Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
"Evolutionists" don't study the solar system. Astronomers do.

Do astromers who don't believe the solar system was created, believe it evolved?

Ah, you're trying to conflate "change" which is what "evolution" actually means, with "descent with modficiation" which is Darwin's term, and what "evolution" has come to mean in most people's minds.

Conflation of ideas seems to be a big part of the creationist mindset, for reasons I've never really understood.

Do they study the solar system with the assumption it is made out of material that came from other parts of the universe and came into being through processes that involved no outside intelligence whatsoever?

No, I don't think so. In fact, I've never read anything in the literature about the presence or absence of intelligence at all, except in the very limited meaning that Newton did not consider divine will at all in working out his theory of gravity.

It is true that biologists who hold to darwinism do not study the solar system

But that didn't stop you, did it? Interesting phenomenon, that.

but scientists with a naturalistic philosophical bias, do study the solar system and believe it evolved.

Actually, those without a naturalistic philosophical bias do, too, if you use the non-biological meaning of "evolution." Pretty much everyone thinks it changed over time. (remember, that's what "evolved" means)

Stipe is disappointed:

Are we really going to argue about the use of the term "evolution" again?

Pretty much anytime people conflate the general term with the specific meaning in biology, we will. Did you think that would evolve, Stipe? :chuckle:

 

[Tyrathca]

Tyrathca,

Hypothetically speaking here, but if somehow we could prove the universe was only thousands of years old, which explanation would you look to as an answer to an origins of our universe?

You mean between creationism and evolution? Well creationism, since they'd finally have a testable prediction which turned out to be right (age of universe) and evolution is apparently incompatible with that age. That wouldn't mean that I'd accept creationism as proven, since creationism makes many other predictions and perhaps there is a third more likely explanation (there is no justification for assuming a dichotomy of choices despite the video doing so) but certainly it would lend a lot of weight to creationism.

But since there is no such proof it remains purely hypothetical.

 

[Stripe]

I thought maybe the atheists could grow up a little. Oh well. :sigh:

Fortunately this argument is well documented from Discover magazine to PZ Meyers. And it's laughable the lengths atheists will go to do avoid talking about anything substantial. :chuckle:

The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made This is the show from Friday July 1st, 2011. SUMMARY: * Real Science Friday Listens In to Spike Psarris: On this special edition of RSF, you'll hear from the stunning DVD, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy. Spike Psarris, former engineer with the U.S. military space program lists some of the very many observations that seriously contradict the standard evolutionary scheme for forming the Solar System. * Discover Magazine Astronomy Blogger Attacks Psarris & RSF: Discover's evolutionist Phil Plait accused Spike Psarris, of CreationAstronomy.com, of being deceptive because he uses the term "evolution" to describe naturalistic astronomy for, as Plait wrote, "evolution has nothing to do with astronomy." Instead of showing humility and dropping the issue, next Plait criticized Real Science Friday for our report on the spat, which included this comment: "Spike knocks it out of the park by showing the covers of nine astronomy texts, each one with the word evolution in their titles, such as Solar System Evolution."

Please note that this silly red herring really has been knocked out of the park. :thumb:

 

[Tyrathca]

Well it is false to call it the "evolutionary model" or to equate it to biological evolution, the astronomers are merely using it in the colloquial sense of the word. Even the maker of the video initially says that his use of the word has nothing to do with the biological evolution and thus the Theory of Evolution. However his subsequent use and overuse of the word leaves his intentions questionable.

 

[Squishes]

There is no medium of inheritance in astronomy and there is no such thing as star dna. There is however a notion that the solar system evolved. Astronomers themselves use the term evolved. Do you think they are mistaken when they use the term evolved suishes?

No, I just think you are using "evolution" to mean something completely different than astronomers intend.

 

[Stripe]

However his subsequent use and overuse of the word leaves his intentions questionable.

:allsmile:

Got anything substantial?

 

[The Barbarian]

If you have to obfuscate to make your point, that pretty much tells us what your point is worth, Stipe.

 

[patman]

You mean between creationism and evolution? Well creationism, since they'd finally have a testable prediction which turned out to be right (age of universe) and evolution is apparently incompatible with that age. That wouldn't mean that I'd accept creationism as proven, since creationism makes many other predictions and perhaps there is a third more likely explanation (there is no justification for assuming a dichotomy of choices despite the video doing so) but certainly it would lend a lot of weight to creationism.

But since there is no such proof it remains purely hypothetical.

OK, thanks for the straight answer.

The DVD makes the case that evidence shows the age of the solar system cannot be millions of years old, and only thousands of years old, which lends greater support for creation over evolution. He uses published scientific findings to support the evidence, which makes a compelling case against evolution.

You said "...the video seems to rely on the argument that because science doesn't have all the answers..." but I don't think you've seen the video and can make this criticism. You should watch it. It is a good video even if you disagree with it.

The primary focus of the video is the age of the solar system... if it isn't millions of years old, then we automatically know evolution is false, so what other explanation works? Creation, for one, would fit very well, as you seem to agree.

he doesn't address the biggest problem in astronomy for creationism, the speed of light and the distance of objects

Tyrathca, if God did make the universe, wouldn't it be a miraculous, supernatural event? If God is powerful and intelligent enough to do all this amazing stuff, then why do you think he couldn't get the star light to us within a day's time?

Do you think such a creator would slap his head and scream "DUH" Homer Simpson style because he put the stars too far away for anyone to see?

 

[patman]

No, I just think you are using "evolution" to mean something completely different than astronomers intend.

What, you think he is trying to say apes are evolving into humans in space?


Maybe for food they are eating the cheese on the moon and drinking the milky way, huh?

 

[Stripe]

What, you think he is trying to say apes are evolving into humans in space? Maybe for food they are eating the cheese on the moon and drinking the milky way, huh?

:rotfl:

 

[Squishes]

What, you think he is trying to say apes are evolving into humans in space?

No. I think he thinks there is an important Darwin-like connection between the work of mainstream biology and mainstream astronomy.

 

[patman]

No. I think he thinks there is an important Darwin-like connection between the work of mainstream biology and mainstream astronomy.

If that is true, he took the most subtle approach imaginable to make such an important connection, don't you think?

 

[Nick M]

Woman driver? :idunno:

Good joke, but I wanted a serious answer from them. It puts them in a hole. You are ok by me.

 

[Squishes]

If that is true, he took the most subtle approach imaginable to make such an important connection, don't you think?

No.

 

[Nick M]

Hawking does not promote fleeing to the moon and mars just because of global warming (

What about the global warming on Mars? Is that Halliburon's fault?

 

[patman]

No.

Well, I guess you are right, Squishes, do the term evolution is trademarked to only apply to the darwinian variety. How could he make do such a thing and use the word in terms of solar evolution?

Let's burn the whole thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

What about the global warming on Mars? Is that Halliburon's fault?

If Halliburton makes up fairy tales, I suppose...

The global warming argument was strongly influenced by a paper written by a team led by NASA scientist Lori Fenton, who observed that changes in albedo – the property of light surfaces to reflect sunlight e.g. ice and snow – were shown when comparing 1977pictures of the Martian surface taken by the Viking spacecraft, to a 1999 image compiled by the Mars Global Surveyor. The pictures revealed that in 1977 the surface was brighter than in 1999, and from this Fenton used a general circulation model to suggest that between 1977 and 1999 the planet had experienced a warming trend of 0.65 degrees C. Fenton attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo.

Unfortunately, Fenton’s conclusions were undermined by the failure to distinguish between climate (trends) and weather (single events). Taking two end points – pictures from 1977 and 1999 – did not reveal any kind of trend, merely the weather on two specific Martian days. Without the intervening data – which was not available – it is impossible to say whether there was a trend in albedo reduction, or what part the prodigious dust storms played in the intervening period between the first and second photographs. Indeed, when you look at all the available data – sparse though it is – there is no discernable long term trend in albedo.

At this time, there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming. Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

Presently, the Sun's output is down, not up. So even if there is a warming trend on Mars (which is by no means certain), it would be caused by changes in albedo (reflectivity) of the Martian surface.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, I guess you are right, Squishes, do the term evolution is trademarked to only apply to the darwinian variety.

The issue, of course, is why creationists need to obfuscate the difference between "descent with modification", generally called "evolution", and change in general, which is also called "evolution."

It seems obvious. They need to blur the distinction, because the attack on biology was such a disaster for them.

 

[Nick M]

Unfortunately, Fenton’s conclusions were undermined by the failure to distinguish between climate (trends) and weather (single events).

So then global warming isn't responsible for the hurricane increase in 2005?

View attachment 16484

 

[The Barbarian]

So then global warming isn't responsible for the hurricane increase in 2005?

The model shows an increase in severity, not in frequency.

And that's what's happened. There are a lot more really big ones, but there aren't necessarily more hurricanes. But even there, you can't point to a single hurricane and say "see, global warming." There were after all, category five hurricanes before the present warming trend, just not so many of them. The increase in the number of such hurricanes is a validation of the model, but not any single weather event.