Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

    The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

    This is the show from Friday July 1st, 2011.

    SUMMARY:



    * Real Science Friday Listens In to Spike Psarris: On this special edition of RSF, you'll hear from the stunning DVD, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy. Spike Psarris, former engineer with the U.S. military space program lists some of the very many observations that seriously contradict the standard evolutionary scheme for forming the Solar System.

    * Discover Magazine Astronomy Blogger Attacks Psarris & RSF: Discover's evolutionist Phil Plait accused Spike Psarris, of CreationAstronomy.com, of being deceptive because he uses the term "evolution" to describe naturalistic astronomy for, as Plait wrote, "evolution has nothing to do with astronomy." Instead of showing humility and dropping the issue, next Plait criticized Real Science Friday for our report on the spat, which included this comment: "Spike knocks it out of the park by showing the covers of nine astronomy texts, each one with the word evolution in their titles, such as Solar System Evolution."

    * Stephen Hawking's Circular Reasoning Exposed: Not as though that was difficult however. Hawking claims that in the Big Bang the laws of physics produced the universe, even though the Big Bang claims those laws did not exist prior to the Big Bang. And Hawking says, for example, that the matter of the universe came from energy borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe, to which Enyart asks, "What universe?" If you're explaining the origin of the universe, you cannot appeal to the universe itself. Honorable mention is also given to Hawking's ideas that people should avoid talking to aliens, and also that to escape global warming, the end-of-the-world doomsday prophet atheist astrophysicist wants mankind to go to the Moon or Mars, evidently forgetting that the Moon's daytime temperature is over 200 degrees (107 C) and that neither location has liquid water or oxygen. The Sun is Earth's source of global warming, and because Mars is 50 million miles further from our Sun, its temperature ranges from 1 degree F down to 178 below! So mankind should flee from a temporary one degree fluctuation in the Earth's temperature into about 200 degrees, above and below zero, and say good-bye to liquid water and oxygen. And if global warming is really so threatening to mankind, why does Hawking overlook the more logical safe havens of Antarctica, Greenland and Siberia?

    Today’s Resource: Get the Spike Psarris DVD What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy! Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine!
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  • #2
    Why does the universe look like it is speeding up?
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

    Comment


    • #3
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jefferson View Post
        So mankind should flee from a temporary one degree fluctuation in the Earth's temperature into about 200 degrees, above and below zero, and say good-bye to liquid water and oxygen. And if global warming is really so threatening to mankind, why does Hawking overlook the more logical safe havens of Antarctica, Greenland and Siberia?
        Hawking does not promote fleeing to the moon and mars just because of global warming (he doesn't promote fleeing anyway, he promotes colonies there), he promotes it because it is dangerous having all our proverbial eggs in one celestial basket. Threats like asteroids and nuclear weapons play a part in his suggestion.

        I think he even suggests eventually spreading beyond the solar system.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hmmm the video seems to rely on the argument that because science doesn't have all the answers then he does. Basically he equates "we don't know how that happened (but we've got a few hypotheses)" with "impossible to happen", given that our understanding of solar system formation is based our observation of other solar systems in states similar to what is predicted in the model that line of reasoning is highly questionable.

          It also see he doesn't address the biggest problem in astronomy for creationism, the speed of light and the distance of objects, but instead focuses only on the solar system. The theory of relativity is basically an auto-win against young earth creationists, unless they are able to show ground breaking new physics which would win them a Nobel prize.

          Comment


          • #6

            June is Gay Pride Month.Tolerance and diversity? ☞ More like tolerate perversity.☠

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tyrathca View Post
              Hmmm the video seems to rely on the argument that because science doesn't have all the answers then he does. Basically he equates "we don't know how that happened (but we've got a few hypotheses)" with "impossible to happen", given that our understanding of solar system formation is based our observation of other solar systems in states similar to what is predicted in the model that line of reasoning is highly questionable.
              No, it doesn't.

              It also see he doesn't address the biggest problem in astronomy for creationism, the speed of light and the distance of objects, but instead focuses only on the solar system. The theory of relativity is basically an auto-win against young earth creationists, unless they are able to show ground breaking new physics which would win them a Nobel prize.
              Strange that a video called, "Our Created Solar System" would be all about the solar system.

              But if you want to talk about the starlight problem, I reckon it's probably the strongest case against a young universe. And most of the answers are very poor attempts at a reasonable explanation.

              Start a thread.
              Last edited by Stripe; July 5, 2011, 08:18 AM.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                No, it doesn't.
                Where then are the positive arguments for creationism then? I hope I am not expected to pay for the full DVD to hear it. All I heard was claiming flaws and gaps in the current popular hypothesis for the formation of the solar system.

                There were some highly questionable claims to, to the point of incompetence or deceit, such as the failure to mention radioactive decay as an additional source of heat for the core of Io and claiming (unsourced) that calculations would have the planet cooling in less than a few million years.

                Comment


                • #9
                  There were some highly questionable claims to, to the point of incompetence or deceit, such as the failure to mention radioactive decay as an additional source of heat for the core of Io and claiming (unsourced) that calculations would have the planet cooling in less than a few million years.
                  It would cool off faster than the Earth, of course, but the same argument was used by Lord Kelvin about the age of the Earth. And his opinion was accepted until radioactivity was discovered and explained why the Earth looks so old.

                  It is.

                  Incidentally, Darwin used geologic and biology data to show that Kelvin's conclusion had to be wrong, but until another source of heat was found, scientists generally accepted that the Earth could be only a few tens of millions of years old.
                  This message is hidden because ...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tyrathca View Post
                    Where then are the positive arguments for creationism then?
                    Arguments for creationism are like arguments for the existence of life. It really is silly to ask for evidence that things are alive. And it really is silly to ask for evidence that things were created. Do you think they were not created?

                    The DVD shows reasons to doubt that the solar system evolved as evolutionists say it did. Evidence against stupid ideas frees us to look at the truth.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      And it really is silly to ask for evidence that things were created. Do you think they were not created?
                      Of course they were created. You're just don't approve of the way He did it.

                      The DVD shows reasons to doubt that the solar system evolved as evolutionists say it did.
                      "Evolutionists" don't study the solar system. Astronomers do. Creationists often conflate biology and science. Biology is just a part of science; there are many other disciplines.

                      Evidence against stupid ideas frees us to look at the truth.
                      That was Darwin's great contribution.
                      This message is hidden because ...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nick M View Post
                        Why does the universe look like it is speeding up?


                        Woman driver?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by some other dude View Post
                          Woman driver?
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Of course they were created. You're just don't approve of the way He did it.

                            ---Barbarian.

                            In your view of how God created things, i would be very interested to know where any actual creating was going on. Just one instance were God created a single thing. I will wait. Just one example where God created something. Then tell me why you think it was an act of creation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "Evolutionists" don't study the solar system. Astronomers do.

                              --Barbarian.

                              Do astromers who don't believe the solar system was created, believe it evolved? Do they study the solar system with the assumption it is made out of material that came from other parts of the universe and came into being through processes that involved no outside intelligence whatsoever? It is true that biologists who hold to darwinism do not study the solar system, but scientists with a naturalistic philosophical bias, do study the solar system and believe it evolved.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X