The OP has explicitly acknowledged (post 24 among other posts) that their worldview is based on faith. They are not arguing that their faith should be considered as reliable as science; they are arguing that science should be conseiderd as unreliable as their faith.
I assure you no posts have been removed.
It is. But not all investigation and analysis is equal.
No you haven't. By your sweeping generalization, no evidence is valid unless you witnessed up close and in real time. Unless you were ltireally inside the boiler with an atomic miscroscope, watching the atoms of carbon get oxidized, you did not witness it.
It is a far cry quantitatively. That does not mean it is a far cry qualitatively.
You can't repeat your viewing of that locomotive. Worse, your brother/sister was never there. They have every right, by youl logic to say it;s q leap of faith.
They are, but that does not mean that we must literally repeat sometting exactly before we can take it as evidence.
Nor is "this" Moon rock we brought back a repeat of any other Moon rocks still on the Moon.
Who gets to decide where the boundary betwene reasonable and unreasonable is? You?
No. That is not how this works.
We have this happen around here a lot. Generic dictionary definitions never capture the nuance of a technical discussion.
You are confusing two things here.
No we are not.
That we have evidence is true.
Since the Bible is your faith, we have no obligation to accept anyting in. it. It is invalid.
No it isn't.
Again Everytime you do this, you torpedo your case.
There are many different sects, or denominations, of Christianity. If you're not already aware, the ones whose followers believe that the universe is about 6000 years old are in the minority among Christians today.
The bible saying something is the case doesn't make it the case, though, does it? You can't just use the bible to prove things that the bible asserts to be true. It is best to appeal to multiple, independent lines of evidence.
Yes. So, is there any independent evidence that what the bible has to say about this is true - i.e. evidence that does not rely on the bible? If so, what is it?
The diversity of Christian belief might surprise you. The devil is in the detail, as they say.
The majority of Christians who are alive today don't believe that. But, like I said, whether an idea is true or false is never just a question of how popular it is (er... unless the idea is about how popular an idea is). Do you agree?
It's based on an estimate derived by counting the generations recorded in various biblical genealogical lists. There must be an error bound on the 6000 year figure. What error range do you, personally, allow, here, Kermos? Even the genealogical lists in the bible don't always agree with one another. For example, Matthew gets it wrong in trying to trace the ancestry of Jesus back to David through Joseph's line. (I don't understand the point of that, if Jesus was born of a virgin, but that's another story.)
What you have just done there, Kermos, is that you have committed what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
I'm sure you did. You haven't answered the question I actually asked you, though. Why not?
How? Tell me your story.
The word I used was Muslim. Islamist is not quite the same thing. But never mind. You weren't a Muslim. Okay.
Yes. I'm very familiar with it, as it happens. What did you think of the original, groundbreaking Cosmos TV series? Have you read his book The Demon-Haunted World? If not, I urge you to track down a copy and read it. It is very enlightening.
His illustration was just a simple scaling of the then-best-estimate of the age of the universe into the timeframe of 1 year. It's an analogy meant to put deep time into perspective. You understand that, right?
Good to hear.
Yes, but only in the sense of "confidence". Not like the religious faith that you have that the Power of God changed your heart. That's different. I explained why.
Okay.
What gives somebody or something true authority, in your opinion?
When and how did Christ authorise your posts to this forum? Can you please describe what you needed to do to attain Christ's permission and stamp of approval, and how that permission and stamp was given to you? I am interested to find out.
They aren't mutually exclusive, you know. You're saying that Lemaitre was not a True Christian. Maybe your definition of "True Christian" is too narrow. Maybe you need to broaden your horizons.
Yes. But our mature technology has enabled us to correct certain errors made in the past and to narrow down the universe's age with greater confidence than before. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that, you know. It's what science does.
Do you accept any of the laws of thermodynamics? If so, which one or ones? Or do you reject all of them? If you reject them, on what grounds do you reject them?
Do you have any non-biblical evidence that YHWH magicked the universe into existence? Any scientific evidence, for instance?
Those are "laws" or directions for how human beings ought to live their lives, according to certain Jewish traditions.
That's nice.
No. I too see beautiful tapestries, formed by an intricate dance between fundamental laws of physics and the matter that formed in the big bang.
Okay. So what? Is there a problem with that?
No. That is truly an accident. Lucky for us. Although, if it happened here, something similar has probably happened in some other corner of the universe as well.
It is true that the Big Bang itself is not directly observable, but that does not make the theory unscientific.
You make a similar error here. The fact that a particular event does not repeat does not mean that scientists can't be confident that it occurred. In fact, it is true in many fields of science (most, probably) that specific historical events do not repeat in exactly the same way. A lot of events are one off events.
Yes. The scientific consensus is that Young Earth Creationism is falsified by many separate lines of evidence from several distinct disciplines of science.
I disagree, of course. What matters, scientifically, is which theory best explains what we see today.
You're being far too generous with your data collection timeframe, actually. Evidence for the big bang did not start to accumulate until the early 20th century.
I agree that the diameter of Earth's orbit is approximately 16 light minutes.
Do they? That strikes me as too big by quite a large factor. What are you counting as "the solar system", there? Which scientists say this? Can you name any of them?
Agreed.
I don't understand what you mean to imply by this "data collection ratio". Please explain.
Sorry. I'm not sure what these "advantages" and "big fat handicaps" you mentioned are supposed to be about.
You lost me. What have I collected data about? What kind of data? From where? What is the "sampling region"? What are we sampling, in this scenario?
As far as I can tell, you haven't made any argument that points to that conclusion, yet. What was all that stuff about sampling regions and Voyager etc. about? What does it have to do with the big bang theory?
To be clear, is your Zenith model supposed to be a broken model that somehow falsifies the big bang theory, or is it supposed to be an alternative model to the big bang theory that better explains all the observations that the big bang theory attempts to explain?
I don't understand. What is meant by "background temperature" in this context? 2.3 K seems like a very low temperature for a star. Type B stars are very bright.
Yes, the cosmic microwave background radiation predicted by the big bang theory. They were awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery.
I think Dicke et al. really deserved a share in the Nobel prize, but they didn't share in the prize. What do you think?
No. Penzias and Wilson turned on their microwave receiver and measured the microwave background radation. No faith involved.
You're mistaken.
I saw this and was similarly perplexed.
I doubt it. exchemist is very well aware that appeals to authority don't count for much in science. Maybe you misunderstood something.
No problem. My mistake. We agree, then, that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometres per second?
Okay. I'm happy to discuss that with you.
My apologies. Clearly I didn't understand what you were trying to say.
Are you trying to suggest that we can't ever deduce where light originated from, or when it was emitted? Surely not.
Why not just use the term that is commonly used by astronomers? After all, we're talking about astronomy here. You know, science. There's really no need to put your own personal labels on well-established scientific methods or theories. It's redundant and, some might say, a little presumptuous.
Yes. Light from 13.5 billion light years away must have taken around 13.5 billion years to get to us. So we see this galaxy candidate not as it is now, but as it was 13.5 billion years ago, just as we see our Sun not as it is now but as it was 8 minutes ago.
Parallax doesn't require information on the luminosity of the source. Probably you're confusing the parallax method with some other method you read about.
Yes. The distance in this case will have been determined by measuring the red-shift of light from the source, most likely. (I'm not familiar with the particular object you mention.)
Spectrometers, more specifically.
That's not a claim I have made in conversation with you, up to this point. But, as it happens, you have guessed correctly. I do claim that.
You're about to talk about the parallax method, here.
No need. I'm aware of how narrow the triangle would be. In fact, 1 parsec is conveniently defined as the distance to two objects separated by 1 second of arc. It's a unit more commonly used by astronomers than light years. 1 parsec is about 3 light years, if I recall correctly.
Yes. It's amazing that we have instruments and methods that are able to measure very small angular separations. Mind you, there is a limit, which is why we only use parallax as the first rung of the cosmic distance ladder and not for measuring distances to objects like your HDI galaxy candidate.
So far, you haven't addressed how the distance to an object like HDI is actually calculated. You also still seem to be in the dark as to what the cosmic distance ladder is or how astronomers calibrate it.
I'll take your word for it.
You lost me again. What example are we talking about, now? The Moon and a lunar lander? When was that introduced?
What does a celestial object 100,000 light years from Earth have to do with a red tarp on the moon?
The conclusion that astronomers are "faith based" does not follow from something that your example hasn't even touched on.
That's not how astronomers measure those kinds of distances, though.
I agree that triangulation is not the scientific method used to measure the distance to that particular object.
You're talking about the cosmic distance ladder, there. It is not based on any leap of faith. It is a calibrated distance scale. Google it. Inform yourself.
I don't know whether you need to coin a special name for that idea, either. Isn't it obvious that we can only know what information is carried by "emissions" after we received those "emissions", generally speaking?
I disagree. Your assertions have done nothing to change my mind, so far.
Have you heard of the "scientific method"? That's what I was referring to.
Maybe. Can you give me brief description? I mean, iodine is a common chemical and clocks are common devices. What, specifically, are you referring to?
That all sounds fine.
Isn't measuring the spectrum of the microwave background radiation an experiment? Why doesn't that count, for you?
Thank you for acknowledging my generosity.
You're not making a very convincing argument for that thesis, so far. Your best argument seems to be based on a misconception you have about how cosmic distances are typically measured, and that's your best argument. Not an encouraging sign.
I thought the usual demarcation was the heliopause. But that would be 100AU or so.
It's not a book. It's more a set of methods. You speak as if you believe that people developing scientific methods of investigation and measurement is a bad thing. Is that the message you're trying to communicate?
No. Just to emphasise: it's a calibrated distance scale in which each method or "rung" of the ladder is calibrated and cross-checked against different methods used further up or down the "ladder" of distances.
It's not a black box. The methods are all published and open to the scrutiny and criticisms of anybody who is interested in investigating the matter - yourself included.
It makes very little sense for you to attempt to expound on something that you obviously know almost nothing about. A better approach would be for you to ask questions, or seek to learn more by independently reading up on the subject you want to discuss. This blundering in with assertions that the whole thing is faith-based, when you don't know what you're talking about, might fly in a Young Earth Creationist meet-up group, but here you're talking to some people who know something about real science. You need to level up your knowledge if you're hoping to be taken more seriously on this stuff.
Do you believe that there were steam trains in 1860? Why? Is it because you believe the pictures from 1860 show real steam trains? Why do you believe that? You didn't personally witness steam trains in 1860.
Would it be fair to say, then, that you're struggling to comprehend the vast timespans of cosmic time? You can cope with a century ago, and even 2000 years ago. But your brain just kinda gives up if you try to push it back more than 6000 years?
The energies of particles in particle accelerators can produce conditions similar to conditions that the big bang theory says were standard in the early universe. We can therefore use particle accelerates to investigate today various aspects of things that we expect (from the big bang theory and other physical theories) to have happened in the early universe. We can compare what we observe in the accelerator experiments with what theories such as the big bang theory tell us we should expect to observe. We can also use telescopes to look for "signatures" that indicate that the kinds of events we observe in the accelerators also took place in the early universe, by looking at very distant objects for example.
That is not a bad start.
Technically, science can never definitively prove anything - not in the sense that mathematicians can prove theorems, or something like that.
Do you think what I said there is incorrect?
It evaluates to "true", in the case of the big bang claim.
John 14:6 does not mention what science is. Science wasn't really invented, or at least generally recognised as such, back in John's day.
Most scientists get along just fine without ever mentioning the Grand Creator as recorded in Genesis, in their scientific publications.
DaveC was giving you an example of how a scientific theory can make a prediction that is later confirmed by experiment or observation.
Which physics model states that?
If light has been travelling for a billion years before it reaches us, then it can carry information that is 1 billion years old. What's the problem? This is no different, in principle, than light travelling 1 light second, carrying information that is 1 second old.
We see the consequences of the big bang, just like we see that rain is a consequence of a cloud. The analogy looks sound to me.
Actually, there is evidence for a flat earth. I mean, the horizon doesn't look curved, from ground level. Sea level looks flat. If the sea wasn't flat, then the water would run one way or the other, since it would flow "downhill" like rivers do, wouldn't it?
Which very hot, dense region are you referring to?
This is needless slurring. The fallacy of poisoning the well.
This is the fallacy of gaslighting.
No. Just you. We understand how science works. All we're doing here is trying to get you up to speed.
Again, you confuse two things.
See above.
Several times now you have cited "John. 14:6". In one of them you provided a link to BibleHub. So you are citing the Bible. That link does not work, by the way. But I did manage to find it anyway.
Every time he posts a cosmologist loses his ball point pen. I just want you to be aware of the horrors you are continuing to enable.
If that was an attempt at a space joke, you really should now Apollo-gise to members here.