Bible Thumper (Bob) Outpredicts Astrophysicist

[Jefferson]

Bible Thumper (Bob) Outpredicts Astrophysicist

This is the show from Wednesday March 12th, 2014

Summary:

* Bible Thumper Outpredicts Astrophysicist: And while Bob's at it, he outpredicted every single Big Bang astronomer too!

* Ha! Now the Carnegie Institute of Science is piling on, confirming within hours of yesterday's program that our Bible-based predictions of the most distant galaxies are correct and thus they help to falsify the claim, as with astrophysicist Tyson, that Bible-based science predictions have never been confirmed! Bob also reports on two families in the news, but brace yourself -- it gets rather horrific.

* Carnegie Institute: Enyart 1, Neil deGrasse Tyson 0

And as if to put an exclamation mark onto the program, the Carnegie Institution for Science has helped out with this, Elder Galaxies, What Made You Age So Quickly?, published in London on March 12, just a few hours after our program concluded in Denver, Colorado:

A group of astronomers has discovered 15 massive, mature galaxies located where they shouldn't be: at an average distance of 12 billion light years away from Earth.

At that age — a mere 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang – galaxies should be youthful entities, still gathering dust and gasses into stars. These 15, on the other hand, as observed today, are grown-ups filled with old stars and exhibiting a lack of active star formation.

"Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly," the Carnegie Institution for Science notes in a press release; two of the research team, Eric Persson and Andy Monson, are affiliated with the Carnegie Observatories.




Burning Buildings and Half a Loaf


Abortion Purists vs. Consenting to the Killing of Some

Clickable Contents: Because there are so many clichés used trying to justify abortion regulations, we provide a clickable table of contents so you don't need to read this whole article. We recommend the Introduction and Hostage Takers sections, and then the clichés you yourself have used or heard.

• Introduction
• Hostage Takers
• Burning Buildings
• Sinking Buses & SBC's Richard Land
• The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number
• Half a Loaf is Better than None
• Perfect as the Enemy of the Good
• Can't Save Everyone on the Titanic, So...
• The Problem with Purists
• But It's Already Legal: Prevailing Authority
• Success in Politics takes Compromise

Endorsement: "This is one of the BEST articles I've ever read! Thanks Juda Myers for alerting me to it... I really appreciate good thinking! WOW!!!" -Rebecca Kiessling

INTRODUCTION

What if you can only save one of a hundred dying children?

Some pro-family groups actually oppose advocating for the God-given right to life and personhood of the unborn. These organizations have collectively taken in hundreds of millions of dollars from abortion politics. They try to discredit those advocating for personhood by calling them "purists" and they claim that "purists" would not try to save a child from a burning building if they could not save all the children threatened. And they say that half a loaf is better than none and that we should never make the perfect the enemy of the good. What of these things?

Continue at americanrtl.org/abortion-purists-burning-buildings-and-half-a-loaf (or americanrtl.org/loaf) for short

 

[Nick M]

Some of those points have been brought up here, from Walt Brown's book. Why did we see fully formed galaxies, and not new forming ones with the Hubble.

 

[Jukia]

So your god created galaxies less than 6000 years ago but they look like they are 12 billion years old, why?
Perhaps Pastor Bob or Dr. Brown can provide their deity's rationale for us.

 

[Stripe]

LordKalvin is famous. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

So your god created galaxies less than 6000 years ago but they look like they are 12 billion years old, why?

You were created about 50 years ago, but you act like a four-year-old. :idunno:

 

[Jukia]

You were created about 50 years ago, but you act like a four-year-old. :idunno:

Why? Because I dare to question your particular god's actions and reasoning? Sorry, but under your particular theology, my ability to question and reason came from your god so why should you or he complain when I do both?

And the underlying question remains, if your god created everything about 6000 years ago, why does the evidence indicate parts of the universe is 13+ billion years old?

 

[Nick M]

And the underlying question remains, if your god created everything about 6000 years ago, why does the evidence indicate parts of the universe is 13+ billion years old?

I haven't seen evidence that says 13 billion. You seem to be making assumptions about the speed of light. And other things.

And not 4.5 or 20 billion? Cool.

 

[Jukia]

I haven't seen evidence that says 13 billion. .

Then you have not been paying attention.

 

[Lighthouse]

You were created about 50 years ago, but you act like a four-year-old. :idunno:

:rotfl:

 

[DavisBJ]

Bible Thumper (Bob) Outpredicts Astrophysicist

This is the show from Wednesday March 12th, 2014

Summary:

* Bible Thumper Outpredicts Astrophysicist: And while Bob's at it, he outpredicted every single Big Bang astronomer too!

* Ha! Now the Carnegie Institute of Science is piling on, confirming within hours of yesterday's program that our Bible-based predictions of the most distant galaxies are correct and thus they help to falsify the claim, as with astrophysicist Tyson, that Bible-based science predictions have never been confirmed! …

* Carnegie Institute: Enyart 1, Neil deGrasse Tyson 0

And as if to put an exclamation mark onto the program, the Carnegie Institution for Science has helped out with this, Elder Galaxies, What Made You Age So Quickly?, published in London on March 12, just a few hours after our program concluded in Denver, Colorado:

A group of astronomers has discovered 15 massive, mature galaxies located where they shouldn't be: at an average distance of 12 billion light years away from Earth.

At that age — a mere 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang – galaxies should be youthful entities, still gathering dust and gasses into stars. These 15, on the other hand, as observed today, are grown-ups filled with old stars and exhibiting a lack of active star formation.

"Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly," the Carnegie Institution for Science notes in a press release; two of the research team, Eric Persson and Andy Monson, are affiliated with the Carnegie Observatories. …

Near the start of the show Bob says:

I pointed out on the show yesterday, that one of the predictions we made had been confirmed by NASA. Well, just hysterical. As if to put an exclamation mark on, on the program, the Carnegie Institution for Science had an article published today, March 12, 2014, in England, just a few hours after our program concluded yesterday in Denver. And this article affirmed what I had said on the show. This article is about what they call elder galaxies. And they said what made these elder galaxies age so quickly, they have discovered, astronomers have discovered 15 massive mature galaxies located where they shouldn't be. That's hysterical.

I realize that identifying what seems to be another unresolved issue in science is a near-euphoric experience for Bob. I also find it fascinating when anomalies are found in science, but for reasons quite opposite to Bob’s. Bob’s ecstasy is in the realization that he can add the new anomaly to his treasured list of reasons of why science is wrong when it says the earth is old. I see it as another in a very long line of opportunities to learn something unexpected, and thereby expand the breadth and depth of our understanding of nature.

But as to the specifics of the article Bob is so giddy about – nowhere in the article (the original article in The Astrophysical Journal Letters) does it even use the word “elder”. That word is some added color that some science reporter chose to inject in a second-hand article so it would be more appealing to sensationalists like Bob.

And, from the article itself:

5. IMPLICATIONS … the current data do not allow one to determine conclusively whether the galaxies have completely stopped forming stars as the sample is too faint for spectrographs on large telescopes.

6. SUMMARY We emphasize that without spectroscopic confirmation, the number of quiescent galaxies at z ∼ 4 remains poorly constrained, but given their faint magnitudes, real progress will likely have to wait until the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope or construction of Extremely Large Telescopes.

​

The reason this article is generating some interest is because these galaxies do seem to be out of place, as Bob says, like men in cribs in a nursery. Men where? In a nursery. Why do we call it a nursery? Because of all the squalling baby galaxies that we’ve been studying ever since the Hubble Deep Field. Remember, Bob, way back when you said, speaking of the Hubble Deep Field:

When they develop this photograph they’re going to see what we see wherever we look in the night sky. They’ll see normal galaxies.”

And what was the result – does anybody remember? The galaxies were normal – just like we see everywhere else – spiral galaxies – they were normal!

It’s not these few aberrant old men galaxies that Bob should be giggling about, it’s the plethora of baby galaxies that astronomers have been just pretending to see that he should be exulting over.

 

[Nick M]

Then you have not been paying attention.

I accept your non-answer as surrender to the point. You made a claim, and will not back up the claim.

 

[Stripe]

Near the start of the show Bob says: I realize that identifying what seems to be another unresolved issue in science is a near-euphoric experience for Bob. I also find it fascinating when anomalies are found in science, but for reasons quite opposite to Bob’s. Bob’s ecstasy is in the realization that he can add the new anomaly to his treasured list of reasons of why science is wrong when it says the earth is old. I see it as another in a very long line of opportunities to learn something unexpected, and thereby expand the breadth and depth of our understanding of nature. But as to the specifics of the article Bob is so giddy about – nowhere in the article (the original article in The Astrophysical Journal Letters) does it even use the word “elder”. That word is some added color that some science reporter chose to inject in a second-hand article so it would be more appealing to sensationalists like Bob. And, from the article itself:

5. IMPLICATIONS … the current data do not allow one to determine conclusively whether the galaxies have completely stopped forming stars as the sample is too faint for spectrographs on large telescopes.

6. SUMMARY We emphasize that without spectroscopic confirmation, the number of quiescent galaxies at z ∼ 4 remains poorly constrained, but given their faint magnitudes, real progress will likely have to wait until the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope or construction of Extremely Large Telescopes.

​

The reason this article is generating some interest is because these galaxies do seem to be out of place, as Bob says, like men in cribs in a nursery. Men where? In a nursery. Why do we call it a nursery? Because of all the squalling baby galaxies that we’ve been studying ever since the Hubble Deep Field. Remember, Bob, way back when you said, speaking of the Hubble Deep Field: It’s not these few aberrant old men galaxies that Bob should be giggling about, it’s the plethora of baby galaxies that astronomers have been just pretending to see that he should be exulting over.

This is all fluff. The predictions were made and the results are in. The prediction that the things we see at a distance should have all appeared young has been defeated by the prediction that they would look much like what we see nearby.

Also, your language reflects your presupposition that the universe is billions of years old. "Science" does not demand any particular age for the universe.

 

[Jukia]

I accept your non-answer as surrender to the point. You made a claim, and will not back up the claim.

Ah, I see you lack a basic science background. Find a local college---community college---talk with a physics teacher. Ask about the speed of light. Ask about the difference between the number 6 thousand and 13 billion.

Bur you are unlikely to do that. It might raise difficult questions in your mind and I suspect you like simple questions.

 

[gcthomas]

I haven't seen evidence that says 13 billion. You seem to be making assumptions about the speed of light. And other things.

And not 4.5 or 20 billion? Cool.

13.798±0.037 billion years. You need to keep up with the science you pretend to critique.

Look up the type 1a supernovae redshift studies, general relativity and the spacial frequency spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. Combine that with the astrophysics of star formation and there are several lines all indicating about the same age.

 

[Nick M]

13.798±0.037 billion years. You need to keep up with the science you pretend to critique.

So more claims without backing them up. Ok.

Now this is a GDI claim. Do you know what the Bible says about these events? Without information about distances, the writers made a comment that in fact adds up to what we see. I will just give it to you.

Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out

They were created, then moved.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You were created about 50 years ago, but you act like a four-year-old. :idunno:

:rotfl: Now THAT made me laugh.

 

[gcthomas]

So more claims without backing them up. Ok.

The age of the universe findings are published and available for anyone to read.

I gave you terms you could put into a search engine to find the details if you wanted to find them. Are you so lazy you need me to do the research for you, Nick? If you are a real slacker, just go to the Wikipedia page on the 'Age of the Universe' and go to the academic paper links at the bottom.

 

[Stripe]

:rotfl: Now THAT made me laugh.

I stayed up all night thinking up that one.

 

[DavisBJ]

The prediction that the things we see at a distance should have all appeared young has been defeated by the prediction that they would look much like what we see nearby.

Are you saying that the high-Z objects in the HDF, the HDF-S, the UDF, and the XDF, for example, “look much like what we see nearby”?

Also, your language reflects your presupposition that the universe is billions of years old.

Of course the Deep Field images presuppose an old universe, most scientific efforts of that magnitude necessarily launch from a particular model of the universe. So?

"Science" does not demand any particular age for the universe.

What are you babbling about? Science does not demand anything; it is a methodology for investigating nature.

 

[doloresistere]

Are you saying that the high-Z objects in the HDF, the HDF-S, the UDF, and the XDF, for example, “look much like what we see nearby”?

Of course the Deep Field images presuppose an old universe, most scientific efforts of that magnitude necessarily launch from a particular model of the universe. So?

What are you babbling about? Science does not demand anything; it is a methodology for investigating nature.

I don't think the scientists in the deep field studies demand an old age; an old age has the most evidence behind it and therefore becomes part of their model.