Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Our Solar System


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
43 replies to this topic

#1
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

For those who claim that "science" must be accompanied by repeatable experiments, do you doubt the existence of the planets in our solar system?   Man has never been to any other planet so, using your own standards, there is no proof they even exist.  The science behind the idea they exist is the same science behind the Cosmology, which according to some is not even a science. Do you all doubt that Mars and Mercury and Venus exist in the manner described by science, since there is no "proof"?



#2
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

For those who claim that "science" must be accompanied by repeatable experiments, do you doubt the existence of the planets in our solar system?   Man has never been to any other planet so, using your own standards, there is no proof they even exist.  The science behind the idea they exist is the same science behind the Cosmology, which according to some is not even a science. Do you all doubt that Mars and Mercury and Venus exist in the manner described by science, since there is no "proof"?


Just to be clear here, do these people you are referring to also believe that photos from probes are not reliable scientific evidence?

#3
bopeep1909

bopeep1909

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,768 posts

Many do not believe in Jesus Christ because they can not see Him so He does not exist.God created our universe.I believe that the planets exist.



#4
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

For those who claim that "science" must be accompanied by repeatable experiments, do you doubt the existence of the planets in our solar system?   Man has never been to any other planet so, using your own standards, there is no proof they even exist.  The science behind the idea they exist is the same science behind the Cosmology, which according to some is not even a science. Do you all doubt that Mars and Mercury and Venus exist in the manner described by science, since there is no "proof"?


Just to be clear here, do these people you are referring to also believe that photos from probes are not reliable scientific evidence?

 

 

A photo cannot be scientific evidence, a photo is just an observation, and observations do not equate scientific evidence to the ones I am speaking to.  In reality the only consistent point of view they could hold is that even the very existence of the planets cannot be proven scientifically, thus should not be spoken of in scientific terms.  But none of them will come out and admit to such.



#5
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

As an Astronomy nut, I can assure you the planets exist.  They have been observed. I have seen Venus and Mars in the night sky and can tell the difference between them because Mars has a reddish hue and Venus is more yellow.  They do not blink like stars blink.  I have also seen these planets through a telescope. 

 

Now, as something that has not been observed, I don't believe the Oort Cloud exists and often use it as a source of defending Young Earth creationism.  This year Comet ISON made its first trip around the sun and died as it rounded the sun.  Most comets would do the same, so why do we still have comets if our solar system is billions of years old?  Well, scientists theorize there's an Oort Cloud outside of the solar system where most comets reside and are pulled in by gravity.  We have no seen this, yet it's taught as fact.  It cannot be scientifically proven to exist. 

 

I do not doubt the things I can visualize with my own eyes and observe, but I do cast doubt on the theories that cannot be proven with physical observation, like the Big Bang, abiogenesis, macro-evolution, etc.


Edited by anthonyjmcgirr, 01 February 2014 - 02:58 PM.


#6
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

For those who claim that "science" must be accompanied by repeatable experiments, do you doubt the existence of the planets in our solar system?   Man has never been to any other planet so, using your own standards, there is no proof they even exist.  The science behind the idea they exist is the same science behind the Cosmology, which according to some is not even a science. Do you all doubt that Mars and Mercury and Venus exist in the manner described by science, since there is no "proof"?


Just to be clear here, do these people you are referring to also believe that photos from probes are not reliable scientific evidence?
 
A photo cannot be scientific evidence, a photo is just an observation, and observations do not equate scientific evidence to the ones I am speaking to.  In reality the only consistent point of view they could hold is that even the very existence of the planets cannot be proven scientifically, thus should not be spoken of in scientific terms.  But none of them will come out and admit to such.

Is this the reason why Shiloh, Tristan, and Enoch are staying out of this thread?

Well, I will be checking back to see who is going to refute this "absurdity." No reason for me to add anything because I think observation is scientific.

#7
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

Observation is indeed a part of the scientific process.  Its how theories are proven or disproven.



#8
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,201 posts

For those who claim that "science" must be accompanied by repeatable experiments, do you doubt the existence of the planets in our solar system?   Man has never been to any other planet so, using your own standards, there is no proof they even exist.  The science behind the idea they exist is the same science behind the Cosmology, which according to some is not even a science. Do you all doubt that Mars and Mercury and Venus exist in the manner described by science, since there is no "proof"?

 

That is absurd.  It's like asking if we beleive the Eiffel Tower really exists.



#9
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

yeah I'm almost wondering if this is a trick question :hmmm:



#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,201 posts

 

 

 

For those who claim that "science" must be accompanied by repeatable experiments, do you doubt the existence of the planets in our solar system?   Man has never been to any other planet so, using your own standards, there is no proof they even exist.  The science behind the idea they exist is the same science behind the Cosmology, which according to some is not even a science. Do you all doubt that Mars and Mercury and Venus exist in the manner described by science, since there is no "proof"?


Just to be clear here, do these people you are referring to also believe that photos from probes are not reliable scientific evidence?
 
A photo cannot be scientific evidence, a photo is just an observation, and observations do not equate scientific evidence to the ones I am speaking to.  In reality the only consistent point of view they could hold is that even the very existence of the planets cannot be proven scientifically, thus should not be spoken of in scientific terms.  But none of them will come out and admit to such.

Is this the reason why Shiloh, Tristan, and Enoch are staying out of this thread?

 

When did I say that a photo is not scientific evidence?   When did Tristen or Enoch say that a photo is not scientific evidence?



#11
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,201 posts

yeah I'm almost wondering if this is a trick question :hmmm:

It's an immature question meant to be an under-the-radar attempt at mockery.



#12
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

yeah I'm almost wondering if this is a trick question :hmmm:

It's an immature question meant to be an under-the-radar attempt at mockery.

I've known LFA for a while and trust me, he is trying to make a point. There is no immaturity or mockery in his methods. Have you read all of Enoch's rebuttals against science methods?

Stay tuned, I'm sure this will all work itself out.

#13
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,193 posts
This is a Christian Ministry. Show me where this entire thread fits in?

Show me one post besides Bopeeps that is remotely connected.

Go back and listen to yourselves. And then tell me what a seeker or new Christian would gain from it.

#14
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

Out of all the scientific methods, I think observation is the most important.  Of course, different people will interpret what they want from those observations.  But observing something takes it out of the realm of theory into being proven or disproven.  I think with the naked eye we can see as far as Saturn in the night sky.  Scientists from wayyyy back have seen Saturn and its rings through the first telescopes.  There's no doubt the planets are real.  Maybe Uranus and Neptune are fake because we haven't seen them except through pictures?  And don't get me started on Pluto...lol



#15
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

For those who claim that "science" must be accompanied by repeatable experiments, do you doubt the existence of the planets in our solar system?   Man has never been to any other planet so, using your own standards, there is no proof they even exist.  The science behind the idea they exist is the same science behind the Cosmology, which according to some is not even a science. Do you all doubt that Mars and Mercury and Venus exist in the manner described by science, since there is no "proof"?

 

That is absurd.  It's like asking if we beleive the Eiffel Tower really exists.

 

 

Why? what empirical evidence is there for the planets?  What repeatable experiments can be conducted according to the Scientific Method that can prove the existence of the planets?



#16
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,201 posts

 

 

For those who claim that "science" must be accompanied by repeatable experiments, do you doubt the existence of the planets in our solar system?   Man has never been to any other planet so, using your own standards, there is no proof they even exist.  The science behind the idea they exist is the same science behind the Cosmology, which according to some is not even a science. Do you all doubt that Mars and Mercury and Venus exist in the manner described by science, since there is no "proof"?

 

That is absurd.  It's like asking if we beleive the Eiffel Tower really exists.

 

 

Why? what empirical evidence is there for the planets?  What repeatable experiments can be conducted according to the Scientific Method that can prove the existence of the planets?

 

Why are you asking ME this??



#17
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

yeah I'm almost wondering if this is a trick question :hmmm:

It's an immature question meant to be an under-the-radar attempt at mockery.

 

 

It might have been immature, I am not above such things. But the attempt was not mockery but an example to show how silly the view of science that has been taken in other threads really is.  



#18
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

 

 

For those who claim that "science" must be accompanied by repeatable experiments, do you doubt the existence of the planets in our solar system?   Man has never been to any other planet so, using your own standards, there is no proof they even exist.  The science behind the idea they exist is the same science behind the Cosmology, which according to some is not even a science. Do you all doubt that Mars and Mercury and Venus exist in the manner described by science, since there is no "proof"?

 

That is absurd.  It's like asking if we beleive the Eiffel Tower really exists.

 

 

Why? what empirical evidence is there for the planets?  What repeatable experiments can be conducted according to the Scientific Method that can prove the existence of the planets?

 

Why are you asking ME this??

 

 

Because you responded to my thread. And you like to speak of science not being able to provide proof, so what is the "proof" that the planets are there and that they have the composition that science says they do



#19
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

Out of all the scientific methods, I think observation is the most important.  Of course, different people will interpret what they want from those observations.  But observing something takes it out of the realm of theory into being proven or disproven.  I think with the naked eye we can see as far as Saturn in the night sky.  Scientists from wayyyy back have seen Saturn and its rings through the first telescopes.  There's no doubt the planets are real.  Maybe Uranus and Neptune are fake because we haven't seen them except through pictures?  And don't get me started on Pluto...lol

 

"Out of all the scientific methods, I think observation is the most important."

 

Observation isn't a "method" it's just an Observation.  They show nothing of Causation.

 

It is also the 1st Step of The "Scientific Method":

 

Step 1:  OBSERVATION of a Phenomenon

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement)

Step 4: TEST/Experiment

Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7:  Report Results

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

They're in Steps for a reason....so you don't skip any.

 

You do EXPERIMENTS....TESTS so, you don't fall into this conundrum.....

 

Predictions from an OBSERVATION:

 

Hypothesis: The Earth is the center of the universe
Prediction: The sun and stars will rotate around the universe

 

IF we base the validity of this hypothesis on just OBSERVATION then prediction, then it would seem to be factual. However we know that this hypothesis is incorrect. What this underlines is that a prediction from a hypothesis without a TEST may fit the ideas you think are logical yet may be induced by some other cause, one which is unknown at the time. This means you can't rely on predictions to support a hypothesis since to do so is to assume that YOUR hypothesis is THE ONLY CAUSE POSSIBLE, and to claim such a thing when one is not omniscient is absurd..... and, it's not SCIENCE.



#20
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

so you're really not asking for evidence, but just trying to make a point?  Now I feel dumb for wasting my time actually answering the question.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network