I am sure you can look at any part of the universe and pick out features that are unique to it.
So when a prediction is made according to that presupposition and an opposing prediction is made according to another presupposition, greater confidence is given to the prediction that is showed to be more accurate.
Great. Then you will retract your assertion that Pastor Enyart would be happy that science is wrong. :up:
Good catch. To be more accurate, I change my assertion to saying that Pastor Enyart has often been effusive in his glee when scientists come across facets of science that they cannot explain.
I think we are on the same page. “Demanding an old age” makes it sound like nature must conform to our ideas, which is silly. Science (meaning the practitioners thereof) are overwhelmingly in agreement that the universe is very old, and they proceed on that assumption.
Do you think the Deep Field projects are so loosely defined that the scientists are just picking out the observed objects that fit their expectations, and ignoring the rest?
Facets of their theories. Predictions based on their ideas that do not bear out.
Which is simply an argument from popularity.
But in this specific case, Enyart made the prediction that the galaxies that the scientists were trying to observe in the HDF would turn out to be not much different than the galaxies we see locally (“They were normal” in his words). The HDF data has been available for nearly 2 decades now. Does the HDF data actually bear out Enyart’s claim?
It is the popular consensus in science, but that belief is based on the convergence of multiple lines of evidence. You are certainly welcome to dismiss it, right along with other arguments that are not seriously questioned in science – like the earth being round, or the earth circles the sun, or jumping off a cliff is not a good idea.
As I suspected, your technical understanding of physics behind the Deep Field efforts is tenuous at best. Probably best that you simply come right out and admit that you are just rooting for what Enyart said, and not pretend to critique the concepts from a technical perspective. Enyart playing the part of the court jester is entertaining enough.
So show us the evidence. :up:
One subject at a time. If the universe is recent, then as Bob claims, the HDF image should be largely devoid of “young” galaxies, since he claims God created the universe fully mature a few thousand years ago. If “young” galaxies were seen, then Bob is wrong, and that is one point of evidence that the universe is old.
I don’t know if you are inept at the HDF physics or not, but your questions demonstrate that you are ignorant of some fundamental aspects of it. Learn about it, and then show that you are neither inept or ignorant of the details.
Tell your knight in shining armor to sally forth and give answer, and you are welcome to follow the discussion.
Kindergarten taunts have never impressed me.
Evolutionists are forever demanding that creationists adopt their assumptions to explain our model.
So z values do not refer to red-shift?
Bob said:
Bob’s prediction does not depend on our assumptions, or on yours. Bob’s prediction does not depend on whether or not we label some shapes as young and others as old. His prediction simply says the galaxies seen in the HDF will look like normal galaxies.
Once again that does not depend on our assumptions, or on yours. Bob’s claim of what was seen does not depend on whether or not we label some shapes as young and others as old. His claim simply said what they saw were normal galaxies.
As I fully expected. When Bob Enyart made his statements about the HDF he didn’t try to hide behind “which ones” or “their assumption to explain our model”. Bob, rightly or wrongly, at least made a very direct and unambiguous claim. Since it is clear that Stripe is not even a shadow of Bob, each time he slithers out of his hole to answer it will be to dodge and do anything but give a direct answer to a direct question.
That is a good question. What would you expect to see in the telescope that would be different if the heavens had been “stretched out” instead of being billions of years old? Part of having a theory that challenges the current explanation is proposing tests which can differentiate between the two explanations.
But, was or was not the clearly stated intent of the HDF to try to look back to see what galaxies looked like in the early universe, when they would have been quite young? How would you decide which galaxies in the HDF are ones from very far away, and which are closer?