Amongst the "we know this for sure" and "this is wrong because" and the many other comments she makes is very similar to what she says is wrong with the book, as far as the play on words go, due to she never gives any mention of such evidence to show why, in fact, she knows, what she knows, and never actually contested the book with any facts whatsoever.... waste of 30 minutes
Protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, positrons, kaons, byrons, leptons, mesons, pions, kaons, and gluons are all imaginary conceptual abstracts of the atom that are misleading. These ideas hinder our bright children in ways that if they believe these thing, as they develop their scientific knowledge, they will never be able to synthetize intrinsic lattices of matter setting the progress of science in the stone age. Atoms are simple devises of nature, just as gravity is made up of 2 subfields
The rules of nature in its evolutionary codification of matter, worlds, galaxies and all other cedlestial components is a lot simpler that the abstract presentations that are passed on to us by our predecessors. The atom is a simple object of nature that meassures 3 billionths of one inch, or 90 billionths of 1 millimeter. The sun is a planetary core that's in its developmental stage which has already began its third metamorphic face of its evolvent. It will eventually manifest itself as a world
I appreciate your views even though they oppose mine. If everyone agreed on everything then we would have never gotten this far. I dont have time to watch the whole vid but will eventually. I would like to make a couple comments so far though.
The reason, I think, for the chapter of scientists who do believe in creation of I.D. is due to the fact that their are many scientist that believe in them and yet main stream "science" suggests the idea that none do. out of room so thats it for now.
I'm kinda classified as a creationist, i have never read anything in the bible relative to this topic. But I personally heave read genesis 1. In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.
That event happened before the first day of creation.The first day that GOD was referring to is the 12hour span, morning to evening.
The universe is clearly billions of years old and I don't believe GOD would deceive me by telling me its only 5000yrs.
How ever... the bible gives us very detailed genealogies with the age of the fathers when they had their first born, and then their son's first born son and so on and so forth. This takes us all the way from Adam to Jesus Christ in roughly 4,000 years.
By the way, I am an agnostic and though I FIRMLY and ABSOLUTELY ...know... that the theist AND the atheist positions are BELIEFS which may, in the "end" turn out to be truths or partial truths, I can also FIRMLY say that the Universe is DEFINITELY MUCH older than 12 thousand years. ;o) lol. I agree with you "wholeMINDEDLY" on THAT issue. Creationism? It is POSSIBLE if one considers "designed evolution" or even PARTIALLY designed or manipulated evolution. As for "God(s)"?..who knows?
We know LOGICALLY that, in a world that proclaims MANY differing religions and "Gods" that ALL can not be correct. We can NOT say absolutely that NONE of those individual beliefs concerning intelligent design is incorrect. Atheism is a BELIEF that there is "no God(s)". Theism is a BELIEF that there IS "God(s)". The ONLY purely "LOGICAL and scientific" position on the issue is the agnostic one. "I will not absolutely "know" until I die.
and if the only shrinking theory was to be truth, then the weather should only be worsening in one continuos rate, either too hot or too cold, but not oscilating between the two of them. now, human manufatured global warming aside, the much dreaded geology kind of proves that the earth has periods of warming AND cooling... i'm no expert, obviously, and i'm just doing some random connection, but i guess that would be a backup to a very well known truth ^^
well, i guess that the theory to explain what really happens to the sun should be able to explain a correlation with what happens in earth over its (the sun's) changes. like for example, if fusion was to be true, due to the constant shrinking and expanding of the sun which would cause a change in the gravitational pull and therefore a change in the planet's orbit, then the the earth should suffer changes in temperature; i mean, there should be really cold and hot times every now and then...
A piece of advice..... You spend way too much time talking about the "book" showing the pages talking about the chapters and the authors the publications, etc... Just make the argument and back it up with reference mention. You're interesting, but the 34 minute video could have been about 12 minutes.
In other words, make a script for the video and notate the book points in short. The rambling is a little discouraging. I want to watch more videos, but can't devote the time to rambles...
I could sit in a garden looking at a guy go by outside the hedge, I can only see his head and torso.. he moves at a relatively high speed and doesn't bump up and down so I launch a theory that he is riding a bicycle.
Instead he was rollerblading but not "skating" at the moment of observation..
Since I never even heard about rollerblades I laughed when some kid heard me say he was biking and told me he could be rollerblading.. I was, in my own mind, correct because I am me and I was older. :P
Yea, but when you see the guy rollerbladeing you will know you ware wrong.
And here is the difference between creationist and real scientists. If they both see the think you saw the scientist will say: "hey, I was wrong the guy is rolerblaiding", where the creationist will say: "hey, I was wright the guy is biking, but GOD makes me think he is rolerblaideing in order to test my faith".
If the sun is shrinking it would not surprise me much, combination of nuclei will reduce the "need for space", also the constant emission of energy means loss of mass and thermal movements.
I won't even get into the problems with the black hole consept, but what I just said has relevance also there ;P
O my, bow to the astronomer. worship the big bang theory.
Hey, mind telling us where the matter and energy came from for the big bang? Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. And matter, unless you are going to invoke a god did it excuse, does not poof itself from another dimension unless you can prove that dimension actually exists. Can you?
Big Bang? Just have a look at the 2 guys "inventing" it :)
Also, it has beome "truth" that there exist an "Oort cloud" around our solar system, how did this idea come about? Oort loosely suggested it as an hypotethical explanation to where the observed comets, presumed to be ice due to the tail, comes from.. not proven, not observed - just as with black holes and neutron stars.. Phenomenon is observed and ideas introduced - but this does not mean it's so..
The Oort cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets believed to lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun; this distance places the cloud at nearly a quarter of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The Kuiper belt and scattered disc, the other two known reservoirs of trans-Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth the Oort cloud's distance. The outer extent of the Oort cloud defines the boundary of our Solar System.
Well my last post did not post so I'll say this again... As an atheist-evolutionist challenge I'm going to unfilter the video to links to this one. We will see how long it will stay civil, and instead of deleting posts of those who abuse it. I will just block them. In this way the examples of why creationists filter the responses to their videos will be made clear. And if it gets out of control, I will just stop allowing posts altogether but will leave the examples. Continued...
If a poster decides to make comments that have nothing to do with video, or current subject being discussed like saying: You are a moron, or cussing. I will block them. Or continued personal type attacks on me, or another poster will warrant another block of the one who started it.
Also, "time wasting" copy and paste questions from anticreationists sites "may" get you blocked if that is all you can post. Fairn enough? I will unblock tonight. I do not know how long it takes to take effect.
Like I said before and I'll say again. If you don't like the filter problem. Make a complain to youtube. Maybe they will remove that option. But as long as it is an option, I will use it. If you choose not to, not my problem.
"I think the reason he doesn't allow comments is pretty obvious."
Sorry, I don't run a blog free for all when atheists spew such hate for any christian who happens to challenge their ideas. If you guys could debate civil and without cussing, I would not have to filter your comments. But let's be honest. You guys like to cuss at those whom you hate. So filter your comments is what I will do. Don't like it, to bad. it's an option on the blog, and I choose to use it. Complain to youtube....
This is your problem, you consider science atheistic, but you try and use it to "prove" your belief.
Your video isn't science; the claims you make are NOT the claims scientists make (the claim for 'shrinking of the sun' is that the shrinking itself is the mechanism of energy - that was DISPROVEN).
You just don't want people to see that your claims are bull.
LOL, there you go categorizing all creationists and what they believe into one group. But then you complain when I do it also (in your nest post).
"My dear friend, I never cursed you in my comments (which i did try to post, not expecting an approval)."
I'm not afraid to have competing ideas out there. But you are. How? You did make this video correct? You do imply that only those who believe in evolution are correct while everyone else lies, correct? continued...
"LOL, there you go categorizing all creationists and what they believe into one group."
Well, yea so long as you are a Christian Creationist (the same would not apply to a Hindi of Buddhist creationist). Anyone that has read the bible know exactly what you believe, it's all laid out for everyone to see; in black and white. "Evolutionists" are free to disagree with some aspects of the theory (though we are actually discussing cosmology in this video) but you must believe every word in His book.
Since you haven't made any connections between evolution and the Nazis, I'll try not to loose much sleep over it.
Do you believe that your belief in a literal creation based on the content of the bible is somehow different from someone else's belief in a literal creation based on the content of the bible? There could be a difference; but every creationist I've talked to has believed and disbelieved in kind with regard to the bible and to the sciences (typically, referred to as "evolution").
Connections? Darwin, Haeckel, Hitler, Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin and head of the eugenics movement which was accepted by Hitler, and was Galton's way of carrying on Darwin's legacy).
Haeckel evangelized all of Germany for evolution through his faked drawings. He gave seminars which later became state sponsored. Which means he was paid, and it cost him nothing to do it. And the Germany military, along with the schools were taught evolution. Just in time for Hitler.
You love attempting to connect evolution to the holocaust but you seem to ignore the Christian connection. You once told me we should accept the past and learn from it; well let's not miss that opportunity.
Even if Hitler subscribed to the theory of evolution, try not to forget that a huge portion of Germany was Christian (as Hitler also claimed to be) during that time (as well as before and after); and that he convinced your brothers in Christ to commit these acts on his behalf.
@mooeypoo I may have missed something feel free to correct me but... You claim that he sees science as atheistic and i think this is a normal self serving fallacy of many atheists. I do not see where he made any claim as such. I hear this a lot and IMO scientists and science are two different things. One is fact, not a scientific fact but an unchanging truth that misinterpretations dont change, the other interprets. I love science and its also helped my faith get stronger. I like your vids tho
"If you guys could debate civil and without cussing, I would not have to filter your comments."
How odd it is then that several of my comments, on some of your other videos, never made it through the approval process. Especially, since I have not cussed in any of them.
I digress, if the sun is shrinking how big was it originally? How small will it get (essentially what will become of it)? How old would it be based on the current rate of shrinkage, what is this rate?
All scientists make assumptions; but these assumptions must be consistent with observations from all fields of science. Unlike, creationism which stands rigid against scientific findings and then relies on faith in the face of direct contradictions of those beliefs.
For example: belief in a world wide flood; when no field of science has found any evidence for such an event and fields like paleontology observe outcomes in the fossil record that would not be possible under flood conditions.
I think it's funny that you keep changing your name just so you can have the "last word". Only egotistical Darwinist fundies do that. Are you afraid that your ego might get bruised if you don't have the last say in everything?
I know someone at work just like you. No one there can stand him either. He has to have the last word, and he is always right. What would you say your excuse is for always changing your name?
Oh, I must have struck a nerve with that last comment. You know that typically people who complain about others taking the 'last word' are just wanting for themselves, and we all know what the bible says about greed.
You obviously knew that both names belonged to me and I wasn't trying to hide that fact (I would have done more than add an S to the end of my this name had I been trying to trick you). You could view that profile for my explanation; it is there if you are interested.
If you posted during server matenance or server change, it sometime will not allow post to be posted. I guess it gets lost or something. I have had this happen to me about 5 times now.
But if everytime this happens, you are going to accuse me of doing this. I'll just block and be done with it. I'm not going to participate in someone's false accusations.
Does the sun shrink? Solar wind is basically plasma. Plasma is matter. This matter is being shot into space at a very high rate of speed, and ther is nothin replacing it. So, how does an object lose matter without losing mass?
And as George W Bush says, lets bring on this WAR we (the USA) have to have...
Isn't it all oh so passe? So USA! Of course the generally good, just stupid/ignorant people of the USA who interpret criticism as an attack, which is also oh so passe, might take another 20 years to realise the world thinks the USA is as irrelevant as creationist science already is. And god bless the pope too.
As for questions pertaining the sexuality of the commentator (or any commentator) re commentaries on or about science, I'd like to ask:-
Is God, by definition a male sexual entity/being (lets say, on high), and also by definition (or necessity) GAY? And if women stem from a male (Adam) created by a male god, do women turn back into men when they get to heaven? Do they stay women when they all too often, go to hell!!!! Continued...3of4.
I would like someone to ask the evangelical/creationists in the USA, who btw exist throughout the earth (surprisingly -- but comparatively in diluted concentrations, generally), and probably also throughout the universe (maybe evangelicals are the mysterious DARK Matter?), if they feel they expect and would welcome a 2nd civil war by way of conflict with the unbelievers?
Nice commentary. Takes a lot of reading/analysis to counter red herrings.
Of course it is a worrying trend via the blossoming of the Internet that the basic tendency towards insanity in the ethos of the USA might become critical and require a 2nd civil war.
Evangelicals, approx. 40% of the population. An astronomically large number BTW. But of course that percentage expands and contracts daily. lol. My little joke. But it can be measured I am sure....continued next reply. 1of4.
2 things even if she were fully unattractive the aspects of being scientifically conversant are among the most appreciated characteristics by me[and many others]..
2nd if one wants to be so base as to actually get into a physical discussion of this particular woman then one misses the pt.
The so called argument between science and God is non-existent, you are arguing science vs religion, there's a difference. Drop it, your wasting your life away!
I was only using an illustrative point. Anyway that's enough of that, have you heard the theory that when the universe is very very old everything becomes like photons, at this point the universe looses track of time and the Macro links to the sub atomic. I have coined the term singularity/infinularity, it's a bit like the Spacetime inseparability.
wait... you're against both religion *and* science!? How does that work? You don't believe in anything and you ignore empirical evidence?
... I think what you *may* mean to say instead of 'religion and science is bulshit' is more a sense of 'today's religions are false, and scientists are all decieving us with endless conspiracies'. Which sounds a lot sillier, but at least makes more SENSE.
oh my god I just took a look at "truthism" (linked through your 'falsebeliefs' site, and I'm peeing myself laughing... nice strategy, man, seriously.. tiring your reader by enormous babbling about anti-science and 'truth' and then lay it out on them: We were created by genetic experimentation made by reptilian aliens! no proof, of course, but who needs one for this, anyways, it's perfect JUST the way it is.
I teach astronomy in Alabama, and I often have students with ID. I always start my conversations with them by telling them that I love to talk about the topic, and I then ask them to start the conversation by stating what they want to discuss. Usually the discussion is short, because they can not state scientific fact correctly, since that would immediately trump what they are ultimately trying to get to. In my view, the core of this condition is the confusion of believing and knowing.
That's a good point.. I actually talk about it in my "belief in science" video. I encounter that a lot with ID people, and it can be very frustrating.
Usually it goes along with logical fallacies, like Straw man and False Continuum, those seem to be their favorites.
Yep. I enjoyed all your vids. I am glad you are doing this. It needs to be done, but the other funny thing about ID, is that it is mainly confined to this continent. Not to many Zen or Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim or Shinto proponents of ID.
No I think the problem in this continent is different - A lot of religious folk believe in either creationism or ID (with their own religious version) but not many countries allow this to be incorporated in secular laws, lives or education. That's the problem in this country... I am doubtful the Dover case could've happened in Western Europe.
Ha, ha, I happen to be from Europe, but the East side. You are right it would never happen there. All of my friends that are scattered all over the world find this topic so 'American'! And yes, the fundamentalisam that exists in this country regarding ID is only matched with other fundamentalism that exists in a few places over the globe.
I have never heard a Christian deny scientific fact only scientific theory--theory being the most significant product of the modern scientific methodology.
The pursuit has produced few facts, however, it is the only methodology that can produce fact--ironically.
As for producing facts - you don't. A fact is a fact. You produce theories, and it is precisely this point that amateurs and non-scientist don't understand and unless they educate themselves, they will remain wallowing in their own ignorance, and continue to be a source of bad thinking.
okay then thanks! going to look forward to see more of your research. and that quote you took from me is just from me. don't think he uses it as well. i'm not saying he's right or wrong here i'm just stating that he has a valid argument regarding intelligent design. but okay if you dont have the time do watch it, it's all right. whenever u have the time.
lolz okay i understand. but yeahh if u just have the time, check it out because i just really believe that his reasoning is pretty valid and is supported by his research. a Dr. like him wouldn't be passionate about in generating such a scientific argument if he had no valid proofs and further, the logic to back it up.
"a Dr Like him" is a fallacy -- argument from authority. The fact he's a doctor doesn't mean he can't be wrong ;) But in any case, I'll do my best to give you specific points on that lecture. I have to say - as far as I've seen Strobel at least, he is using many of the arguments I am talking about (and will talk about) in this series of vids.
i understand that because i too have very little time in my hands to do stuff like this. but u dont have to debunk it. all i'm asking is to look at Dr. William Lane Craig's statement in the video as it would either help you gain more understanding of the reason why people believe in intelligent design and support it.
if I look at it, odds are I'll debunk it ;) You have to understand -- this isn't the first and only creationist text i'm reading, specifically not in context of astronomy. I must tell you, I have YET TO ENCOUNTER a creationist astronomer who has VALID arguments, let alone proves his point.
now since were in the subject of debunking, i would just like to ask as to how you would debunk mr. William Lane Craig's cosmological argument about how there has to be a Creator and why It must be an external, transcendent, personal cause. search: William Lane Craig on the existence of God here on youtube to see the argument
I don't go around debunking random stuff; I was asked to do this specific project by a friend, and I do it now. I think a more productive way would be for YOU to 'debunk' my claims, or just post an example claim and I'll deal with it. I don't mean to be impatient, but I really have very little time, and I can't start watching vids and debunking the entire thing.. it takes a lot of work.
now, just to retort on your statement about lee strobel not being a former athiest, wikipedia, his website, along with humanknowledge (a dot net theist website), his interview in belief (dot) net where he states he was an athiest, among other sites, books and media where he in fact states that he was an atheist until 1981.
You're right. I made a mistake claiming it, even though I truly doubt he was a real rational atheist, but you are perfectly correct; I had no right saying that, and I apologize.
However, it is highly irrelevant. The fact he "used to be" atheist doesn't mean he's right. or wrong. Or may be. It just means he was.
Excellent work on this vid!!! honestly i find the neutrinos thing very fascinating. I also am very fond of the cosmos. When i was a kid i wanted (and still secretly want) to become an astronaut. my favorite book of my encyclopedias was the one that was about stars, planets, galaxies, quasars, and other celestial bodies.
What does all of this political babble have to do with believing there is a supreme being and what does it have to do with the scientific value of the creationist's point of view on astronomy? I don't see the relevance... If there is a supporter of the claims that creationists have on the scientific method in the construction and evaluation of their hypotheses, then explain. So far I 've only seen a populist appeal to emotion.
It's kinda weird. I'm gay (for the most part, I guess), but I'm attracted to your logic and brain. You might be one of the few women I could propagate a new humanity with. :)
At minimal you are displaying intellectual dishonesty. A 12th grader in a bad public school would know what "isms" of the 1930s and 1940s were. (of course now your going to demand proof of that lol)
Excessive use of your Logical Fallacy glossary is a bit annoying too.
listen. All you are doing is blaming. You haven't given me a single point on WHY you are saying I am intelectually dishonest. I am asking for clarifications because I am not interested in falling into stupid traps you put up, and am interested in a FAIR debate where we both understand what we mean (are you!?).
This *is* pointless, because you are only blaming, and not making any points. Where was I intelectually dishonest? Where was I wrong in my claims in the vids?
Meanwhile, I will have to excuse my self for misplacing excessive belief in your abilities. Obviously, as you mentioned, I didn't initially watch enough of your rants (4-5 min) to recognize your limitations. This is my bad.
In the future, when debating others, please stop demanding proof, when you have no intention of responding to it when it arrives.
Excuse me, but I am not the one asking (or expecting) to have any KIND of belief in my "abilities". I was making points, and unlike you, I took a great deal of time to substantiate everything I say.
You just make empty claims and stick to ad hominem, which, to be honest, is quite tiresome. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. If you have something about the points I am making in the video, make them already and stop dancing around the subject attacking me personally.
Hey don't be too hard on yourself, and it's ok to assume things. While you're at it, give yourself a break from the delusion that you are a budding intellect. Demanding proof
concerning an obvious historical reference to the humanistic "isms" of the 1930s and 1940s doesn't make you seem smart. It's sophomoric and merely reveals your convoluted misconceptions about your own abilities to debate and think as well as your flawed understanding of what rational thinking is.
What "isms"? Which ones? And what does ANY OF IT has to do with Creationist Crap Astronomy?
Stick to the point, and stop using ad hominem and attempted "Strikes" below the belt. I would hope we grew out of those after leaving elementary school.
You just assumed. I'm sure that is some sort of logical fallacy? It was a stereotypical response. You took it very personal, because your agenda is entirely personal—hardly objective and hardly intellectual. You actually referenced yourself at one point. Why don't you spare me another 50 minute rant of the femdom intellectual wannabe and declare you belief, disbelief, or agnosticism to the prospect of a deity.
Why don't you just watch my other videos that actually deal with my beliefs (this ones DOESN'T) and judge for yourself.
I'm done "playing on cue", it's really silly and unfair debate. If I assumed, I apologize, but why won't YOU spare ME the condescending lecture and just ask your question to the point, instead of digging traps for me to fall into.
I implied a great deal about you. I never called you an atheist. I must admit, I rather nefariously jumped into the discussion of atheism without your name in the second post truly doubting you would bite. But as if on cue!
I am not sure what, exactly, I "bit" into.. you made a fallacious claim about "atheistic societies" (refer to WHICH ones? what kind of atheism? generalizations don't quite work well in a rational debate,you know).
I really don't understand your point, other than to stir an argument. Make your point clearly, and don't be a child; I don't need you to expect me to "bite". I take great deal of time and concentration to ANSWER comments, I would appreciate the same amount of respect.
Yep. Know what that's like. Recently I came across the one Creationist who actually ever stumped me. But DESERTPHILE actually saw through him. He stumped me because he used allot of over-complicated maths, but Desertphile realized that the guy was just making up the numbers.
That's why atheistic societies become even more intolerant, violent, and blood thirsty as theistic based societies. Intolerant theory leads to destruction as fast as intolerant religious fervency.
Do you have proof for your claims ('intolerance', blood thirsty'.... powerful claims. Proof? Which 'societies'? How 'atheistic' are they?) or are you just speaking out of a place that is NOT your mouth?
What do you mean "Atheistic societies?" Do you mean secular democracies such as Europe or Japan? Or are you confusing Atheism with Socialism?
Besides, Hitler was a devout Catholic. Theocracies are generally about as intollirent as you can get. Pick any country in any century where there was no distiction between Church and State, and tell me how "Tollerant" they were.
Perhaps, secular societies would have been a better term? We are at least in agreement that religious societies may be equally menacing.
Unquestionably, there are correlations between humanistic-atheistic-secularist societies.
These are often a philosophy behind an ideology. It's possible to have a communist/christian society for sure--even a peaceful one. But religion is never the real cause of war.
At least we know this isn't about science. Anyway, pure atheism seems to conflict modern scientific methodology if it promotes the belief in NO God. Since God cannot not be proven to be existent or nonexistent (Dawkins), such a promotion is non-scientific ideological, dogmatic, and intolerant.
Did I say I was an atheist? You probably shoudl watch my "Re: question to all atheists" video, where I explain my views on "atheism" and being called one. But then, why do I expect you to avoid an obvious strawman.
I don't - and never did - promote the disbelief in God. I promote rational thinking. Some people manage to do that WHILE believing in God (and some of them are excellent thinkers) and some can't. If you go by fallacious THINKING, you're an idiot, no matter what you're 'promoting' -- conspiracy theories, socialism, god, or atheism. It's not about the answer, it is about the METHOD of thinking. Obviously, you missed that.
Again, no proof, no substantiation, just exmpty claims and ad hominem nonsense. Really, my friend, seriously now..
Yes, I don't CARE about the idiots (yes -- IDIOTS!) who purposefully hide information, twist facts and act unfairly (using fallacious arguments!) to CONVERT people who are ignorant of the subject.
Great video as always. You really did your homework on this one. I'm not sure I'd have the patience. To them, science is changing general opinion and voting on what is true and what is not. In their mind, debate on evidence is the same as bickering to get your way. Cherry picking is OK in that frame of mind. I don't think they really care about what is true or not (they have already decided anyway), but about acknowledgment by the outside world.
Again, I never said they did, I spoke to "argument of authority" establishing credibility before selling the argument such as Dawkins dropping names in the first three pages. (My proof of the one/single claim). You have access to the book don't you?
Then you responded by saying, your not listening I'm not talking about Dawkins and Sagan. Support your claims!
What claim are you talking about? Maybe your not listening?
My only claim was "The argument tactics in the book are no different than those used by Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan to challenge conventional thought by first establishing some line of credibility or mudding up the waters before selling an argument." We are chatting about the beginning of the book.
Then you said, when did Dawkins and Sagan use strawman and false dichotomy?
PS This is a little straw man and argument by question.
I don't see the point of arguing with creationists. If they want to live in an intellectual middle ages then let them. They consist of the brainwashed, the credulous and the plain stupid and the only people they'll ever convert are people in a similar vein as the aformentioned , the type of people who arn't open to or able to engage in rational debate in the first place.
boltar, I am not trying to argue with creationists, they don't quite matter. Those who matter, however, are the people who are ignorant of the subject, and get convinced by low tactics and fallacious claims. These people, I hope, will benefit from this video by getting counter claims to these tactics.
And, also, exposing the fraud of 'explanation' of creation may help with eradicating the ignorance about that and promote rationality in life and law.
Answer the claims I raised, not others.. what you're doing now is jumping subjects. I wasn't talking about neither Dawkins nor Sagan. For this matter, they're irrelevant.
Evidently it's important to the Billy Graham of atheists. (I know you got him framed at your bedside or on your desktop background).
No need now to bring in Sagan. I like him. Sagan was a poet and a far better scientist, writer, and thinker. (He's on my screen saver). Dawkins is a Socrates wannabe with a degree in micro evolution and a chip on his shoulder Sound like anybody else you know?
What about the next chapter hmmmmmmm. Hey I'm just getting started.
You're switching subjects, which makes me wonder if you even watched my video, and then wonder if you even HAVE any answers about the claims I raise.
I raised important claims about the misinformation these authors bring. They step into Astronomy and claim non-scientific claims as if they are facts (look at the vid again if you don't know what I refer to).
The article might have been (I think not, but I need to check), but the BOOK ITSELF (hence, collection of articles, and it includes a note from the editor, which has remarks about 'today' with NO MENTIONING of any corrections..) was published at 2002.
I'd say declaring SOMETHING, even at the editor-note is kind of important too, wouldn't you say? ;)
Certainly no worse when Carl Sagan claimed that the Iraq oil fires would destroy the earths climate. When they didn't he chalked it up to the scientific method--trial and error. Then let the book have its due, I suppose, as part of the methodology.
The argument tactics in the book are no different than those used by Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan to challenge conventional thought by first establishing some line of credibility or mudding up the waters before selling an argument.
I dont have to substantiate that either Sagan or Dawkins used false dichotomy or strawman because I never claimed they used such tactics.
I spoke specifically to the tactic of transference or argument of authority which you mentioned as being used on behalf of these authors for credibility. You described this use in the first chapter as a "low attempt of argument of authority." You then sardonically and sarcastically slide in "evidently matters to creationists."
You don't listen -- I didnt ask you to substantiate Sagan or Dawkins (I didn't even TALK ABOUT THEM in the video.. did you even watch?) I asked you to substantiate YOUR claims, which you are not doing.
I explained my impression quite extensively, and if you want to explain yours, you need to bring proof. I did in the video (quotes, page numbers and explanations). Your turn.
Also since you are in contact with Phil, I'd like to make a suggestion to you both.
Phil said that he had to put his Q&BA series on hiatus due to a lack of time. When that happened I said on the SGU forum that the solution is for him to have an "intern" to assist with sorting questions, research, scripting and video editing.
Phil is of course, the greatest astronomy educator in the known universe - so I want to see that awesome little series back on the air.
I am not quite "in contact" with phil, I simply asked him a question, and he was kind enough to explain (as he does so eloquently). The trouble for me, is that I am a student - and I can't quite commit for time (which is why I can't promise WHEN new episodes will be available..)
Your suggestion for the formatting is definitely taken, and very helpful, THANK YOU, I was looking for suggestions to make things clearer :) thanks!
This video series is a great concept moopy, but can I make a formatting suggestion?
You tend to meander around the main line of argument a bit, giving the overall feel of a Halle Berry speech.
I suggest editing each point you want to make into a more defined subsection to keep you on track and maintain a logical flow for the listener, (separated with a graphic and/or heading perhaps).
Ostensibly because that has implications for the dating of the sun as well as our solar system—fusing creationism with their own scientific theory. Is this so different than a politician who attempts to fuse ideology and politics with science?
Nothing to date seemed to contradict the popular scientific theory of accretion, at least until a few weeks ago. As well, no facts seemed to contradict the chemical reaction that was "so obviously" depleting the ozone layer, at least until a few weeks ago.
Perhaps this is my problem. I understand these Christian scientists probably produced this book with the attempt to throw a fly into the ointment of theory concerning the inner workings of the sun.
You have befallen the approach you so sardonically attack in that text.
We have our hunches, theories, and still what is a handful of facts that was enough to turn Hiroshima into a BBQ.
But if we know everything that is going on in there why are we still spending billions of dollars on space vehicles to take closer looks and even capture its emissions?
I didn't say we know everything, I said everything we observe support our theory. I also said that if anyone wishes to dispute the theory, he's more than welcome to as long as facts are supplied to back up the new theory. I even mentioned that this is how people get Nobel prizes -- through doubt, and finding out something new. (cont)
So, I see what you're saying, and I definitely did not mean to say science is dogmatic. I don't quite think I did, though... next time, however, I will definitely reinforce that point. Thankyou.
Are you spending as much time in Church as you are reading about astronomy? NO? How can you make an impartial judgment if you don't study the other side? You're only seeing one side of the argument.
Have you ever truly learned what science says about our world? Have you looked around you and checked the observation? The "argument" doesn't have two sides, it has a lot more than that -- YOU are the arrogant one, who claims your side is one out of two possibilities; fact of the matter is -- religion has more than "2" sides, and science has nothing to do with religion.
oh another thing, bornagain: I never claimed to be impartial in this "debate". I am admittedly very much biased against delusion and irrationality.
If you want to argue FACTS with me, I am willing to be impartial. Since your "side" argues logical fallacies and unfair tactics, I am proud to be quite vocally impartial AGAINST it.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became FOOLS." Romans 1:22
You are nothing new to the landscape of skeptics and unbelievers. You put your FAITH in your own very limited intelligence instead of God. You WORSHIP the creation instead of the CREATOR. So much bogus evidence (Heidelberg Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man and ARCHAEORAPTOR) and yet you continue to rebel against God.
Obviously you have no answers to the arguments I am making, since you're insisting on putting nonrelevant info.
I believe you should actually WATCH the video (you obviously haven't, the way you describe the 'evidence' i didnt even talk about). If you have ANYTHING AT ALL to response to *MY* claim (don't bring me bogus claims from other people, really..) go right ahead.
Thanks Mooeypoo, don't you love fundamentalist intellectual (the problem is that dogma creates mental disease and intellect just magnifies their disease). Just remember (rationalism is also an ism).
About historical recording of the size of the sun: Plutarch described pretty precisely a total solar eclipse in the first century BC, saying that "a kind of light is visible about the rim which keeps the shadow from being profound and absolute". Which means that the sun covered about the same amount of sky then as now.
Amongst the "we know this for sure" and "this is wrong because" and the many other comments she makes is very similar to what she says is wrong with the book, as far as the play on words go, due to she never gives any mention of such evidence to show why, in fact, she knows, what she knows, and never actually contested the book with any facts whatsoever.... waste of 30 minutes
TheRallz 3 months ago
Protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, positrons, kaons, byrons, leptons, mesons, pions, kaons, and gluons are all imaginary conceptual abstracts of the atom that are misleading. These ideas hinder our bright children in ways that if they believe these thing, as they develop their scientific knowledge, they will never be able to synthetize intrinsic lattices of matter setting the progress of science in the stone age. Atoms are simple devises of nature, just as gravity is made up of 2 subfields
jqs1943 8 months ago
The rules of nature in its evolutionary codification of matter, worlds, galaxies and all other cedlestial components is a lot simpler that the abstract presentations that are passed on to us by our predecessors. The atom is a simple object of nature that meassures 3 billionths of one inch, or 90 billionths of 1 millimeter. The sun is a planetary core that's in its developmental stage which has already began its third metamorphic face of its evolvent. It will eventually manifest itself as a world
jqs1943 8 months ago
R u a girl or boy
ccf217721 1 year ago
Another proof for fusion in the sun are the spectral lines in sunlight.
We can see the proportions of hydrogen, helium and heavier elements as you would expect from fusion.
RaymondCorrigan 1 year ago
Incedible stupid !!
jhstha 1 year ago
I appreciate your views even though they oppose mine. If everyone agreed on everything then we would have never gotten this far. I dont have time to watch the whole vid but will eventually. I would like to make a couple comments so far though.
The reason, I think, for the chapter of scientists who do believe in creation of I.D. is due to the fact that their are many scientist that believe in them and yet main stream "science" suggests the idea that none do. out of room so thats it for now.
TheJflow008 1 year ago
Hey Moo, did you get your PHD?
stratocaster539 1 year ago
um godmos?.... big fail.
Wingers413 1 year ago
blah blah blah! can it stop with the rambling, going on and on. its just annoying
HODthunderwolf 2 years ago
MAN!, awesome carl sagan intro.
FluffMachine 2 years ago
I'm kinda classified as a creationist, i have never read anything in the bible relative to this topic. But I personally heave read genesis 1. In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.
That event happened before the first day of creation.The first day that GOD was referring to is the 12hour span, morning to evening.
The universe is clearly billions of years old and I don't believe GOD would deceive me by telling me its only 5000yrs.
So I encourage others to look at their bible.
bunyip9999 2 years ago
How ever... the bible gives us very detailed genealogies with the age of the fathers when they had their first born, and then their son's first born son and so on and so forth. This takes us all the way from Adam to Jesus Christ in roughly 4,000 years.
DanielFabrick 2 years ago
By the way, I am an agnostic and though I FIRMLY and ABSOLUTELY ...know... that the theist AND the atheist positions are BELIEFS which may, in the "end" turn out to be truths or partial truths, I can also FIRMLY say that the Universe is DEFINITELY MUCH older than 12 thousand years. ;o) lol. I agree with you "wholeMINDEDLY" on THAT issue. Creationism? It is POSSIBLE if one considers "designed evolution" or even PARTIALLY designed or manipulated evolution. As for "God(s)"?..who knows?
Stratslayer 2 years ago
We know LOGICALLY that, in a world that proclaims MANY differing religions and "Gods" that ALL can not be correct. We can NOT say absolutely that NONE of those individual beliefs concerning intelligent design is incorrect. Atheism is a BELIEF that there is "no God(s)". Theism is a BELIEF that there IS "God(s)". The ONLY purely "LOGICAL and scientific" position on the issue is the agnostic one. "I will not absolutely "know" until I die.
Stratslayer 2 years ago
and if the only shrinking theory was to be truth, then the weather should only be worsening in one continuos rate, either too hot or too cold, but not oscilating between the two of them. now, human manufatured global warming aside, the much dreaded geology kind of proves that the earth has periods of warming AND cooling... i'm no expert, obviously, and i'm just doing some random connection, but i guess that would be a backup to a very well known truth ^^
sakurasei 3 years ago
well, i guess that the theory to explain what really happens to the sun should be able to explain a correlation with what happens in earth over its (the sun's) changes. like for example, if fusion was to be true, due to the constant shrinking and expanding of the sun which would cause a change in the gravitational pull and therefore a change in the planet's orbit, then the the earth should suffer changes in temperature; i mean, there should be really cold and hot times every now and then...
sakurasei 3 years ago
A piece of advice..... You spend way too much time talking about the "book" showing the pages talking about the chapters and the authors the publications, etc... Just make the argument and back it up with reference mention. You're interesting, but the 34 minute video could have been about 12 minutes.
In other words, make a script for the video and notate the book points in short. The rambling is a little discouraging. I want to watch more videos, but can't devote the time to rambles...
nudsh 3 years ago
I could sit in a garden looking at a guy go by outside the hedge, I can only see his head and torso.. he moves at a relatively high speed and doesn't bump up and down so I launch a theory that he is riding a bicycle.
Instead he was rollerblading but not "skating" at the moment of observation..
Since I never even heard about rollerblades I laughed when some kid heard me say he was biking and told me he could be rollerblading.. I was, in my own mind, correct because I am me and I was older. :P
Kenzofeis 3 years ago
Yea, but when you see the guy rollerbladeing you will know you ware wrong.
And here is the difference between creationist and real scientists. If they both see the think you saw the scientist will say: "hey, I was wrong the guy is rolerblaiding", where the creationist will say: "hey, I was wright the guy is biking, but GOD makes me think he is rolerblaideing in order to test my faith".
DaniOcean 3 years ago
"thing" not "think", actually...
DaniOcean 3 years ago
If the sun is shrinking it would not surprise me much, combination of nuclei will reduce the "need for space", also the constant emission of energy means loss of mass and thermal movements.
I won't even get into the problems with the black hole consept, but what I just said has relevance also there ;P
Kenzofeis 3 years ago
Love the "Eyebrow". Is that what you use to tickle? I like fact based query, unfortunately, you're an eyebrow.
kraftmacandcheese 3 years ago
yeah canada we are best. we found the other neutrinos My prof worked on that
truevoiceofsanity 3 years ago
That was awesome, mooeypoo!
5*
DoctorPlausible 3 years ago
I'm an astronomer and I think your work showing that the pseudoscientist arguments of creationists are wrong is very useful. Great job!
RGMex82 3 years ago 2
O my, bow to the astronomer. worship the big bang theory.
Hey, mind telling us where the matter and energy came from for the big bang? Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. And matter, unless you are going to invoke a god did it excuse, does not poof itself from another dimension unless you can prove that dimension actually exists. Can you?
ikester7579 3 years ago
Big Bang? Just have a look at the 2 guys "inventing" it :)
Also, it has beome "truth" that there exist an "Oort cloud" around our solar system, how did this idea come about? Oort loosely suggested it as an hypotethical explanation to where the observed comets, presumed to be ice due to the tail, comes from.. not proven, not observed - just as with black holes and neutron stars.. Phenomenon is observed and ideas introduced - but this does not mean it's so..
Kenzofeis 3 years ago
Wikipedia on Ort Cloud:
The Oort cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets believed to lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun; this distance places the cloud at nearly a quarter of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The Kuiper belt and scattered disc, the other two known reservoirs of trans-Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth the Oort cloud's distance. The outer extent of the Oort cloud defines the boundary of our Solar System.
DaniOcean 3 years ago
Essential here is the word "hypotethical" ;P
It means that the Oort cloud was only a loose suggestions from mr. Oort to where ice comets came from, but, are they really only ice? Nope.. hehe
Kenzofeis 3 years ago
she's cute!
wannaruwae 3 years ago 4
Well my last post did not post so I'll say this again... As an atheist-evolutionist challenge I'm going to unfilter the video to links to this one. We will see how long it will stay civil, and instead of deleting posts of those who abuse it. I will just block them. In this way the examples of why creationists filter the responses to their videos will be made clear. And if it gets out of control, I will just stop allowing posts altogether but will leave the examples. Continued...
ikester7579 3 years ago
If a poster decides to make comments that have nothing to do with video, or current subject being discussed like saying: You are a moron, or cussing. I will block them. Or continued personal type attacks on me, or another poster will warrant another block of the one who started it.
Also, "time wasting" copy and paste questions from anticreationists sites "may" get you blocked if that is all you can post. Fairn enough? I will unblock tonight. I do not know how long it takes to take effect.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Man you talk a lot. Nice monolog.
freethinkerbell 3 years ago
Like I said before and I'll say again. If you don't like the filter problem. Make a complain to youtube. Maybe they will remove that option. But as long as it is an option, I will use it. If you choose not to, not my problem.
ikester7579 3 years ago
sorry for posting here but ...
That guy ikester7579 doesn't allow my comments, where i addressed the most egregious errors in his presentation.
Hey, if your watching this : why don't you allow everybody to see my comments if you "know" i'm wrong?
Wouldn't be fair to at least try to refute me, or is it that my points are valid. I can produce numbers and sources to back up my claims if you want.
claschxtreme 3 years ago
I think the reason he doesn't allow comments is pretty obvious.
Biased people rarely have the courage to deal with their opponents, specifically when he knows his science is extra flawed.
He can't refute you, claschxtreme, so he prefers to make sure people don't see that.
mooeypoo 3 years ago
"I think the reason he doesn't allow comments is pretty obvious."
Sorry, I don't run a blog free for all when atheists spew such hate for any christian who happens to challenge their ideas. If you guys could debate civil and without cussing, I would not have to filter your comments. But let's be honest. You guys like to cuss at those whom you hate. So filter your comments is what I will do. Don't like it, to bad. it's an option on the blog, and I choose to use it. Complain to youtube....
ikester7579 3 years ago
This is your problem, you consider science atheistic, but you try and use it to "prove" your belief.
Your video isn't science; the claims you make are NOT the claims scientists make (the claim for 'shrinking of the sun' is that the shrinking itself is the mechanism of energy - that was DISPROVEN).
You just don't want people to see that your claims are bull.
mooeypoo 3 years ago
LOL, there you go categorizing all creationists and what they believe into one group. But then you complain when I do it also (in your nest post).
"My dear friend, I never cursed you in my comments (which i did try to post, not expecting an approval)."
I'm not afraid to have competing ideas out there. But you are. How? You did make this video correct? You do imply that only those who believe in evolution are correct while everyone else lies, correct? continued...
ikester7579 3 years ago
"LOL, there you go categorizing all creationists and what they believe into one group."
Well, yea so long as you are a Christian Creationist (the same would not apply to a Hindi of Buddhist creationist). Anyone that has read the bible know exactly what you believe, it's all laid out for everyone to see; in black and white. "Evolutionists" are free to disagree with some aspects of the theory (though we are actually discussing cosmology in this video) but you must believe every word in His book.
christiansthorns 3 years ago
I guess I could start categorizing you in the evolutionist nazi group. Maybe I should.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Since you haven't made any connections between evolution and the Nazis, I'll try not to loose much sleep over it.
Do you believe that your belief in a literal creation based on the content of the bible is somehow different from someone else's belief in a literal creation based on the content of the bible? There could be a difference; but every creationist I've talked to has believed and disbelieved in kind with regard to the bible and to the sciences (typically, referred to as "evolution").
christiansthorns 3 years ago
Connections? Darwin, Haeckel, Hitler, Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin and head of the eugenics movement which was accepted by Hitler, and was Galton's way of carrying on Darwin's legacy).
Haeckel evangelized all of Germany for evolution through his faked drawings. He gave seminars which later became state sponsored. Which means he was paid, and it cost him nothing to do it. And the Germany military, along with the schools were taught evolution. Just in time for Hitler.
ikester7579 3 years ago
You love attempting to connect evolution to the holocaust but you seem to ignore the Christian connection. You once told me we should accept the past and learn from it; well let's not miss that opportunity.
Even if Hitler subscribed to the theory of evolution, try not to forget that a huge portion of Germany was Christian (as Hitler also claimed to be) during that time (as well as before and after); and that he convinced your brothers in Christ to commit these acts on his behalf.
Christiansthorn 3 years ago
@mooeypoo I may have missed something feel free to correct me but... You claim that he sees science as atheistic and i think this is a normal self serving fallacy of many atheists. I do not see where he made any claim as such. I hear this a lot and IMO scientists and science are two different things. One is fact, not a scientific fact but an unchanging truth that misinterpretations dont change, the other interprets. I love science and its also helped my faith get stronger. I like your vids tho
TheJflow008 1 year ago
"If you guys could debate civil and without cussing, I would not have to filter your comments."
How odd it is then that several of my comments, on some of your other videos, never made it through the approval process. Especially, since I have not cussed in any of them.
I digress, if the sun is shrinking how big was it originally? How small will it get (essentially what will become of it)? How old would it be based on the current rate of shrinkage, what is this rate?
christiansthorns 3 years ago
You guys are better at assuming than we are. Look at the big bang. You can't even confirm or test where the matter or energy came from.
ikester7579 3 years ago
All scientists make assumptions; but these assumptions must be consistent with observations from all fields of science. Unlike, creationism which stands rigid against scientific findings and then relies on faith in the face of direct contradictions of those beliefs.
For example: belief in a world wide flood; when no field of science has found any evidence for such an event and fields like paleontology observe outcomes in the fossil record that would not be possible under flood conditions.
christiansthorns 3 years ago
I think it's funny that you keep changing your name just so you can have the "last word". Only egotistical Darwinist fundies do that. Are you afraid that your ego might get bruised if you don't have the last say in everything?
I know someone at work just like you. No one there can stand him either. He has to have the last word, and he is always right. What would you say your excuse is for always changing your name?
ikester7579 3 years ago
Oh, I must have struck a nerve with that last comment. You know that typically people who complain about others taking the 'last word' are just wanting for themselves, and we all know what the bible says about greed.
You obviously knew that both names belonged to me and I wasn't trying to hide that fact (I would have done more than add an S to the end of my this name had I been trying to trick you). You could view that profile for my explanation; it is there if you are interested.
Christiansthorn 3 years ago
No, in fact you can have the last word. So have at it. I've had my say.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Maybe they will remove that filter option since it bugs you guys so much. And I will suggest a cuss word filter and maybe we can all be happy.
ikester7579 3 years ago
My dear friend, I never cursed you in my comments (which i did try to post, not expecting an approval).
You're just afraid of other people seeing the factual data, so you filter the comments that deal with analyzing your video.
.. afraid, much?
mooeypoo 3 years ago
And which post was it that I did not approve? Post it here so everyone can see it, then post it there and let's see if I censor it.
There is no such post now is there?
ikester7579 3 years ago
If you posted during server matenance or server change, it sometime will not allow post to be posted. I guess it gets lost or something. I have had this happen to me about 5 times now.
But if everytime this happens, you are going to accuse me of doing this. I'll just block and be done with it. I'm not going to participate in someone's false accusations.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Isn't theoretical proof somewhat of an oxymoron?
segacky 4 years ago
I heard that the Sun with only shrink after its 3rd or fourth stage of being a Red Giant runs out of hydrogen. When its Nucleas no longer fuses.
hannigan06 4 years ago
you have a very logical positivist view of science. may i ask you a question? how long does it take for a neutrino to become as oldtrino? ;-) john
gandersourcefilms 4 years ago 2
No answer? I'll ask again. How does an object lose matter without losing mass?
ikester7579 4 years ago
by increasing its velocity?
gandersourcefilms 4 years ago
sorry, i misread your question.
gandersourcefilms 4 years ago
Does the sun shrink? Solar wind is basically plasma. Plasma is matter. This matter is being shot into space at a very high rate of speed, and ther is nothin replacing it. So, how does an object lose matter without losing mass?
ikester7579 4 years ago
And as George W Bush says, lets bring on this WAR we (the USA) have to have...
Isn't it all oh so passe? So USA! Of course the generally good, just stupid/ignorant people of the USA who interpret criticism as an attack, which is also oh so passe, might take another 20 years to realise the world thinks the USA is as irrelevant as creationist science already is. And god bless the pope too.
THE END.
sydneybb 4 years ago
As for questions pertaining the sexuality of the commentator (or any commentator) re commentaries on or about science, I'd like to ask:-
Is God, by definition a male sexual entity/being (lets say, on high), and also by definition (or necessity) GAY? And if women stem from a male (Adam) created by a male god, do women turn back into men when they get to heaven? Do they stay women when they all too often, go to hell!!!! Continued...3of4.
sydneybb 4 years ago
I would like someone to ask the evangelical/creationists in the USA, who btw exist throughout the earth (surprisingly -- but comparatively in diluted concentrations, generally), and probably also throughout the universe (maybe evangelicals are the mysterious DARK Matter?), if they feel they expect and would welcome a 2nd civil war by way of conflict with the unbelievers?
Continued..2of4
sydneybb 4 years ago
Nice commentary. Takes a lot of reading/analysis to counter red herrings.
Of course it is a worrying trend via the blossoming of the Internet that the basic tendency towards insanity in the ethos of the USA might become critical and require a 2nd civil war.
Evangelicals, approx. 40% of the population. An astronomically large number BTW. But of course that percentage expands and contracts daily. lol. My little joke. But it can be measured I am sure....continued next reply. 1of4.
sydneybb 4 years ago
Method of crank:
a. Make it seem as if very strong knowledge is actually very weak, and
b. that a very stupid idea is possible, then likely, and then certain.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
she's a lesbian. i know it. i can feel it.
gregjockca3 4 years ago
an intelligent, scientifically inclined woman, an atheist .. what could be hotter?
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
There IS nothing hotter than what you described.
msginca 4 years ago
WOAH THATS A GIRL!?!??! What
I thought that was a dude wtf.
ct0386 4 years ago
2 things even if she were fully unattractive the aspects of being scientifically conversant are among the most appreciated characteristics by me[and many others]..
2nd if one wants to be so base as to actually get into a physical discussion of this particular woman then one misses the pt.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
False statement, I was basing on obvious facts that that, does infact look like a Male. Wether she is a girl or not. She will never get laid.
ct0386 4 years ago
2nd if one wants to be so base as to actually get into a physical discussion of this particular woman then one misses the pt.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
just had to second, the obvious nature of this statement.
jbear3333 4 years ago
I'm a physics major, and I love your vids.
yalg18 4 years ago
hey are those giant molecular clouds at 28:09 giving me the finger?
also I love your accent, who did you steel it from?
undefinedego 4 years ago
The so called argument between science and God is non-existent, you are arguing science vs religion, there's a difference. Drop it, your wasting your life away!
lasercat10cc 4 years ago
Actually, I'm arguing authors of a book and a certain (too common) theory. There's a difference.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Correct your getting my point
lasercat10cc 4 years ago
I was only using an illustrative point. Anyway that's enough of that, have you heard the theory that when the universe is very very old everything becomes like photons, at this point the universe looses track of time and the Macro links to the sub atomic. I have coined the term singularity/infinularity, it's a bit like the Spacetime inseparability.
lasercat10cc 4 years ago
Was that Giant molecular Cloud flipping the finger?
Retardretroguy 4 years ago
die...
im1337biatch 4 years ago
Sorry but there is no logic in your land. False beliefs is "B" grade TV that we all saw in the seventies.
samten54 4 years ago
wait... you're against both religion *and* science!? How does that work? You don't believe in anything and you ignore empirical evidence?
... I think what you *may* mean to say instead of 'religion and science is bulshit' is more a sense of 'today's religions are false, and scientists are all decieving us with endless conspiracies'. Which sounds a lot sillier, but at least makes more SENSE.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
oh my god I just took a look at "truthism" (linked through your 'falsebeliefs' site, and I'm peeing myself laughing... nice strategy, man, seriously.. tiring your reader by enormous babbling about anti-science and 'truth' and then lay it out on them: We were created by genetic experimentation made by reptilian aliens! no proof, of course, but who needs one for this, anyways, it's perfect JUST the way it is.
(cont)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Awesome, awesome, I couldn't ask for a better parody. I'm gonna send it to all my friends as soon as I stop laughing.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
"wait... you're against both religion *and* science!? How does that work? "
It's called New Age
Retardretroguy 4 years ago
Moo,
I teach astronomy in Alabama, and I often have students with ID. I always start my conversations with them by telling them that I love to talk about the topic, and I then ask them to start the conversation by stating what they want to discuss. Usually the discussion is short, because they can not state scientific fact correctly, since that would immediately trump what they are ultimately trying to get to. In my view, the core of this condition is the confusion of believing and knowing.
makutub 4 years ago
That's a good point.. I actually talk about it in my "belief in science" video. I encounter that a lot with ID people, and it can be very frustrating.
Usually it goes along with logical fallacies, like Straw man and False Continuum, those seem to be their favorites.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Yep. I enjoyed all your vids. I am glad you are doing this. It needs to be done, but the other funny thing about ID, is that it is mainly confined to this continent. Not to many Zen or Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim or Shinto proponents of ID.
makutub 4 years ago
No I think the problem in this continent is different - A lot of religious folk believe in either creationism or ID (with their own religious version) but not many countries allow this to be incorporated in secular laws, lives or education. That's the problem in this country... I am doubtful the Dover case could've happened in Western Europe.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Ha, ha, I happen to be from Europe, but the East side. You are right it would never happen there. All of my friends that are scattered all over the world find this topic so 'American'! And yes, the fundamentalisam that exists in this country regarding ID is only matched with other fundamentalism that exists in a few places over the globe.
makutub 4 years ago
I have never heard a Christian deny scientific fact only scientific theory--theory being the most significant product of the modern scientific methodology.
The pursuit has produced few facts, however, it is the only methodology that can produce fact--ironically.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
May I suggest ear wax remover for your hearing?
As for producing facts - you don't. A fact is a fact. You produce theories, and it is precisely this point that amateurs and non-scientist don't understand and unless they educate themselves, they will remain wallowing in their own ignorance, and continue to be a source of bad thinking.
makutub 4 years ago
I love anything on the sun or stars I find them very intriguing. Also excellent job on getting all those sources and video. :) so five stars.
punkassrocky666 4 years ago
Thanks.. I liked watching your vids in the past :). It's nice to see a video of you again.
jnoort 4 years ago
okay then thanks! going to look forward to see more of your research. and that quote you took from me is just from me. don't think he uses it as well. i'm not saying he's right or wrong here i'm just stating that he has a valid argument regarding intelligent design. but okay if you dont have the time do watch it, it's all right. whenever u have the time.
jprime69 4 years ago
Of course,of course, I know it is - I was just saying :)
And that's where we differ - about valid arguments. But right now we're arguing air; I'll watch and we'll continue then.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
lolz okay i understand. but yeahh if u just have the time, check it out because i just really believe that his reasoning is pretty valid and is supported by his research. a Dr. like him wouldn't be passionate about in generating such a scientific argument if he had no valid proofs and further, the logic to back it up.
jprime69 4 years ago
"a Dr Like him" is a fallacy -- argument from authority. The fact he's a doctor doesn't mean he can't be wrong ;) But in any case, I'll do my best to give you specific points on that lecture. I have to say - as far as I've seen Strobel at least, he is using many of the arguments I am talking about (and will talk about) in this series of vids.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
i understand that because i too have very little time in my hands to do stuff like this. but u dont have to debunk it. all i'm asking is to look at Dr. William Lane Craig's statement in the video as it would either help you gain more understanding of the reason why people believe in intelligent design and support it.
jprime69 4 years ago
if I look at it, odds are I'll debunk it ;) You have to understand -- this isn't the first and only creationist text i'm reading, specifically not in context of astronomy. I must tell you, I have YET TO ENCOUNTER a creationist astronomer who has VALID arguments, let alone proves his point.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Lee Patrick Strobel is the full name. and it is Dr. William Lane Craig. sorry for the title error
jprime69 4 years ago
now since were in the subject of debunking, i would just like to ask as to how you would debunk mr. William Lane Craig's cosmological argument about how there has to be a Creator and why It must be an external, transcendent, personal cause. search: William Lane Craig on the existence of God here on youtube to see the argument
jprime69 4 years ago
I don't go around debunking random stuff; I was asked to do this specific project by a friend, and I do it now. I think a more productive way would be for YOU to 'debunk' my claims, or just post an example claim and I'll deal with it. I don't mean to be impatient, but I really have very little time, and I can't start watching vids and debunking the entire thing.. it takes a lot of work.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
now, just to retort on your statement about lee strobel not being a former athiest, wikipedia, his website, along with humanknowledge (a dot net theist website), his interview in belief (dot) net where he states he was an athiest, among other sites, books and media where he in fact states that he was an atheist until 1981.
jprime69 4 years ago
You're right. I made a mistake claiming it, even though I truly doubt he was a real rational atheist, but you are perfectly correct; I had no right saying that, and I apologize.
However, it is highly irrelevant. The fact he "used to be" atheist doesn't mean he's right. or wrong. Or may be. It just means he was.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
dear mooeypoo
Excellent work on this vid!!! honestly i find the neutrinos thing very fascinating. I also am very fond of the cosmos. When i was a kid i wanted (and still secretly want) to become an astronaut. my favorite book of my encyclopedias was the one that was about stars, planets, galaxies, quasars, and other celestial bodies.
jprime69 4 years ago
What does all of this political babble have to do with believing there is a supreme being and what does it have to do with the scientific value of the creationist's point of view on astronomy? I don't see the relevance... If there is a supporter of the claims that creationists have on the scientific method in the construction and evaluation of their hypotheses, then explain. So far I 've only seen a populist appeal to emotion.
SYLVESTER1592 4 years ago
It's kinda weird. I'm gay (for the most part, I guess), but I'm attracted to your logic and brain. You might be one of the few women I could propagate a new humanity with. :)
DblOSmith 4 years ago
Mooey,
At minimal you are displaying intellectual dishonesty. A 12th grader in a bad public school would know what "isms" of the 1930s and 1940s were. (of course now your going to demand proof of that lol)
Excessive use of your Logical Fallacy glossary is a bit annoying too.
This is pointless.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
listen. All you are doing is blaming. You haven't given me a single point on WHY you are saying I am intelectually dishonest. I am asking for clarifications because I am not interested in falling into stupid traps you put up, and am interested in a FAIR debate where we both understand what we mean (are you!?).
This *is* pointless, because you are only blaming, and not making any points. Where was I intelectually dishonest? Where was I wrong in my claims in the vids?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
4.)
Meanwhile, I will have to excuse my self for misplacing excessive belief in your abilities. Obviously, as you mentioned, I didn't initially watch enough of your rants (4-5 min) to recognize your limitations. This is my bad.
In the future, when debating others, please stop demanding proof, when you have no intention of responding to it when it arrives.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Excuse me, but I am not the one asking (or expecting) to have any KIND of belief in my "abilities". I was making points, and unlike you, I took a great deal of time to substantiate everything I say.
You just make empty claims and stick to ad hominem, which, to be honest, is quite tiresome. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. If you have something about the points I am making in the video, make them already and stop dancing around the subject attacking me personally.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
3.)
Hey don't be too hard on yourself, and it's ok to assume things. While you're at it, give yourself a break from the delusion that you are a budding intellect. Demanding proof
concerning an obvious historical reference to the humanistic "isms" of the 1930s and 1940s doesn't make you seem smart. It's sophomoric and merely reveals your convoluted misconceptions about your own abilities to debate and think as well as your flawed understanding of what rational thinking is.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
What "isms"? Which ones? And what does ANY OF IT has to do with Creationist Crap Astronomy?
Stick to the point, and stop using ad hominem and attempted "Strikes" below the belt. I would hope we grew out of those after leaving elementary school.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
2.)
You just assumed. I'm sure that is some sort of logical fallacy? It was a stereotypical response. You took it very personal, because your agenda is entirely personal—hardly objective and hardly intellectual. You actually referenced yourself at one point. Why don't you spare me another 50 minute rant of the femdom intellectual wannabe and declare you belief, disbelief, or agnosticism to the prospect of a deity.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Why don't you just watch my other videos that actually deal with my beliefs (this ones DOESN'T) and judge for yourself.
I'm done "playing on cue", it's really silly and unfair debate. If I assumed, I apologize, but why won't YOU spare ME the condescending lecture and just ask your question to the point, instead of digging traps for me to fall into.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
1.)
Mooeypoo,
I implied a great deal about you. I never called you an atheist. I must admit, I rather nefariously jumped into the discussion of atheism without your name in the second post truly doubting you would bite. But as if on cue!
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
I am not sure what, exactly, I "bit" into.. you made a fallacious claim about "atheistic societies" (refer to WHICH ones? what kind of atheism? generalizations don't quite work well in a rational debate,you know).
I really don't understand your point, other than to stir an argument. Make your point clearly, and don't be a child; I don't need you to expect me to "bite". I take great deal of time and concentration to ANSWER comments, I would appreciate the same amount of respect.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Yep. Know what that's like. Recently I came across the one Creationist who actually ever stumped me. But DESERTPHILE actually saw through him. He stumped me because he used allot of over-complicated maths, but Desertphile realized that the guy was just making up the numbers.
dechha1981 4 years ago
That's why atheistic societies become even more intolerant, violent, and blood thirsty as theistic based societies. Intolerant theory leads to destruction as fast as intolerant religious fervency.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Do you have proof for your claims ('intolerance', blood thirsty'.... powerful claims. Proof? Which 'societies'? How 'atheistic' are they?) or are you just speaking out of a place that is NOT your mouth?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
What do you mean "Atheistic societies?" Do you mean secular democracies such as Europe or Japan? Or are you confusing Atheism with Socialism?
Besides, Hitler was a devout Catholic. Theocracies are generally about as intollirent as you can get. Pick any country in any century where there was no distiction between Church and State, and tell me how "Tollerant" they were.
dechha1981 4 years ago
Perhaps, secular societies would have been a better term? We are at least in agreement that religious societies may be equally menacing.
Unquestionably, there are correlations between humanistic-atheistic-secularist societies.
These are often a philosophy behind an ideology. It's possible to have a communist/christian society for sure--even a peaceful one. But religion is never the real cause of war.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
But I will have to disagree with you about Hitler's devout catholisism in the same way I would question Saddam's true devotion to Islam.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
At least we know this isn't about science. Anyway, pure atheism seems to conflict modern scientific methodology if it promotes the belief in NO God. Since God cannot not be proven to be existent or nonexistent (Dawkins), such a promotion is non-scientific ideological, dogmatic, and intolerant.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Did I say I was an atheist? You probably shoudl watch my "Re: question to all atheists" video, where I explain my views on "atheism" and being called one. But then, why do I expect you to avoid an obvious strawman.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I don't - and never did - promote the disbelief in God. I promote rational thinking. Some people manage to do that WHILE believing in God (and some of them are excellent thinkers) and some can't. If you go by fallacious THINKING, you're an idiot, no matter what you're 'promoting' -- conspiracy theories, socialism, god, or atheism. It's not about the answer, it is about the METHOD of thinking. Obviously, you missed that.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
"they don't quite matter" ?
Interesting who is intolerant and looking for converts.
"Those who matter, however, are the people who are ignorant of the subject, and get convinced by low tactics and fallacious claims." (Freudian Slip?)
Calling Dr. Freud
Mooeypoo is looking for converts that are susceptible subjects?
Converts, fallacious claims, those who matter and those who don't.
Who are the fundamentalists now?
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Again, no proof, no substantiation, just exmpty claims and ad hominem nonsense. Really, my friend, seriously now..
Yes, I don't CARE about the idiots (yes -- IDIOTS!) who purposefully hide information, twist facts and act unfairly (using fallacious arguments!) to CONVERT people who are ignorant of the subject.
I care about the people. Obviously, you don't.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Great video as always. You really did your homework on this one. I'm not sure I'd have the patience. To them, science is changing general opinion and voting on what is true and what is not. In their mind, debate on evidence is the same as bickering to get your way. Cherry picking is OK in that frame of mind. I don't think they really care about what is true or not (they have already decided anyway), but about acknowledgment by the outside world.
Keep it up, you're doing great.
SYLVESTER1592 4 years ago
Again, I never said they did, I spoke to "argument of authority" establishing credibility before selling the argument such as Dawkins dropping names in the first three pages. (My proof of the one/single claim). You have access to the book don't you?
Then you responded by saying, your not listening I'm not talking about Dawkins and Sagan. Support your claims!
What claim are you talking about? Maybe your not listening?
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Mooypoo,
My only claim was "The argument tactics in the book are no different than those used by Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan to challenge conventional thought by first establishing some line of credibility or mudding up the waters before selling an argument." We are chatting about the beginning of the book.
Then you said, when did Dawkins and Sagan use strawman and false dichotomy?
PS This is a little straw man and argument by question.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
I don't see the point of arguing with creationists. If they want to live in an intellectual middle ages then let them. They consist of the brainwashed, the credulous and the plain stupid and the only people they'll ever convert are people in a similar vein as the aformentioned , the type of people who arn't open to or able to engage in rational debate in the first place.
boltar2003 4 years ago
boltar, I am not trying to argue with creationists, they don't quite matter. Those who matter, however, are the people who are ignorant of the subject, and get convinced by low tactics and fallacious claims. These people, I hope, will benefit from this video by getting counter claims to these tactics.
And, also, exposing the fraud of 'explanation' of creation may help with eradicating the ignorance about that and promote rationality in life and law.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
My dear Moo, Dawkins is equally low—name dropping as many as six icons within the first two pages of his magnum opus, "The God Delusion".
Dan Dennett, Julian Baggini, Steven Weinberg, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkings, and Herr Einstein.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Answer the claims I raised, not others.. what you're doing now is jumping subjects. I wasn't talking about neither Dawkins nor Sagan. For this matter, they're irrelevant.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Science builds on the discoveries and theories of others, no problem with that. Using them incorrectly is a problem.
I guess you either agree with the video or are too stupid to understand and just playing in the mud. Have fun.
loveisallneed 4 years ago
Evidently it's important to the Billy Graham of atheists. (I know you got him framed at your bedside or on your desktop background).
No need now to bring in Sagan. I like him. Sagan was a poet and a far better scientist, writer, and thinker. (He's on my screen saver). Dawkins is a Socrates wannabe with a degree in micro evolution and a chip on his shoulder Sound like anybody else you know?
What about the next chapter hmmmmmmm. Hey I'm just getting started.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
You're switching subjects, which makes me wonder if you even watched my video, and then wonder if you even HAVE any answers about the claims I raise.
I raised important claims about the misinformation these authors bring. They step into Astronomy and claim non-scientific claims as if they are facts (look at the vid again if you don't know what I refer to).
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Did you say whether the book was published before the data was recanted. That's kind of important.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
The article might have been (I think not, but I need to check), but the BOOK ITSELF (hence, collection of articles, and it includes a note from the editor, which has remarks about 'today' with NO MENTIONING of any corrections..) was published at 2002.
I'd say declaring SOMETHING, even at the editor-note is kind of important too, wouldn't you say? ;)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Certainly no worse when Carl Sagan claimed that the Iraq oil fires would destroy the earths climate. When they didn't he chalked it up to the scientific method--trial and error. Then let the book have its due, I suppose, as part of the methodology.
The argument tactics in the book are no different than those used by Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan to challenge conventional thought by first establishing some line of credibility or mudding up the waters before selling an argument.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
How are they not different? When did Carl Sagan or Dawkins ever use False Dichotomy? When did they use Strawman?
How 'bout you substantiate your claims, hmm?
mooeypoo 4 years ago
MooeyPoo,
I dont have to substantiate that either Sagan or Dawkins used false dichotomy or strawman because I never claimed they used such tactics.
I spoke specifically to the tactic of transference or argument of authority which you mentioned as being used on behalf of these authors for credibility. You described this use in the first chapter as a "low attempt of argument of authority." You then sardonically and sarcastically slide in "evidently matters to creationists."
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
You don't listen -- I didnt ask you to substantiate Sagan or Dawkins (I didn't even TALK ABOUT THEM in the video.. did you even watch?) I asked you to substantiate YOUR claims, which you are not doing.
I explained my impression quite extensively, and if you want to explain yours, you need to bring proof. I did in the video (quotes, page numbers and explanations). Your turn.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I'm glad to see there are ppl like you out there cleaning up some of that misinformation polution.
Flawless delivery. :)
SuperiorMind 4 years ago
Also since you are in contact with Phil, I'd like to make a suggestion to you both.
Phil said that he had to put his Q&BA series on hiatus due to a lack of time. When that happened I said on the SGU forum that the solution is for him to have an "intern" to assist with sorting questions, research, scripting and video editing.
Phil is of course, the greatest astronomy educator in the known universe - so I want to see that awesome little series back on the air.
What do you think guys?
IRONMANAustralia 4 years ago
I am not quite "in contact" with phil, I simply asked him a question, and he was kind enough to explain (as he does so eloquently). The trouble for me, is that I am a student - and I can't quite commit for time (which is why I can't promise WHEN new episodes will be available..)
Your suggestion for the formatting is definitely taken, and very helpful, THANK YOU, I was looking for suggestions to make things clearer :) thanks!
mooeypoo 4 years ago
This video series is a great concept moopy, but can I make a formatting suggestion?
You tend to meander around the main line of argument a bit, giving the overall feel of a Halle Berry speech.
I suggest editing each point you want to make into a more defined subsection to keep you on track and maintain a logical flow for the listener, (separated with a graphic and/or heading perhaps).
It should be easier for you to edit too.
IRONMANAustralia 4 years ago
If you take nothing else from my random arguments Moo, please use that intellectual talent that I do observe in your lectures and think on this.
Al Gore and his like are a far greater threat to the tradition of Science than any Christian astronomer or "creation scientist" that you could name.
Your talents are wasted on these fundamentalists. For the life of me I shall never understand the bitter atheist.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Ostensibly because that has implications for the dating of the sun as well as our solar system—fusing creationism with their own scientific theory. Is this so different than a politician who attempts to fuse ideology and politics with science?
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Nothing to date seemed to contradict the popular scientific theory of accretion, at least until a few weeks ago. As well, no facts seemed to contradict the chemical reaction that was "so obviously" depleting the ozone layer, at least until a few weeks ago.
Perhaps this is my problem. I understand these Christian scientists probably produced this book with the attempt to throw a fly into the ointment of theory concerning the inner workings of the sun.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
You have befallen the approach you so sardonically attack in that text.
We have our hunches, theories, and still what is a handful of facts that was enough to turn Hiroshima into a BBQ.
But if we know everything that is going on in there why are we still spending billions of dollars on space vehicles to take closer looks and even capture its emissions?
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
I didn't say we know everything, I said everything we observe support our theory. I also said that if anyone wishes to dispute the theory, he's more than welcome to as long as facts are supplied to back up the new theory. I even mentioned that this is how people get Nobel prizes -- through doubt, and finding out something new. (cont)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
So, I see what you're saying, and I definitely did not mean to say science is dogmatic. I don't quite think I did, though... next time, however, I will definitely reinforce that point. Thankyou.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Are you spending as much time in Church as you are reading about astronomy? NO? How can you make an impartial judgment if you don't study the other side? You're only seeing one side of the argument.
bornagain001 4 years ago
Have you ever truly learned what science says about our world? Have you looked around you and checked the observation? The "argument" doesn't have two sides, it has a lot more than that -- YOU are the arrogant one, who claims your side is one out of two possibilities; fact of the matter is -- religion has more than "2" sides, and science has nothing to do with religion.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
I would take your own advice, if I were you, and learn science if I wanted to claim to know ANYTHING at all about our surroundings.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
oh another thing, bornagain: I never claimed to be impartial in this "debate". I am admittedly very much biased against delusion and irrationality.
If you want to argue FACTS with me, I am willing to be impartial. Since your "side" argues logical fallacies and unfair tactics, I am proud to be quite vocally impartial AGAINST it.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became FOOLS." Romans 1:22
You are nothing new to the landscape of skeptics and unbelievers. You put your FAITH in your own very limited intelligence instead of God. You WORSHIP the creation instead of the CREATOR. So much bogus evidence (Heidelberg Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man and ARCHAEORAPTOR) and yet you continue to rebel against God.
bornagain001 4 years ago
Obviously you have no answers to the arguments I am making, since you're insisting on putting nonrelevant info.
I believe you should actually WATCH the video (you obviously haven't, the way you describe the 'evidence' i didnt even talk about). If you have ANYTHING AT ALL to response to *MY* claim (don't bring me bogus claims from other people, really..) go right ahead.
I dare you to.
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Again, you confuse the term science with a collection of facts. Science is not fact; it is a methodology with the ambition to produce fact.
Listening to you, one could assume that scientists today know everything that goes on in the sun in terms of the reaction, particles, fusion etc.
bodiezoffa 4 years ago
Please have my babies.
eric712 4 years ago
Thanks Mooeypoo, don't you love fundamentalist intellectual (the problem is that dogma creates mental disease and intellect just magnifies their disease). Just remember (rationalism is also an ism).
gunapie 4 years ago
About historical recording of the size of the sun: Plutarch described pretty precisely a total solar eclipse in the first century BC, saying that "a kind of light is visible about the rim which keeps the shadow from being profound and absolute". Which means that the sun covered about the same amount of sky then as now.
trondreitan 4 years ago
...or that the moon has shrunk or gotten as much further away as the sun has shrunken. Which conflicts with basic physics.
trondreitan 4 years ago
since when does a conflict with basic physics ever stopped creationists claims?
Great points, though, trondreitan, thanks :)
mooeypoo 4 years ago
Dammit! My internet connection sucks! It's taking forever for me to download your vids. From the little I've seen, I love the premise!
Keep up the good work!
imrational 4 years ago