Remember the “we’re-creationists-and-proud-of-it” creationists? Well, despite the press that ID has been getting, the older sort are still around. Today, they’re discussing not the beginning of the universe, but the end. Evidently they don’t like “dark matter” and “dark energy”, explanations that astrophysicists have proposed to explain certain puzzling phenomenon like the fact that galaxies spin faster than the gravity from their observed stars seems to allow.
Now, I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize these explanations on their merits – it is conceivable, for example, that dark matter doesn’t exist and that instead we need some new physics to describe gravity at the very coarse scale – see for example the latest on MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) in New Scientist (plain text). And the answer to this question could impact our view of the eventual fate of the Universe – i.e., will we get a “Big Crunch” or not?
But I think the creationist solution to the problem leaves something to be desired:
Evolutionists accuse creationists of inventing a “God of the Gaps” to cover for their ignorance of true science. It would appear that the high priests of astrophysics have their own Gods of the Gaps, namely dark matter and dark energy. What will happen to the universe? It won’t be the Big Crunch or the Big Chill, but the Big Furnace: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:10-13).
Astrophysics, schmastrophysics!
I do agree in part that dark matter and dark energy might not be a satisfactory explanation of some astronomical phenomena, but “the Big Furnace”? You gotta be kidding me.
Once again, this only reflects how America’s education fails to give its children a proper understanding of science. Look what happens when you get your science from preachers.
Whoever wrote that doesn’t know what ‘god of the gaps’ means.
The difference being, of course, that astrophysicists don’t just claim dark matter. They take the next step and say, “If dark matter is the correct explanation, we should expect to observe X, and we should not observe Y.”
Then they try to actually observe X and Y. When they find X but not Y, that’s evidence in support of dark matter.
steve s wrote:
Right, that should be a “dark matter of the gaps” or “naturalism of the gaps” or “theory with gaps.”
I blame David Heddle. If he’d have properly fine-tuned his puddle, we’d all be so much happier…
…But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
Ah, the “oscillating universe” theory: a “big crunch” (which will, of course, involve a lot of heat) leading to – and providing the raw material for – the next “big bang” – and a whole new universe! I can live widdat. Have the YEC’s got a timetable?
Well, we know dark matter exists, we’re made of it, and the planet we’re standing on is also made of it. We also detect particles of dark matter all the time. The real dark matter question is what type and quantity of dark matter is needed to explain our observations? I know it’s a pedantic point, but it seems that most people don’t realize that dark matter really means matter that doesn’t emit light, like rocks, or planets, or neutrinos. It doesn’t necessarily mean weird stuff we’ve never seen before. (unless you want to throw black holes into the weird stuff category)
Jacob Bekenstein obviously doesn’t know anything about getting a new theory like MOND accepted by the scientific community. He should have gone to school boards and demanded that MOND be taught in grade school and high school classrooms. Why wasn’t he screaming about critically examining gravitational theory? Where were the politicians crowing about teaching alternate explanations to dark matter?
I just don’t get it.
yes!
the inferno will happen on 6/6/(0)6!
oh… wait..
Equating “gaps” with “god of the gaps” is like equating “closet” with “monster in my closet.”
Science is a work in progress and many theories have gaps. In science, you attempt to fill in the gaps with reasonable explanations. In a “god of the gaps” theology, any gaps are presumed unfillable, and taken as proof of some supernatural explanation. Historically, the gaps have eventually been filled, turning this into a process of steady retrenchment into ever more minor objections.
That’s a surprisingly infomative site with an interesting compilation of science articles… as long as you ignore the “signing statements” that tell you what the article =really= means (handily color-coded for your convenience in not reading).
This from AIG a few days ago:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]006/0602.asp
I always thought that distant starlight was a problem for YEC’s but apparently not.
That’s over. What will the six-crazed maniacs do now?
Probably the same as they did after 6/6/66 !
obviously, they’ll pass the delusion on to their kids and grandkids, and get them all worked up about the end of the world coming on 6/6/6.… in a hundred years.
Wow. On a lark I actually went to that page and followed a couple of links.
My head hurts.
Apparently, Dembski feels that when God dictated Genesis, He was trying to convey the story by speaking to Moses not in metaphors, but in a observationally referenced discription of relatavistically adjusted space/time - clearly a good framework for a talk with a bronze age shepherd
(In fairness, I wasn’t smart enough to follow most of the details. It had something to do with being unable to ever synchronize two clocks - I have a degree in engineering, and have actually seen relativistic time dialtion in ultraprecise reference clocks - and he still lost me. I must be stupid)
Anyway, all these years I though God was trying to say “Yes, Yes, I made the world. Whatever. Now pay attention, here’s the stuff that’s important now. Apparently I was wrong.
From the “analysis” from the AiG post that Peter Henderson’s post #104489:
“Big bang supporters themselves acknowledge that the big bang could not have produced anything heavier than lithium, so the only way to explain the heavier elements, like carbon, is to say that the stars did it. Notice there is no observational evidence or recorded eyewitness accounts to support this, just man’s fallible opinions about the past.”
For some reason spectra from ionized elements from stars that we’ve seen explode don’t constitute “observational evidence”.
It’s interesting that there are repeated references to “man’s fallible opinions about the past”. Apparently man’s opinions (supported by observation, mathematics, and reason) are “fallible” when they involve any thing over 6000 years old. But when man’s opinions about any thing which happened 6000 years ago or less are supported by devine revelation (and contradicted by observation, mathematics, and reason), they are completely infallible.
Sigh…
tonylon: That is “warm dark matter”. It is reasonably clear to astronomers that there is insufficient warm dark matter to explain the rotation of stars in spiral galaxies. Thus the conjectured ‘cold dark matter’ which interacts only gravitationally.
Scott notes:
Isn’t that supposed to be Divine revelation? Especially Divine demonstrating the big bang. Nothing like a good John Waters movie to break the tension.
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)
6/6/06 is the day of the Beast. The Rapture will take place on the Lord’s day 7/7/07, ie. next year, being seven years after the millenium. Of course, if it doesn’t happen then, then there’s 23/12/12, when the Mayan calender runs out, or sometime in 2018, 70 years after Israel was founded, or after that.…
The number of times that they use the word assumption, actually makes me think that they believe that all science is based on assumptions (except their interpretation of the bible of course).
I’ve completed and passed an Open University course on Astronomy, and there was a section of it which covered basic cosmology, such as whether or not the Universe is open or closed ie what will be the eventual fate of the Universe ? The teaching videos that came with the course were really excellent and dealt with most of the subjects that Jason Lisle has rubbished in his article, like stellar evolution, determining the distances to astronomical objects etc. The thing that really amazes me is that Jason Lisle describes himself as an astrophysicist. When I read this piece of nonsense I wondered what type of answers he gave when he was studying for his degree/PhD. I’m sure they were nothing like the ideas he has expressed in his AIG feedback essay !
boy it sure was! I’m still getting over the hangover.
Peter Henderson wrote
Henry Morris took care of that 35 years ago. He proposed that light from stars that appear to be more than 6,000 light years away was actually created on its way to earth. He accounted for observations of distant novas by postulating that the star that supposedly went nova never really existed, but the “blob” (Morris’ word) of light indicating the occurrrence of a nova was created en route to earth – the star was never really there.
RBH
Oh you who doubt the mark of the beast and the coming rapture (by the way can I have your car when it comes?) the next certain end of the world will be 6/6/2013. If you add the digits of the year it comes to tada!!!-06. If that doesn’t end the universe Pat Robertson can leg-press your body from here to the asteroid belt.(usually reliable sources say he can -with some cheating- leg press 1000 pounds!).By the way I’ve met the antichrist and his name is Wayne Allard.
It IS kind of interesting that galaxies are observed to spin faster (and cohere better) than a best-guess extrapolation (based on our limited knowledge of local conditions) allows. OK, so maybe Newtonian and Einsteinian physics have made some invalid simplifying assumptions (or we’ve done so to make the equations tractable) and galaxies are NOT best modeled as one huge gravitational point source at the center orbited by gravitationally insignificant satellites. Maybe galaxies obey known equations after all, if we redistribute the mass according to (again) extrapolations based on best observations of local conditions - even if this condition is hard to model.
Still, the notion that 85% (!!) of the total mass-energy of the known universe is composed of “dark energy”, without any clue what that IS, is discouraging. Does “dark energy” mean *anything* beyond “something we need to insert into our equations to make them match observation”? How would we ever test for this stuff? It sounds a lot like “we just don’t understand”.
Still and all, even thinking of finding answers to these questions in the Bible exceeds any useful concept of sanity. Instead, I submit that these folks don’t understand the issues and don’t see any utility in doing so. As Sagan wrote, their world is haunted by demons.
So fine, these folks are surrounded by an impermeable bozone layer. But help me out here anyway. What IS dark energy? How would we detect it?
Flint asked: What IS dark energy? How would we detect it?
Take one bible, a foreskin collector and a child less than 7 years old , beat until firm, wash child’s mouth out with soap if any awkward questions arise. Any questions?
From the AiG article:
[snip]
These two quoted portions seem at odds with each other, unless I’m just missing or misinterpreting something.
In the first quoted portion, AiG states that if no direct observations of object or event X (in this case, X = the view of star formation as presented by S.D.) exist, and there are no eyewitness accounts of X existing/occuring, then belief that X exists or has occured is a “blind assumption.”
However, in the second quoted portion, AiG seems to realize that the above is not true; that just because X (in this case, X = the photon-photon cycle) hasn’t itself been directly observed and there are no recorded eyewitness accounts of X, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there cannot/do not exist good reasons to believe that X exists or has occured.
To me it appears that the “You haven’t directly observed X? There are no corroberatin eyewitness accounts of X? Then your belief that X exists/has occured is a blind assumption!” argument is not used consistantly by AiG.
If they did use this argument consistantly, wouldn’t AiG have to conclude that “the proton-proton cycle turns hydrogen to helium in a star” is a “blind assumption”, since there are no direct observations of this cycle (at least according to them; I have no idea if this is true) and no recorded eyewitness accounts of it?
The difference AiG sees is that we have indirect observed evidence of the fusion process, i.e. neutrinos. Apparently they don’t think you can use indirect evidence to support the formation of stars, despite plentify observation that lead to the conclusion of star formation. What the article really says is that, since nuclear fusion doesn’t violate their interpretation of Scripture, they’ll allow that it happens as described. It’s still fundamentally inconsistent because the nature of fusion in relation to a star’s operation is something we can use to determine the approximate age, distance, composition, etc. of stars.
Flint:
I wanted to respond to this:
Still, the notion that 85% (!!) of the total mass-energy of the known universe is composed of “dark energy”, without any clue what that IS, is discouraging. Does “dark energy” mean *anything* beyond “something we need to insert into our equations to make them match observation”? How would we ever test for this stuff? It sounds a lot like “we just don’t understand”.
‘Dark energy’ is best thought of as a label for a set of observations that don’t make sense but do tie together. The most direct piece of evidence is based on supernovae (the explosions of massive stars) - see http://supernova.lbl.gov/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf which appear to be further away than they should be. There are other lines of evidence that agree with these results (for example, from studying the large scale structure around us in surveys like this one - http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/ These observations taken together seem to confirm that the observed expansion of the Universe cannot be accounted for by matter (dark or otherwise) and we call the extra component ‘dark energy’, a name which I think is deeply confusing.
It is fair to say that we lack a sensible theoretical understanding of what ‘dark energy’ might be; it could appear on either side of Einstein’s equations - ie as a component of energy or a modification to gravity. Further observations are needed to get a grip on its physics and test theoretical ideas, but it does seem to be here to stay.
Sorry to be so OT, I thought it was worth adding to the pot.
No, baryonic dark matter, the sort of thing that comprises rocks, etc., is only about 4% of dark matter, and neutrinos don’t qualify because they don’t clump. “dark matter” primarily means “weird stuff” like SIMPs and WIMPs.
Thanks. It’s been a long time since I’ve looked at an HR diagram.
Ah well, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
;)
You are seriously delusional, Carol.
Caveat: this is how I remember it from 1st year astronomy:
Red giants are larger, but cooler. They radiate more infrared and less visible light. So they do radiate from a larger surface, but the total energy has decreased. Makes sense from a nuclear standpoint: helium fusion releases less energy than hydrogen fusion.
So, Carol, in short, my answer would be “not yet”. The star would fade, even though it is in fact larger.
If the graviational energy of the red giant overcomes the (decreasing) radiative energy, the star collapses and brightens again. That’s where you’d get yer nova.
“gravitational”, of course.
Graviational energy is when you gain weight at Thanksgiving.
It changed the meaning of her comment. She said something definitely more sophisticated and nuanced than “mere speculation” that you mocked her for supporting. Ergo, you quote-mined.
Which she didn’t deny, and which thereby reduces your garbage to a strawman. That you repeat it when it is pointed out makes it as blatant and deceitful as any creationist trash.
She said it, you omitted it, thereby changing what she wrote to make cheap shots possible, which you engaged in and which you continue to support.
Who cares? My assertion is you mocked Carol for something she did not say or support.
Of course it is. If it’s wrong, then say it is wrong. If it’s simple-minded trivially wrong, then let us know. But don’t lie about it, change Carol’s argument, and attack the made up strawman. Sheesh.
I bring it up because I am pointing out your distortion. You’re now playing the typical creationist heads I’m right, tails you’re wrong, nah nah nah game.
The meaning was inherent in what Carol said. You changed that meaning, quote-mining a strawman into existence. Sheesh.
You don’t get to quote-mine and then claim you’ve accurately summarized Carol because those are the issues you’ve decided are worthy. You are more than welcome to discuss what you want to discuss, but don’t attribute the “mere speculation” line to someone who obviously did not propose such.
And which had the effect of changing the meaning of what Carol wrote from something clearly not “mere speculation”. That’s called quote-mining.
It’s still quote-mining.
Which wasn’t Carol’s claim, or mine.
Why? Because you say so? Because you own philosophy?
It wasn’t thrown against it.
Liar.
Her original comment looked nothing like “mere speculation”. Your elision made it seem much more like “mere speculation”. That is all.
I made no such claims. You are simply lying deeper and deeper to cover your quote-mining buttside. I don’t like quote-mining.
These are just lies on your part.
You changed the meaning of her words. You quote-mined. Pure and simple.
I have never suggested otherwise. You have to invent more and more outrageous and blatant lies, just like the creationists, to cover your nonsense.
Entirely a strawman on your part.
It wasn’t a non sequitur, and I never denied the need for evidence. You are simply inventing things left and right.
Yes. But it wasn’t a non sequitur, and you changed the meaning, so in this case, the omission was not acceptable for argumentive purposes. That’s why there’s quoting (with excerpts and omissions totally acceptable), and there’s quote-mining.
It was an assertion which you quote-mined, turned into something different, and for mocking strawman you got criticized.
A strawman on your part. Who said it did? Sheesh.
You were mocking her for something she did not say.
Which is not something I said either.
Well of course. I’ve been addressing your disgusting pathetic creationist like tactics of quote-mining and strawman refuting. Sheesh.
Well, Bill, I did glance at your BS after all. Since you can’t and don’t intelligently support anything that you say (at least the little that I read–I’m not going to go on reading mere lies and false claims), I really don’t have anything substantive to add. I can only register my amazement at your inability to understand, and at your mendacity.
Apparently all you can do is repeat your falsehoods. Well do it then. I have explained things in my posts, and you seem not even to understand explanation any more than you do science, linguistics, and philosophy. Your stupidity and dishonesty is harmful primarily to yourself, and only mildly to others.
And now I probably am out of this thread for good. There can be no value in tangling with someone who has so little regard for understanding and truth as Emba reveals himself to be in his posts.
Glen D http://tinyurl
Well, Bill, I did glance at your BS after all, since I was a bit bored and a bit curious. Since you can’t and don’t intelligently support anything that you say (at least the little that I read–I’m not going to go on reading mere lies and false claims), I really don’t have anything substantive to add. I can only register my amazement at your inability to understand, and at your mendacity.
Apparently all you can do is to repeat your falsehoods. Well do it then. I have explained things in my posts, and you seem not even to understand explanation any more than you do science, linguistics, and philosophy. Your stupidity and dishonesty is harmful primarily to yourself, and only mildly to others.
And now I probably am out of this thread for good. There can be no value in tangling with someone who has so little regard for understanding and truth as Emba reveals himself to be in his posts.
Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Lenny and STJM,
Of course I was kidding. But that does not mean what I said was not correct.
For those of you wondering what an HR (Hertzsprung-Russell) diagram is, I submit my class website: http://inst.sfcc.edu/~gmead/Stars/stars.htm
Caveat: The website was created for Freshman-level non-science students, has been simplified, and is my understanding (as a general Earth Scientist, not an astronomer) of what is correct.
BTW: My understanding is that a nova (“new star”) is generally considered to be a sudden (days to months) phenomenon. The transition to a red giant from a normal main-sequence star would undoubtedly take millions of years (AFAIK) so would never be considered to be a nova, even if it did become brighter over that time interval.
fnxtr: Although He-fusion does release less energy, the star still has a high temperature in the core: ~100 million K, vs. ~14 million k for a yellow H-fusion star. This leads to H fusion in the outer envelope. The cooler temperatures at the surface are more a result of the larger surface area than the total energy released. And the temperatures are not insignificant - about 3000 k for a red star vs. 6000 K for a yellow star.
Roger that. Thank you for the clarification.
Update