Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
66 online now:
anglagard, PaulK (2 members, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,020 Year: 3,666/14,102 Month: 286/321 Week: 102/44 Day: 18/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The not so distant star light problem
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 111 (710273)
11-04-2013 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shalamabobbi
11-02-2013 5:29 PM


Too clever by half...
This thread is an opportunity for young earth creationists to explain how scientists have it all wrong and to explain how light takes no time at all to get from the core of a star to its surface. This is your chance to be a star and shine!

This seems like a lot of work to do in order to get to the point that the order of creation described in Genesis cannot possibly be right. Just having the earth formed before the sun is wrong enough. In fact there was no period of time when the earth surface existed and no sunlight shined on it.

And how sure are you that the first light generated by the sun took thousands of years to escape. That is certainly what we expect right now, but at the time when the sun was first condensing from a gas cloud and the generation of visible light first began, how long did it take light to escape? I suspect that answer is "somewhat shorter than the current timeframe".

Finally, I doubt that this kind of argument would phase many YEC'ers anyway. They simply would deny that the sun's history is what you say it is.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-02-2013 5:29 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-04-2013 10:46 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 111 (710300)
11-04-2013 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by shalamabobbi
11-04-2013 10:46 AM


Re: Too clever by half...
I would consider it a great accomplishment if a YEC were forced to consider stellar dynamics at all.

So would I. But I believe the question is quite easily ducked. There may indeed be some people who bother with 'answers' to those questions, but there are far more people who simply believe that man's ideas about stellar formation and evolution are simply wrong, and in any event don't describe how God created this particular solar system.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-04-2013 10:46 AM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-05-2013 1:04 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 111 (710478)
11-05-2013 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by shalamabobbi
11-05-2013 1:04 PM


Re: Too clever by half...
Since they are relying upon supernaturalism to begin with why all of the weaving of pseudoscientific BS into their arguments?

When you refer to 'they', who in particular do you mean. I doubt that one young earth creationist in ten knows enough science such that anyone debating him would take his explanations seriously.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-05-2013 1:04 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-06-2013 11:18 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 111 (710537)
11-06-2013 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Stile
11-06-2013 12:23 PM


Re: A quick recap
Please correct my understanding of star-light origin if there's some aspect I'm missing, though

8.3 minutes is the time it takes light to travel from the surface of the sun to the earth. However, the sun's energy is generated exclusively in the core of the earth, and it does indeed take thousands of years for that energy to travel from the core to reach the surface of the sun.

Nonetheless, shalamabobbi's statement is probably not completely accurate. Energy is likely absorbed and re-radiated as it travels from core to surface, and any visible light photons that reach us are likely of fairly recent vintage.

ABE:

The sun's energy is generated in the core of Sol and not earth... I'm an idiot.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Stile, posted 11-06-2013 12:23 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Stile, posted 11-06-2013 1:50 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 20 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-07-2013 12:39 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 111 (710622)
11-07-2013 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by shalamabobbi
11-07-2013 12:42 PM


Re: Calling all YECs - Ok, how about just one?
Let me reiterate that I am well aware that one can arbitrarily posit that the sun was created supernaturally with light already at its surface and in transit from the core towards the surface

There is a substantial difference between star light and sunlight.

In the case of star light, there are actually events such as distant supernova that would have to be complete frauds in order for the fake starlight explanation to work. And the fraud results from the fact that there are stars further away from earth than 6000 light years.

But no fraudulent cosmological events are associated with some method of getting sunlight to us quickly from the sun back at the beginning of creation. Accordingly, those who don't like the fake starlight issue might have absolutely no problem with there being some cause for light to be created at the sun surface during the early days of the sun or alternatively with the light escaping the sun's core quickly back then.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-07-2013 12:42 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-08-2013 10:45 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 111 (710645)
11-07-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by marc9000
11-07-2013 8:25 PM


Re: Calling young earthers to the podium
Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today.

What specific question do you have that the above doesn't answer?

I have such a question.

The light from the explosion of the star that became super nova SN1987 did not reach earth instantly during Creation Week. Instead that light reached earth in February of 1987 and we observed the explosion at that point. SN1987a is about 168,000 light years away from earth.

Now perhaps things were different during Creation Week, but somehow, people on earth were receiving light from a blue giant that did not exist at that time. Shouldn't they instead have been getting light from a supernova? Why did God speed up fake light?

So how is the arrival of light from a blue giant prior to Feb. 1987 explained in a universe that is only 6000-10000 years old.

quote:
A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process.

Is this really an accurate characterization of what anyone thinks? Surely not. What people actually think is that the laws of physics are unchanged, and not that the same events produce different results.

quote:
Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars

Nope? Then apparently all of the new stars we see being created happen via natural processes.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by marc9000, posted 11-07-2013 8:25 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 11-09-2013 8:31 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 111 (710669)
11-08-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by shalamabobbi
11-08-2013 10:45 AM


Re: Calling all YECs - Ok, how about just one?
Likewise with the sun. The photons never were the result of nuclear fusion within the core. They portray events that never took place. It's the same deception.

I must be misunderstanding you. Perhaps it is because we are working from different premises.

In the case of the sun, all that's needed is some mechanism for light to escape the sun quicker than you say, and the photons could then have been produced by fusion. In your explanation you simply deny that such a thing could occur. But what I think you should really be doing is explaining a bad consequence from a creationists insistence that such a speed up really did happen.

By contrast, having light on earth now arrive from stellar objects that did not exist in their current from 6000 years ago requires not just speeding up light transit time, but actually generating light from an object, for example the blue giant that became SN1987, that simply did not exist 160,000 years before Creation Week.

Oh, but I see now that I've actually snagged one

You did. I don't think he's a keeper, but I'll butt out.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-08-2013 10:45 AM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-09-2013 5:21 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 111 (710743)
11-10-2013 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by shalamabobbi
11-09-2013 5:21 PM


Re: Calling all YECs - Ok, how about just one?
But I take your point and understand why you disliked this thread now. Random walks take no time at all with infinite c.

E=mc^2, so now with a very large value of c, the fusion in the sun generates a very large value of E . Earth is toast. Is this good enough? Or does the hypothetical YEC get to speculate that the mass was less in the early history of the earth as well?

Surely you see some alternatives other than this. Even if more energy was released by fusion, then we might speculate that the fusion rate was lower. But it might be easier to just have the photons escape without that long tortuous walk. Not top tough if God is intervening.

But how about marc9000s approach? Just declare anything contrary to your understanding of the Bible non science.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-09-2013 5:21 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 111 (710755)
11-10-2013 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
11-10-2013 3:29 AM


Re: Calling young earthers to the podium
After that there are various methods used, can you explain what's not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable about them?

Yes, the nearest stars can be measured using parallax, and there are other methods used to estimate distances for objects even further away. Interestingly enough, not one of the methods involves assuming any particular speed for the speed of light. In fact, measurements of SN1987a are used to confirm that the speed of light had its current value 168,000 years ago.

Here are some links to articles describing the science used to determine the distances to distant objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/.../astro/distance.html

After that there are various methods used, can you explain what's not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable about them?

Nothing at all. One of the EvC's least scientifically qualified posters simply has decided that astronomy is not science, and I don't see any real point in trying to convince him otherwise. I think he's actually illustrated a possible answer to the OPs question. Straight up denial.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 11-10-2013 3:29 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 111 (710775)
11-10-2013 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by marc9000
11-10-2013 5:00 PM


Re: Calling young earthers to the podium
Again, going only by memory and not doing the calculations again, the grain of sand sized earth would be about 22 feet away from the apple sized sun. So the total parallax distance would be 44 feet. So a south to north walk of 44 feet in New York City is going to make an obvious difference to the appearance of something 500 miles east of California?

The baseline is not opposite sides of the earth, but opposite sides of earth's orbit. Also, parallax has absolutely nothing at all to do with the speed of light. Instead the limitations are simply the limits with which small changes in angles can be measured. One second of arc difference in angle measured at opposite sides of earth's orbit corresponds to about 3.3 light years (1 parsec) distance from earth. Angular separations of as smaller than 0.01 seconds of arc are routinely made, and that would allow distances approaching 1000 light years although without great accuracy.

In short yours is surely one of the more ridiculous attempts at understanding parallax measurement the rest of us are likely to read. Your explanation is sufficient for letting us know why you don't accept parallax measurements, because it reveals that you don't have a clue about how such measurements are made. But it is not nearly evidence of any rational reason for rejecting them.

Other than more powerful telescopes, showing some more detail and distances, nothing really contradictory or surprising has been discovered since Galileo's discoveries hundreds of years ago.

I think your comment speaks for itself.

Too serious to be falsifiable, when using only visual observation from only one point.

So, why wouldn't for example, determining the distance to multiple objects in the same distant cluster of stars, and finding them to be at similar distances from earth, constitute exactly the kind of repeated determinations you refer to. Because that's how calibration of standard candles are achieved.

And why wouldn't determining similar distance to the same object using different techniques be confirming of both the measurements and the techniques.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by marc9000, posted 11-10-2013 5:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 49 of 111 (710886)
11-12-2013 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by marc9000
11-11-2013 9:56 PM


I remember seeing something in a news paper long ago, about a science teacher who built a scale model of the solar system. I think he used a beach ball as the sun, and a pea as the earth, if I remember right. I think the planet Neptune was a baseball, several miles away.

While you are patting yourself on the back about your model, let's take a look at the scientific use you actually made of your model.

Again, going only by memory and not doing the calculations again, the grain of sand sized earth would be about 22 feet away from the apple sized sun. So the total parallax distance would be 44 feet. So a south to north walk of 44 feet in New York City is going to make an obvious difference to the appearance of something 500 miles east of California? With enough trigonometry and precision instruments I'm sure it would for 4 light years, but for 1000? I don't blindly accept it.

Is it in fact an issue whether the difference is "obvious" without the use of any instruments? Of course not. The question is whether it would be feasible to make the corresponding method work using the tools scientists say they used.

And whether you scale the measurement up or down, the angular difference we are talking about is the same. One second of arc of parallax corresponds to a measured distance of 3.26 light years. So the question comes down to whether measurements of angles of fractions of a second of arc are feasible using the available telescopes or combinations of telescopes.

So what is the visual appearance of one second of arc? Well the sun and moon each subtend angles of about one half degree or about 1800 seconds of arc. So one second of arc is about 1/2000 the apparent width of the moon. Yes, that's small, but certainly no worse than microscopic. Certainly something even those of us who have trouble visualizing a light year can imagine.

A person with very sharp eyes can resolve a binary star separation with something like 60 seconds of arc. Magnification by a factor of 60 is achievable with those Sears department store telescopes my dad bought me as a child. So that should provide a perspective of the visual appearance of a second of arc.

So no, you cannot visually detect the parallax generated by an object even 4 light years away. But what of it? The question is not whether the answer is obvious to the naked eye, but whether measuring the distance to stars hundreds of light years away is feasible with technical aids.

And where do you provide an argument that such a measurement cannot be made using a telescope having more than one million times the surface area of the human eye? Nowhere.

I actually agree with you that measurements of 1000 light years pushes the envelope too far, but certainly 300 light year measurements are completely feasible. The usefulness of optic measurements is that they span enough range to be a check on at least the lower end of measurements that can be made using other techniques. Such measurements are useful for calibrating standard candle objects like Cepheids and type 1a supernova.

And after all, only observations of stellar objects at 6000 or more light years from earth are of meaning for the OP's discussion. SN1987a is surely such an object, and none of the rebuttals you've offered so far address the distance from earth determined for SN1987a.

As for the distance to SN1987a. That distance was not measured using parallax but by using candle type measurement techniques. It happens that SN1987a is in the Large Magellenic Cloud (LMC), and that the distances to a large number of objects in the cloud have been measured using multiple standard candle objects and the distance to the cloud and to SN1987a is known from multiple measurements to be about 50 parsecs or about 160,000 light years away. Not a single measurement as you would like to believe.

In addition, special features of SN1987a have allowed direct trigonometric measurements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

quote:
The three bright rings around SN 1987A are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor. These rings were ionized by the ultraviolet flash from the supernova explosion, and consequently began emitting in various emission lines. These rings did not "turn on" until several months after the supernova; the turn-on process can be very accurately studied through spectroscopy. The rings are large enough that their angular size can be measured accurately: the inner ring is 0.808 arcseconds in radius. Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.[17]

So not speculation and guess work, not a single measurement, not done using the size of your house as viewed from NY city using the naked eye. Not a single relevant criticism from you other than there may have been atheists involved.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by marc9000, posted 11-11-2013 9:56 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 11-12-2013 11:50 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 111 (710908)
11-12-2013 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq
11-12-2013 11:23 AM


Re: Calling young earthers to the podium
Also, you seem to suggest that God included a fake history as part of the creation, a history that has no function other than to fool us. Is this really what you are claiming?

No he's not claiming that. That's the funny part. marc9000 says he is not a Young Earth Creationist, which means that he isn't even arguing that the earth is only 6000 years old, let alone the universe.

I'm sure he does hold some beliefs that atheist scientists have demonstrated to be wrong, but for now 9k is just out for a walk.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 11-12-2013 11:23 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 54 of 111 (710927)
11-12-2013 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Pressie
11-12-2013 12:18 AM


Poor, poor you. Do you think that there is some form of a worldwide conspiracy amongst all the scientists in the world and that they are all just there to 'prove' your delusion wrong? Why would all the scientists in every country in the world do what the US National Academy of Sciences tell them what to do?

If you haven't looked for yourself, I'd recommend peeking at some of marc9000's posting history. You'll be able to answer those questions for yourself.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Pressie, posted 11-12-2013 12:18 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by marc9000, posted 11-13-2013 12:21 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 111 (710944)
11-13-2013 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by marc9000
11-12-2013 11:50 PM


So the total parallax / 6 month difference would be about 84'. That doesn't change my basic point, however.

Nor does it address my refutation showing that your scale model had no point. When you accurately scale up or down the sizes of objects and their distance relationships, you don't change the angles involved and those angles are completely comprehensible, understandable, and most of all measurable.

Your inability or unwillingness to consider large distances is not an argument.

There is one thing I don't know,

Hilarious.

Do you really think I never had any idea of the sophistication used in today's astronomy? Of course I know that there is much complex knowledge and instrumentation used for all these deep space conclusions that we're seeing today from science.

You claimed otherwise in your own post. But there seems to be very little anyone can rely on in your posts. Further, it is not just instrumentation that has improved. Galileo was not familiar with even Isaac Newton's work, let alone Einstein's. Your attempts to impress with your knowledge are just revealing more ignorance.

Is there ANY ONE THING that Galileo discovered with the instruments he used that's been turned on it's head by the updated methods that are used today? If not, and I suspect there's not, wouldn't that be a strong indicator that deep space astronomy is not testable and is not falsifiable?

Your claim above makes no sense to me, but I'll take a stab at it. The milky way galaxy would have been a new idea for Galileo. With his instruments he could not identify that he lived in a galaxy or that there were other galaxies. He had no idea how far away any star was. Galileo suspected that the speed of light was finite, but was unable to measure it. Yet none of those things turn Galileo's discoveries "on its head".

The distance to SN1987a does not even contradict anything Galileo worked on. So why should Galileo's observations about say, the moons of Jupiter be cast into doubt? Your question seems silly and of course telling.

And how does any of that make deep space astronomy testable or not testable? It does not. Your suspicions have origins not based in science or logic. They are based on self-enforced ignorance and denial.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 11-12-2013 11:50 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by marc9000, posted 11-13-2013 5:05 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 111 (710947)
11-13-2013 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by marc9000
11-13-2013 12:21 AM


Yes, several messages of my posting history includes this list of titles;

Simply clicking on your name allows displaying a long history your posts. I'm sure your list is fine, but it is not as convenient for casual perusing. We wouldn't want anyone to miss those "science is dominated by atheists and their collaborators rants" you've authored, now would we?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by marc9000, posted 11-13-2013 12:21 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021