I understand. Rather than admit to a silly error – blame it on your monitor. Those creationist monitors will do that to you.
I’ve got several monitors, from an old one before the VGA days, to some hi-res ones. And I can display the HDF on them all. In one picture.
I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. But I wasn't wrong.
It is good to understand the context from the viewers point of view and learn about how to have a rational discussion.
Why didn’t you say that in plain English, instead of complaining about nebulous “information that labels each object” that you expect to see?
You ask a direct question, I give a direct answer.
So, as I understand it, you feel the science community should publish the HDF with text near each distinct object telling how far away it is from the earth?
Or how about a nifty interactive picture where they break it up into smaller pictures that show the data in a popup when you roll over it with your mouse. I know that's new technology and maybe those "star picture guys" haven't heard of it so when you see them mention it.
Was it the distance to each object you failed to find, or did you find the distances, but it was not superimposed on the HDF image?
Failed to find distances for each object in light years.
I see snide put-downs often enough that I don’t get very excited.
That's good. You deserve snide comments in return for your arrogant, uncharitable, and dismissive ones.
Kinda interesting that when I point out that you use “common descent” in a way I have never seen, and then I am at fault me for asking what it even means in that context. Are you one of those guys who beats up his wife, and then says “It was her fault”?
Anyway, here is what you said that you accuse me of playing stupid over:
I am going to translate “common descentists” as simply meaning those who believe in an old universe.
No. "Common descentist" are people who believe in a single common ancestor to all the diversity of life we have on earth today. But they get all worked up when one points out that there is little science behind deep time and more evidence for young ages.
I have to chuckle at the evidence you offer for showing that awkward information is being glossed over. Your evidence of “glossing over” – no picture with distance labels beside the objects. That’s it. Wow.
I admit it's just a small piece in a large body of evidence.
The claim of “glossing over awkward information” is pretty much a generic slap against the integrity of scientists that creationists levy regularly. Tell you what, Yorzhik, occasionally over the past few years I have been in contact with some of those scientists that ran the HDF project. If I put you in personal contact with those scientists, will you agree to be as direct in telling them that they are “glossing over awkward information” in deference to billions of years timelines, and will you be willing to back your claim with specific evidence (something more substantial than a picture that you want to see) in place of assertion?
Yeah! Put me in contact with them and I'll always be direct and honest.
I suspect you will not, since the HDF data (both raw and pre-processed) has been publically available for many years. The creationist community is as welcome to it as the secular scientists are, and I would be surprised if you guys don’t already have it. Here is a quote from a Cornell University website from nearly 20 years ago, speaking about the HDF data:
I don’t know how to “gloss over” data that is freely available to the public.
I'm sure our guys could go over it. But they can be dismissed because of their beliefs despite their good science.
Maybe that was done because you guys really need some martyrs. Or maybe you are just exaggerating once again. I have worked with a lot of scientists. And a lot of good Christians, some of whom made their beliefs well known. None of them got canned. Not a single one that I know of in any group that I ever interacted with got canned for their beliefs that I know of. Maybe I lead a charmed life, but I am only aware of a few scientists anywhere that got kicked out for not buying into an old earth. And in those cases it was for how they chose to practice science, or for personal issues, not for their beliefs.
So how many made their belief in a young earth well known and still kept their job? Sure, you can still say you are a Christian, but that is only as long as you bow to the alter of common descent, or at least drop a tiny bit in common descent's plate as it passes. Giving lip service to common descent has little cost to admit to, and a huge price to pay if you don't. Obviously human nature being what it is, just a little lip service to something that doesn't affect science experiments anyway just to keep one's job is easy to justify.
