Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do scientists know there are billions of

Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:09:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
There are an infinite number of galaxies both inwards (dimensionally) and outwards (dimensionally) which extends forever in both directions. Don't bother asking the experts, they don't understand dimensions and how the universe is constructed. Only Akhey knows the answers to these questions.

http://www.fractaluniverse.org...
keithprosser
Posts: 2,061
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:59:15 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
a) Essentially by counting the number of galaxies in a small patch of sky and multiplying.
b) Nobody really knows how big the universe is.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:30:27 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:02:53 AM, janesix wrote:
Also, how do they estimate how big the universe is?

WMAP and Red Shifts primarily, although they are not perfect and we don't ultimately know for certain the size of the universe. The data obtained from these methods of inquiry also happen to support the biblical creation model of origins and refute the standard model (L-CDM).

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:52:21 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:56:36 AM, janesix wrote:
Galaxies? What is the method used to estimate the number pf galaxies?

The guy above me pretty much has it.

We looked at particularly "dark" regions of the night sky (areas without ocular collusion of local stars) and found an extraordinary number of galaxies. We then used some math, assumed that the number of galaxies in a given portion of space was somewhat uniform, then calculated the number of galaxies in our observable universe. This number came up to some 200 billion.

This is just an estimate for the observable universe, so if the entire universe is larger than the observable universe (which we highly suspect is), then you're looking at a very large number of galaxies.

-----------------------------------

Once you begin to appreciate how large that number is, you begin to understand what Carl Sagan meant when he described Earth as a "pale blue dot" and "a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

Our observable universe has 200 billion galaxies. Each galaxy has some 100 billion stars. Each star has (on average) 1 planet. Some 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets are out there.

Tl;dr: If the rest of the universe behaves like the parts of the universe we've seen, then the universe is very, very, very big.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:53:12 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:52:21 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:56:36 AM, janesix wrote:
Galaxies? What is the method used to estimate the number pf galaxies?

The guy above me pretty much has it.

Well, the guy twice above me now.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:55:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:30:27 AM, creationtruth wrote:

WMAP and Red Shifts primarily, although they are not perfect and we don't ultimately know for certain the size of the universe. The data obtained from these methods of inquiry also happen to support the biblical creation model of origins and refute the standard model (L-CDM).

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

That second link is extremely misleading. If you use *any* point at a non-edge point in the universe, it will look like all surrounding bodies are moving away from you at the same speed. The red shift we observe is not unique to our position in the universe.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:01:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:56:36 AM, janesix wrote:
Galaxies? What is the method used to estimate the number pf galaxies?

To reduce error, good estimations take multiple correlated observations, preferably using multiple methods.

The best current method to count galaxies is to take a powerful, high-resolution photograph of a tiny portion of the sky using the best telescope (which is presently the Hubble space telescope), count the visible galaxies in that area, then multiply by all the area ignored.

You can do that more than once in different directions, using better and better instruments. This method has been repeated several times using the Hubble after upgrades.

If you do that, the number of galaxies you get using best methods is about 100 to 200 billion visible galaxies. [http://www.space.com...][http://www.physics.org...]

Also, how do they estimate how big the universe is?
The distance of objects up to about 10,000 light-years away can be measured using stellar parallax -- which is the difference in where an object is seen depending on where the Earth is in its orbit around the sun. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Measure the angle between observations in Summer and Winter, say and geometry gives you the distance. But beyond 10,000 light-years, the angle gets too small to measure from Earth, so you need other methods.

One such method is using Cepheid variable stars. [http://www.atnf.csiro.au...] These are stars that 'pulse' regularly, and it's known from observing the near ones that their brightness depends on the period of the pulse -- stars that pulse slower are brighter than stars that pulse faster, so the pulse determines the actual luminosity of the star. But observed luminosity drops with distance: distant stars appear fainter. So if you compare the period of the pulsing with the observed luminosity, you can calculate the distance to stars tens of thousands of light-years away. This method has been in use since 1913, and can measure distances from around 3,000 light-years to 150 million light-years.

A third way of measuring distance using brightness comes from a kind of supernova called a type Ia. These are caused by exploding white dwarf suns which have companion stars. They have a very distinctive spectral frequencies because of the interaction of the white dwarf with its companion -- the star burns all its hydrogen early, and produces a lot of silicon. The explosion occurs because the white dwarf sucks matter from its companion star until it grows so massive that it collapses, causing a tremendous burn of energy that can't escape fast enough, so it blows matter outward creating the supernova. The supernova has a predictable function of brightness to spectral frequency, so if you can see the spectral lines of the Ia supernova, you know how bright it should be. Then you can compare how bright it appears and calculate distance from the ratio. Type Ia supernovae can measure distances from around three million light-years to over three billion light-years. [http://www.spacetelescope.org...]

So those are three approaches to measurement that together, let astronomers measure distances out to three billion light-years. Out past three billion light-years, a measure called the Hubble Constant is used. The universe is expanding, and the expansion causes a drop in light frequency called red shift. So the spectral lines of burning hydrogen on the sun are much the same signature of burning hydrogen on earth. But as you get further away, the spectral lines of distant suns shift left. The universe is expanding, so the acceleration is greater between distant objects, and this means the degree of shift increases the further the sun from earth, and this can be observed by calibrating red shift in objects whose distances we know through other methods. So the red shift associated with the spectral frequencies tells us the distance of the most distant visible objects. p[http://www.universetoday.com...]

So... we can estimate galaxies in the observable universe, measure distance, measure acceleration, and thus also work out age since the Big Bang (since we can work out how long it took them to get so far apart.)

A great deal of this knowledge came from the observations of the Hubble.

I hope this might be useful, Jane.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 12:35:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:30:27 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:02:53 AM, janesix wrote:
Also, how do they estimate how big the universe is?

WMAP and Red Shifts primarily, although they are not perfect and we don't ultimately know for certain the size of the universe. The data obtained from these methods of inquiry also happen to support the biblical creation model of origins and refute the standard model (L-CDM).

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

It's religiously motivated! It must be true!
Meh!
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:41:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:55:54 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:30:27 AM, creationtruth wrote:

WMAP and Red Shifts primarily, although they are not perfect and we don't ultimately know for certain the size of the universe. The data obtained from these methods of inquiry also happen to support the biblical creation model of origins and refute the standard model (L-CDM).

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

That second link is extremely misleading. If you use *any* point at a non-edge point in the universe, it will look like all surrounding bodies are moving away from you at the same speed. The red shift we observe is not unique to our position in the universe.

They are not misleading, they simply substitute a bound universe with a center for an unbound universe which exists in the 4th dimension of space-time. Either is acceptable. The cosmological principle is an axiom not a scientific fact.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:02:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:41:23 PM, creationtruth wrote:

They are not misleading, they simply substitute a bound universe with a center for an unbound universe which exists in the 4th dimension of space-time. Either is acceptable. The cosmological principle is an axiom not a scientific fact.

The first 2/3rd's of that article look specifically at quantized red shifts in order to come to the conclusion that we exist in a galactocentric universe, with our galaxy at the center. The author basically says, "Look, these quantized red shifts indicate that we are at the center of the universe, give or take some million light years. If we were to be located further than that away, we would not observe this phenomenon like we do."

Meanwhile, he completely neglects to calculate what we would observe if we had been in that "new position" since the beginning of the expansion of space time. In that case, we would observe the exact same phenomenon since, as the author admits, red shift is largely the result of spatial expansion and not velocity.

In any uniform expansion, be it due to spatial expansion or velocity expansion, and single body would appear to be the center of this expansion from his frame of reference, since the very nature of expansion consists of all points "moving away from one another" at an equal rate. This further explains the apparent existence of "galactic concentric shells" from our frame of reference.

It's because of all this work in the first 2/3rd's of the paper that the author assumes the cosmological assumption is unjust. When we realize that this phenomenon is not unique to our position, the cosmological assumption become much more realistic and we have no reason to assume that we are in some way "special".
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:12:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:41:23 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:55:54 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:30:27 AM, creationtruth wrote:

WMAP and Red Shifts primarily, although they are not perfect and we don't ultimately know for certain the size of the universe. The data obtained from these methods of inquiry also happen to support the biblical creation model of origins and refute the standard model (L-CDM).

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

That second link is extremely misleading. If you use *any* point at a non-edge point in the universe, it will look like all surrounding bodies are moving away from you at the same speed. The red shift we observe is not unique to our position in the universe.

They are not misleading, they simply substitute a bound universe with a center for an unbound universe which exists in the 4th dimension of space-time. Either is acceptable. The cosmological principle is an axiom not a scientific fact.

Redshift quantization has been shown to be a statistical artifact, due in part to selection effects in the small sample size of a few hundred galaxies used in early studies. The effect disappears when analyzing redshifts in more recent surveys, such as the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey which contains over 200,000 galactic redshifts.

https://arxiv.org...

https://arxiv.org...

http://arxiv.org...

https://briankoberlein.com...
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 7:41:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 6:02:29 PM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:41:23 PM, creationtruth wrote:

They are not misleading, they simply substitute a bound universe with a center for an unbound universe which exists in the 4th dimension of space-time. Either is acceptable. The cosmological principle is an axiom not a scientific fact.

The first 2/3rd's of that article look specifically at quantized red shifts in order to come to the conclusion that we exist in a galactocentric universe, with our galaxy at the center. The author basically says, "Look, these quantized red shifts indicate that we are at the center of the universe, give or take some million light years. If we were to be located further than that away, we would not observe this phenomenon like we do."

Meanwhile, he completely neglects to calculate what we would observe if we had been in that "new position" since the beginning of the expansion of space time. In that case, we would observe the exact same phenomenon since, as the author admits, red shift is largely the result of spatial expansion and not velocity.

In any uniform expansion, be it due to spatial expansion or velocity expansion, and single body would appear to be the center of this expansion from his frame of reference, since the very nature of expansion consists of all points "moving away from one another" at an equal rate. This further explains the apparent existence of "galactic concentric shells" from our frame of reference.

It's because of all this work in the first 2/3rd's of the paper that the author assumes the cosmological assumption is unjust. When we realize that this phenomenon is not unique to our position, the cosmological assumption become much more realistic and we have no reason to assume that we are in some way "special".

That changes nothing about what I said. Why should one be accepted over the other? If the cosmological principle is justified, then Dr. Humphreys is grossly in error. If the universe is bound with a center, then he is exactly right.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 8:18:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 6:01:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:56:36 AM, janesix wrote:
Galaxies? What is the method used to estimate the number pf galaxies?

To reduce error, good estimations take multiple correlated observations, preferably using multiple methods.

The best current method to count galaxies is to take a powerful, high-resolution photograph of a tiny portion of the sky using the best telescope (which is presently the Hubble space telescope), count the visible galaxies in that area, then multiply by all the area ignored.

You can do that more than once in different directions, using better and better instruments. This method has been repeated several times using the Hubble after upgrades.

If you do that, the number of galaxies you get using best methods is about 100 to 200 billion visible galaxies. [http://www.space.com...][http://www.physics.org...]

Also, how do they estimate how big the universe is?
The distance of objects up to about 10,000 light-years away can be measured using stellar parallax -- which is the difference in where an object is seen depending on where the Earth is in its orbit around the sun. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Measure the angle between observations in Summer and Winter, say and geometry gives you the distance. But beyond 10,000 light-years, the angle gets too small to measure from Earth, so you need other methods.

One such method is using Cepheid variable stars. [http://www.atnf.csiro.au...] These are stars that 'pulse' regularly, and it's known from observing the near ones that their brightness depends on the period of the pulse -- stars that pulse slower are brighter than stars that pulse faster, so the pulse determines the actual luminosity of the star. But observed luminosity drops with distance: distant stars appear fainter. So if you compare the period of the pulsing with the observed luminosity, you can calculate the distance to stars tens of thousands of light-years away. This method has been in use since 1913, and can measure distances from around 3,000 light-years to 150 million light-years.

A third way of measuring distance using brightness comes from a kind of supernova called a type Ia. These are caused by exploding white dwarf suns which have companion stars. They have a very distinctive spectral frequencies because of the interaction of the white dwarf with its companion -- the star burns all its hydrogen early, and produces a lot of silicon. The explosion occurs because the white dwarf sucks matter from its companion star until it grows so massive that it collapses, causing a tremendous burn of energy that can't escape fast enough, so it blows matter outward creating the supernova. The supernova has a predictable function of brightness to spectral frequency, so if you can see the spectral lines of the Ia supernova, you know how bright it should be. Then you can compare how bright it appears and calculate distance from the ratio. Type Ia supernovae can measure distances from around three million light-years to over three billion light-years. [http://www.spacetelescope.org...]

So those are three approaches to measurement that together, let astronomers measure distances out to three billion light-years. Out past three billion light-years, a measure called the Hubble Constant is used. The universe is expanding, and the expansion causes a drop in light frequency called red shift. So the spectral lines of burning hydrogen on the sun are much the same signature of burning hydrogen on earth. But as you get further away, the spectral lines of distant suns shift left. The universe is expanding, so the acceleration is greater between distant objects, and this means the degree of shift increases the further the sun from earth, and this can be observed by calibrating red shift in objects whose distances we know through other methods. So the red shift associated with the spectral frequencies tells us the distance of the most distant visible objects. p[http://www.universetoday.com...]

So... we can estimate galaxies in the observable universe, measure distance, measure acceleration, and thus also work out age since the Big Bang (since we can work out how long it took them to get so far apart.)

A great deal of this knowledge came from the observations of the Hubble.

I hope this might be useful, Jane.

It was useful, thanks for taking your time to answer so thoroughly.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 8:21:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 8:18:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2016 6:01:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/23/2016 3:56:36 AM, janesix wrote:
Galaxies? What is the method used to estimate the number pf galaxies?

The best current method is to take a powerful, high-resolution photograph of a tiny portion of the sky using the best telescope, count the visible galaxies in that area, then multiply by all the area ignored.

If you do that, the number of galaxies you get using best methods is about 100 to 200 billion visible galaxies.

Also, how do they estimate how big the universe is?
The distance of objects up to about 10,000 light-years away can be measured using stellar parallax . But beyond 10,000 light-years, the angle gets too small to measure from Earth, so you need other methods.

One such method is using Cepheid variable stars. This method has been in use since 1913, and can measure distances from around 3,000 light-years to 150 million light-years.

A third way of measuring distance using brightness comes from a kind of supernova called a type Ia. Type Ia supernovae can measure distances from around three million light-years to over three billion light-years.

Out past three billion light-years, a measure called the Hubble Constant is used. The red shift associated with the spectral frequencies tells us the distance of the most distant visible objects.

So... we can estimate galaxies in the observable universe, measure distance, measure acceleration, and thus also work out age since the Big Bang (since we can work out how long it took them to get so far apart.)

A great deal of this knowledge came from the observations of the Hubble.

I hope this might be useful, Jane.

It was useful, thanks for taking your time to answer so thoroughly.

Thank you for such an interesting question, Jane. :)
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 8:22:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 6:12:17 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:41:23 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:55:54 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:30:27 AM, creationtruth wrote:

WMAP and Red Shifts primarily, although they are not perfect and we don't ultimately know for certain the size of the universe. The data obtained from these methods of inquiry also happen to support the biblical creation model of origins and refute the standard model (L-CDM).

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

That second link is extremely misleading. If you use *any* point at a non-edge point in the universe, it will look like all surrounding bodies are moving away from you at the same speed. The red shift we observe is not unique to our position in the universe.

They are not misleading, they simply substitute a bound universe with a center for an unbound universe which exists in the 4th dimension of space-time. Either is acceptable. The cosmological principle is an axiom not a scientific fact.

Redshift quantization has been shown to be a statistical artifact, due in part to selection effects in the small sample size of a few hundred galaxies used in early studies. The effect disappears when analyzing redshifts in more recent surveys, such as the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey which contains over 200,000 galactic redshifts.

https://arxiv.org...

https://arxiv.org...

http://arxiv.org...

https://briankoberlein.com...

Creationist Dr. John Hartnett says the following:

"The periodic redshift peaks are not observable in large, optically chosen samples of quasars, such as the 2dF QSO redshift survey, which involves a wide range of cosmological redshifts, as was presented by Hawkins et al. Similarly, the large Sloan survey shows no periodicity. However, unless an independent method is available to select the correct cosmological redshift for a quasar, the periodicity
is washed out. In Hawkins et al., close proximity (within 30 arcminutes of the centre of the nearby galaxy) was the criterion, but closer attention should be made to identify
the parent galaxy. Different techniques need to be used as selection criteria, such as:
" sources identified in QSOs very close to active com-panion galaxies
" sources in binary or multiple QSO systems
" X-ray sources that are close to active galaxies that turn out to be QSOs
" sources initially identified by their radio emissions (3C and 3CR QSOs)."

It should be noted that many early measurements of quantized redshifts utilized radio data which is not subject to the noise issue claimed to compromise periodicity in appearant non-cosmological redshift sources.

It is not a simple matter of having few, selective data sets before and now having much more data by which to scrutinize quantized redshift claims. The techniques utilized for selection criteria are what determine the results.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 9:08:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 8:22:43 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 6:12:17 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:41:23 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:55:54 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:30:27 AM, creationtruth wrote:

WMAP and Red Shifts primarily, although they are not perfect and we don't ultimately know for certain the size of the universe. The data obtained from these methods of inquiry also happen to support the biblical creation model of origins and refute the standard model (L-CDM).

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

That second link is extremely misleading. If you use *any* point at a non-edge point in the universe, it will look like all surrounding bodies are moving away from you at the same speed. The red shift we observe is not unique to our position in the universe.

They are not misleading, they simply substitute a bound universe with a center for an unbound universe which exists in the 4th dimension of space-time. Either is acceptable. The cosmological principle is an axiom not a scientific fact.

Redshift quantization has been shown to be a statistical artifact, due in part to selection effects in the small sample size of a few hundred galaxies used in early studies. The effect disappears when analyzing redshifts in more recent surveys, such as the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey which contains over 200,000 galactic redshifts.

https://arxiv.org...

https://arxiv.org...

http://arxiv.org...

https://briankoberlein.com...

Creationist Dr. John Hartnett says the following:

"The periodic redshift peaks are not observable in large, optically chosen samples of quasars, such as the 2dF QSO redshift survey, which involves a wide range of cosmological redshifts, as was presented by Hawkins et al. Similarly, the large Sloan survey shows no periodicity. However, unless an independent method is available to select the correct cosmological redshift for a quasar, the periodicity
is washed out. In Hawkins et al., close proximity (within 30 arcminutes of the centre of the nearby galaxy) was the criterion, but closer attention should be made to identify
the parent galaxy. Different techniques need to be used as selection criteria, such as:
" sources identified in QSOs very close to active com-panion galaxies
" sources in binary or multiple QSO systems
" X-ray sources that are close to active galaxies that turn out to be QSOs
" sources initially identified by their radio emissions (3C and 3CR QSOs)."

It should be noted that many early measurements of quantized redshifts utilized radio data which is not subject to the noise issue claimed to compromise periodicity in appearant non-cosmological redshift sources.

It is not a simple matter of having few, selective data sets before and now having much more data by which to scrutinize quantized redshift claims. The techniques utilized for selection criteria are what determine the results.

You can always choose selection criteria that will yield a particular result.

There is a good discussion of Dr. Hartnett's methodology here:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com...
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 9:50:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 9:08:40 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/23/2016 8:22:43 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 6:12:17 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:41:23 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:55:54 AM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:30:27 AM, creationtruth wrote:

WMAP and Red Shifts primarily, although they are not perfect and we don't ultimately know for certain the size of the universe. The data obtained from these methods of inquiry also happen to support the biblical creation model of origins and refute the standard model (L-CDM).

http://creation.com...

http://creation.com...

That second link is extremely misleading. If you use *any* point at a non-edge point in the universe, it will look like all surrounding bodies are moving away from you at the same speed. The red shift we observe is not unique to our position in the universe.

They are not misleading, they simply substitute a bound universe with a center for an unbound universe which exists in the 4th dimension of space-time. Either is acceptable. The cosmological principle is an axiom not a scientific fact.

Redshift quantization has been shown to be a statistical artifact, due in part to selection effects in the small sample size of a few hundred galaxies used in early studies. The effect disappears when analyzing redshifts in more recent surveys, such as the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey which contains over 200,000 galactic redshifts.

https://arxiv.org...

https://arxiv.org...

http://arxiv.org...

https://briankoberlein.com...

Creationist Dr. John Hartnett says the following:

"The periodic redshift peaks are not observable in large, optically chosen samples of quasars, such as the 2dF QSO redshift survey, which involves a wide range of cosmological redshifts, as was presented by Hawkins et al. Similarly, the large Sloan survey shows no periodicity. However, unless an independent method is available to select the correct cosmological redshift for a quasar, the periodicity
is washed out. In Hawkins et al., close proximity (within 30 arcminutes of the centre of the nearby galaxy) was the criterion, but closer attention should be made to identify
the parent galaxy. Different techniques need to be used as selection criteria, such as:
" sources identified in QSOs very close to active com-panion galaxies
" sources in binary or multiple QSO systems
" X-ray sources that are close to active galaxies that turn out to be QSOs
" sources initially identified by their radio emissions (3C and 3CR QSOs)."

It should be noted that many early measurements of quantized redshifts utilized radio data which is not subject to the noise issue claimed to compromise periodicity in appearant non-cosmological redshift sources.

It is not a simple matter of having few, selective data sets before and now having much more data by which to scrutinize quantized redshift claims. The techniques utilized for selection criteria are what determine the results.

You can always choose selection criteria that will yield a particular result.

There is a good discussion of Dr. Hartnett's methodology here:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com...

Fair enough, but what determines the selection criteria is more important. Creationists are all too willing to accept that their view of the universe is based on scripture, and while the Bible does not directly say we are at the relative center, it certainly implies it and is consistent with galactocentricity.

Those following the standard model reject the selection criteria which would yield quantized red shifts and a unique localized point of centrality because they have an independent reason for doing so. Likewise creationists have an independent reason for accepting periodic non-cosmological galactic events.

Basic Reasons:

Those who reject QR - cosmological principle is friendly to the Big Bang

Those who accept QR - anthropic principle is friendly to creation cosmologies

http://www.icr.org...
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 10:14:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 7:41:19 PM, creationtruth wrote:

That changes nothing about what I said. Why should one be accepted over the other? If the cosmological principle is justified, then Dr. Humphreys is grossly in error. If the universe is bound with a center, then he is exactly right.

Because assuming that we are at the center of the universe, if there is a definable center at all, is what's called a "bad assumption".

The universe is very large, so the probability that we are in the center is very, very small. The probability that we are not in the center is very, very large.

Humphrey's assumption goes directly against what is probable, while the cosmological principle is in line with probability. If you know that a satellite has crashed at some random point on Earth, it is a safe assumption that the satellite is not at the north pole. This assumption would be like the cosmological principle.

If you were to assume this satellite had crashed at the north pole, you'd be making an assumption similar to Humphrey's assumption. 99.9999999% of the time this assumption would be wrong.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 11:21:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 10:14:54 PM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:41:19 PM, creationtruth wrote:

That changes nothing about what I said. Why should one be accepted over the other? If the cosmological principle is justified, then Dr. Humphreys is grossly in error. If the universe is bound with a center, then he is exactly right.

Because assuming that we are at the center of the universe, if there is a definable center at all, is what's called a "bad assumption".

The universe is very large, so the probability that we are in the center is very, very small. The probability that we are not in the center is very, very large.

Humphrey's assumption goes directly against what is probable, while the cosmological principle is in line with probability. If you know that a satellite has crashed at some random point on Earth, it is a safe assumption that the satellite is not at the north pole. This assumption would be like the cosmological principle.

If you were to assume this satellite had crashed at the north pole, you'd be making an assumption similar to Humphrey's assumption. 99.9999999% of the time this assumption would be wrong.

The anthropic principle is not based on probability but on scripture. The cosmological principle was not based on probability either but rather on a disdain for the implications of being in a special place in the universe. Arguments from probability fall flat when you have observational evidence supporting the contrary. We have evidence for quantized red shift and therefore galactocentricity, we do not have evidence however for the cosmological principle. This is compounded by the fact that observable evidence seems to contradict the cosmological principle (e.g. the 'axis of evil' refutes a homogeneous, isotropic universe since an anomalous axis alignes with the plane of our solar system).
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2016 11:53:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:56:36 AM, janesix wrote:
Galaxies? What is the method used to estimate the number pf galaxies?

According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. They"ve counted the galaxies in a particular region, and multiplied this up to estimate the number for the whole universe.

Astronomers get to travel to some of the most remote places on Earth to use huge optical telescopes far away from light pollution in order to make observations. Optical telescopes have been used for astronomical observation since the time of Galileo, but the technology has moved on significantly since then.
http://www.physics.org...
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 9:32:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 11:21:28 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:14:54 PM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:41:19 PM, creationtruth wrote:

That changes nothing about what I said. Why should one be accepted over the other? If the cosmological principle is justified, then Dr. Humphreys is grossly in error. If the universe is bound with a center, then he is exactly right.

Because assuming that we are at the center of the universe, if there is a definable center at all, is what's called a "bad assumption".

The universe is very large, so the probability that we are in the center is very, very small. The probability that we are not in the center is very, very large.

Humphrey's assumption goes directly against what is probable, while the cosmological principle is in line with probability. If you know that a satellite has crashed at some random point on Earth, it is a safe assumption that the satellite is not at the north pole. This assumption would be like the cosmological principle.

If you were to assume this satellite had crashed at the north pole, you'd be making an assumption similar to Humphrey's assumption. 99.9999999% of the time this assumption would be wrong.

The anthropic principle is not based on probability but on scripture. The cosmological principle was not based on probability either but rather on a disdain for the implications of being in a special place in the universe. Arguments from probability fall flat when you have observational evidence supporting the contrary. We have evidence for quantized red shift and therefore galactocentricity, we do not have evidence however for the cosmological principle. This is compounded by the fact that observable evidence seems to contradict the cosmological principle (e.g. the 'axis of evil' refutes a homogeneous, isotropic universe since an anomalous axis alignes with the plane of our solar system).

The thing is, when galactrocentricism is definitively disproved (I would argue that it already has been), it will not dissuade creationists from coming up with a replacement cosmology that still fits their biblical perspective. Galactrocentrism, if true, poses a huge problem for the Big Bang. But if false, then it does not invalidate creationism, since creationism has no essential, testable pieces. Creationism is ultimately unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

It is not as if creation "science" developed a cosmological model that predicted a quantized redshift, and then the phenomenon was discovered. Quite the contrary. Creationists saw preliminary studies showing quantized redshifts, and siezed onto them in order to crow about how the Big Bang was now invalidated, and we have proof the we are the center of the universe. (One might point out that we would not really be at the center, but on the outer edge of one spiral arm of the center, but that would not dissaude them.)
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 4:30:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 9:32:05 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/23/2016 11:21:28 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:14:54 PM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:41:19 PM, creationtruth wrote:

That changes nothing about what I said. Why should one be accepted over the other? If the cosmological principle is justified, then Dr. Humphreys is grossly in error. If the universe is bound with a center, then he is exactly right.

Because assuming that we are at the center of the universe, if there is a definable center at all, is what's called a "bad assumption".

The universe is very large, so the probability that we are in the center is very, very small. The probability that we are not in the center is very, very large.

Humphrey's assumption goes directly against what is probable, while the cosmological principle is in line with probability. If you know that a satellite has crashed at some random point on Earth, it is a safe assumption that the satellite is not at the north pole. This assumption would be like the cosmological principle.

If you were to assume this satellite had crashed at the north pole, you'd be making an assumption similar to Humphrey's assumption. 99.9999999% of the time this assumption would be wrong.

The anthropic principle is not based on probability but on scripture. The cosmological principle was not based on probability either but rather on a disdain for the implications of being in a special place in the universe. Arguments from probability fall flat when you have observational evidence supporting the contrary. We have evidence for quantized red shift and therefore galactocentricity, we do not have evidence however for the cosmological principle. This is compounded by the fact that observable evidence seems to contradict the cosmological principle (e.g. the 'axis of evil' refutes a homogeneous, isotropic universe since an anomalous axis alignes with the plane of our solar system).

The thing is, when galactrocentricism is definitively disproved (I would argue that it already has been), it will not dissuade creationists from coming up with a replacement cosmology that still fits their biblical perspective. Galactrocentrism, if true, poses a huge problem for the Big Bang. But if false, then it does not invalidate creationism, since creationism has no essential, testable pieces. Creationism is ultimately unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

It is not as if creation "science" developed a cosmological model that predicted a quantized redshift, and then the phenomenon was discovered. Quite the contrary. Creationists saw preliminary studies showing quantized redshifts, and siezed onto them in order to crow about how the Big Bang was now invalidated, and we have proof the we are the center of the universe. (One might point out that we would not really be at the center, but on the outer edge of one spiral arm of the center, but that would not dissaude them.)

While it is true that the parent model derived from the Bible is not contingent upon galactocentricity, subsequent evidence for such is certainly compatible with it. It is not however compatible with the standard model.

I would contend with your claim of the unsientific nature of the biblical creation model. The Bible's claims are certainly falsifiable. If it was shown that evolution, for example, where one kind of creature is able to transform into another allowing for the Darwinian tree of life scenario, the Bible would be falsified.

It should be noted however that when dealing with specific creationist models which spring from the parent model of scripture, such models may or may not be able to falsify the Bible. Likewise, if a particular inflationary model were falsified, the parent L-CDM model would not be necessarily falsified. Another model may be able to demonstrate the main tenants of Big Bang cosmology.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 4:40:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:30:34 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 9:32:05 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/23/2016 11:21:28 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:14:54 PM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:41:19 PM, creationtruth wrote:

That changes nothing about what I said. Why should one be accepted over the other? If the cosmological principle is justified, then Dr. Humphreys is grossly in error. If the universe is bound with a center, then he is exactly right.

Because assuming that we are at the center of the universe, if there is a definable center at all, is what's called a "bad assumption".

The universe is very large, so the probability that we are in the center is very, very small. The probability that we are not in the center is very, very large.

Humphrey's assumption goes directly against what is probable, while the cosmological principle is in line with probability. If you know that a satellite has crashed at some random point on Earth, it is a safe assumption that the satellite is not at the north pole. This assumption would be like the cosmological principle.

If you were to assume this satellite had crashed at the north pole, you'd be making an assumption similar to Humphrey's assumption. 99.9999999% of the time this assumption would be wrong.

The anthropic principle is not based on probability but on scripture. The cosmological principle was not based on probability either but rather on a disdain for the implications of being in a special place in the universe. Arguments from probability fall flat when you have observational evidence supporting the contrary. We have evidence for quantized red shift and therefore galactocentricity, we do not have evidence however for the cosmological principle. This is compounded by the fact that observable evidence seems to contradict the cosmological principle (e.g. the 'axis of evil' refutes a homogeneous, isotropic universe since an anomalous axis alignes with the plane of our solar system).

The thing is, when galactrocentricism is definitively disproved (I would argue that it already has been), it will not dissuade creationists from coming up with a replacement cosmology that still fits their biblical perspective. Galactrocentrism, if true, poses a huge problem for the Big Bang. But if false, then it does not invalidate creationism, since creationism has no essential, testable pieces. Creationism is ultimately unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

It is not as if creation "science" developed a cosmological model that predicted a quantized redshift, and then the phenomenon was discovered. Quite the contrary. Creationists saw preliminary studies showing quantized redshifts, and siezed onto them in order to crow about how the Big Bang was now invalidated, and we have proof the we are the center of the universe. (One might point out that we would not really be at the center, but on the outer edge of one spiral arm of the center, but that would not dissaude them.)

While it is true that the parent model derived from the Bible is not contingent upon galactocentricity, subsequent evidence for such is certainly compatible with it. It is not however compatible with the standard model.

I would contend with your claim of the unsientific nature of the biblical creation model. The Bible's claims are certainly falsifiable. If it was shown that evolution, for example, where one kind of creature is able to transform into another allowing for the Darwinian tree of life scenario, the Bible would be falsified.

It should be noted however that when dealing with specific creationist models which spring from the parent model of scripture, such models may or may not be able to falsify the Bible. Likewise, if a particular inflationary model were falsified, the parent L-CDM model would not be necessarily falsified. Another model may be able to demonstrate the main tenants of Big Bang cosmology.

Also, every scientific model of historical events relies on axiomatic premises which are based on philisophical biases. One does not simply look into the universe and say, "aha! The Big Bang created the universe!" This is why historical models are so tentative and subkect to post hoc modifications (e.g. dark energy for the Big Bang). Historical models are certainly falsifiable, but the overriding philosophy which drives them are often unchanged by such (e.g. the cosmological principle).
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 7:09:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 3:56:36 AM, janesix wrote:
Galaxies? What is the method used to estimate the number pf galaxies?

They count them.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:21:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:40:13 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:34 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 9:32:05 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/23/2016 11:21:28 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:14:54 PM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:41:19 PM, creationtruth wrote:

That changes nothing about what I said. Why should one be accepted over the other? If the cosmological principle is justified, then Dr. Humphreys is grossly in error. If the universe is bound with a center, then he is exactly right.

Because assuming that we are at the center of the universe, if there is a definable center at all, is what's called a "bad assumption".

The universe is very large, so the probability that we are in the center is very, very small. The probability that we are not in the center is very, very large.

Humphrey's assumption goes directly against what is probable, while the cosmological principle is in line with probability. If you know that a satellite has crashed at some random point on Earth, it is a safe assumption that the satellite is not at the north pole. This assumption would be like the cosmological principle.

If you were to assume this satellite had crashed at the north pole, you'd be making an assumption similar to Humphrey's assumption. 99.9999999% of the time this assumption would be wrong.

The anthropic principle is not based on probability but on scripture. The cosmological principle was not based on probability either but rather on a disdain for the implications of being in a special place in the universe. Arguments from probability fall flat when you have observational evidence supporting the contrary. We have evidence for quantized red shift and therefore galactocentricity, we do not have evidence however for the cosmological principle. This is compounded by the fact that observable evidence seems to contradict the cosmological principle (e.g. the 'axis of evil' refutes a homogeneous, isotropic universe since an anomalous axis alignes with the plane of our solar system).

The thing is, when galactrocentricism is definitively disproved (I would argue that it already has been), it will not dissuade creationists from coming up with a replacement cosmology that still fits their biblical perspective. Galactrocentrism, if true, poses a huge problem for the Big Bang. But if false, then it does not invalidate creationism, since creationism has no essential, testable pieces. Creationism is ultimately unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

It is not as if creation "science" developed a cosmological model that predicted a quantized redshift, and then the phenomenon was discovered. Quite the contrary. Creationists saw preliminary studies showing quantized redshifts, and siezed onto them in order to crow about how the Big Bang was now invalidated, and we have proof the we are the center of the universe. (One might point out that we would not really be at the center, but on the outer edge of one spiral arm of the center, but that would not dissaude them.)

While it is true that the parent model derived from the Bible is not contingent upon galactocentricity, subsequent evidence for such is certainly compatible with it. It is not however compatible with the standard model.

I would contend with your claim of the unsientific nature of the biblical creation model. The Bible's claims are certainly falsifiable. If it was shown that evolution, for example, where one kind of creature is able to transform into another allowing for the Darwinian tree of life scenario, the Bible would be falsified.


Biblical interpretation is a moving target. Creationists in Galileo's time considered Heliocentrism to be a direct contradiction of scripture. But no creationist today thinks that because heliocentrism turned out to be true, the Bible was falsified. Many Christians today, including the very Catholic Church that persecuted Galileo for promoting heliocentrism, manage to reconcile the Bible with evolution and the Big Bang. Biblical interpretation will always adapt, out of necessity, to scientific discovery. That is why even though a particular creationist-inspired model may be testable and falsifiable, creationism itself is not.

Many ardent believers will admit that no conceivable evidence will make them give up their faith. At worst, they will find a new interpretation.

It should be noted however that when dealing with specific creationist models which spring from the parent model of scripture, such models may or may not be able to falsify the Bible. Likewise, if a particular inflationary model were falsified, the parent L-CDM model would not be necessarily falsified. Another model may be able to demonstrate the main tenants of Big Bang cosmology.

Also, every scientific model of historical events relies on axiomatic premises which are based on philisophical biases. One does not simply look into the universe and say, "aha! The Big Bang created the universe!" This is why historical models are so tentative and subkect to post hoc modifications (e.g. dark energy for the Big Bang). Historical models are certainly falsifiable, but the overriding philosophy which drives them are often unchanged by such (e.g. the cosmological principle).

Scientific "axioms" are not axioms in the mathematical sense in which they are often portrayed. Any mathematical system depends on its axioms, of course. Propositions that are true under one set of axioms may be false (or meaningless) under another set of axioms. But to call the fundamental epistemological assumptions of science axioms seems to imply that the universe is a system that changes depending on which assumptions one makes. As if we have the power to change the universe simply by making different assumptions about it. But the universe is what it is in spite of any preconceptions or assumptions we might make.

And what assumptions does science really make? Beyond those assumptions that any sane person makes, (we exist, and our senses provide us with a fair approximation of an objective reality, for instance) and only philosophers spend any time debating, I can think of only one assumption that science makes: reality has some sort of intrinsic order, and that order can be discovered by empirical inquiry.

Contrast the previous assumption to the following: one of our books contains the infallible word of the creator of the universe, and I know which book it is, and how the creator of the universe wants us to interpret it.

It strikes me as not simply a matter of minor differences in philosophical biases.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 5:32:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:21:28 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:40:13 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:30:34 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 9:32:05 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/23/2016 11:21:28 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:14:54 PM, Cobalt wrote:
At 6/23/2016 7:41:19 PM, creationtruth wrote:

That changes nothing about what I said. Why should one be accepted over the other? If the cosmological principle is justified, then Dr. Humphreys is grossly in error. If the universe is bound with a center, then he is exactly right.

Because assuming that we are at the center of the universe, if there is a definable center at all, is what's called a "bad assumption".

The universe is very large, so the probability that we are in the center is very, very small. The probability that we are not in the center is very, very large.

Humphrey's assumption goes directly against what is probable, while the cosmological principle is in line with probability. If you know that a satellite has crashed at some random point on Earth, it is a safe assumption that the satellite is not at the north pole. This assumption would be like the cosmological principle.

If you were to assume this satellite had crashed at the north pole, you'd be making an assumption similar to Humphrey's assumption. 99.9999999% of the time this assumption would be wrong.

The anthropic principle is not based on probability but on scripture. The cosmological principle was not based on probability either but rather on a disdain for the implications of being in a special place in the universe. Arguments from probability fall flat when you have observational evidence supporting the contrary. We have evidence for quantized red shift and therefore galactocentricity, we do not have evidence however for the cosmological principle. This is compounded by the fact that observable evidence seems to contradict the cosmological principle (e.g. the 'axis of evil' refutes a homogeneous, isotropic universe since an anomalous axis alignes with the plane of our solar system).

The thing is, when galactrocentricism is definitively disproved (I would argue that it already has been), it will not dissuade creationists from coming up with a replacement cosmology that still fits their biblical perspective. Galactrocentrism, if true, poses a huge problem for the Big Bang. But if false, then it does not invalidate creationism, since creationism has no essential, testable pieces. Creationism is ultimately unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

It is not as if creation "science" developed a cosmological model that predicted a quantized redshift, and then the phenomenon was discovered. Quite the contrary. Creationists saw preliminary studies showing quantized redshifts, and siezed onto them in order to crow about how the Big Bang was now invalidated, and we have proof the we are the center of the universe. (One might point out that we would not really be at the center, but on the outer edge of one spiral arm of the center, but that would not dissaude them.)

While it is true that the parent model derived from the Bible is not contingent upon galactocentricity, subsequent evidence for such is certainly compatible with it. It is not however compatible with the standard model.

I would contend with your claim of the unsientific nature of the biblical creation model. The Bible's claims are certainly falsifiable. If it was shown that evolution, for example, where one kind of creature is able to transform into another allowing for the Darwinian tree of life scenario, the Bible would be falsified.


Biblical interpretation is a moving target. Creationists in Galileo's time considered Heliocentrism to be a direct contradiction of scripture. But no creationist today thinks that because heliocentrism turned out to be true, the Bible was falsified. Many Christians today, including the very Catholic Church that persecuted Galileo for promoting heliocentrism, manage to reconcile the Bible with evolution and the Big Bang. Biblical interpretation will always adapt, out of necessity, to scientific discovery. That is why even though a particular creationist-inspired model may be testable and falsifiable, creationism itself is not.

Many ardent believers will admit that no conceivable evidence will make them give up their faith. At worst, they will find a new interpretation.

It should be noted however that when dealing with specific creationist models which spring from the parent model of scripture, such models may or may not be able to falsify the Bible. Likewise, if a particular inflationary model were falsified, the parent L-CDM model would not be necessarily falsified. Another model may be able to demonstrate the main tenants of Big Bang cosmology.

Also, every scientific model of historical events relies on axiomatic premises which are based on philisophical biases. One does not simply look into the universe and say, "aha! The Big Bang created the universe!" This is why historical models are so tentative and subkect to post hoc modifications (e.g. dark energy for the Big Bang). Historical models are certainly falsifiable, but the overriding philosophy which drives them are often unchanged by such (e.g. the cosmological principle).

Scientific "axioms" are not axioms in the mathematical sense in which they are often portrayed. Any mathematical system depends on its axioms, of course. Propositions that are true under one set of axioms may be false (or meaningless) under another set of axioms. But to call the fundamental epistemological assumptions of science axioms seems to imply that the universe is a system that changes depending on which assumptions one makes. As if we have the power to change the universe simply by making different assumptions about it. But the universe is what it is in spite of any preconceptions or assumptions we might make.

And what assumptions does science really make? Beyond those assumptions that any sane person makes, (we exist, and our senses provide us with a fair approximation of an objective reality, for instance) and only philosophers spend any time debating, I can think of only one assumption that science makes: reality has some sort of intrinsic order, and that order can be discovered by empirical inquiry.

Contrast the previous assumption to the following: one of our books contains the infallible word of the creator of the universe, and I know which book it is, and how the creator of the universe wants us to interpret it.

It strikes me as not simply a matter of minor differences in philosophical biases.

The Bible does not teach heliocentrism. Faulty human interpretations of astronomical observations led to heliocentrism, not scripture. Catholics were working off of the Greek's astronomy.

Sure a person's faith in the Bible, or any other book or philosophy, may not be falsifiable, but the book itself is. Whether or not a person concedes to this is another story.

Science doesn't make assumptions, it is a tool for discovery. Scientists make assumptions to make sense of the universe. I agree, the universe IS what it is in spite of our understanding of it, however one's view of the universe is certainly dependent upon initial assumptions. Due to the many uncertainties involved in historical science, a single inaccurate hypothesis, assumption, or philosophy can ostensibly alter one's understanding of reality (e.g. the various interpretations of quantum mechanics).

Empericism cannot be supported by the scientific method. It is a philosophy which cannot be objectively defended.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 9:39:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 5:32:00 PM, creationtruth wrote:

The Bible does not teach heliocentrism.

According to your interpretation. The Church of Galileo's time had a different interpretation, based on a study of scripture which I daresay was at least as thorough as your own.

Faulty human interpretations of astronomical observations led to heliocentrism, not scripture. Catholics were working off of the Greek's astronomy.


Which only makes the point that scripture can be bent to fit pretty much any prevailing naturalistic view. And it's not as if the Catholics persecuted Galileo for contradicting the Greeks. They persecuted him for contradicting the Bible.

Sure a person's faith in the Bible, or any other book or philosophy, may not be falsifiable, but the book itself is. Whether or not a person concedes to this is another story.


Much of the Bible is ambiguous enough to be shoehorned into nearly any viewpoint. Both slave owners and abolitionists found Biblical justification for their views. Theologians in Galileo's day were just as sure that heliocentrism would falsify the Bible as you are sure that evolution would falsify the Bible. You can't point to anywhere in the Bible where it precisely, unambiguously states that slavery is wrong, or that evolution by natural selection is not the cause of speciation, or that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Hence many people are perfectly able to accept evolution and the Big Bang while maintaining a biblical worldview.

Science doesn't make assumptions, it is a tool for discovery. Scientists make assumptions to make sense of the universe. I agree, the universe IS what it is in spite of our understanding of it, however one's view of the universe is certainly dependent upon initial assumptions. Due to the many uncertainties involved in historical science, a single inaccurate hypothesis, assumption, or philosophy can ostensibly alter one's understanding of reality (e.g. the various interpretations of quantum mechanics).

Empericism cannot be supported by the scientific method. It is a philosophy which cannot be objectively defended.

Whether pure Empiricism is objectively defensible is the subject for another debate. But it is clear that empirical inquiry has proven vastly more reliable than revelation as a means of attaining knowledge.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:02:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 9:39:26 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/28/2016 5:32:00 PM, creationtruth wrote:

The Bible does not teach heliocentrism.

According to your interpretation. The Church of Galileo's time had a different interpretation, based on a study of scripture which I daresay was at least as thorough as your own.

Faulty human interpretations of astronomical observations led to heliocentrism, not scripture. Catholics were working off of the Greek's astronomy.


Which only makes the point that scripture can be bent to fit pretty much any prevailing naturalistic view. And it's not as if the Catholics persecuted Galileo for contradicting the Greeks. They persecuted him for contradicting the Bible.

Sure a person's faith in the Bible, or any other book or philosophy, may not be falsifiable, but the book itself is. Whether or not a person concedes to this is another story.


Much of the Bible is ambiguous enough to be shoehorned into nearly any viewpoint. Both slave owners and abolitionists found Biblical justification for their views. Theologians in Galileo's day were just as sure that heliocentrism would falsify the Bible as you are sure that evolution would falsify the Bible. You can't point to anywhere in the Bible where it precisely, unambiguously states that slavery is wrong, or that evolution by natural selection is not the cause of speciation, or that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Hence many people are perfectly able to accept evolution and the Big Bang while maintaining a biblical worldview.

Science doesn't make assumptions, it is a tool for discovery. Scientists make assumptions to make sense of the universe. I agree, the universe IS what it is in spite of our understanding of it, however one's view of the universe is certainly dependent upon initial assumptions. Due to the many uncertainties involved in historical science, a single inaccurate hypothesis, assumption, or philosophy can ostensibly alter one's understanding of reality (e.g. the various interpretations of quantum mechanics).

Empericism cannot be supported by the scientific method. It is a philosophy which cannot be objectively defended.

Whether pure Empiricism is objectively defensible is the subject for another debate. But it is clear that empirical inquiry has proven vastly more reliable than revelation as a means of attaining knowledge.

A lot of unsubstantiated opinions there.