Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
RTB_Discussion_Group · The Reasons to Believe Discussion Group
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want your group to be featured on the Yahoo! Groups website? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Re: [Reasons To Believe Discussion Group] Hugh Ross' testimony   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #129 of 6073 |
Re: [Reasons To Believe Discussion Group] Hugh Ross' testimony

VR, Kent Hovind was already out of the fold with AIG before this incident
happened, and so I don't think that this had any bearing on that. My criticism
of Hugh in regards to trigonometric parallax has been consistent. It is not a
trigonometric parallax as defined by any astronomy text book that discusses the
issue and even by the first two paragraphs of Hugh's published three paragraph
description of these new measurements. If one reads Hugh's article, one can
only conclude that this was done with trigonometric parallax using the earth's
orbit as the baseline. As you correctly point out, the triangle is going the
other way. This difference is far more significant than you realize. I
honestly think that Hugh was shooting from the hip again and didn't fully digest
the astronomy literature articles that he cited. He's done this before. For
instance, I document in my AIG article how Hugh misunderstood MACHO discoveries
of dark matter as being in the LMC when even the titles of the articles should
have told anyone that the dark matter objects were in the halo of the Milky Way.
As I said before, these may seem like minor points, but they bring into question
his judgement, credibility, and professional competence.
I don't think that the great distances of these two objects was ever a
question for AIG - it certainly wasn't for me. I don't think it was for Kent
either, though he didn't understand at the time how this measurement could be
made. I've talked to him since then and I think that I convinced him.
Parallax is a standard unit of distance, and it is used even when distance
is not measured using trigonometric parallax measurements, such as with
statistical parallax, dynamic parallax, Cepheids, Novae, and type Ia supernovae.
Therefore it is proper to describe distances this way and I would have to judge
that NASA is competent.
I didnt' say that trigonometry was impossible at these great distances; I
said that trigonometric parallax was not possible at this distance at this time.
Danny

Danny R. Faulkner
a stellar astronomer
faulkner@...




Mon Nov 19, 2001 12:52 pm

faulkner@...
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #129 of 6073 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Yes, I do see a problem with this - the problem is partial quoting. Read the whole thing and put it here - then find the problems ...
Richard Deem
saved_by_gra...
Offline Send Email
Nov 15, 2001
4:31 pm

Rich, not even close. I wasn't partial quoting to force a meaning at all (don't be so suspicious). I partial quoted because I didn't want to type the entire...
Danny Faulkner
faulkner@...
Send Email
Nov 15, 2001
5:08 pm

After my post of a moment ago I looked at the web site that you sent, Rich. The text that I have is slightly different from the web site, but that is no...
Danny Faulkner
faulkner@...
Send Email
Nov 15, 2001
5:13 pm

I am sorry about the misunderstanding. I thought you were trying to point out some spiritual problem with the testimony, by leaving out all the spiritual...
Richard Deem
saved_by_gra...
Offline Send Email
Nov 15, 2001
6:52 pm

I won't hold anyone in suspense any longer. Rich, I had noted the one year discrepancy, but I had concluded as much as you had about the length of time...
Danny Faulkner
faulkner@...
Send Email
Nov 16, 2001
1:50 am

Danny, You obviously spend a great deal of time in attempting to find errors by Hugh! I'm impressed - What a piece of detective work! That said, Is this the...
vr_junkie@...
vr_junkie
Offline Send Email
Nov 16, 2001
6:55 pm

Danny, if I recall correctly from Dr. Ross's testimony that I have heard on audio tape and/or radio, he did get a New Testament from the Gideons; however,...
Kyle Witten
apologetics_...
Offline Send Email
Nov 16, 2001
12:52 pm

VR, I have studied Hugh Ross for nearly a decade. Of course I started off disagreeing with him, but my opinions as to his honesty/competence I only gradually...
Danny Faulkner
faulkner@...
Send Email
Nov 16, 2001
7:54 pm

... No, it isn't, and I'm glad you brought this up! I am very familiar with this issue. Regarding those objects and 3c 279 in particular: AIG accused Ross of...
vr_junkie@...
vr_junkie
Offline Send Email
Nov 17, 2001
6:20 am

VR, Kent Hovind was already out of the fold with AIG before this incident happened, and so I don't think that this had any bearing on that. My criticism of...
Danny Faulkner
faulkner@...
Send Email
Nov 19, 2001
12:52 pm

... wrote: When responding to this message I respectfully request that you respond to EACH of my sections with NO deletions. Let's look into this further......
vr_junkie@...
vr_junkie
Offline Send Email
Nov 19, 2001
6:29 pm

Danny, I saw Hugh Saturday and asked him directly (something you should have done yourself) the issue about the Gideon's Bible. Yes, the Gideon's gave him a ...
Richard Deem
saved_by_gra...
Offline Send Email
Nov 19, 2001
4:05 pm

Hi Rich: Thank you for asking Hugh about this. I agree that I should have asked him about this myself, but I don't have access to him. He is busy, and I...
Danny Faulkner
faulkner@...
Send Email
Nov 20, 2001
12:18 am
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help