Difference between revisions of "Talk:Astronomy"

Latest revision as of 03:45, December 20, 2012

Theory of Evolution

How does this relate to astronomy? Astronomy was a science hundreds of years before Darwin. "evolution of the universe" Is being used way out of context to place it in the same reference as Theory of Evolution. Conservative, why the need for YEC views? Do we have to start adding OEC views as well as the views from all the different sects of Christianity?--TimS 22:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

There is a need for conservative views at Conservapedia. YEC is very conservative. Conservative 22:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

So what about OEC? Or other Christian sects? YEC is conservative to YECs but not to everyone.--TimS 22:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

You did not answer the question about TOE. I do not understand the grounds of your statement other than trying to find another platform to try to slander the theory.--TimS 22:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I wrote: "For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[1]" I proved the previous statement. Case closed.Conservative 22:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Case close? Your cite has nothing to do with the relationship between TOE and the evolution of the universe statement.--TimS 22:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Tim, if you would stop using inflammatory terms like slander perhaps your points would be easier to follow.

• Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.

The theory of evolution is not a person. Even if someone is called the "father of evolution", that does not give the idea personhood. --Ed Poor 10:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed the definition of Slander –noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.

2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: You can slander an idea. That is besides the point the issue is that conservative goes out of his way to slander TOE in any scientific article he can. This is just getting ridiculous. The article is about astronomy for goodness sakes, where would TOE fit in? The cite that he used showed no relationship but he had the time, and nerve, to create a false impression. This is the issue, personaly I see this as vandalism (Unrelated content being place just for one's POV).--TimS 10:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

excluding earth?

I'm deleting "excluding earth". Astronomers work with the earth, too, as a body in space. Human 22:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, it's back in. Why? Without factoring in the earth's motion and gravity, it would have been much harder to know where to look for Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto. But at least the article itself has become real again. Human 22:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice quote mining, by the way. Human 22:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Now that is just sad

You know Conservative if I were to do the same thing you just did to astronomy, but using an evolutionary POV it would be vandlism. Colin was in the right changing your edits since they were unjustified for this page.--TimS 22:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

EDIT WAR!!! Ended by sysop protection with no discussion. Why can't all of Colin's text be used, followed by the YEC stuff? Human 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Opinion stated as fact

We don't state liberal opinion as fact here. ColinR inserted, "The fact that radiotelescopes can detect the light of stars billions of light years away proves that the universe is billions of years old, as the light must have left those stars that long ago to reach us now travelling at the speed of light."

No credible, unbiased scientist would claim that "proves" billions of years old, and no citation was given for it. That's a liberal opinion and should be stated as such, if stated at all. There are many reasons why that falls short of a "proof".--Aschlafly 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a liberal opinion that velocity = distance divided by time? News to me, Aschlafly. To figure out the time light has traveled, simple take the distance divided by the speed of light. ColinR is correct. --Mackronking2 23:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The line about 'proving' the universe to be billions of years old can be left out without omitting the section on recent research, which is well supported by evidence. To remove this while only leaving in the Young Earth Creationist stuff and then locking the article to prevent editing is risible. Here is the excised material, from which I have removed the disputed last sentence. Please unlock the article so that this can be reinserted. It does your project no favors at all to ignore scientific research in favor of YEC theories. At least you can present both and let the reader decide.--Britinme 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Recent research

Astronomers have searched for ways to find out accurately how old a star is. A new technique called gyrochronology, which works this out based on the star’s rate of rotation, has just been announced and will be published in the Astrophysical Journal. ^[1] Knowing the age of the host star of a planetary system helps astronomers understand how planetary systems change over time.

The research shows that the rotation period of a star changes steadily and predictably in line with its age and color. Thus, by measuring two of these attributes you can determine the third. The star’s color is a visible sign of its mass or surface temperature. The age of the [[[Sun]] is believed by astronomers to be 4.6 billion years ^[2] and can be used to calibrate the gyrochronology of most other stars.

There are other methods of working out a star’s age, but they have much larger uncertainties than gyrochronology. Unlike some other methods, gyrochronology also works well for stars not found in star clusters (‘field’ stars). It is used to calculate the age of stars that burn their hydrogen fuel at a predictable and steady rate; it does not work so well for younger stars, although the researchers hope to do future work to extend the method to these.

The forthcoming NASA Kepler Mission will yield more information about the rotation period of other stars, as this is information gleaned while searching for the transit of new planets orbiting across their disks. Once researchers have more precise ages for stars, other problems of chronometry can be solved and a better study made of the way astronomical phenomena change through time, using the stars themselves as clocks. --Britinme 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

"believed by astronomers"; what does this mean? RobS 23:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem revising the version I was using, I'll agree it needs a lot of work. But this entry is on astronomy not evolution, not YEC, not OEC, etc. Astronomy has little, if not nothing, to do with evolution. Cosmology, yes. Astronomy, no. Moreover, Conservative's overused misquotes are simply that. Overused misquotes. They have nothing to do with the actual field of astronomy, that is the study of space. The revision I used didn't repeat the same junk that Conservative posts on any article that doesn't fit his ideology. NOWHERE in this site has YEC been officially endorsed. Even so, Conservative is bent on advancing that view anywhere he can. The current revision discusses geology and the Big Bang theory, with Big Bang being the only thing that actually is somewhat relevant to an entry on astronomy, though it has no place other than a brief mention. The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption." Given this, it is a discredit to ignore their hard work because it doesn't fit in with your "facts." ColinR^talk 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so it is a fact they beleive it, the question is, what facts do they beleive? RobS 23:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary astronomy is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." [1] Conservative 23:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Facts

I'm confused here, and as an hostotian, not without good reason. It is a scientific fact there are 8 planets. One year ago it was a scientific fact there were 9 planets. Now, in historical reporting which "fact" do I use? And one reason I got into history is because I don't follow the fads of the moment, which the 8 planet fact theory currently dominates. How do I know science, or what it calls facts, won't change again tomorrow? RobS 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It's like the word "alive". It has a colloquial meaning, and science has worked with and suffered the consequences. The planets used to be the "wanderers" - the "stars" that moved about the firmament. There used to be 5 known to man (Hg, V, M, J, S) As we got to know our system better, we readily found U & N, and the tiny P. Then we found tens of thousands more and the distinctions blurred. Especially with the identification of a couple of rocks that, were Pluto to be a plant, they would be to. So the a definition was created that pretty much limits the word "planet" to the first eight. By the way, "history" is constantly undergoing revision and deeper understanding, too. Human 00:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

So facts today may not be facts tomorrow. I thought facts existed in nature, independent and observable; I didn't know facts were established by concensus, only to be revised later. RobS 00:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

You're confusing actual facts with terminology and jargon. It is a fact that Pluto exists. It is no longer considered a planet under the current definition, but the definition was never a "fact." ColinR^talk 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Forgive me

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have studied a little astonomy and a lot of theology and I'm not sure why the astronomy page has only a short paragraph on astronomy, then a bunch of stuff that is important to state, but is really kind of fringe among even devout Christians. Explain? Or am I overstepping my bounds? The above comment, for example, is sort of irrelevant. Just because some discoveries have been made and definitions changed doesn't change physics.JoyousOne 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

So the bottom line is facts, according to accepted "science", are voted upon, they are not something that exist in nature? RobS 23:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know where to jump in here, but I've seen two objectionable liberal edits:

• claiming that something "proves" the universe is billion of years old, which is a liberal opinion that did not even have a citation. No objective, credible scientist would claim "proof" of that view.

• deleting actual quotes by scientists, apparently under the view explained in quote mining that it is improper to quote someone for a statement critical of his own beliefs. Those quotes are factual and informative.--Aschlafly 00:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

First, I never asserted the universe is billions of years old, I simply reverted to a version that said this. If you want to change it, please, feel free to. Second, if they are actual quotes by scientists, it should be no problem to cite the original article. ColinR^talk 00:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, ColinR's argument does prove that the Universe is billions of years old. The equation is time = distance divided by velocity. Plug in the distance to a distant galaxy, divide by the speed of light, and you get an answer that is billions of years. Billions of years is greater than 6000 years. There's no opinion here at all. --Mackronking2 00:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Interesting premise, the problem is ColinR does not even make the arguement you claim. He says,

• The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."

All ColinR claims is it is a fact that scientists beleive something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they beleive.

I beleive it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I beleive it make it real? RobS 00:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Is your fact supported by many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists? ColinR^talk 00:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)\

Ok, why don't you rephrase this statement,

• The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."

and show us what the factual conclusions are, other than the fact that "many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists" beleive something or other. RobS 00:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Do you really want me to explain how our current understanding of astronomy was derived? I can, but I'll admit, I can't do it justice, unlike several astro professors I've had who could. If you're asking me to outline every "fact," then you're asking the impossible and refusing to accept the basic nature of science. New information leads to changes. Case in point, discovery of other trans-Neptunian objects, leading to the reclassification of Pluto. So, please, clarify what you want, Rob. ColinR^talk 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I think you may be seeing this is really a discussion about logic. I only asked for conclusions. They can't give factual conclusions, and they will tell you so. All they can say is "most people (in the field) beleive...". And it would in fact be bad science to represent what they beleive as facts, because they don't, and they can't. Even a scientist who, in his heart and soul, beleives in proposition X, would still have to add the disclaimer, "this is my judgement on the matter". That still does not qualify it as an idependent and observable phenomenea of nature. And the legions of researchers and astrophysicists can only produce a concensus of what the community beleives, they cannot establish the facts of this particular matter. And their concensus is always subject to revision. RobS 01:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

How about the cosmic microwave background? There is a theory as to what the observed data should be, and the curve it predicted, and the observations by COBE and other satellites?[1] --01:23, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

No, they wouldn't say "this is my judgement." They'd say, "all the evidence gathered points to this conclusion, and the conclusion reached accurately predicts other things." ColinR^talk 01:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be possible to link to and cite the papers instead so that any individuals who want to read the rest of the article can follow the link? --Mtur 00:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Another aspect to consider - there are theories about planetary formation, star formation, and galaxy formation. While it is reasonable to say that we do not know with certainty about these things, once can at least present information about them. If one is to present educational information, presenting information is much more useful than presenting someone saying "don't know." One could link to and explain http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955PASP...67..154H for star formation for example. This would be much more useful to a student or teacher who wants to actually learn about or teach about star formation. With what is here, one would be tempted to go to another site that has the information instead. --Mtur 00:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Quotes of scientists that are critical of theories should be included. They should not be concealed here, or merely linked to. As long as the quotes were said, and particularly if they go against the interest of the speaker, they should be here.

Claims about the age of the universe rely on assumptions and are often not even scientific, as there is no way to falsify such speculation. See Karl Popper. I don't have a problem with a section at the end that reviews speculation by some scientists, as long as it is not overstated and does not attempt to convert a liberal opinion into a statement of proven fact.--Aschlafly 01:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

No. They aren't speculation and they are falsifiable. If you'd like, I'll be glad to show you how all evidence gathered points to a 14.6 billion year old universe and even explain how they're falsifiable. As far as I see it, rejecting the current accepted cosmological views because you view them as speculation would necessitate rejecting almost every current scientific view since they're based on "speculation." After all, who's seen an electron? ColinR^talk 01:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

We are dealing with an issue of method. What do we mean by "scientific fact"? Are "scientific facts" phenomenoa independently observable in naure, the "fact" there are nine planets for example, or are "facts" determined by a concensus evalution, the "fact" there are eight planets? RobS 14:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

First, define planet. Then we can talk about the question of how many have been discovered orbiting the sun. The definition of a planet is much more difficult than nailing down the distance light travels in a year. --Mtur 14:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

We are dealing with an issue of method. A planet we shall define as fact A. RobS 15:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't quite understand what you are referring to. We can talk about definitions of planets, and we can talk about how many planets are discovered. The number of planets around a star is not a 'fact' as such. --Mtur 15:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

For purposes of this discussion, a planet is defined as fact A, it is observable in nature and undisputed. How do we determine what constitutes fact A? Is it done be obesrving nature, or is done by a consensus of professionals? RobS 15:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The definition of a planet isn't a fact, it is a definition. Thus the question of if Ceres (previously classified as an asteroid because it was part of the asteroid belt) is a planet, or if Charon is a planet (the center of rotation in the Pluto-Charon system isn't inside of Pluto - potentially an issue with the Earth-Moon system in a few million years too), or if bodies larger than Pluto beyond Pluto's orbit are to be classified as planets too. If you want to talk about planets, you need to define that word. The definition of the word is by a consensus of professionals. It is the same way one divides up the types of stars - O B A F G K M and all the various subtypes. These are not facts written in nature, but rather human classifications of objects in an attempt to understand them better. --Mtur 16:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

ok so we're getting closer to the method. For example, what ColinR and others wish to insert is the fact that most beleive "X", (X being undefined as either theory or fact). But the the fact is, the fact they wish to insert is, the fact that most beleive undefined "X". This is the factual basis of their "facts", the fact that most people beleive it. RobS 16:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

(outdent)

Lets take another approach to this. The Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away. This is not a definition, but the conclusion of theories and observations. Cepheid variable stars have a property that their absolute magnitude is a function of the variable period. This is backed up by theory and observation and is still being refined. Now, knowing the apparent magnitude and the period one can compute how far something is away (just as you can guess how far a 100 watt light bulb is away by how dim it is). There are other approaches that have lead to further refinements (eclipsing binary stars that let astronomers get the mass of the star which in turn is leads to how bright it should be which again, can give you the distance). This distance is not something that "most astronomers believe that the Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away" but rather it is an observable fact that continues to be refined to more precise values. The starlight problem is one that YEC have to deal with when talking about astronomy, but it does not alter the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. Nor does it alter that the most distant objects observable in the universe are about 14.7 billion light years away.

One approach to saying "the universe is about 14.7 billion years old" is "Currently, the most distant observable objects in the universe are 14.7 billion light years away. The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old. For Young Earth Creationists, this is addressed by the starlight problem which suggests that while the objects are 14.7 billion light years away, with creation light on its way to Earth was also created." --Mtur 16:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

• The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old.

I don't think we can say this; last I heard, "those who believe in an old universe" don't believe in an old universe. Latest theory says there is more than one universe, perhaps an infinte number of universes. Of course this is a contradiction, because the term "uni" limits it to only one. See, these brilliant geniuses painted themselves into a box with this endless speculation which isn't anything more than trying to say there is no God. RobS 16:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

My apologies, but what?! None of this has any implication on the existence of God. Nor does trying to argue from a word coined in ancient Latin suggest that there is only one (this time confusing definitions and theories). Science itself is about speculation, making hypothesis, and then trying to prove or disprove those. I believe that it is perfectly fair to say that the the implications for those who believe in an old universe. --Mtur 16:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Mtur, forget it. RobS is bent on using psuedo-logic and twisting people's words. ColinR^talk 16:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes. I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes. Nothing of the article in there itself. I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago. There has been much progress since then. If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.

And so, I bought a copy of the article...

Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."

This in turn is refering to an earlier passage in the text:

Extrapolating from trends in mass and orbital distance within this more representative subset, the Australian physicists find that "Jupiters are probably very typical" of the as-yet-unobserved exoplanets, says Lineweaver. They predict that 22 new Jupiter-like exoplanets--as big as Jupiter or larger, orbiting from just beyond the distance of Mars to a bit beyond the distance of Jupiter--will be found orbiting around the 1000 or so stars that have been monitored for more than 3 years. The prospect of familiar-looking planetary systems is more encouraging than earlier extrapolations had suggested, says Lineweaver, because by focusing only on well-studied stars they reduced observational bias and they also included the latest discoveries. (Extrapolation to the abundance of exoplanets as small and distant as Saturn is not yet advisable, the pair says.)

That theories are still being made and disproven and more evidence is coming in every year means that this area remains a rich area for research. If you are going to cite something, cite a paper not a page of out of context quotes.

Going to Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep and another $10 to Sciencemag.org... this article is talking about how deep field telescopes of galaxies formed about 10 billion years ago matured quicker than some theories suggested. Why waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies and not others. And so, the critique of the model:

As findings from these surveys cascade into the literature, they are shaking up notions about the evolution of star birth in the young cosmos. Observers have found that some galaxies matured quickly after the big bang and then flamed out, forming giant blobs of stars that may have barely changed in at least 10 billion years. Another population of galaxies kept evolving, churning out new stars for eons and gradually settling into mature but mildly fertile galaxies such as our Milky Way.

Current theories of galaxy formation can't explain why concussive waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies but not others--and why some of those fierce stellar fires got snuffed after a few billion years. Startled by their own data, a few observers have implied that modelers of the cosmos need new ideas to describe our universe's combustive childhood (Science, 23 January, p. 460).

Theorists aren't yet ready to revise equations on their cluttered whiteboards, but they agree that the surveys illuminate serious flaws. "We're starting from a shaky foundation," says cosmologist Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham, U.K. "We don't understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." Fellow theorist Simon White of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, concurs: "The simple recipes in published models do not reproduce the star formation we see. Theorists are now having to grow up."

These are paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of an article that goes on for a few pages. The article is about the observational data of the sky surveys, how previous ones have been lacking in one way or another (too wide and shallow or narrow and deep) and how the observations of several space telescopes at different wavelengths and the improvement of adaptive optics for ground based telescopes are improving the picture of the early universe that will in turn give large amounts of data for theorists to check against. --Mtur 02:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

If you want to quote Carlos Frenk about cosmology, go to an article about cosmology[2] - not from an article about sky surveys that is being used to disprove existing theories and models. In paticular, he's being critical of himself[3] - his research is "large-scale structure, galaxy formation and supercomputer simulations of the formation of cosmic structures." I am fairly sure that he is working on some new theories and models of star formation that will produce more accurate models (the article above is 3 years old, last month he published "Modelling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model" which is exactly what he is talking about the shaky foundation, and back in November 2005 he published "The first generation of star-forming haloes", a bit earlier he published "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars"). I do not believe it is fair to categorize him as 'critical of the materialistic science.' but rather he is working to extend it. Scott Tremaine was not critical of the work that he was commenting on and though it to be encouraging. --Mtur 02:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not a scientist, but I was my dad and I shared a hobby of astronomy when I was a kid. It is some of my best memories. I went to college, I studied science, although I majored in business. I am a practicing Christian. This whole argument is really weird. There is actually no debate among scientists about the fact of the universe being billions of years old. Why can't God have created this incredible universe back then? Why would anyone of faith try to make up arguments? If you believe it to be wrong, then it is a matter of faith, but don't try to make science match your faith. I can't prove God exists, but so what? I know He is there, and I don't need a scientist to tell me he is or isn't. JoyousOne 09:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

There's not so much an argument about the age of the stars as about the implications this has for Young Earth creationism. --Ed Poor 09:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Very good point, however if we are going to give a major edit space for the YEC POV should we not do this for all?--TimS 09:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I want to address an earlier comment:

All ColinR claims is it is a fact that scientists believe something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they believe. I believe it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I believe it make it real?

This statement is confusing facts about nature with facts about stated opinions.

• There are such things as facts about stated opinions.
• For example, it is a fact that someone stated "I believe it I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday." It is not a fact that he will hit the power ball. It is not necessarily a fact that he really does believe this. But it is a fact that he stated that he believes this.
• How important a fact about a stated opinion is depends on whose statement it is.
• A fact about a stated opinion is meaningless to me unless I have a personal judgement about the individual making that statement.
• My judgement may be different than someone elses.
• A fact about a stated opinion is interesting to many readers if there are many readers who have personal judgements about the individual making the statement. It is interesting to few readers if there are few readers to have such judgements.
• Facts about stated opinions are worth putting into an encyclopedia if there are many readers who have such judgements.
• My own stated opinions are only interesting to the few people who know whether or not they respect my opinions. They do not belong in an encyclopedia article even when attributed to me. They belong in an article even less when no source is given but are simply stated ex cathedra:"

"Conservapedia editor "dpbsmith" believes the Mac OS is better than Windows." Honest, but boring. Nobody cares.

"The Mac OS is better than Windows." Highly dishonest. It's just my opinion and I'm not even saying so.

"The Mac OS is generally regarded as better than Windows." Even worse, because it's concealing the fact that it's just my opinion.

"The late science-fiction author Douglas Adams was a Macintosh fan." Now we're getting somewhere, because there are people who care about his opinion. And by identifying him as a science-fiction author, everyone can judge whether they care to pay attention to such a person's opinions about computer operating systems.

Finally, I'd add that what is most important is that all widely-held opinions be mentioned. Relatively little harm is done to (say) creationism if a teacher spends ten minutes telling a class what creationism is, who believes it and why... even if he or she goes on with ten hours or days of evolution. The harm is when a class never hears anything about creationism, or, worse yet, when a creationist in the classroom is left thinking "Nobody believes this but me." And, of course, this works the other way around as well. Dpbsmith 17:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

P. S. I before E,
except after C,
or when sounded like A
(as in neighbor and weigh)
And seize/inveigle/either,
Weird/leisure/neither.

(You don't have to be an Einstein to be aware of other exceptions, but that jingle does cover most of the usual cases...) Dpbsmith 17:04, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for that well deserved criticism. What this seems to say is scientific facts are determined by the credibility of the concensus. Is that correct? RobS 17:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Well what do you think an acceptable definition of "Facts" is? Chrysogonus 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

On protection and revert of my edits

I believe I have previously pointed that the quotes are not in support of the stated position that was given with the above references in this page. Furthermore, the quotes themselves link to a page of quotes and not to the articles which is of no educational value. Could someone please remove the quotes or provide less misleading context for the quotes. --Mtur 16:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe you did or can demonstrate your contention. Conservative 17:07, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Could you please address these as an item by item failure instead of the general case? I am also having difficulty finding the full text to “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186 which is a 24 year old publication. If you could provide the full text so that it would be possible to look at the rest of it and see if what is being mentioned has been updated? --Mtur 17:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, so you lock the page once again and revert to the stuff about evolution which has no place in this article other than to push your POV. Seems like vandalism to me...--TimS 17:11, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

This is article about _astronomy_, not about Young earth creationism. Please, do not copy other theories here, link only to them and unlock this. --Aulis Eskola 17:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

To further elaborate and make it easier to track... --Mtur 17:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Scott Tremaine

The quote "...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." is warning about being too enthusiastic about the predictions made earlier in the article about planet formation. The paragraph that this starts out with is "Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries."

Carlos Frenk

"We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." is about the models that are being used to simulate the formation of a galaxy which are having difficulty with recent sky surveys of galaxies with a redshift of about 2.3. Carlos Frenk is an astrophysicist who's work is supercomputer modeling of star formation and has published papers such as "Modeling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model", "The first generation of star-forming halos", "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars". In this quote he is being critical of himself and saying that he needs more data (which the article is about - better sky surveys) to work from.

Michael Rowan-Robinson

The quote "We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe." is from 1983, years before the Hubble Telescope was launched and supercomputers were very limited. Astronomy has progressed significantly since then. This quote is out of date. The referenced article has yet to be found to show the complete text of the material and the context of it.

Commentary

I guess we will agree to disagree. Mr. Tremaine made a candid admission and given the track record of previous models one should certain be cautious about accepting Mr. Tremaine's materialistic explanation. I believe the star quote is very explicit and irrefutable. I guess we will also disagree about the third quote. I am skeptical that old universe astronomy has really progressed as seen by the 2002 and 2004 quotes. Conservative 17:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I thought the Hubble was another example of scientists scamming the public purse for more money; we spent $30 billion to launch it, and when it got there it didn't work, so we had to spend a couple billion more to fix it (guess who got paid twice for not doing their job right the first time). You are right, tho. Facts in 1983 probably aren't facts anymore today, so we should be cautious about what we allege to be scientific facts today. RobS 17:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Can you please provide a citation for the 'couple billion more to fix it'? I can't seem to find any numbers mentioned for SM1. --Mtur 17:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

In case you are still hunting, I found it for you http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/missions/sts-103/hubble/archive/910702.html - it was about $20 million. Thats a bit less than a couple billion more. Additionaly, you have the $30 billion wrong http://hubble.nasa.gov/overview/faq.php it cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit, and $230-250 million to keep running for a year (collecting data and analyzing it) --Mtur 18:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

You are willing to accept the "past theories have been wrong" but not "sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries?" You cannot pick and choose quotes. Take it all, with context or none at all. Carlos Frenk's research is about star formation, he is trying to further it. The quote in the context of the article is about the need for more and better sky surveys - not saying that the theories are wrong. Could you provide the full context of the third quote so that one can look at what is stated in the paper and what is stated in current research? The 2002 and 2004 quotes are about different things than the 1983 quote. In 1983, there wasn't any hope of looking at extra solar planets. Now they are being found at a reasonable rate. In 1983, one didn't have the power to model star formation - we do today. In 1983, scientists were not able to do Xray astronomy or see objects at the distance that the Hubble can today. Gamma ray flashes were still in their infancy http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/short_burst_oct5.html (you couldn't see the companion galaxy). Go to the astronomy department of the local university and ask a professor there what has been discovered since 1983. Alternatively, look at a astronomy text book from the early 80's and compare it with one today. --Mtur 17:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been asked to come over here and say something. The quotes are informative but I do think the entry could benefit from some direct discussion of astronomy, like solar system or Milky Way-type stuff. Maybe it could be developed here first and then inserted into the entry.--Aschlafly 00:55, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I am glad you think the quotes are informative in the YEC section. I agree with you that the article has to be developed. Conservative 01:04, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That is great Andy, tell conservative to stop locking the article when ever someone edits something that is against his personal beliefs.--TimS 07:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I double-checked the quote contexts discovered by Mtur. Finding them accurate, I noted the quotes' context so they don't mislead.-AmesG_yo! 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

What is this trying to accomplish?

Because velocity = distance/time, a young earth creationists wishing to postulate a universe of approximately 6000 years old faces a number of problems if one uses an a priori methodological naturalism approach to the issue:

If I am reading this right you are trying to discredit the first paragraph of "Problems for Young Earth Creationism" by saying that the approach of using v=d/t is not based on prior study or examination of science (derived by natural processes instead of supernatural processes)? I have to admit you are subtle in your assertions.--TimS 18:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where is the astronomy in this article? All I see is a big chunk of YEC stuff. How about some..oh I don't know...information about astronomy? I think I should point out once again NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONSISM so why are you guys ramming it down everybody's throat?Prof0705 21:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Simplified Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition and distinction between astronomy and astrophysics

Here's the problem to begin with: Astronomy is more about the topological order of celestial objects rather than the physical properties and processes of those objects, which are more related to astrophysics. The problem's that the definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is just schematic, for economic reasons, and maybe it's even imprecise. Remember that dictionaries are just supposed to give rough definitions of terms, but they don't give more precise explanations. Even though astronomy and astrophysics overlap, there is a clear distinction between the approaches of those two to the same objects of study. See, the second element of the compound "astronomy" is derived from "nomos", which means "order" or "rule", so astronomy is more about the topological order of objects on the celestial sphere or in three- or four-dimensional space, but astrophysics approaches the whole thing from another perspective, the physical perspective. So if you ask, for example, where the Sun is located, that's more about astronomy, but if you ask about its properties, like color, temperature, diameter or age, that's more about astrophysics. So you have to remember that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition is way too simplistic for the purposes of this page. --Pepsi-Cola 23:13, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Removed cited material

In this edit, the full text of the material was cited - it was from the article http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 that was quoted above. It was not commentary - it was the full context of the quote. Feel free to purchase a copy of the article and verify it for yourself. Until then, removing it as uncited junk is misleading. --Mtur 00:40, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

The VVYE point of view has been left out

I think that this article isn't nearly conservative enough. All this rubbish about science and billions of years or 6000 years. What a bunch of rubbish!! Anyone with have a brain should be certain that the whole universe was created a few hours ago!! It all just came into being just as it is now. Prove it otherwise!! You can't can you. How do you know it wasn't? Stupid scientist and stupid Bible studiers! You should have more information here on the Very Very Young Earth POV. The rest is rubbish that you all can't prove!! Wismike 17:53, 13 September 2007 (EDT)Wismike

Proposed rewrite

I know people have been blocked for editing what you don't want to, so I wanted this okayed before I go at it. I propose a complete rewrite of this article. If you wish to have it in, I will still address the YEC point of view, and the starlight problem, but at the same time, I wish to cover such things as the history of astronomy, key names in the field, subsets of astronomy, major issues in the field, etc.. As it stands right now, this is now simply "Astronomy disagrees with YEC, therefore is invalid". ENorman 10:52, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Proposed Rewrite Part II

This page needs to be completely rewritten. Only the first two paragraphs pertain to astronomy at all and that certainly isn't enough to adequate explain this field of science. The Starlight section should be removed as this is covered in a separate article and is really about a question or origins and cosmology. The Young Earth Creation section seems tacked on for no real reason and should be removed also. Instead an article on what astronomy is, the disciplines within it, and a history of the science is what should be here. I want ask here first if there is any objection before rewriting this article. I have noticed it has not been touched since June of 2008 and not significantly since September of 2007 making it inactive. --BMcP 14:49, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. Anybody coming to this article as a source of information on astronomy is going to go away disappointed and with a low opinion of Conservapedia. As it stands the article is rubbish and needs to be completely redone. --SamCoulter 12:34, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

References

1. ↑ http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5479
2. ↑ http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/handouts/Energy-of-Sun-better.PDF