Talk:Milky Way Galaxy

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article seems to be extremely biased towards the big-bang/naturalistic worldview, giving the impression that such things as the age of the milky way being billions of years old is a fact. I would like to redress the balance here, and add not simply ignore the problems with these assumptions. TrondE 19:34, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Don't hold back! Fix the article, by all means. Earlier, I removed a passage about stars being millions of years old, but didn't see anything else blatant. But if you see something that needs correcting, get on it! JacobB 19:41, 24 November 2009 (EST)
I used the available scientific information from various sources that I could find, what exactly do you disagree with? Many of my cited sources are actual science papers. If its "biased" it is so only to a scientific point of view based on the evidence at hand. --BMcP 21:01, 24 November 2009 (EST)
It's biased towards an Old Earth point of view, or it was before I removed the biased content. The "big science" point of view is Old Earth as well, which is why the article is being considered for revision. JacobB 21:25, 24 November 2009 (EST)
"Big science"? Really that just means scientific consensus. As for the age of the young star cluster, I cannot find a source for that age, however virtually all stars except T-Tauri stars that are still forming are at least millions of years in age, but whatever I can accept the age reference to them being removed, it isn't important. Scientists do not just "come up" with these numbers out of the blue based on some bias, it is out of peer reviewed research based on evidence, you just can't slap an age on something. Not sure what any of this has to do with the age of the Earth itself anyway, since this is about the galaxy in general, not one small planet within it. Are you seriously suggesting that some "young universe" viewpoint is the only acceptable one? --BMcP 21:43, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Not at all! You're free to make whatever edits you like. I'm just pointing out that there are people who will disagree with you, who DO believe in a young universe, and their views are welcome here. JacobB 21:47, 24 November 2009 (EST)

BMcP, you are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, as is everyone else. But it is not acceptable to simply dismiss someone else's views out of hand just because they differ from your personal beliefs. TrondE 18:16, 25 November 2009 (EST)
First, I'm going to state that I disagree with the current scientific consensus in an old, "big-bang"-type of creation. Which means that references to God's creation are welcome here. Second, having said that, I also am going to state that while I disagree with BMcP in that respect, I think he's done an outstanding job in making all of these astronomy-related articles. I don't think any of us could have done a quarter as much as he's done in the few months he's been here. Karajou 19:08, 25 November 2009 (EST)
I agree with Karajou, your writing is very good BMcP! However it is important not to be narrow minded about all things, including science. Why did you remove 'atheistic'? Do you not agree that putting your faith in a cosmic accident over God's word is atheistic? TrondE 23:18, 26 November 2009 (EST)
The presence of that word in that fashion made the whole paragraph - if not the whole article - just sound stupid. That's why it was removed. Karajou 01:58, 27 November 2009 (EST)
The answer to your question TrondE is twofold: First, there is no evidence of the beliefs of the scientists who wrote the paper in regards to the age of the Milky Way, therefore it is an assumption. Second even if we knew what beliefs they hold, it is irrelevant to the section and article at hand. I mean, at that point, why not mention the belief of every other person I mention in the article? The answer is obvious. It be silly and pointless. --BMcP 11:41, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Edit Warring on Age

I'm changing it back because as it was, it says, "This is what's true. But Creationists believe something else." Now it says "Non-creationists believe this. Creationists believe this other thing. Debate continues."

I've removed the passage marking atheists as such that you see to object to so much, describing them as "Non-creationists." If you want to change something, feel free, but please don't change it so that it says one view is true.JacobB 14:09, 29 November 2009 (EST)

If you read the section above, this was already resolved when TrondE placed in the creationist section. Also why would the methods of how scientists came to this conclusion be removed, when it is very relevant? After all, it wasn't just some guess but a particular study and the how is important. Calling them creationist or not is also wrong, because we do not know anything about how they believe the universe itself is started. After the Creationist section was added (by TrondE), you decided to start some sort of edit war to rewrite what the rest of us already agreed upon, without any consensus or raising objections or anything. --BMcP 14:34, 29 November 2009 (EST)
  • Our policy is to present both arguments equally. Please don't remove science or Creation arguments, okay? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:40, 29 November 2009 (EST)

TrondE added a sentence, yeah, but that left it reading "xxxx is truth. yyyy is what creationists believe." I've simply changed that to reflect a more fair and balanced point of view.

We can be quite sure that anybody who subscribes to the big bang model is not a creationist. Creation science has shown that the "big bang" is likely false, and that the universe could not possibly be older than a few million years, which certainly fits in with the Biblical truth that it was created a few thousand years ago. Therefore, "non-creationists" is a perfect description of big bang believers.

I will go ahead and add the stuff about the microwave background stuff back in. Thanks for all your hard work on this article! JacobB 14:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Well unless you have some peer reviewed astrophysics or cosmology papers that shows the Big Bang is "likely false", you will forgive my not believing you. It is not relevant wither if they are creationists or not (although some creationists believe their God created the universe through a Big Bang), but wither their papers and research on coming up with that age passes scientific scrutiny and peer review. The best objection found was the website TrondE located, and while I don't see that is an actual scientific objection personally, for the sake of fairness I didn't impeded his placing in the article. Everyone seemed satisfied until this need to try and paint the original scientific research as a bunch of assumptions, in essence maligning them. I wonder now if it is better off if I toss that entire section. --BMcP 15:22, 29 November 2009 (EST)

It's quite relevant whether the "scientists" are creationists or not, in fact, it's the issue at hand. If you want to downplay the debate on your blog, to your peers, fine, but not here. You're right that I wasn't satisfied - I've explained why before, so I won't again.

You accuse me of trying to malign your point of view by pointing out that it relies on certain assumptions, but you seem to have no problem maligning the truth by calling your "big bang" theory "mainstream science" in the article - effectively implying that creation science is somehow less valid.

I was shocked at first when you said that you might "toss that section," essentially deleting your own point of view in order to censor the creationist point of view. Then, after looking at your user page and finding you were a liberal, my surprise faded - liberals hate free speech and creationism.

I'm going to change it back, and I'm going to keep this section in the article. I truly do appreciate your contributions to the astronomy articles here, you've done excellent work, but it is changes like this that were why Conservapedia was created, so please stop pushing evolution.JacobB 15:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)

How about you don't intermix the Creationist and Science POV's? How about a seperate but equal presentation? There isn't a reason to turn this into a big whoop, guys. I have confidence you two can work together and actually make this article better than before! If not, I have the ability to impose a solution, but I doubt either one of you will be happy with that. ;-) -- --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:36, 29 November 2009 (EST)

I think we got this, thanks. JacobB 15:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Well personally, I think TK's solution may be the best to go with. Spitting the POV on the origins of the Milky Way into "seperate but equal presentations". I can write what I accept as the age of the galaxy based on the research and papers I found, and you can write a YEC POV on the age of the galaxy using the sites and material you located. I am perfectly willing to go with his proposal as a good compromise and solution. It certainly beats tossing the section (which wasn't out of censorship but out of preventing a long drawn out, pointless edit war as it seems things we are not agreeing enough) What say you?

I imagine it would look something like this...

Age of Milky Way - Main section name
Secular - OEC Point of View (My info that I originally wrote) - subsection
YEC Point of View (The materiel you want, plus perhaps TrondE site also) -subsection

--BMcP 15:58, 29 November 2009 (EST)

That works fine for me, but I would need a stipulation - no addressing the other PoV in our sections. That includes using terms like "mainstream scientists" or something, which imply that the opposition is less valid. JacobB 16:04, 29 November 2009 (EST)
That works for me, I will set up the sections and place in my info for the "Secular - OEC Point of View" and make a blank section for the "YEC Point of View" and leave it empty, I will leave it up to you to fill it with your YEC viewpoint as you deem fit. We good? --BMcP 16:14, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Personal tools