Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ckilmer

Sounds like this might be Cliff the Postman pretending to be an actual scientist. By the way SETI did have one important function. It has thoroughly debunked the concept of a big bang beginning by acknowledging that there are many blue shift situations whereas a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

ID is just as valid as any conceptual theory and probably fits the current, factual information better than other more traditionally held theories. SETI is probably worried that their funding might be cut if they do not support the politically correct version of reporting.


9 posted on 12/02/2005 8:52:18 AM PST by ProfSci (An Actual Scientist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ProfSci

?


13 posted on 12/02/2005 9:02:04 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ProfSci
Sounds like this might be Cliff the Postman pretending to be an actual scientist.

Well, he is the senior astronomer at SETI, and his cv says his Ph.D is in astronomy from Caltech, so mabe we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

...a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

Uhhh, no, it wouldn't require that.

16 posted on 12/02/2005 9:06:15 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow (Sneering condescension.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ProfSci
By the way SETI did have one important function. It has thoroughly debunked the concept of a big bang beginning by acknowledging that there are many blue shift situations whereas a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

This, plus your claim to be An Actual Scientist, is making my B.S. meter twitch. Explain how the Big Bang cancels all proper motion, and renders orbital mechanics invalid.

19 posted on 12/02/2005 9:29:56 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ProfSci; doc30; Senator Bedfellow
Not even close.

It has thoroughly debunked the concept of a big bang beginning by acknowledging that there are many blue shift situations whereas a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

The universe is a swirling mixture of multiple vectors thus some objects will move towards each other while others move away in an expanding framework. Thus, red and blue shifts would be observed.

ID is just as valid as any conceptual theory and probably fits the current, factual information better than other more traditionally held theories

Completely wrong. ID can not be supported by experimentation and observation nor can it predict phenomenon. Thus, it utterly fails to be a valid scientific theory.

21 posted on 12/02/2005 9:50:32 AM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ProfSci
It has thoroughly debunked the concept of a big bang

While the Big Bang is still an hypothesis, SETI has done nothing to bunk or debunk it. M31 is blue-shifted, but it is relatively nearby and is allowed to blue-shift.

23 posted on 12/02/2005 9:55:43 AM PST by RightWhale (Not transferable -- Good only for this trip)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ProfSci
It has thoroughly debunked the concept of a big bang beginning by acknowledging that there are many blue shift situations whereas a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

You should consider brushing up on your Astronomy 101.

30 posted on 12/02/2005 10:23:48 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ProfSci
ID is just as valid as any conceptual theory and probably fits the current, factual information better than other more traditionally held theories.

As others have pointed out, there is no possible set of evidence or data which ID cannot fit.

In the spectrum of ID advocates you find people like Michael Denton, who assert that evolution is 100 percent naturalistic and has no deviations from the description given by mainstream biology. You have Behe, who accepts common descent, but believes God has intervened at some points. You have young earth creationists who believe that all variation is simply a matter of juggling existing alleles.

In short, there is no theory or hypothesis behind ID which limits the range of expected phenomena. There is nothing that is even potentially unexpected.

43 posted on 12/02/2005 10:55:46 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ProfSci
Sounds like this might be Cliff the Postman pretending to be an actual scientist.

That's no fun! You should've done your impression first and then let us guess. Still, I'd say you nailed it.

49 posted on 12/02/2005 11:14:37 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ProfSci
It has thoroughly debunked the concept of a big bang beginning by acknowledging that there are many blue shift situations whereas a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

ID is just as valid as any conceptual theory and probably fits the current, factual information better than other more traditionally held theories

Where to you liberal fundamentalists dream this stuff up???

Of course you would expect some blue shifted objects under the big bang. The obvious example is the Andromeda galaxy, which is blue shifted because it is moving towards us (actually, the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies will collide in the distant future). This effect is a consequence that the universe is not in absolute lock step: there are fluctuations and eddies. And fluctuations and eddies are exactly what you would expect from the big bang.

Indeed the variations in the observed mass distribution of the observable universe and in the cosmic microwave background are consistent with the levels of quantum fluctuations from the early big bang.

Duh

And, ID is not a theory at all. It was once, maybe, a working hypothesis. However, the total scientific output of ID is zero, so it cannot qualify as any kind of actual theory.

BTW, is ProfSci a professor of Scientology by any chance??

55 posted on 12/02/2005 11:36:09 AM PST by 2ndreconmarine (Horse feces (929 citations) vs ID (0 citations) and horse feces wins!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ProfSci
"Sounds like this might be Cliff the Postman pretending to be an actual scientist. By the way SETI did have one important function. It has thoroughly debunked the concept of a big bang beginning by acknowledging that there are many blue shift situations whereas a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

Although your bunk has been properly debunked by a number of others I just have to put my 2cents worth in, lest anyone think I've gone missing.

For any lurkers out there that do not understand what the point of this post is, here is my interpretation.

The universe developed from the big bang which was not, contrary to what some believe, an explosion but a rapid expansion of space itself. It has been referred to as an inflation, where, much like dots on the surface of a balloon during the process of being inflated, the fabric of space is expanding, increasing the distance between cosmic objects.

If this all there was to the concept all we should see is a red shift in the hydrogen spectral line (a Doppler shift toward the red end of the spectrum) as all cosmic objects speed away from us. In this case a blue shift (a Doppler shift toward the blue end of the spectrum) would signify an object approaching us rather than receding from us.

It's obvious that the OP has forgotten that within expanding space, movement is possible and in fact all objects in space are doing just that, moving in observable and predicable patterns, including moving toward us more quickly than space itself is expanding. This gives us a blue shift.

"ID is just as valid as any conceptual theory and probably fits the current, factual information better than other more traditionally held theories. SETI is probably worried that their funding might be cut if they do not support the politically correct version of reporting.

Except ID starts from the false premise that only intelligence can produce what appears to be specified complexity, but SETI instead of relying on some shot in the dark premise of complexity, uses artificiality (in other words something we have yet to see nature produce).

141 posted on 12/02/2005 7:08:46 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson