:baby:
Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
I think the real OP is "Go buy the DVD." Since no one here seems to have seen enough of it to know any of the assertions on it, or at least no one seems to have seen and understood it well enough to summarize the assertions and the evidence for them, we seem to be left with that.
Oh, and what would my "camp" be, pat?
If you believe I don't agree with self-styled experts, ignoramuses, and other buffoons who reject solid science simply because it makes their religious dogmas impossible or inconvenient, then yes, I've got a camp all right. But this kind of ignorance--which seems to so easily impress certain people--is beneath serious discussion. Perpetuating this kind of ignorance in the name of making a buck? Contemptible.
Last edited:
Stipe is, of course, welcome to summarize his knowledge of the DVD, and present what he thinks are the most compelling arguments.
Not likely, um?
Not likely, um?
Barbie. Try a little honesty and humility for once. I presented what I think is the most compelling piece of evidence against the evolutionary model. Why would you suggest I had not or could not do so? Is there something wrong with you?
Point me to the place where you summarized the DVD and it's most compelling argument. If you have, I'll apologize. If not, you're just being Stipe, again.
Barbarian observes:
An extrapolation is always based on the assumption that the curve remains the same outside the range of your data.
More specifically, given the mechanism and the evidence, it's a foolish extrapolation. Because the distance of the Moon from the Earth determines it's period of revolution, tidal rhythmites give us an ancient record of that. And not surprisingly, that record is consistent with the present orbit, given the elapsed time.
It is very foolish to assume that tidal friction (which is what controls the recession of the moon) will be the same regardless of the orientation of continents. And those rhythmites confirm it.
Meaningless as claiming you're smarter than another person because you aren't as tall.
You could do a calculation, but it would be completely meaningless.
An extrapolation is always based on the assumption that the curve remains the same outside the range of your data.
More specifically, given the mechanism and the evidence, it's a foolish extrapolation. Because the distance of the Moon from the Earth determines it's period of revolution, tidal rhythmites give us an ancient record of that. And not surprisingly, that record is consistent with the present orbit, given the elapsed time.
It is very foolish to assume that tidal friction (which is what controls the recession of the moon) will be the same regardless of the orientation of continents. And those rhythmites confirm it.
Meaningless as claiming you're smarter than another person because you aren't as tall.
You could do a calculation, but it would be completely meaningless.
No. Because the evidence, which you have been shown, confirms plate tectonics, that's a given.
In case you've forgotten:
1. Directly observed and measured plate movements
2. Glacial tracks, mountain ranges, etc line up nicely when they are brought together over oceans with mid-oceanic ridges
3. Fossil evidence, showing fossils over widely-separated continents
And more. Want to see more?
You assume some kind of magical uplift that raised the surface of the Earth and then dropped it back down just in time to end the ice age. Notice, when you have evidence, it's an inference, and when you don't, it's an assumption.
But since altitude is defined as the height above the surface, and since that determines how cold it is at elevation, you're back to where you started. It won't do what you want it to.
I just showed you again. You have no excuse, Stipe.
patman
Active member
Granite, this is what I am talking about. It is impossible to hold a reasonable conversation when you pick out one word and go nuts over it.
patman
Active member
Those in favor of the evolutionary model often accuse us creationists of using the argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy.
However, ignorance is being downplayed by the evolutionists. For a theory to exist, we must have overcome key unknowns. Without overcoming these, we are no longer at the level of a theory and are only left with a hypothesis.
Currently the Giant Impact has the consensus with scientist. Computer models demonstrate it could cause the moon to form within a year.
None of us creationist agree that this is how the moon was formed. We point out a few problems with the theory because we think it shouldn't be viewed as a viable theory.
The DVD points out the speed of Theia's (the mars sized planet) impact is unlikely, the moon should be beyond Earth's orbit by now and addresses issues with the other hypotheses.
Even if you don't agree with those points, Wikipedia reports the following problems:
"Giant Impact" isn't even a theory by the Wikipedia author standards.
Creationists ask, why don't we have a good evolutionary theory about the moon's formation? Some may answer, "We don't have one YET, just because we don't know today doesn't mean we won't know tomorrow."
Since theory status requires having ample evidence, saying "We don't know yet" is the true argument from ignorance. This answer is the true fallacy.
What is the answer for how the moon formed from evolutionist? "We don't know but here are some ideas... ...(P.S. we can't 'validate' these ideas...)"
However, ignorance is being downplayed by the evolutionists. For a theory to exist, we must have overcome key unknowns. Without overcoming these, we are no longer at the level of a theory and are only left with a hypothesis.
Currently the Giant Impact has the consensus with scientist. Computer models demonstrate it could cause the moon to form within a year.
| Giant Impact | |
None of us creationist agree that this is how the moon was formed. We point out a few problems with the theory because we think it shouldn't be viewed as a viable theory.
The DVD points out the speed of Theia's (the mars sized planet) impact is unlikely, the moon should be beyond Earth's orbit by now and addresses issues with the other hypotheses.
Even if you don't agree with those points, Wikipedia reports the following problems:
"Giant Impact" isn't even a theory by the Wikipedia author standards.
Creationists ask, why don't we have a good evolutionary theory about the moon's formation? Some may answer, "We don't have one YET, just because we don't know today doesn't mean we won't know tomorrow."
Since theory status requires having ample evidence, saying "We don't know yet" is the true argument from ignorance. This answer is the true fallacy.
What is the answer for how the moon formed from evolutionist? "We don't know but here are some ideas... ...(P.S. we can't 'validate' these ideas...)"
Wouldn't be much. "Evolutionists" are biologists. You want to ask planetary astronomers.
The answer at this point seems to be:
"The impact theory seems most likely at this time. But it's not settled yet."
And then the creationists jump up in triumph:
"Aha! So you don't know everything about astronomy, therefore, evolution is false! And that means creationism is true! Yay!"
(Scientists smile, shake their heads, and go back to work)
Tyrathca
New member
But you aren't talking about a theory, you are talking about what are explicitly labelled a hypothesis. Nothing you have raised so far even attempts to contradict a theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, rather it is all about hypothesis's such as the Nebular hypothesis and the Giant impact hypothesis.
So please explain what theory you think should be downgraded to the level of hypothesis.
Well that is why it is still a hypothesis and not a theory, though I wonder just how unlikely the DVD says the speed is and how they calculated this.
Who is claiming it is a theory!?!?!?!
Which is true and exactly why we shouldn't default to creationism (or anything else for that matter) whenever science doesn't have an answer.
Me thinks you don't understand what an argument from ignorance is...
Why should evolutionists answer? It has nothing to do with evolution and you are guilty of the same dishonesty as the DVD when you try and conflate the two.
patman
Active member
Tyrathca, let me do you a favor and tell you that I am not reading your posts, at all.
Just save your fingers and debate these things with someone else.
patman
Active member
When they get back to work, lets not lower the bar and expect some results on this moon issue. They need to get out of hypothesis land and into a real theory.
It doesn't do you any good if they are all stuck at step one.
So there's absolutely no way that plate tectonics could be a faulty theory?
If you were willing to accept the validity of the mathematical challenge to the age of the Earth-Moon system, perhaps we could discuss the underlying assumptions that we diverge on. Until you learn to show some humility and honesty (instead of lambasting and mischaracterising that which you haven't even heard) this discussion is at a roadblock. :idunno:
Barbarian observes:
No. Because the evidence, which you have been shown, confirms plate tectonics, that's a given.
In the sense that maybe the won't appear in the East tomorrow morning. In science, all truth is provisional. But given the fact that all the evidence shows it happens, and direct observations of it happening today, it's foolish to deny it.
Barbarian observes:
You assume some kind of magical uplift that raised the surface of the Earth and then dropped it back down just in time to end the ice age. Notice, when you have evidence, it's an inference, and when you don't, it's an assumption.
...if I were to accept the validty of the orange leprechauns in your attic,
Science depends on the assumption of uniformitarianism; the same rules have applied since the beginning. Every time we test that assumption it works. Your assumption is that God wasn't powerful enough to create nature to work the way He intended, and has to continually tinker with it. But there's no way to test that.
If you were honest, you'd admit that I repeatedly asked those who are touting this DVD to summarize it and tell us what they think the most persuasive arguments in it might be. But you're not honest, are you, Stipe.
You might also have enough humility to admit that those who have spent a lifetime studying the way the Earth works might know better than you do about it.
When do you think that might happen?
But it's been very useful for people on the sidelines. As my Mom used to say, no one is worthless; they can always be a bad example.
No. Because the evidence, which you have been shown, confirms plate tectonics, that's a given.
In the sense that maybe the won't appear in the East tomorrow morning. In science, all truth is provisional. But given the fact that all the evidence shows it happens, and direct observations of it happening today, it's foolish to deny it.
Barbarian observes:
You assume some kind of magical uplift that raised the surface of the Earth and then dropped it back down just in time to end the ice age. Notice, when you have evidence, it's an inference, and when you don't, it's an assumption.
...if I were to accept the validty of the orange leprechauns in your attic,
Science depends on the assumption of uniformitarianism; the same rules have applied since the beginning. Every time we test that assumption it works. Your assumption is that God wasn't powerful enough to create nature to work the way He intended, and has to continually tinker with it. But there's no way to test that.
If you were honest, you'd admit that I repeatedly asked those who are touting this DVD to summarize it and tell us what they think the most persuasive arguments in it might be. But you're not honest, are you, Stipe.
You might also have enough humility to admit that those who have spent a lifetime studying the way the Earth works might know better than you do about it.
When do you think that might happen?
But it's been very useful for people on the sidelines. As my Mom used to say, no one is worthless; they can always be a bad example.
Not goin' nuts at all. And it's tricky having any kind of a conversation with you when you consistently ignore simple questions and try to lecture people.
That's the beauty of it; we keep learning more and more until we figure it out. Thank God, we'll never get it all, if we did, no more science, no more fun of finding out.
It's proceeding nicely, and I'm sure the astronomers are enjoying the work finding out.
Well, as you know, it's a bit beyond that point.
- Status