Jump to content


Photo

Why We Just Don't Believe Them


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#41 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 24 September 2015 - 01:17 PM

 

ENOCH 2021: Define --  The "Scientific" theory of evolution....?

 

 

1.  In what capacity?     2.  In a broad sense a scientific theory of evolution would be a scientific theory  3.  that describes and explains how X changes over time. 

 

 

 

 

Round and Round we go...

 

1.  In the... "Define the Scientific theory of evolution" capacity......?

 

2. So a Scientific Theory of evolution would be a Scientific Theory...?   :huh:   Yes, That's the idea...Thanks. Go ahead ........?

 

3. Scientific Theories don't "Describe", they "EXPLAIN" the 'HOW"....Specific Mechanism.  Go ahead.....?  

 

We want it "Officially" since this is Science.  So Again: Define the "Scientific" theory of evolution......?

 

 

 

GOKU:   It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars, not something we can observe within a human lifetime.

 

 

ENOCH 2021: It appears you're having a difficult time discerning the difference between SCIENTIFIC LAW VIOLATING "fairytales" and Science; here I'll "lift the fog" for you....

 

Science:  Methodology ----  The Scientific Method.

 

Fairytales:  Methodology ----- "Imagination".

 

Please Explain in some detail "Star Formation" in the "CONTEXT" of : 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, and Jeans Mass......mmmm K?

 

 

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." ---- Sun And Stars, p.111 

 

It's "difficult" theoretically and "theoretical evidence argues STRONGLY against it" ------ because it takes 2LOT/Boyle's Gas Law/ and Jeans Mass to the Woodshed and beats them Senseless.

 

 

Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory.... 

 

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."
Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 
 
Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics...
 
“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”
Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998
 
 
How's your "protostar" fairytale nonsense you just "Parroted" (from who knows where) fairing now ??   
 
Can I ask you, seriously.....Do you just make stuff up?    :glare: 

 

 

 

 

GOKU:  So because we don't understand something it can't happen, makes perfect sense!

 

 

Round and Round we go.....

 

1.  I never said that; Ergo.... Straw Man (Fallacy).  You said as a Matter of Fact How YOU understand it...then I REFUTED IT!!  Following?

 

2.  If "WE" don't understand it (as you say) then HOW/By what Authority could you state that YOU DID UNDERSTAND IT....

 

GOKU:   "It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars, not something we can observe within a human" 

 

??

 

I suppose it would be the Acme of Foolishness @ this point to say that your responses are: Completely Absurd, Self Contradictory, Straw Man Fallacies, and make no sense Whatsoever??

 

 

GOKU:  The birth of a star is not a fireworks display like a supernova.

 

ENOCH 2021:  How in the WORLD do you know this if it's never been OBSERVED, pray tell ??

 

GOKU: Because there's no reason to think the formation of a star will create a supernova explosion.  

 

 

:running1:

 

 

"Dark energy" is just a placeholder label, but whatever we call it doesn't change the fact that all distant galaxies are moving away from us. 

 

 

A Placeholder Label??   :laugh_point:     I got a Better more Explanatory and Precise Placeholder Label.....Pseudo-Science.

 

Sure, except for the one's that aren't.

 

 

Way too completely miss the point. 

 

 

Way to STATE the Point Then....How I "Allegedly", Missed it.   :laugh_point:

 

 

 

1.  So now we can dismiss what cosmologists have determined because it isn't "science"?           2.  Should we dismiss historians because history is not science?

 

 

1. Yea, Duh.  Science is about Establishing then VALIDATING/CONFIRMING "Cause and Effect" relationships via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.

 

2. No, Why?  Historical Science is concerned with Establishing Veracity of Past Events.  It has Absolutely nothing to do with "Cause and Effect" or TESTING.

 

So what we got here is a TEXTBOOK....... False Analogy Fallacy.

 

 

There is nothing to Arp's 'theory'; every time someone decides to test his ideas they fall short. 

 

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1 + z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1 + z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies. 

 

 

 

1.  Are you gonna actually CITE THIS appropriately/"LINK" @ Some Point ??

 

2.  How does your UN-CITED Source REFUTE this (Specifically)....

 

"We have clearly shown that two of the compact emission lines objects in the filament have redshifts very much greater than those of NGC7603 and its companion galaxy. Thus we have presented a very well known system with anomalous redshifts, NGC 7603, to be an apparently much more anomalous than was previously thought. There are 4 objects with very different redshifts apparently connected by a filament associated with the lower redshift galaxy. This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A...390L..15L

http://www.aanda.org...41/aaea241.html

 

Margaret Burbidge Astrophysicist; Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory ( Awarded the National Medal of Science by President Reagan 1985) Video Interview...
 
"One of the best and earliest....is one of the Seyfert Galaxies known as NGC 4319, which has a protrusion coming out of one it's spiral arms and ending up on another Galaxy known as Markarian and people have tried to explain it away in all kinds of ways {LAUGHING} and then tried to take FALSE PICTURES to show that it's NOT THERE {LAUGHING Again}.  But I've seen the Good Pictures!!"


#42 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 24 September 2015 - 02:44 PM

...
No, you can prove nothing for you are not standing on the side of the truth to begin with. ...least of all on the side of scriptural truth about the creation. The Word of the Lord Jesus Christ about Genesis, Adam & Eve, and the flood of Noah means nothing to you.
...

.
It's over, piasan.
.

What in the World is this, Pray Tell?
...

.
A response to what you wrote here: "Yes, by you."

Confused again?

#43 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 24 September 2015 - 02:54 PM

A response to what you wrote here: "Yes, by you."

Confused again?

 

You mean this, here....: http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry126912

 

 

What in the World is this, Pray Tell?

 

"You" said ....

 

Using the word 'evolution' to represent cosmological phenonena promotes misunderstanding.

 

 

I Rebutted with what One of The Father's of 20th Century evolution theory said DIRECTLY CONCERNING your Statement....

 

 

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.  Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.  Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." {Emphasis Mine}
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
 
Then your Retort is...
 
Is it possible that he mistakes me for Dobzhansky? With Enoch, anything is possible....very scary.  
 
:get_a_clue:
 
This is so Far beyond Non-Sequitur, I'm afraid I really can't respond with anything i.e., (it's clinical)... beyond my scope sir. 
 
 
 
 
Who's "Confused" ??  :laugh_point: 


#44 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 24 September 2015 - 07:25 PM

...
.
A response to what you wrote here: "Yes, by you."
...

.

You mean this, here....: http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry126912
...

.
I read no further as my link takes me to exactly the appearance of the words after the semi-colon. Do you seen the semi-colon? The link represented by 'here' points to the page where can be found the words that follow the semi-colon.

I can't believe I had to type that and poof it to his Display...hey, that's pretty funny...

#45 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 24 September 2015 - 09:08 PM

 

Round and Round we go...

 

1.  In the... "Define the Scientific theory of evolution" capacity......?

 

2. So a Scientific Theory of evolution would be a Scientific Theory...?   :huh:   Yes, That's the idea...Thanks. Go ahead ........?

 

3. Scientific Theories don't "Describe", they "EXPLAIN" the 'HOW"....Specific Mechanism.  Go ahead.....?  

 

We want it "Officially" since this is Science.  So Again: Define the "Scientific" theory of evolution......?

 

I'm not trying to hijack this thread by turning it into your "scientific theory of evolution" thread 2.0; there's already a thread for that, one that you created. 

 

Round and Round we go.....

 

1.  I never said that; Ergo.... Straw Man (Fallacy).  You said as a Matter of Fact How YOU understand it...then I REFUTED IT!!  Following?

 

2.  If "WE" don't understand it (as you say) then HOW/By what Authority could you state that YOU DID UNDERSTAND IT....

 

GOKU:   "It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars, not something we can observe within a human" 

 

??

 

I suppose it would be the Acme of Foolishness @ this point to say that your responses are: Completely Absurd, Self Contradictory, Straw Man Fallacies, and make no sense Whatsoever??

 

You never said that verbatim, but that is your argument in simplified form once you lift all the smoke and mirrors. 

 

How does 2LOT disprove star formation? 

 

How does Boyle's Gas Law disprove star formation? 

 

How does Jeans Mass disprove star formation?  

 

A Placeholder Label??    :laugh_point:     I got a Better more Explanatory and Precise Placeholder Label.....Pseudo-Science.

 

Sure, except for the one's that aren't.

 

 

What is the furthest galaxy with a blueshift? Do you know of any galaxy that is 100 million or more light years away from us (roughly 1% of the radius of the visible universe) that is blueshifted? We can measure distances greater than that with Cepheid Variable Stars, and even greater distances with type 1a supernova among other techniques, so we don't have to rely on Hubble's distance formula for such a task which would be circular. 

 

1. Yea, Duh.  Science is about Establishing then VALIDATING/CONFIRMING "Cause and Effect" relationships via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.

 

2. No, Why?  Historical Science is concerned with Establishing Veracity of Past Events.  It has Absolutely nothing to do with "Cause and Effect" or TESTING.

 

So what we got here is a TEXTBOOK....... False Analogy Fallacy.

 

:get_a_clue:

 

1.  Are you gonna actually CITE THIS appropriately/"LINK" @ Some Point ??

 

2.  How does your UN-CITED Source REFUTE this (Specifically)....

 

"We have clearly shown that two of the compact emission lines objects in the filament have redshifts very much greater than those of NGC7603 and its companion galaxy. Thus we have presented a very well known system with anomalous redshifts, NGC 7603, to be an apparently much more anomalous than was previously thought. There are 4 objects with very different redshifts apparently connected by a filament associated with the lower redshift galaxy. This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A...390L..15L

http://www.aanda.org...41/aaea241.html

 

Margaret Burbidge Astrophysicist; Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory ( Awarded the National Medal of Science by President Reagan 1985) Video Interview...
 
"One of the best and earliest....is one of the Seyfert Galaxies known as NGC 4319, which has a protrusion coming out of one it's spiral arms and ending up on another Galaxy known as Markarian and people have tried to explain it away in all kinds of ways {LAUGHING} and then tried to take FALSE PICTURES to show that it's NOT THERE {LAUGHING Again}.  But I've seen the Good Pictures!!"

 

The link is embedded in the paragraph itself. If that isn't user friendly enough here's a salient portion of the abstract with a clearly distinguished hyperlink at the end. 

 

We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs.  http://iopscience.io...086/432754/meta  



#46 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2015 - 10:22 PM

Do you know of any galaxy that is 100 million or more light years away from us (roughly 1% of the radius of the visible universe) that is blueshifted? We can measure distances greater than that with Cepheid Variable Stars, and even greater distances with type 1a supernova among other techniques, so we don't have to rely on Hubble's distance formula for such a task which would be circular.  

Cepheids were discussed earlier in this thread.  IIRC, the most distant Cepheid measurement is something like 56 million light years.  Type 1a supernovae have been used as far as 10 billion light years.

 

The link is embedded in the paragraph itself. If that isn't user friendly enough here's a salient portion of the abstract with a clearly distinguished hyperlink at the end. 

 

We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs.  http://iopscience.io...086/432754/meta  

The last time I checked on "quantized" red shifts, I found (fairly recent) papers on both sides of the issue.  I don't think either side of the issue is in a position to declare a "victory."

 

Even then, there is a clear relationship between red-shift and distance .... whatever the cause of the red shift.

 

But we don't need red shift to establish distances to billions of light years.



#47 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 September 2015 - 06:09 AM

The last time I checked on "quantized" red shifts, I found (fairly recent) papers on both sides of the issue.  I don't think either side of the issue is in a position to declare a "victory."

 

 

Well, well, well, that;s a lot more than you were willing to grant before.

 

Nonetheless, I think you and Goku need to move on. There is no sense in endlessly haggling over the same issues when neither side is going to yield.

Why don't you two just find another board to haunt? 

 

I'll be out of town over the weekend but if I come back and if you two jokers are still here then I will just put you both on permanent ignore. You may find that there will be others who will follow suit. But I'm sure that will just break you heart. :topic_closed: 



#48 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 25 September 2015 - 06:58 AM

The last time I checked on "quantized" red shifts, I found (fairly recent) papers on both sides of the issue.  I don't think either side of the issue is in a position to declare a "victory."

Well, well, well, that;s a lot more than you were willing to grant before.

I'm pretty sure every time I've discussed quantized red shifts here my position has been that the matter is not settled.  However, I still don't see how that causes really major issues as there is still a clear relationship between redshift and distance.  Also, as I pointed out, there are other distance measurment methods that yield distances in the billions of light years.

 

Nonetheless, I think you and Goku need to move on.

Your opinion is noted... thank you for sharing.

 

There is no sense in endlessly haggling over the same issues when neither side is going to yield.

Why don't you two just find another board to haunt? 

I happen to enjoy this one.  I've been participating in these discussions for 20 years or so and this is, by far, the best forum in which I've participated.  If anything, the only thing I regret is that I didn't join a couple years earlier when I first stumbled onto EFF.

 

Besides, it wouldn't be any fun if everyone had the same viewpoint.

 

I'll be out of town over the weekend but if I come back and if you two jokers are still here then I will just put you both on permanent ignore.

That is, of course, your option.  Be advised, I will not put you (or anyone else) on ignore. 



#49 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 25 September 2015 - 08:54 AM

As I documented:

 

They are very clearly the exact same article from two different publications.  In fact, the "discovery.com" article ends with this:

"Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

 

Previously, I was criticised by Calypsis who made an allegation that I hadn't read a Wiki article.... the question now is .... does Calypsis even read his own sources?

He knows he's lying...but he doesn't care. I quote most of my sources and in order to get the good stuff I HAVE TO READ the articles.

Let's see.....

1)  I document that Calypsis presented these two articles in the same post as if they are two different sources.

2)  I document the titles are identical (except that the LiveScience article ends with "Scientists Say.")

3)  I document that they have the same author.

4)  I document that the Discovery article ends with a Copyright statement acknowledging the source as "LiveScience."

5)  Anyone who cares can go to the articles and they will find they are identical ... right down to the punctuation.

 

But I'm lying when I point out that these are the exact same article presented, by Calypsis, as two separate references.

 

Calypsis says he read the articles.  When I checked these two sources presented by Calypsis, I didn't get thru the first paragraph of the second reference before it had a familiar ring.  In about a minute, it was clear that these two citations were the exact same article published in two different places..... but that little point apparently escaped Calypsis. 

 

 

 But I assure you that he wouldn't believe my documentation if I posted twenty DIFFERENT sources revealing that his position is in error.

 

Here's another on a closely related issue: 

NASA May Have Accidentally Discovered Faster-Than-Light Travel

By Steven Schneider, Tech Times | April 28 (2015)

 

A team at NASA may have unintentionally accelerated particles to faster-than-light speeds while using the EmDrive resonance chamber - basically, if their findings turn out to be accurate, the team may have just discovered faster-than-light travel.

 

http://www.techtimes...ight-travel.htm

First, I have not disputed the documentation nor the findings of those articles.  What I did do, and Calypsis seems to have a problem with, is to evaluate the impact of these PROPOSED changes if they were true.

 

Second, notice this article says "MAY HAVE."  Not "did."  The same was true of the article .... er two (duplicate) articles referenced above.  They said the speed of light "may" not be constant.  Not that it HAS varied.  In addition, the article .... er ... articles .... pointed out that the methodology of the experiment is being questioned.  Calypsis seems to think the very thought that there may possibly, perhaps, maybe, be miniscule fluctuations in the speed of light caused by variations in the vacuum of space refutes the entire concept of billions of years.

 

It doesn't.

 

It's like the headlines when it was thought the Cern project had detected a faster than light particle.  Lots of noise.   There was very little attention when it was found that the reading was the result of a bad electrical connector.



#50 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 September 2015 - 09:09 AM

 

I'm not trying to hijack this thread by turning it into your "scientific theory of evolution" thread 2.0; there's already a thread for that, one that you created. 

 

 

1.  You brought "evolution" up, here:  GOKU: it is not the same colloquial use of "evolution" that you appear to be using.  http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry126870

 

So.....DEFINE the "Scientific" theory of evolution....?  SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS GOKU !!!!  Since you were "Instructing" Cal on the definition".  I mean, this should be quite easy and take less than 2 Minutes.   :gotcha:

 

 

Therefore, what we have here is an Incoherent attempt to deflect and divert under the guise of some contrived impropriety "Hijack Thread" in lieu of SUPPORTING your Position.  

 

 

You never said that verbatim, but that is your argument in simplified form once you lift all the smoke and mirrors.

 

 

I never said "WHAT" verbatim ? "WHAT" is my argument....?  "WHAT" are the smoke and mirrors.....?

 

 

How does 2LOT disprove star formation? 

 

How does Boyle's Gas Law disprove star formation? 

 

How does Jeans Mass disprove star formation?  

 

 

So let me get this straight, "YOU" make The BASELESS CLAIM (Fallacy):  GOKU:  It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars".  That I SUMMARILY REFUTED and demonstrated was BASELESS and without Evidence.

 

NOW, you want me to DISPROVE Your CLAIM that was NEVER "PROVED" in the first place.   :crazyguy:

 

It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider Attempting to DISPROVE complete Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacies) GOKU.

 

It's Tantamount to me stating, that:  There are 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a Black Hole creating Dark Matter....THEN, asking you to "DISPROVE" IT!!!!   :rotfl:

 

Do you find it logical and to have any purchase whatsoever GOKU..... to Imagine Things, Then have others "DISPROVE" those Imaginings BEFORE you give evidence for your Imaginings ??

 

Oy Vey

 

 

 We can measure distances greater than that with Cepheid Variable Stars, and even greater distances with type 1a supernova among other techniques, so we don't have to rely on Hubble's distance formula for such a task which would be circular.

 

 

Well thanks for admitting that Hubble's Law is Circular.  Unfortunately, for you  ;) , your Ship has come in...but your Pier has collapsed.

 

You just substituted One Begging The Question Fallacy...with Another.  How So?  Well, You're using "Light Years" with Cepheid Variables and Supernova's; ERGO...

 

You have to be able to VALIDATE/CONFIRM the "One-Way" Speed of Light....for the "TIME" part in your Calculations of "light YEARS".

 

Go ahead.....?

 

 

The link is embedded in the paragraph itself. If that isn't user friendly enough here's a salient portion of the abstract with a clearly distinguished hyperlink at the end. 

 

We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs.  http://iopscience.io...086/432754/meta 

 

 

Oh yes, I found the Paper before I asked you to "APPROPRIATELY CITE" the Reference.  My question still stands...HOW does your Reference "SPECIFICALLY REFUTE"....

 

"We have clearly shown that two of the compact emission lines objects in the filament have redshifts very much greater than those of NGC7603 and its companion galaxy. Thus we have presented a very well known system with anomalous redshifts, NGC 7603, to be an apparently much more anomalous than was previously thought. There are 4 objects with very different redshifts apparently connected by a filament associated with the lower redshift galaxy. This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A...390L..15L

http://www.aanda.org...41/aaea241.html

 

Margaret Burbidge Astrophysicist; Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory ( Awarded the National Medal of Science by President Reagan 1985) Video Interview...
 

"One of the best and earliest....is one of the Seyfert Galaxies known as NGC 4319, which has a protrusion coming out of one it's spiral arms and ending up on another Galaxy known as Markarian and people have tried to explain it away in all kinds of ways {LAUGHING} and then tried to take FALSE PICTURES to show that it's NOT THERE {LAUGHING Again}.  But I've seen the Good Pictures!!"

 

And....

 

Geoffrey Burbidge PhD Astrophysics, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory:

 
"If you see two objects close together with very different Red Shifts you only have one of two explanations: one is, that a large part of the Red Shift has nothing to do with distance and the other is...it's an accident."
 
What I'm asking for is HOW is this an Accident....?  And How does "Simulated Random Pairs" lol, REFUTE IT!!
 
And didn't you already admit that all this Red Shift Nonsense was...Begging The Question (Fallacy), above.   :blink: 


#51 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 25 September 2015 - 09:55 PM

 

1.  You brought "evolution" up, here:  GOKU: it is not the same colloquial use of "evolution" that you appear to be using.  http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry126870

 

So.....DEFINE the "Scientific" theory of evolution....?  SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS GOKU !!!!  Since you were "Instructing" Cal on the definition".  I mean, this should be quite easy and take less than 2 Minutes.   :gotcha:

 

 

Therefore, what we have here is an Incoherent attempt to deflect and divert under the guise of some contrived impropriety "Hijack Thread" in lieu of SUPPORTING your Position.  

 

Actually the OP brought up evolution, and I did not write the OP. I was just informing Cal that scientific theories with the word "evolution" in it are not using the same definition of "evolution" that is present in the colloquial tongue since Cal is appearing to conflate the two. 

 

If I wanted to engage you on the definition of evolution I would have participated in your thread, but this is not that thread now is it. 

 

So let me get this straight, "YOU" make The BASELESS CLAIM (Fallacy):  GOKU:  It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars".  That I SUMMARILY REFUTED and demonstrated was BASELESS and without Evidence.

 

NOW, you want me to DISPROVE Your CLAIM that was NEVER "PROVED" in the first place.    :crazyguy:

 

It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider Attempting to DISPROVE complete Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacies) GOKU.

 

It's Tantamount to me stating, that:  There are 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a Black Hole creating Dark Matter....THEN, asking you to "DISPROVE" IT!!!!    :rotfl:

 

Do you find it logical and to have any purchase whatsoever GOKU..... to Imagine Things, Then have others "DISPROVE" those Imaginings BEFORE you give evidence for your Imaginings ??

 

Oy Vey

 

You never refuted anything; I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that 2LOT, Boyle's gas law, and Jeans mass disprove star formation. 

 

Well thanks for admitting that Hubble's Law is Circular.  Unfortunately, for you   ;) , your Ship has come in...but your Pier has collapsed.

 

You just substituted One Begging The Question Fallacy...with Another.  How So?  Well, You're using "Light Years" with Cepheid Variables and Supernova's; ERGO...

 

You have to be able to VALIDATE/CONFIRM the "One-Way" Speed of Light....for the "TIME" part in your Calculations of "light YEARS".

 

Go ahead.....?

 

I didn't say Hubble's Law is circular. I said it would be circular without any other method of verification, but we do have other methods like type 1a supernovas. 

 

The speed of light isn't really a factor in determining the distance of an object through Cepheid variables or 1a supernovas. Recall that light years is a measure of distance, not time. 

 

Oh yes, I found the Paper before I asked you to "APPROPRIATELY CITE" the Reference.  My question still stands...HOW does your Reference "SPECIFICALLY REFUTE"....

 

"We have clearly shown that two of the compact emission lines objects in the filament have redshifts very much greater than those of NGC7603 and its companion galaxy. Thus we have presented a very well known system with anomalous redshifts, NGC 7603, to be an apparently much more anomalous than was previously thought. There are 4 objects with very different redshifts apparently connected by a filament associated with the lower redshift galaxy. This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A...390L..15L

http://www.aanda.org...41/aaea241.html

 

Margaret Burbidge Astrophysicist; Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory ( Awarded the National Medal of Science by President Reagan 1985) Video Interview...
 

"One of the best and earliest....is one of the Seyfert Galaxies known as NGC 4319, which has a protrusion coming out of one it's spiral arms and ending up on another Galaxy known as Markarian and people have tried to explain it away in all kinds of ways {LAUGHING} and then tried to take FALSE PICTURES to show that it's NOT THERE {LAUGHING Again}.  But I've seen the Good Pictures!!"

 

And....

 

Geoffrey Burbidge PhD Astrophysics, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory:

 
"If you see two objects close together with very different Red Shifts you only have one of two explanations: one is, that a large part of the Red Shift has nothing to do with distance and the other is...it's an accident."
 
What I'm asking for is HOW is this an Accident....?  And How does "Simulated Random Pairs" lol, REFUTE IT!!
 
And didn't you already admit that all this Red Shift Nonsense was...Begging The Question (Fallacy), above.    :blink: 

 

Because as your source says the explanations boil down to either redshift has nothing to do with distance, or the two objects just so happen to be next to each other from our perspective (similar to how stars in the night sky appear next to each other from our perspective, e.g. constellations, but are not necessarily next to each other in space) - aka "an accident". That's what simulated random pairs are; the study found that statistically there is no reason to think these anomalous redshifts are not an artifact of how the objects and Earth line up to give the appearance that they are connected when in fact they are not. 



#52 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 26 September 2015 - 01:40 PM

So which expert do you believe? Name him/her and why. Oh, but then I forgot.... :think: I asked you to tell us if the astronomers at NASA and the NIA had credibility but you conveniently ignored everything they said and I got no answer.

There is no single expert that you should believe without qualification. That's not how science works.
 

Can we believe Google Earth that the earth being a sphere is a fact?

Spheroid, actually. Using Google Earth as a reference is probably fine, but if it provides faulty information, it's not a good indication that geography as a whole is flawed.
 

Every single guess I quoted....100 billion...200 billion....300 billion...400 billion, and 1 trilion stars were all contradictory. Why don't you try reading more carefully and even more so why don't you even try to do some serious thinking about what you read? Furthermore, it is clear that you don't even have the mental depth to grasp that vast difference between a 1 billion and 2 billion star estimation...much less that between 1 billion and 1 trillion.

"Using X method, we get an estimate of 100 billion" and "Using Y method, we get an estimate of 400 billion" aren't contradictory. "There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy" and "There are 400 billion stars in our galaxy" are. Some of the articles you originally posted are flawed because they make the second kind of statement, which is bad, but shouldn't be taken as an indictment of the actual scientific work, which is making the first kind of statement.
 

If they could prove it I would. Just like I believe in the law of gravitational force, the size and velocity of the moon, the spherical nature of the earth, the distance to the Sun etc. So prove it and I will believe it. But you can't prove cosmic evolution because it doesn't exist and never did.

But you don't actually believe in those things, because you think they could be changed at any time. The whole point of laws of science is that things keep happening the same way.
 

Creo: What's your population statistic for this city?
Evo: We don't know. Maybe a thousand, maybe two thousand. Maybe a million.
Creo: huh?
Evo: The experts have nailed it down to one of those figures.
Creo: Right.(???) 
Evo: Right (without blinking)
Creo: How many deaths were there last year?
Evo: 287.
Creo: How many births were there?
Evo: None.
Creo: Are you joking? No births in a city that size?
Evo: None that were observed.
Creo: Don't you think that is rather strange?
Evo: Why would I?
Creo: ..........uh, bye.

This is an unintentionally good analogy. Imagine you're studying a city by telescope. You have extremely high resolution pictures of everything you're able to see from your station, but only for a small range of time.

You're able to count a lot of people who are visible from your position, but obviously can't count anyone who's obstructed by a building or other obstacle. However, you can estimate how many other people there are based on the number and size of buildings, the number of cars, the infrastructure you can see, etc. None of those are going to provide a definite answer, and they may not be very close to each other, but it's at least a starting point for further investigation.

You're much more likely to see a death in process than a birth, since I would guess a much higher percentage of births than deaths happen indoors, but you can probably figure out that some births have happened if you see babies around.
  • Goku likes this

#53 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 September 2015 - 06:28 AM

 

Actually the OP brought up evolution, and I did not write the OP. I was just informing Cal that scientific theories with the word "evolution" in it are not using the same definition of "evolution" that is present in the colloquial tongue since Cal is appearing to conflate the two. 

 

If I wanted to engage you on the definition of evolution I would have participated in your thread, but this is not that thread now is it. 

 

 

 

So if the OP brought it up and you responded directly.....then I queried YOU on that response; Errr, how is that "Hijacking" a thread?

 

 

You never refuted anything; I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that 2LOT, Boyle's gas law, and Jeans mass disprove star formation.

 

 

 

YOU never SUPPORTED your INITIAL CLAIM !!!!!    :laugh_point:

 

 

I say again (lol)....

 

So let me get this straight, "YOU" make The BASELESS CLAIM (Fallacy):  GOKU:  It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars".  That I SUMMARILY REFUTED and demonstrated was BASELESS and without Evidence.

 

NOW, you want me to DISPROVE Your CLAIM that was NEVER "PROVED" in the first place.    :crazyguy:

 

It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider Attempting to DISPROVE complete Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacies) GOKU.

 

It's Tantamount to me stating, that:  There are 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a Black Hole creating Dark Matter....THEN, asking you to "DISPROVE" IT!!!!    :rotfl:

 

Do you find it logical and to have any purchase whatsoever GOKU..... to Imagine Things, Then have others "DISPROVE" those ImaginingsBEFORE you give evidence for your Imaginings ??

 

Oy Vey

 

 

I didn't say Hubble's Law is circular. I said it would be circular without any other method of verification, but we do have other methods like type 1a supernovas. 

 

 

Ahhh sorry,  I misunderstood your statement.

 

 

The speed of light isn't really a factor in determining the distance of an object through Cepheid variables or 1a supernovas. Recall that light years is a measure of distance, not time. 

 

 

So the Speed of Light, in the context of Cepheid Variables or Supernovas, isn't a Factor in Determining Distance ??   :huh:

 

What's the "Distance" Measure with our context, Specifically.....?

 

 

Because as your source says the explanations boil down to either redshift has nothing to do with distance, or the two objects just so happen to be next to each other from our perspective (similar to how stars in the night sky appear next to each other from our perspective, e.g. constellations, but are not necessarily next to each other in space) - aka "an accident". That's what simulated random pairs are; the study found that statistically there is no reason to think these anomalous redshifts are not an artifact of how the objects and Earth line up to give the appearance that they are connected when in fact they are not. 

 

 

How do "Simulated Random Pairs" Refute that these Objects....aren't CONNECTED, pray tell ?  

 

Are you saying we shouldn't believe our "lyin eyes" and roll with "Statistics" ?



#54 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 September 2015 - 10:48 AM

 

 

Popoi: This is an unintentionally good analogy. Imagine you're studying a city by telescope. You have extremely high resolution pictures of everything you're able to see from your station, but only for a small range of time.

You're able to count a lot of people who are visible from your position, but obviously can't count anyone who's obstructed by a building or other obstacle. However, you can estimate how many other people there are based on the number and size of buildings, the number of cars, the infrastructure you can see, etc. None of those are going to provide a definite answer, and they may not be very close to each other, but it's at least a starting point for further investigation.

You're much more likely to see a death in process than a birth, since I would guess a much higher percentage of births than deaths happen indoors, but you can probably figure out that some births have happened if you see babies around. 

 

The purpose of an analogy isn't to take it and then use it as your own analogy. That only shows that you have taken a some similar circumstances and use them for your own analogy.

 

Your example is only a good analogy if the birth of stars is a known thing - that stars are observed to be born and grow.

 

Your analogy only works because there are direct inferences that support the conclusion, such as the size of buildings, but there is nothing that directly allows us to infer that a star is born.

 

So then comparing a star to a, "baby" is not the same thing, because you would call a star "young" for only one reason, that you TERMED it "young". The term, "young star" would be something called a question-begging-epithet.

 

If there is some direct evidence that shows that stars are, "younger" because they differ, if there is some direct inference that means we MUST conclude they are young, then I would change my mind, but simply calling them "babies" is a weak evolutionary-epithet.

 

Your analogy works for people, but not for stars, unless you can show strong evidence that they are, "young". 

 

So this is a largely conjectural argument, IMHO.



#55 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 27 September 2015 - 03:48 PM

So if the OP brought it up and you responded directly.....then I queried YOU on that response; Errr, how is that "Hijacking" a thread?

 

I never referenced a specific scientific theory (I said that scientific theories that use the word evolution in it are explaining how X changes over time), so to me it was clear that you were trying to hijack this thread into your thread on the definition of the scientific theory of evolution, which for whatever reason never got off the launch pad. 

 

YOU never SUPPORTED your INITIAL CLAIM !!!!!     :laugh_point:

 

I say again (lol)....

 

So let me get this straight, "YOU" make The BASELESS CLAIM (Fallacy):  GOKU:  It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars".  That I SUMMARILY REFUTED and demonstrated was BASELESS and without Evidence.

 

You never refuted it. 2LOT, Boyle's gas law, and Jeans mass do not prevent stars from forming. Instead of wasting my time conjuring up whatever you mean by those things and possibly erecting a straw man, I'm waiting for you to explain what you mean. 

 

What I said regarding the length of the protostar stage can be found in any intro astronomy text that deals with star formation. 

 

Ahhh sorry,  I misunderstood your statement.

 

No worries. 

 

So the Speed of Light, in the context of Cepheid Variables or Supernovas, isn't a Factor in Determining Distance ??    :huh:

 

What's the "Distance" Measure with our context, Specifically.....?

 

Because they are "standard candles", meaning their absolute brightness is known, so you can determine how far away that object is based on their relative brightness. 

 

I'm not sure what the second line means; scientists use light years as the unit of measurement because that is a much more convenient unit of distance than kilometers. 

 

How do "Simulated Random Pairs" Refute that these Objects....aren't CONNECTED, pray tell ?  

 

Are you saying we shouldn't believe our "lyin eyes" and roll with "Statistics" ?

 

What you have is a picture with four objects that, from our perspective, look close to each other. However we should all know that just because they look close to each other doesn't mean they actually are; when you look up at the night sky stars that appear next to each other can be very far away from each other and only look close to each other because of how those objects and Earth line up geometrically. 

 

The only reason to think they are connected is that they are close together from our perspective, and that there is a 'gas bridge' which overlaps their position from our perspective. What the study did was look at various cases of anomalous redshifts, and determine whether or not these anomalous redshifts are due to Arp's hypothesis of quasars being ejected by galaxies, or if it is just happenstance that they look that way due to our reference frame in space. What the study found was that statistically these anomalous redshifts can be explained by chance as you expect some pairs of celestial objects to appear close to one another due to our reference frame in space. 

 



#56 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 September 2015 - 09:24 PM

The speed of light isn't really a factor in determining the distance of an object through Cepheid variables or 1a supernovas. Recall that light years is a measure of distance, not time. 

So the Speed of Light, in the context of Cepheid Variables or Supernovas, isn't a Factor in Determining Distance ??   :huh:

 

What's the "Distance" Measure with our context, Specifically.....?

I'm not sure what the second line means; scientists use light years as the unit of measurement because that is a much more convenient unit of distance than kilometers. 

In the original paper I read on Sn1987a, the diameter of the circumstellar ring was described in centimeters and the distance to the Supernova object was described in kiloparsecs.  Many of the galactic distances and Cepheid measurements are also described in parsecs.   Since the base line for a parsec is the diameter of Earth's orbit around the sun, the proper unit of measurement is the meter (or kilometer, if you prefer).

 

(to Enoch)

Because as your source says the explanations boil down to either redshift has nothing to do with distance, or the two objects just so happen to be next to each other from our perspective (similar to how stars in the night sky appear next to each other from our perspective, e.g. constellations, but are not necessarily next to each other in space) - aka "an accident"..... statistically there is no reason to think these anomalous redshifts are not an artifact of how the objects and Earth line up to give the appearance that they are connected when in fact they are not. 

Frankly, while I will accept that the matter is not settled, this is the proposal I think most likely.  As Calypsis quoted (paraphrasing): "A really bright and distant object can outshine a dimmer one that is nearby."  It is consistent with what we see in the constellations as viewed from Earth.   There is no need to go searching for exotic explanations when the simple one will do.



#57 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 September 2015 - 05:49 AM

You just substituted One Begging The Question Fallacy...with Another.  How So?  Well, You're using "Light Years" with Cepheid Variables and Supernova's; ERGO...

 

You have to be able to VALIDATE/CONFIRM the "One-Way" Speed of Light....for the "TIME" part in your Calculations of "light YEARS".

 

Go ahead.....?

The one way speed of light has been validated/confirmed as 299,792,458 meters per second by multiple precision radio navigation systems used for the last 70 years.  As these systems use 299,792,458 meters per second in their solution, they would not work if the one way speed of light in any direction is not 299,792,458 meters per second.   This is because they base their calculation on D = RT.  Any error an either "R" or "T" will cause inaccurate position fixes.

 

BTW, in many measurements of Cepheid Variables and Supernovae, the unit of distance is the parsec... not the light year.  Parsecs are based on the diameter of Earth's orbit around the sun, not the speed of light.



#58 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 September 2015 - 08:39 AM

 

 

Please Cease and Desist from posting on "Science" related topics.  I will not answer your questions (or your frivolously contrived Baseless Assertions) until you have shown @ least a 3rd grade Acumen in any of the disciplines i.e., Physics, Chemistry, Biology ( actual "Sciences").

 

 

If you're unsure as to Why ???   :think:  And what is my Justification for this action,  Well...

 

Piasan:

 

 

OK, speaking of water ....

 

Using your criteria, LOGICALLY ...

Here's an experiment for you.... 

 

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ...  hydrogen and oxygen

 

DEPENDENT VARIABLE .... water

 

Observation, nothing happens.

 

The Scientist that's controlling the INDEPENDENT VARIABLES introduces a spark.  Water results.

 

Conclusion:

Because water did not result until the scientist controlling the INDEPENDENT VARIABLES INTERVENED with an INTELLIGENT action, water can only result from INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION.

 

 

This is Tantamount to a Neuro-Surgical Candidate replying with........"Whats a Cerebellum ??"

 

I am not an "Enabler".  Hope you understand.

 

regards



#59 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 September 2015 - 09:17 AM

 

I never referenced a specific scientific theory (I said that scientific theories that use the word evolution in it are explaining how X changes over time)

 

 

Round and Round we go....

 

1.  You brought "evolution" up, here:  GOKU: it is not the same colloquial use of "evolution" that you appear to be using.  http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry126870

 

That looks pretty "Specific" to me.

 

 

.... on the definition of the scientific theory of evolution, which for whatever reason never got off the launch pad. 

 

 

And you think this is some kind of a Triumph for you and your cohorts  :laugh_point:

 

Doesn't it Tacitly speak DIRECTLY to the ABSOLUTE BANKRUPTCY of the followers of this "Religion"..... who can't even DEFINE what they "Believe" in ??

 

 

You never refuted it. 2LOT, Boyle's gas law, and Jeans mass do not prevent stars from forming. Instead of wasting my time conjuring up whatever you mean by those things and possibly erecting a straw man, I'm waiting for you to explain what you mean. 

 

 

Hey GOKU....Errr McFly, this is what you said....

 

GOKU:   "It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars, not something we can observe within a human" 

 

 

YOU HAVEN'T VALIDATED THIS YET; So actually, There's NOTHING TO REFUTE   :gigglesmile:

 

 

I say again (For the 3rd TIME!!!)....

 

 

You want me to DISPROVE Your CLAIM that was NEVER "PROVED" in the first place.    :crazyguy:

 

It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider Attempting to DISPROVE complete Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacies) GOKU.

 

It's Tantamount to me stating, that:  There are 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a Black Hole creating Dark Matter....THEN, asking you to "DISPROVE" IT!!!!    :rotfl:

 

Do you find it logical and to have any purchase whatsoever GOKU..... to Imagine Things, Then have others "DISPROVE" those Imaginings BEFORE you give evidence for your Imaginings ??

 

 

What I said regarding the length of the protostar stage can be found in any intro astronomy text that deals with star formation. 

 

 

1. Begging The Question Fallacy:  "protostar stage".

 

2. Elephant Hurling (Fallacy) --- a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument.  http://www.astorehou...lephant_hurling

 

 

Because they are "standard candles", meaning their absolute brightness is known, so you can determine how far away that object is based on their relative brightness. 

 

 

Pick one and show how far away it is .....?

 

 

What the study found was that statistically these anomalous redshifts can be explained...

 

 

1.  Statistics doesn't "Explain" anything.

 

2.  "Statistics" doesn't have anything WHATSOEVER to do with "Cause and Effect"....."Correlation isn't Causation" motif.

 

 

What you have is a picture with four objects that, from our perspective, look close to each other. However we should all know that just because they look close to each other doesn't mean they actually are; when you look up at the night sky stars that appear next to each other can be very far away from each other and only look close to each other because of how those objects and Earth line up geometrically. 

 

 

So you're saying these are just Accidents...and that we shouldn't believe are "Lyin Eyes"....

 

NGC 7603 and Companion Galaxy with 2 QSO's in the Arm.  The arm has the same "Red Shift" as NGC 7603 but the 2 QSO's and Companion Galaxy are all different.

 

NGC7603A_zps88f33def.jpg    NGC7603C_zps4fa74dbe.jpg   

 

López-Corredoira & Gutiérrez (2002).....
 
"We have clearly shown that two of the compact emission lines objects in the filament have redshifts very much greater than those of NGC7603 and its companion galaxy. Thus we have presented a very well known system with anomalous redshifts, NGC 7603, to be an apparently much more anomalous than was previously thought. There are 4 objects with very different redshifts apparently connected by a filament associated with the lower redshift galaxy. This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift."

 

http://adsabs.harvar...A&A...390L..15L

 

 

NGC 4319 and it's Companion Markarian 205 Discordant Redshiftshttp://adsabs.harvar...ApJ...265L..49S

 

This one caused quite a stir back in the day LOL. Even Unsolicited Government Supported Institution Press Releases Exclaiming there was no connection with the Two Galaxies.  Complete with Doctored Photos! ....

 

Margaret Burbidge Astrophysicist; Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory Awarded the National Medal of Science by President Reagan 1985) Video Interview...

 
"One of the best and earliest....is one of the Seyfert Galaxies known as NGC 4319, which has a protrusion coming out of one it's spiral arms and ending up on another Galaxy known as Markarian and people have tried to explain it away in all kinds of ways {LAUGHING} and then tried to take FALSE PICTURES to show that it's NOT THERE {LAUGHING Again}.  But I've seen the Good Pictures!!"
 

 

NGC4319A_zps12f4284b.jpg    NGC4319B_zps9736e959.jpg     NGC4319E1_zpsfbf60057.jpg

 

 

Gives a Whole New Meaning to....: A "Luminous" Bridge to Nowhere.   :funny:

 

 

 

NGC 7319 and it's QSO:
 
 
How could a galaxy 360 million light years away contain a stellar object 35 billion light years away?
 
NGC7319C_zpsfa1ce0f4.jpg      NGC7319B_zpsa2d3db15.jpg

 

"Quasar with enormous red shift found embedded in a nearby spiral Galaxy with a far lower red shift:  Unsolvable riddle for Big Bang astronomy."This changes the whole view of the universe--big bang astronomy will never be the same...by Dr. John G Hartnett, Australia  12 Jan 2005.
 
So what is the big deal? This is the big deal...
 
'The ejection-of-quasars-from-galaxies interpretation is vigorously rejected by the big bang community.  Obviously this is because it utterly demolishes their key assumption of the genesis of all matter at the big bang.  Also it calls into question many redshift-distances determined by quasar redshifts.  In the section “Alternatives to the big bang” on page 393 of his book,6 Joseph Silk … admits, “Only by disputing the interpretation of quasar redshifts as a cosmological distance indicator can this conclusion be avoided” [my emphasis added]. This is, in fact, the main thrust of Arp’s observations!  They cast enormous doubt on the distribution of galaxies in the universe and the interpretation of big bang expansion models".7

 

Source for above: http://creation.com/...-lower-redshift



#60 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 September 2015 - 10:21 AM

I never referenced a specific scientific theory (I said that scientific theories that use the word evolution in it are explaining how X changes over time), so to me it was clear that you were trying to hijack this thread into your thread on the definition of the scientific theory of evolution, which for whatever reason never got off the launch pad. 

 

And you think this is some kind of a Triumph for you and your cohorts  :laugh_point:

 

Doesn't it Tacitly speak DIRECTLY to the ABSOLUTE BANKRUPTCY of the followers of this "Religion"..... who can't even DEFINE what they "Believe" in ??

No.  It directly speaks to the fact you were playing silly games and got caught.  In that discussion, you admitted you had a defintion for evolution from Mayr, who you have often provided citations calling him the top evolutionist of his time.  If you have a defintion from a leading evolutionist, you don't need one from us.

 

 

Because they are "standard candles", meaning their absolute brightness is known, so you can determine how far away that object is based on their relative brightness. 

Pick one and show how far away it is .....?

 

Try this one.... there are lots more where it came from .....

We present the detection of Cepheids in the barred spiral galaxy NGC 1313, using the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 on the Hubble Space Telescope. Twenty B(F450W) and V(F555W) epochs of observations spanning over three weeks were obtained, on which the profile-fitting photometry of all stars in the monitored field was performed using the package HSTphot. A sample of 26 variable stars have been identified to be Cepheids, with periods between 3 and 14 days. Based on the derived period-luminosity relations in B- and V-bands, we obtain an extinction-corrected distance modulus of μNGC 1313 = 28.32 ± 0.08 (random) ± 0.06 (systematic), employing the Large Magellanic Cloud as the distance zero point calibrator. The above moduli correspond to a distance of 4.61 ± 0.17 (random) ±0.13 (systematic) Mpc, consistent with previous measurements reported in the literature within uncertainties.

(Source: http://adsabs.harvar...ApJ...799...19Q )






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users