Astronomy

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Hal -

Gravity can be measured in outer space. Come on man - it's the science at work behind the discovery of the planet that started this thread in the first place. One way of measuring gravity is how much light is deflected by a body's gravitational field. I also see that you've done the very thing I said you do - you say, "Well, can you say con pissing him off a little bit? I'll bet that tsunami a few years ago was your fault.

Check my profile for a hint on what my current line of thinking is. 😛😀

I agree with quite a lot of what you say. Here are a few points of contention though:

So if God wants you to have faith, and you go around trying to prove His existence, don't you think you'd be pissing him off a little bit?

I wouldn't label my intention on this thread as an attempt to prove the existence of God.

One way of measuring gravity is how much light is deflected by a body's gravitational field.

Indeed, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that this isn't hard-science. Astronomy IMO, would fall under what is considered soft-science: e.g. it is hardly possible to set up a control specimen to ascertain that gravity (or whatever it is being measured) is the only factor affecting the measurements. Astronomers observe the nett result of whatever happened out there in space and work from there. It is my humble opinion that it is not possible to accurately measure the distance of stars over a couple thousand light-years away. Stellar parallax can only allow for so much measurable difference.

For distances above a couple thousand light-years, astronomers use a large variety of methodology to measure stellar distance, amongst others: the inverse-square law of light, stellar motions, moving clusters, the Period-luminosity relation etc, etc.

Even Stephen Hawking notes in his "A Brief History of Time" Ch3, (I'm paraphrasing): For most stars, there is only one characteristic feature that we can observe – the color and brightness of their light.

It is these two aspects of star light that astronomers apply in their measurement of these great "million light-year" distances. How on earth could they be accurate if the light has to pass through millions upon millions of miles of space, being affected by gravity, black holes, dark matter, gravitational radiation, and all the other "unknowns" of the universe? It is my uneducated opinion that these results are the best they can do, but it's hardly accurate beyond question. (In case you missed it, I'm fighting for middle ground, here)

I hope you found some sense in my unintelligible jabbering.

Originally posted by Halitose
Check my profile for a hint on what my current line of thinking is. 😛😀

I agree with quite a lot of what you say. Here are a few points of contention though:

[b]So if God wants you to have faith, and you go around trying to prove His existence, don't you think you'd be pissing him off a little bit?

I wouldn't label my intention on this thread ...[text shortened]... dle ground, here)

I hope you found some sense in my unintelligible jabbering.[/b]

you think GW is god????

Originally posted by frogstomp
you think GW is god????

Ha, ha. Seriously, no.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Clearly if the astronomers are right then the universe is at least 28,000 years old.

Argumentum ad ignorantium. Clearly you are missing the point that a created universe is not mutually exclusive to the possibility of it being created in a mature state, i.e. the light from the star/planet already present.

I recall having gone over this ...[text shortened]... the trigonometric triangle) allows for too much celestial deviation for accurate measurement.[/b]

The idea the universe was created in a mature state just to fool us
is the most rabidly egotistical idea ever created by mankind.
Can you describe a scenario where such a universe would be
required other than to satisfy the truly schizoid desires of the
creationists?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The idea the universe was created in a mature state just to fool us
is the most rabidly egotistical idea ever created by mankind.
Can you describe a scenario where such a universe would be
required other than to satisfy the truly schizoid desires of the
creationists?

Creationists rabidly egotistical?! Ha. You flatter yourself. Try humanism (as opposed to creationist theism) -- you'd get a much clearer definition of "egotistical" there.

Originally posted by Halitose
Creationists rabidly egotistical?! Ha. You flatter yourself. Try humanism (as opposed to creationist theism) -- you'd get a much clearer definition of "egotistical" there.

I beg to differ. Creationist require their god to be exactly what the
leaders of your so-called religion say it is. I would argue that is
among the most egotistical thought of all time to try to force your
idea of what a god is like. You no more know the mind of god than
a termite knows the mind of man. Yet you and your kind continue
to press the case most forcefully and with deadly consequences the
idea Christianity is BY DEFINITION the only TRUE religion. That is
not a definition of religion a sane person would ever use, to try to
convince EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET that to worship YOUR
version of the lord is by far and away the most egotistical
and patently insane idea ever foisted on a gullible public.
All Humanists try to say basically is give humans a chance. You don't
want to give humanity its own chance to succeed or fail on its own
merits. All you would say is, good luck on that one, without Christ in
your life you are doomed to failure. That is my point. An incredibly
egotistical arguement.
If you want evidence of the insanity of religion, just look at the
dutch embassy.