9-10.

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't want to waste more time with you. It's not possible to have a rational, honest dialogue with you.

And it's probably a waste of time playing semantics to define away your logical inconsistencies.

And, I pray that you will accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior in accordance with Romans 10:9-10.

I have accepted Him as Lord and Savior, without conditions. You should have done that, too.

 

[DavisBJ]

Stripe said:

Your reason for "time going slower" (which I would translate as "light slowing down") would be that there is more gravity toward the center of the universe, right?

OEJ responded:

Pretty much. At least a gravitational center. I'm not absolutely sure there'd be more gravity there, per se, but I'm not ruling it out.

Nope, gravity is less there.

How could there not be? The further away one goes from the center of gravity, the less the effect of the gravity.

Only true if you are external to the object generating the gravity. You get heavier the closer you get to the surface of the earth. But once you start descending into the earth itself, even though you are approaching its center of gravity, you are actually getting lighter. (At the center of the earth, you would be weightless, even though you would have a gazillion tons of pressure on you from the rock above you.)

Similarly, you are within, not external to, the universe. If the universe has a center of gravity, that is where the gravitational pull would be equal in every direction (adding up to zero net gravity at that point.).

 

[DavisBJ]

I agree that this (preview) of the DVD seems to rely on culling unsolved questions in solar system formation and then saying that “Astrophysicists don’t understand this, therefore God did it.” What a perfect way to suggest that rather than trying to understand something not yet mastered, that we throw up our hands and declare it in the province of theology?

If Spike had held sway 200 years ago, how much simpler would our lives be now? No TV’s, no phones, no airplanes, no atomic energy, no computers, etc. No, these were all things that would have been as inexplicable then as anything Spike brings up in his videos.

From the preview, at 02:20:

According to the current … model …

Which model? Is there only one?

That probably contradicts everything you have heard before. You’ve probably been told that … astronomers have it all figured out, and that their models prove that our solar system formed all by itself billions of years ago.

…

In this video you’ll discover what you’re not being told about our solar system.

…

Most people have been told that all the evidence points towards evolution.

Problem is, a few minutes later Spike quotes from a textbook to confirm that there are issues:

Once these planetesimals have been formed, further growth of planets may occur through their gravitational accretion into large bodies. Just how that takes place is not understood. (Martin Harwitt, Astrophysical Concepts, 2nd Ed. P 553)

Now if we are being secretive about the weaknesses, what is an admission like that doing in a book that is commonly used in physics classes (I have it on my shelf)? Spike asserts that there is a pervasive pattern of lying about “That probably contradicts everything you have heard before. … You’ve probably been told that evolutionary astronomers have it all figured out … you’ll discover what you’re not being told about our solar system … Most people have been told that all the evidence points towards evolution.” (I have one full volume titled “Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics”.)

In the first introductory video, the only major scientific issue Spike dwells on is the question of whether or not a nebular cloud can condense into a solar system like ours. He generically asserts that:

The problem is that once you have big clumps of dust and maybe even some small pebbles, they don’t grow together anymore. They start impacting each other too fast to start sticking together. Instead they start breaking each other up in the collisions.

In stark contrast to his propensity to assign such problems to the “godidit” column, real scientists actually convene conferences to collaborate and investigate such problems.