Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

[Jukia]

Jukia, your not pushing your problem with prejudice on me.

You raised the issue after I asked you for information which you are unwilling to provide. I only suggested that providing information was a method to overcome prejudice.

I do not think that asking for you to clarify your statement by providing more info is being prejudicial

 

[patman]

You raised the issue after I asked you for information which you are unwilling to provide. I only suggested that providing information was a method to overcome prejudice.

I do not think that asking for you to clarify your statement by providing more info is being prejudicial

It's amusing me to watch you beg for something from me when you could just google it yourself.

I Googled it for you

I'll throw you a bone... but you need to drop it, because it is too off topic and, again, only brought up to get us away from making prejudice remarks. This thread is about a DVD... let's all familiarize ourselves with it so we can talk about it, shall we?

 

[The Barbarian]

Too bad. If you presented some facts, it might be more effective than what you're doing now.

Think about it.

 

[patman]

Too bad. If you presented some facts, it might be more effective than what you're doing now.

Think about it.

The Barbarian, you are on some other planet right now. You don't know what's going on in this thread...

 

[The Barbarian]

So I gather that that means you're not going to show us any?

Unfortunate, this being a discussion board and all.

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, your link is partially true stuff and partially crock. Dogs aren't evolving those abilities now; they've had them for thousands of years.

When you get a dog, watch him carefully. If you have any perception at all, you'll see that's what he's doing to you. He's trying to figure out your behavior, something dogs have, over tens of thousands of years, become very good at.

In Moscow, they've noticed that subways can move them where they want to go. They notice what behaviors get food and what behaviors don't.

That's just the intelligence and plasticity of dogs manifesting itself.

I read a news report recently about a dog that learned how to shoplift on its own, knowing where the doggy treats are in a supermarket, and how to get in, grab and run succesfully.

That's what dogs are good at.

The lizards and fish, not so much. Those sound like adaptations, albeit pretty easy ones.

 

[patman]

BTW, your link is partially true stuff and partially crock. Dogs aren't evolving those abilities now; they've had them for thousands of years.

Why, why, why why why did I give you that lmgtfy link? Only you would be unimpressed with lizards giving live birth to their offsprings.

You guys are obviously are too lazy to watch a DVD (although I don't know, maybe you did watch it), or even the previews to one, why would I think you could click on more than one google link, and then digest some lengthy reading, multiple pages, and included videos?

If you want me to participate in higher lever conversation with you, you need to prove to me you are capable of it. So far, you are doing the opposite. I typically give folks a benefit of a doubt, but you have lost all benefit with me.

Why did i do it?

Oh, yes. It was a funny link. And it gave you more rope to hang yourself with.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why, why, why why why did I give you that lmgtfy link? Only you would be unimpressed with lizards giving live birth to their offsprings.

A number of reptiles have live birth, without laying eggs. Garter snakes, for example. However this is usually oviviparous reproduction, not true viviparity. One lizard is apparently hemotrophically viviparous; perhaps it's the one you saw.

You guys are obviously are too lazy to watch a DVD

I usually watch to the first major woofer, and then I'm done. Seems to work well.

If you want me to participate in higher lever conversation with you, you need to prove to me you are capable of it.

Be patient with a dumb old Barbarian. :dhelm:

So far, you are doing the opposite. I typically give folks a benefit of a doubt, but you have lost all benefit with me.

Unfortunate. We might have learned some things.

 

[patman]

Be patient with a dumb old Barbarian. :dhelm:

The Barbarian, I am not saying you are dumb. So far, tho, this spatting back and forth doesn't encourage me to converse with you.

Unfortunate. We might have learned some things.

Maybe another time

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian pleads:
Be patient with a dumb old Barbarian.

The Barbarian, I am not saying you are dumb. So far, tho, this spatting back and forth doesn't encourage me to converse with you.

You seemed to have an interest in live birth in reptiles. I offered some thoughts for you. But perhaps you should have patience with an uncooperative old Barbarian?

 

[patman]

You seemed to have an interest in live birth in reptiles. I offered some thoughts for you. But perhaps you should have patience with an uncooperative old Barbarian?

Barbarian, this is really off topic... but just to move things along:

The skinks in the search result were laying eggs but now they are giving live births... not like we do (their eggs are apparently hatching internally), but it was enough to make some scientists think it was a hint for evolution. That's the gist of it. Also noteworthy are the skinks losing limbs and becoming serpentine and the lizards that developed a new digestive system.

If REALLY want to discuss this, lets take it somewhere else.

 

[Tyrathca]

Emphasis added. Two chapters is all he makes available! You must be stretching the truth...

Well someone hasn't looked at enough of the site to commment (oh ironies!), there are three - Introduction, Jupiter and Saturn.

Why don't you give an example of an argument from ignorance? By all means. You aren't able to follow our simple dialog, I doubt you were keeping up with his.

When he says "there are two competing models for how the origin of our solar system. This is a pretty straight forward issue, either it was created or it wasn't" (the implication being created is god and wasn't is sciences current explanation). He then proceeds to expound on why it wasn't. He creates a false dichotomy and then proceeds to give out points and explain only how it doesn't fit science but not how it fits creation. If he does later revist the points to give reasons for creation he'd have to do it in conclusions (which doesn't give him much time to even many of the points let alone expand upon them) unless he throws it into a non-relevant chapter.

That doesn't give you the magical ability to foresee the rest of the DVD. All you are qualified to assert is what you know he said... assumptions are only your imagination at work.

Back here in reality we often make predictions of things based on information at hand. I feel I have sufficient information to make a presumptive comment and await further information (which you seem reluctant to give based thus far in your replies to anyone)

I hope you don't work as a scientist or in the medical field.

:chuckle: Oh if only you knew what I do... :chuckle:

Tyrathca is on a mission to get minimal information and draw drastic conclusions.

I've drawn maximal information from the videos without paying. You could provide more and show how I am wrong rather than just claim it, but you haven't.

Didn't you see the end of the last post to you?

"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.

 

[patman]

Well someone hasn't looked at enough of the site to commment (oh ironies!), there are three - Introduction, Jupiter and Saturn.

...

I feel I have sufficient information to make a presumptive comment and await further information (which you seem reluctant to give based thus far in your replies to anyone):chuckle:

...

You could provide more and show how I am wrong rather than just claim it, but you haven't."Is this stupid or not" and quoting a small bit of the video doesn't warrant response.

I already told you why you are wrong. Like I already said, he really focuses on the AGE issues... he also focuses on how few hypothesizes there are to support a coherent evolutionary model, which I quoted an example for you; somehow it isn't enough for you to comment on, which is the real irony.

Why do you make a big deal out of the Saturn video? So you found a back page, big deal. You still haven't seen the full video, no where near it. Based on my prior input (and what I just reiterated) that shows your error, and plain old common sense, you should be a grown up and concede that your ignorance renders you ill-equipped to provide an accurate review.

 

[The Barbarian]

If anyone gets around to posting what the video says about the planets, maybe we could talk about it.

 

[Granite]

Granite, we are discussing a DVD that, in part, presents holes in the theories on our solar system's evolution.

And here's a copy of The God Who Wasn't There, a DVD I'm equally sure will rock your beliefs right to the core.:yawn:

Sometimes the research speaks for itself.

That's awfully rich coming from a creationist.

 

[Frayed Knot]

So if Patman is complaining that we can't judge the whole DVD by just what's been made available over the Internet, how about we criticize what parts we've seen? That's mostly what's been going on anyway.

I heard the audio clips that Bob played on the show, and it did not paint a good picture of the DVD. Like Tyrathca said, he tries to support his belief in Creation by setting up a false dichotomy between it and the standard model of solar system evolution, then trying to poke holes in the standard model.

The problem, besides the false dichotomy fallacy, is that he has simply found anomalies in the standard model, where something is as yet unexplained. For something as complicated as how the solar system formed, no one claims that science could simply say "the sun and then the planets formed from a blob of gas and dust in space" and have that answer every question. It doesn't answer the details.

How did the Moon form? If you assume that it was a body that formed in the accretion disk and then was captured somehow in Earth's orbit, then there are anomalies that are unexplained - the composition of its minerals is not right. Psarris would have looked at this and considered it evidence for Creation. But we've figured out more details, that another smaller planet-like body smashed into the Earth early on and spewed material out into Earth's orbit, and this material gradually clumped together into our Moon.

The solar system's past is filled with events like this, that we have to figure out how they happened based on current evidence. But our model of the big picture - the blob of gas and dust that condensed due to gravity into the Sun and planets, then lots of things banged into each other until most of the big chunks have gathered together - is quite solidly supported.

Finding the anomalies that Psarris mentions doesn't disprove the model, the anomalies are just details that we haven't figured out yet, similar to our Moon's formation. Most of them he mentions seem to be about other planets which we're trying to figure out because we have less information to work with.

I don't know if he did this same technique in the rest of the DVD, but the fact that what is available for free seems to depend on it, it tells me that Spike is not willing to tell the story honestly. Implying that since we don't have a complete history for how Callisto formed, therefore Creation is true, is simply dishonest.

There's a phrase for what he's doing: "Lying for Jesus."

 

[Tyrathca]

I already told you why you are wrong. Like I already said, he really focuses on the AGE issues...

In part, he also comments that the current model (according to him) cannot explain the formation of some things such as planetismals. As for ages in in the videos available he says that various aspects of the solar system have apparent ages for which the current models can not fully explain.

he also focuses on how few hypothesizes there are to support a coherent evolutionary model, which I quoted an example for you; somehow it isn't enough for you to comment on, which is the real irony.

You quoted something and asked "is this stupid"? 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 worth commenting about and why.

Why do you make a big deal out of the Saturn video? So you found a back page, big deal.

It's on the first page you get from clicking the link in the OP, with the two other chapters as well mind you. Anyone who spent more than 3 seconds looking at the page would have seen three videos there to click and view. I mention it because it makes you look hypocritical and ridiculous, particularly since you are still defending your statement of two chapters rather than just reviewing the page and saying "oops".

You still haven't seen the full video, no where near it.

So? If there is somewhere in the video he revisits the points he makes in the free chapters please say so and where. In what way does he revisit the points? Does he explain in what way the things he mentioned make creation probable, other than how they decrease the probability of the scientific explanations?

Based on my prior input (and what I just reiterated) that shows your error, and plain old common sense, you should be a grown up and concede that your ignorance renders you ill-equipped to provide an accurate review.

I've seen plenty to comment. Saying that I have not seen an amount of the video which meets your arbitrary % needed is not an argument against what I have already said of the video, its just an ad hominem. Not that it's clear what your arbitrary % is. Perhaps >51%? >40%? >75%? Who knows? Who cares?

I never claimed to have watched the entire video, I have made repeated mentions that I am commenting on the chapters available. Now please make a contribution of your own based on the video and what it says.

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.

 

[Stripe]

Great video. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

Why not present what you consider to be the best points of the video, and the evidence that supports them?

If you don't think there is any, just don't reply to the request.

 

[Stripe]

Why not present what you consider to be the best points of the video, and the evidence that supports them? If you don't think there is any, just don't reply to the request.

Sure. :thumb:

The Moon is receding from the Earth at a known and decreasing rate. Extrapolating backwards, the moon would have been inside the Earth a billion and a half years ago. Thus the Earth-Moon system cannot be as old as evolutionists say it is.