Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our Solar System

44 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

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"?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

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?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

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?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

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??

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

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.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

 

Well maybe since you are new to the board people would listen to your answers, so I do appreciate them even if nobody else will.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

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.

 

 

Welcome to my thread.  Based on this post I will assume you do not view the planets as have been scientifically established, they are just an untested assumption.  Is that correct?  

 

Oh, and what experiment do you do with the planets and the stars to prove they do not in fact rotate around the earth?

Edited by LookingForAnswers
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Let me help. There is nothing on this thread that bears any fruit. It is an endless round of bickering. It asks of us as believers, especially the more seasoned, to conduct ourselves a little better.

Where is the light on the hill here? All I see is point scoring not debate.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

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

 

You are kind of taking me out of context, here.   I said that science has no proof for the age of the unvierse,  or the age of the earth.   That is all I said.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Let me help. There is nothing on this thread that bears any fruit. It is an endless round of bickering. It asks of us as believers, especially the more seasoned, to conduct ourselves a little better.

Where is the light on the hill here? All I see is point scoring not debate.

 

The reason it is being asked is because this is an issue that keeps cropping up over and over and over and over again. It may be beneficial to put this debate into one thread rather than rehashing it in every thread.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0