Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,656 Year: 16,692/19,786 Month: 817/2,598 Week: 63/251 Day: 16/24 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The not so distant star light problem
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 23 of 111 (710623)
11-07-2013 3:00 PM


The sun was faster then.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 34 of 111 (710746)
11-10-2013 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by marc9000
11-09-2013 8:31 PM


Re: Calling young earthers to the podium
marc9000 writes:

This type of speculation can be very interesting to many people, but speculation and guesswork is really all it is, it isn't science. Science is supposed to be testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable. Speculation about hundreds of thousands of light years doesn't even come close to measuring up.

You can measure how far away stars are yourself with a telescope, some trigonometry and a little patience (you have to wait about 6 months between observations.) - this works for up to maybe 1000 light years if you can get access to a prety good instrument. Satellites take it back further.

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


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 11-09-2013 8:31 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2013 10:07 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 36 by marc9000, posted 11-10-2013 5:00 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 41 of 111 (710783)
11-11-2013 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by marc9000
11-10-2013 5:00 PM


Re: Calling young earthers to the podium
marc9000 writes:

Let's have a non-scientists look at parallax

Yeh, that'll work. It's always best to get a second opinion from a landscape artist before launching your next Mars mission.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 48 of 111 (710875)
11-12-2013 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by marc9000
11-11-2013 9:56 PM


marc9000 writes:

That's the ol "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck" syndrome. It's worked really well for me over the last 10 years. Atheists need theistic evolutionists for political purposes, so many of them volunteer to masquerade as religious people. Conflicts seldom involve more than two opposing forces, and theistic evolutionists usually have very cozy relationship with atheists, and very hostile relationships with other religious people.

I suppose it helps your delusion to believe this nonsense but have you ever considered that it might just be wrong?

I'd be surprised if the majority of atheists could give you a good description of evolution - I became an atheist before I'd even heard of it. It's been said here a million times so you must have read it, all atheism is, is a non belief in God(s). You don't have to know anything about evolution to be an atheist.

On the other side of the fence, you don't need to be an atheist to accept evolution - in fact, the vast majority of Christians accept evolution.

When you say that "theistic evolutionists usually have very cozy relationship with atheists, and very hostile relationships with other religious people." what you mean is that both science AND religion disagrees with you. In other words, your crazy beliefs are not accepted by 99.99999% of the people on earth - or thereabouts.

This won't bother you for a minute, of course, because crazy people know that it's the world that's wrong, not them, but as we're all here, it's probably worth pointing out anyway.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by marc9000, posted 11-11-2013 9:56 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 70 of 111 (711006)
11-14-2013 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by marc9000
11-13-2013 5:05 PM


marc9000 writes:

Let me word the question in a more complete way. Before Galileo, there was Copernicus, after Galileo there was Huygens, then Newton, Messier, Herschel, Leavitt, Einstein, Hubble, Hawking. Each of them seemed to build their discoveries at least partially on the work of the previous guy. Did any of these famous astronomers find something that a previous famous astronomer got completely wrong? I did a little search on it myself, and find no evidence that it's happened. If new instrumentation can detect facts of deep space further and clearer, and yet can't find anything wrong with discoveries made with the very primitive instruments of Galileo, Newton, etc. then that's a strong indicator that nothing's being tested, and nothing's being falsified.

You do realise that you only know about all these people because they were proved RIGHT don't you?

Do you think the science books would be full of references to, say, Newtonian gravity, if he was wrong? How many statues do you think there would be of Darwin in natural history museums if later scientists had been able to prove him wrong?

If Newton hadn't written his Principia and concentrated instead only on his alchemy, you wouldn't have heard of him because he was WRONG about it.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by marc9000, posted 11-13-2013 5:05 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2013 11:52 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 86 of 111 (711336)
11-17-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
11-17-2013 4:12 PM


Re: I need to break this into two posts. 1
marc9000 writes:

If science finds anything that it claims has the ability to falsify a supernatural act, then science is thinking higher of itself than it ought to think, and is no longer a disinterested pursuit of knowledge

Well that kind of kills the conversation doesn't it? If a fact contradicts a belief, the fact is wrong. Why bother arguing then? you're always right and science is always wrong. But miraculously, science is only wrong when it butts up against a religious belief - and not just any religious belief, just the one you hold.

The rest of the time, like when it wants to make a new drug or send a guy to Mars, it's right. Funny that - I wonder how you think science knows when and how to be wrong? Do you think a few million biologists, paeleontologists, archaeologists, geologists and physicists read these threads, then collude so as to wrong in exactly the right places for you?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2013 4:12 PM 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 © 2019