Difference between revisions of "Talk:Andromeda galaxy"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Stop.. wait: some interesting facts have been deleted)
(Stop.. wait: I'm fine with including historical facts about opinions of scientists and others)
Line 43: Line 43:
  
 
::::: I think that some interesting facts have been deleted. There was a big public debate about some of these issues in 1920. It was resolved a few years later. If you want open-mindedness, then why don't you include the arguments of the losing side of that 1920 debate? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:20, 11 February 2010 (EST)
 
::::: I think that some interesting facts have been deleted. There was a big public debate about some of these issues in 1920. It was resolved a few years later. If you want open-mindedness, then why don't you include the arguments of the losing side of that 1920 debate? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:20, 11 February 2010 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::: I'm fine with including historical facts about opinions of scientists and others.  For example, an entry could say that it was the consensus of scientists in the 1970s that the world was becoming dangerously over-populated to the extent that mass starvation was likely (the widely taught [[population bomb]]), or that that until the 1990s it was the consensus of scientists that life existed in outer space, justifying the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars to find it.  But science is plainly not resolved by consensus, as those two examples illustrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:28, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Revision as of 16:28, 11 February 2010

Disclaimer

Perhaps at the top of each astronomy article we can put a disclaimer like "This article assumes a universe that is approximately 13,7 billion years old. This is just a theory and in no way has been proven." That way we can keep in the science. DaneW 00:15, 11 February 2010 (EST)

How about you actually read the comment I left the other day on your talk page? I find you deceitful, stating one purpose for being here, and editing everything but. Did you follow the links to the other pages linked to the Commandments? The are adjunct to them, as clearly stated on their page. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:32, 11 February 2010 (EST)
I've had a dispute with another editor here, BMcP, regarding this. The compromise we reached is that material which states or implies the universe is millions of years old or older should be placed in a "Old Universe View" section, while material that states or implies that universe is thousands of years old or younger should be placed in a "Young Universe Section." This agreement seems to me to satisfy all parties. JacobB 02:19, 11 February 2010 (EST)
I don't think "compromises" as to the deceit of an editor here are within my purview, Jacob...that would be between the user and God. What is within my purview is the decision as to if CP should be an enabler for his deceit. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am certain I have the ability to decide this. ;-) --ṬK/Admin/Talk 04:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)
Whoa, okay TK that was uncalled for. There is one small area that references to age in this article: "From this the astronomers calcuated that the various stars of Andromeda's halo vary in age from 6 to 13 billion years, a much wider range then the halo population of the Milky Way that mostly consists of metal-poor stars some 11-13 billion years old.[1] ".
That was placed in before the compromise JacobB and I reached in regards to talking about age of the universe and how they should be placed into an "Old Universe View" and "Young Universe View" section. No one just got around to this article yet in light of that compromise. No one is trying to be deceitful, and I resent the implication, what is worse is you know how to contact me directly live, you could have asked instead of assumed I am trying something "deceitful". --BMcP 08:29, 11 February 2010 (EST)
I was addressing Jacob's and DaneW's comments here, BMcP, and nothing else. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:40, 11 February 2010 (EST)
Then I apologize. --BMcP 08:51, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Atcually, TK, I was trying to tell Dane why his idea was a bad one, ie, support you. JacobB 11:45, 11 February 2010 (EST)

A disclaimer doesn't resolve logical flaws or over-reliance on assumptions or atheism-pushing. I found it astounding how much this entry pushed an old universe, atheistic ideology for no apparent scientific purpose.

I would oppose a disclaimer that said, for example, "this entry assumes that greenhouse gases are causing the world to become dangerously warmer."--Andy Schlafly 06:26, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Stop.. wait

Why is distance and size information being ripped out of this article, especially since it is virtually all cited? Why isn't it discussed first in the talk section here? What is disputed about distance? Distance to extra-galactic objects are not just guessed at and it doesn't imply age, it just implies distance. I mean how small do people think the universe is? As far as I know, but creationists and non-creationists agree the universe is very large and most galaxies are millions or billions of light years away. --BMcP 08:29, 11 February 2010 (EST)

BMcP, I explained this on your talk page many days ago, without a satisfactory response. We don't simply repeat, robot-like, the implausible or illogical claims of atheists here. You're in the wrong place for that. Mindless repetition of liberal claims may work on Wikipedia, but not here.
An example is the claim that you've just reinserted that this galaxy will collide with Earth in many billions of years. It's a ludicrous, non-scientific assertion that is simply designed to pry people from the Bible and from God.
I've begged you to reconsider the liberal assumptions with an open mind. I've begged you to open the Bible and spend some meaningful time reading it with an open mind. But I can't and wouldn't force you to do either. What I will do is keep the atheistic nonsense off this site, unless you want to post it under a new entry entitled "liberal claims lacking in scientific verification."
The radial velocity of the Andromeda galaxy with respect to the Milky Way can be measured by examining the Doppler shift of spectral lines from stars in the galaxy. Using this the Andromeda Galaxy is approaching the Sun at about 100 to 140 kilometers per second.[1] We can then estimate how long it would be before the galaxies meet up using math. That is how we get the estimate of 2.5 billion or so years. I will however concede that the collision is uncertain because the two galaxies may move past each other instead because we cannot exactly measure Andromeda's transverse velocity. Because of that, I will change the text about the galaxies colliding to being uncertain. Is this acceptable?
The claim is completely unverifiable. It's absurd even to contemplate whether the universe would exist so far into the future, not to mention the assumptions you're making about physical constants.
BMcP, I'm not going to spend all day urging you again and again to open your mind and confront the liberal assumptions. Open your mind or go edit on another site. Atheistic Wikipedia might welcome the unverified, pro-liberal junk science.--Andy Schlafly 10:32, 11 February 2010 (EST)
Measuring the galaxy's distance, velocity, and size is cited over and over, I urge you to actually read the science papers linked. As for its approach, you can measure that using the Doppler Effect, if you do not understand this effect, there are articles explaining how it works. You can even measure yourself using the right equipment. My only assumption is the raw data isn't fudged and if it is, any measurement will soon show that, so I am confident in the data. --BMcP 11:50, 11 February 2010 (EST)
No, that isn't atheists' only assumption underlying their claims, and you are simply parroting their claims. I've begged you to open your mind and reconsider, but you seemed determine to repeat and repeat the atheistic claims of others. That may work on some sites, but not here. We require open-mindedness here, and a willingness to reason independently. It's not too much to ask.--Andy Schlafly 15:41, 11 February 2010 (EST)
I think that some interesting facts have been deleted. There was a big public debate about some of these issues in 1920. It was resolved a few years later. If you want open-mindedness, then why don't you include the arguments of the losing side of that 1920 debate? RSchlafly 17:20, 11 February 2010 (EST)
I'm fine with including historical facts about opinions of scientists and others. For example, an entry could say that it was the consensus of scientists in the 1970s that the world was becoming dangerously over-populated to the extent that mass starvation was likely (the widely taught population bomb), or that that until the 1990s it was the consensus of scientists that life existed in outer space, justifying the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars to find it. But science is plainly not resolved by consensus, as those two examples illustrate.--Andy Schlafly 17:28, 11 February 2010 (EST)
  1. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3307606.html?page=1&c=y