the light of stars
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2016, 10:44 AM
RE: the light of stars
The end of the article states:

"Many astrophysicists and astronomers reject one of the major foundational suppositions upon which the GTDE explanation rests (a bounded universe with the Milky Way at or near the center), not because of the observable data but because of their philosophical perspectives."

That's quite wrong.
First, it has nothing to do with philosophy, which many of these types of articles/people seem to always want to insert.
Two, yes, the observational data does point to the Milky Way being the "not center of the universe". If fact, from our human perspective with the known 3 spatial dimensions we work with and perceive, it would seem there is no "proper" center of the universe. It would be akin to saying, "Point to the center of the surface of the Earth." It's entirely possible the universe is unbounded but not infinite.
If there is a center to the universe, it may be in a 'direction' we can't directly perceive. Like the center of the volume of the Earth to a 2-dimensional creature living on the surface.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 05:56 PM
RE: the light of stars
(25-07-2016 10:07 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Quote from Dillahunty vs Lounsbery: "A god that can do everything is consistent with anything"

So if anyone is gonna try and pull the "god faked it" card, yeah, he can fake anything (if he exists).....so?

Sure, an omnipotent deity can produce anything that strikes its whim. The problem there is that a God of Fraud causes serious problems with most theologies. If God's faking the fossils and the geochron then what else is He lying about? Suddenly the foundation's been kicked out from under scripture and divine revalation because you just can't trust that sort of God. Morality goes out the window twice over.

Works fine for a trickster god like Loki, Coyote, or Anansi but is incompatible with the mainstream religions.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
25-07-2016, 06:12 PM
RE: the light of stars
(25-07-2016 10:44 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  The end of the article states:

"Many astrophysicists and astronomers reject one of the major foundational suppositions upon which the GTDE explanation rests (a bounded universe with the Milky Way at or near the center), not because of the observable data but because of their philosophical perspectives."

That's quite wrong.
First, it has nothing to do with philosophy, which many of these types of articles/people seem to always want to insert.

I know what you mean but it isn't quite true. At the most basic level it is a difference of philosophy. The philosophical stance of the sciences is that you follow the evidence no matter how unpleasant the conclusions might be. By contrast, the philosophical stance of the fundamentalists is that you follow scripture no matter where the evidence leads.

The statement is wrong because is should read "Virtually all atrophysicists and astronomers reject the presuppositional bunk that is GTDE because of the observable data and their philosophical perspective of not dogmatically adhering to bronze-age myths."

Really that quote is just code for "What we've done here isn't science, but if you use enough wishful thinking and squint real hard we might be able to fool you into thinking it is."

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
26-07-2016, 08:48 AM
RE: the light of stars
(25-07-2016 06:12 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I know what you mean but it isn't quite true. At the most basic level it is a difference of philosophy. The philosophical stance of the sciences is that you follow the evidence no matter how unpleasant the conclusions might be. By contrast, the philosophical stance of the fundamentalists is that you follow scripture no matter where the evidence leads.
True. I could have phrased it differently.
In my mind I was making a distinction between the philosophy *of* something, versus philosophy as an entity itself.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 09:32 AM
RE: the light of stars
The starlight problem only exists if you believe God created the whole universe on the fourth day. The Bible actually says that he placed lights in the sky; it doesn't say he created the bodies that produced the lights. Before this day the earth was covered by a cloud cover that allowed the sun's light to reach the earth but made it impossible for the sun, moon, and stars to be seen. On the fourth day that cloud cover was removed. The six day creation is only of the earth, not the whole universe.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/0...-universe/

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 03:11 PM
RE: the light of stars
Since the article starts with an assumption that has been scientifically proven wrong, I will start right there:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+old+is+the+earth%3F
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+light+reach+the+earth%3F

Now for the rest of the article (I picked stuff mentioned there but by far not all. You will get the idea though.)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+do+we+know+how+...e+earth+is
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+the+universe%3F
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+in+the+universe%3F
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+galaxy%3F
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Where+is+planet+earth%3F
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+to+date+planet+earth%3F
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Einstein+ether%3F
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+an+atomic+clock+work%3F
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+paradox%3F
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+relativism%3F

Ok now you may understand how to use google. I would advise you to use this new skill, and then go sentence by sentence through that wall of text that you linked us, and research all of what the author is mentioning so that you can understand all the terms and what he says and so you can evaluate if the stuff in that article is correct or not. If you have issues with the logic of the article or something sounds particularily difficult or weird. feel free to ask. But don't assume that other people will do your homework for you. At least give a sign that you read up on stuff yourself.
I understand that it is easier to use the hivemind of people who did their reading already. But us giving you lists and explanations about what is wrong with the article won't actually help you, because you will read statements and reasons but maybe not even understand things correctly, because you didn't do your part of the research.
(at least that is what it seems like from what I see atm)

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
- Wotsefack?! -
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leerob's post
29-07-2016, 04:33 PM
RE: the light of stars
(29-07-2016 09:32 AM)theophilus Wrote:  The starlight problem only exists if you believe God created the whole universe on the fourth day. The Bible actually says that he placed lights in the sky; it doesn't say he created the bodies that produced the lights. Before this day the earth was covered by a cloud cover that allowed the sun's light to reach the earth but made it impossible for the sun, moon, and stars to be seen. On the fourth day that cloud cover was removed. The six day creation is only of the earth, not the whole universe.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/0...-universe/

Why do persist with these childish rationalizations? Do you think anyone is convinced by such sophistry?
The book of Genesis can only be used as an explanation of cosmology if you are a primitive savage that does not understand the cosmos, the planet, geology, biology or physics.

That's the only way it makes sense- or you are a post-hoc rationalizing religious person trying to make your magic book match science.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
29-07-2016, 04:49 PM
RE: the light of stars
"How can the light of stars billions of light years away from the earth have reached us if the earth is only thousands of years old?"

That's no different in principle to asking why I can see the light of stars billions of light years away from me because I am only 41 years old. So they're not even asking the right question even if you believe in YE because it allows for a universe that is at least billions of years old. Their very question assumes that the universe and the Earth came into existence at the same time.

But I think Nurse highlighted quite well on page 1 what they do. They give throw in all the ingredients (red shift, time dilation etc) and allow you to assume that they explain everything without actually figuring out how they could.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
30-07-2016, 05:01 AM
RE: the light of stars
One should be more than wary of considering any/all so-called "scientific" notions promoted on religious sites—as they have not the faintest fucking idea about anything related to science.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: