Talk:Astronomy

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mackronking2 (Talk | contribs) at 22:17, 3 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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)

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." ColinRtalk 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)

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)

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)

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)
  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