A discussion about Science and religion

[Mazzy]

Ok, you didn't call me a YEC personally

Thank you. Can I assume that you also retract your claim that I talked about the Milky Way having a center?

I am telling you that scientists state the Milky Way has a centre ie a black hole sucking in all that is around it. Whether you or I believe it or not is irrelevant.

you just dumped on a creationist site

But immediately following your retraction above appears this new highly misleading characterization of my statement. I "dumped" (to use your terminology) specifically on a YEC site. The difference between YEC and reasoned OEC is far larger than the difference between OEC and evolution.

Any incinuation that a creationist site that has something scientific to say has less credibility than any other is in my opinon a 'dump'.

The other thing I understand is you like to avoid addressing the real issues I bring up.

As I've said before, first establishing a common base for a discussion is paramount. How can we discuss Temple and Smoller when even the simplest misrepresentations go unresolved for several posts?

There is nothing unresolved as far as any scientific discussion is concerned between us because you have had nothing scientific to add to the discussion other than begging the bluster of the majority.

Nothing is 'proven'. Temple and Smoller and the creationist work I presented are just as credible as the bluster of the majority on Big Bang, with their ridiculous dark matter no one can find and all the data that suggests Big Bang theory is non plausible, some of which I have presented.

"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world."

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory."

"In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY."

http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Given the truth is that Big Bang appears to have been falsified on numerous occasions, any handwaving non plausible nonsense offered is more comfortable than overturning the Copernican principle, according to the blustering majority. I strongly suggest that any galctocentric model offered of the universe has more credibility than BB theory.

[1over137]

About dark matter:
Well, how to explain motion of stars in galaxies? Why they do not escape galaxies?
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/ ... idence.htm

About dark energy:
As far as I know, it is one coefficient in Einstein's General relativity equation. Still, inflation theory is to be further tested as Temple and Smoller model is to be tested as well.

Many times physicists introduce new idea, go that direction, hunt for evidence which may not come. Many times we were just wrong.

[1over137]

Btw, to the topic. Studying science brought me even more admiration for God.

[Mazzy]

About dark matter:
Well, how to explain motion of stars in galaxies? Why they do not escape galaxies?
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/ ... idence.htm

About dark energy:
As far as I know, it is one coefficient in Einstein's General relativity equation. Still, inflation theory is to be further tested as Temple and Smoller model is to be tested as well.

Many times physicists introduce new idea, go that direction, hunt for evidence which may not come. Many times we were just wrong.

There has been much hoo haaa about dark matter being found. In this work from this year, what was found is that dark matter is a no show and previous findings were based on flawed research.

"PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — A new high-accuracy calibration of the LUX (Large Underground Xenon) dark matter detector demonstrates the experiment’s sensitivity to ultra-low energy events. The new analysis strongly confirms the result that low-mass dark matter particles were a no-show during the detector’s initial run, which concluded last summer."

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/02/lux

If funding is not provided to look at any other model that is obviously more plausible, then these researchers will be able to do no more than stroke each others ego with flawed research, strive to maintain their credibility that rides on dark matter and big bang and keep themselves employed.

[Mazzy]

Btw, to the topic. Studying science brought me even more admiration for God.

I agree. From what is observed regarding the universe, physics and a living single celled life form like bacteria, it is all incredibly complex and can only be the work of an intelligent designer.

[1over137]

"PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — A new high-accuracy calibration of the LUX (Large Underground Xenon) dark matter detector demonstrates the experiment’s sensitivity to ultra-low energy events. The new analysis strongly confirms the result that low-mass dark matter particles were a no-show during the detector’s initial run, which concluded last summer."

I underlined low-mass because there are models with massive dark matter particles.

[Mazzy]

"PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — A new high-accuracy calibration of the LUX (Large Underground Xenon) dark matter detector demonstrates the experiment’s sensitivity to ultra-low energy events. The new analysis strongly confirms the result that low-mass dark matter particles were a no-show during the detector’s initial run, which concluded last summer."

I underlined low-mass because there are models with massive dark matter particles.

Models abound. The problem is, there is no support for such claims. Dark matter is a myth that saves Big Bang from death.

""Scientists looking for dark matter face a serious challenge, in that no one knows its properties," says Schnee, also principal investigator of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) Physics Lab at SU. "Experiments have seen no signs of dark matter particles that have high masses, but a few experiments have claimed hints of possible interactions from dark matter particles with low masses.""

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091945.htm

Unfortunately, low mass dark matter has not been found either and previous claims were flawed, as per the research I have posted.

Dark matter and dark energy is nonsense. It was invented simply because the latest flavour of the month, ie expansion speeding up, turns Big Bang into a myth, yet again, I may add. These researchers whose credibility lay on the current status quo needed another insertion value to keep their myth alive. Do you understand that at all? All you are doing by underlining "low mass' is clutching at straws with all your might.

It's not just me, being a creationist, these scientists I continue to quote are well credentialled in their field usually being physicists. Here is another scientific team that challenges the existence of dark matter.

"The team believes that the interactions between dark and ordinary matter could be more important and more complex than previously thought, and even speculate that dark matter might not exist and that the anomalous motions of stars in galaxies are due to a modification of gravity on extragalactic scales."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... pular.html

Here is another one...

"The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighborhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111923.htm

It is not only me that thinks the idea of dark matter is a lot of non plausible nonsense.

The Temple & Smoller model I have presented works well and does not need dark matter. The only reason these BB supporters persist is because they cannot bear the thought of the Milky Way being in the centre of the universe. They can't even bear the thought of the universe having a centre. They have to come with nonsense such as geometric shapes with no centre. Seriously, the entire big bang shebang sounds like nonsense because the faithful would rather invent more and more complicated rhetoric than accept the obvious. Any other theory that has had so many contradictions found would have been falsified and thrown in the rubbish bin by now. Such work as Temple and Smoller present, (and they have volumes of published research), will never be seriously funded because so many researchers would look like fools if the Temple/Smoller work is actually validated.

[Mazzy]

http://thoughteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ciety.html

A very interesting article.

Interviewed were:
four world experts on religion and science. Fr. José G. Funes (Director of the Vatican Observatory), Prof. Alister McGrath (Director, Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University), Dr. Deborah Haarsma (President of the BioLogos Foundation) and Prof. Justin Barrett (Director, Thrive Centre - Fuller's Graduate School of Psychology). We discuss the fundamental roles of religion and science in society together with their roles in shaping our history, and our future...

Paul, I'd like to quote this from your link....

"It would be easy to argue such beliefs as out-dated at a time where we have such deep understanding of science, but history shows a constant tension between scientific and theological thought. It is perhaps the greatest debate that humanity has ever created. In ‘ Reason Vs. Religion,’ Tom Laity notes that “superstitions and religious leaders, philosophers, sceptics, laypeople and scientists, throughout history and ancient history, have endlessly argued and discussed the existence or non-existence of God, gods and goddesses”

“Some, who believe that a true religion should be supported by science, believe the tension is real. Others believe that the tension is illusory and based upon a misunderstanding about the nature of both science and religion.” Writes A. A. Sappington."

I agree that there is a field that can be called science. We see advances in medical science, biology, agriculture and we have sent man to the moon and satelites into outer space. We know why there are eclipses and we know droughts have their base in environmental factors.

Men, such as Hawkins and Dawkins have written books and articles such as the God Delusion. None of their claims are based on anything more than their own faith.

What modern science is observing is that a single celled life form is being found to be more and more complex the more scientists peer into the genome. The DNA world first has failed. The RNA world first has failed. The latest, proteins first, is no less ridiculous given proteins require a host and have never been observed to exist outside of a host. These sorts of claims are not science. This is the realm of wishful thinking that is called theoretical science.

It appears that very learned people, scientist & philosophers, like to pretend that if anyone can come up with a good story, theory, that alludes to explaining the universe or life coming into existence without a God, then this is meant to make a monkey out of theists. I disagree.

In actual fact 'real' science, like peering into a single celled life form and finding an intricate, and still to be understood, complex factory of reproduction, tends to support the requirement of an intelligent designer, rather than chemical reactions and luck assembling such a complex factory.

[1over137]

Let me check the links Mazzy. Get back to you then.

[Morny]

Ok, you didn't call me a YEC personally

Thank you. Can I assume that you also retract your claim that I talked about the Milky Way having a center?

I am telling you that scientists state the Milky Way has a centre ie a black hole sucking in all that is around it. Whether you or I believe it or not is irrelevant.

Another non sequitur. You incorrectly said, "I am not talking about the MIlky way having a centre as in your post above."

So the answer to my question is "no" - you're ignoring and not retracting your incontrovertibly incorrect statement that I talked about the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

[Mazzy]

Ok, you didn't call me a YEC personally

Thank you. Can I assume that you also retract your claim that I talked about the Milky Way having a center?

I am telling you that scientists state the Milky Way has a centre ie a black hole sucking in all that is around it. Whether you or I believe it or not is irrelevant.

Another non sequitur. You incorrectly said, "I am not talking about the MIlky way having a centre as in your post above."

So the answer to my question is "no" - you're ignoring and not retracting your incontrovertibly incorrect statement that I talked about the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Look Morny, I think the problem is that because you never respond to the information I present, I skim some of your posts and hardly read them.

Yes, on looking back I can see that you were going on about whatever, but never made a statement about the Milky Way having a centre.

Now can we get back to the guts of the discussion, that being, BB theory has no credibility, regardless of majority faith.

The Temple/Smoller model is more credible in that it does not need to invent dark matter and postulate over 95% of the universe is missing.

[Mazzy]

Let me check the links Mazzy. Get back to you then.

Here is another one for you to check out.

Redshift is based on flawed science.


"Two galaxies physically associated with one another offer the ideal test for redshift quantization; they represent the simplest possible system. According to conventional dynamics, the two objects are in orbital motion about each other. Therefore, any difference in redshift between the galaxies in a pair should merely reflect the difference in their orbital velocities along the same line of sight. If we observe many pairs covering a wide range of viewing angles and orbital geometries, the expected distribution of redshift differences should be a smooth curve. In other words, if redshift is solely a Doppler effect, then the differences between the measured values for members of pairs should show no jumps.

But this is not the situation at all. In various analyses the differences in redshift between pairs of galaxies tend to be quantized rather than continuously distributed. The redshift differences bunch up near multiples of 72 km per second. Initial tests of this result were carried out using available visible-light spectra, but these data were not sufficiently accurate to confirm the discovery with confidence. All that changed in 1980 when Steven Peterson, using telescopes at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and Arecibo, published a radio survey of binary galaxies made in the 21-cm emission of neutral hydrogen."

http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

[Mazzy]

How cool is that?! Does everyone see why for decades astronomers have been so excited at what the galactic red-shift measurements mean?

The point being Morny, redshift measurements mean absolutely nothing, as per my post above!

[1over137]

"PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — A new high-accuracy calibration of the LUX (Large Underground Xenon) dark matter detector demonstrates the experiment’s sensitivity to ultra-low energy events. The new analysis strongly confirms the result that low-mass dark matter particles were a no-show during the detector’s initial run, which concluded last summer."

I underlined low-mass because there are models with massive dark matter particles.

Models abound. The problem is, there is no support for such claims. Dark matter is a myth that saves Big Bang from death.

""Scientists looking for dark matter face a serious challenge, in that no one knows its properties," says Schnee, also principal investigator of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) Physics Lab at SU. "Experiments have seen no signs of dark matter particles that have high masses, but a few experiments have claimed hints of possible interactions from dark matter particles with low masses.""

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091945.htm

Unfortunately, low mass dark matter has not been found either and previous claims were flawed, as per the research I have posted.

Dark matter and dark energy is nonsense. It was invented simply because the latest flavour of the month, ie expansion speeding up, turns Big Bang into a myth, yet again, I may add. These researchers whose credibility lay on the current status quo needed another insertion value to keep their myth alive. Do you understand that at all? All you are doing by underlining "low mass' is clutching at straws with all your might.

It's not just me, being a creationist, these scientists I continue to quote are well credentialled in their field usually being physicists. Here is another scientific team that challenges the existence of dark matter.

"The team believes that the interactions between dark and ordinary matter could be more important and more complex than previously thought, and even speculate that dark matter might not exist and that the anomalous motions of stars in galaxies are due to a modification of gravity on extragalactic scales."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... pular.html

Here is another one...

"The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighborhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111923.htm

It is not only me that thinks the idea of dark matter is a lot of non plausible nonsense.

The Temple & Smoller model I have presented works well and does not need dark matter. The only reason these BB supporters persist is because they cannot bear the thought of the Milky Way being in the centre of the universe. They can't even bear the thought of the universe having a centre. They have to come with nonsense such as geometric shapes with no centre. Seriously, the entire big bang shebang sounds like nonsense because the faithful would rather invent more and more complicated rhetoric than accept the obvious. Any other theory that has had so many contradictions found would have been falsified and thrown in the rubbish bin by now. Such work as Temple and Smoller present, (and they have volumes of published research), will never be seriously funded because so many researchers would look like fools if the Temple/Smoller work is actually validated.

If I read correctly Temple and Smoller model adresses dark energy problem. I have not seen them talked about dark matter problem. Have I missed something? But still, interesting proposal.

Anyway, in the dailygalaxy.com link they are adressing dark matter. They propose another theory for gravity. There, force closely related to the distribution of visible matter replaces the effective action of hyphotetical dark matter.

If I read you correctly you complain about scientists pushing their views and funding according to their views. It is not first time. History reveals arrogancy and laughs and ridicule of new ideas. Such is the history.

You reminded me of words by Richard Feynman
"We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. There are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on. It is our responsibility to leave the men of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant; if we suppress all discussion, all criticism, saying, ‘This is it, boys, man is saved!’ and thus doom man for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."

[Mazzy]

"PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — A new high-accuracy calibration of the LUX (Large Underground Xenon) dark matter detector demonstrates the experiment’s sensitivity to ultra-low energy events. The new analysis strongly confirms the result that low-mass dark matter particles were a no-show during the detector’s initial run, which concluded last summer."

I underlined low-mass because there are models with massive dark matter particles.

Models abound. The problem is, there is no support for such claims. Dark matter is a myth that saves Big Bang from death.

""Scientists looking for dark matter face a serious challenge, in that no one knows its properties," says Schnee, also principal investigator of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) Physics Lab at SU. "Experiments have seen no signs of dark matter particles that have high masses, but a few experiments have claimed hints of possible interactions from dark matter particles with low masses.""

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091945.htm

Unfortunately, low mass dark matter has not been found either and previous claims were flawed, as per the research I have posted.

Dark matter and dark energy is nonsense. It was invented simply because the latest flavour of the month, ie expansion speeding up, turns Big Bang into a myth, yet again, I may add. These researchers whose credibility lay on the current status quo needed another insertion value to keep their myth alive. Do you understand that at all? All you are doing by underlining "low mass' is clutching at straws with all your might.

It's not just me, being a creationist, these scientists I continue to quote are well credentialled in their field usually being physicists. Here is another scientific team that challenges the existence of dark matter.

"The team believes that the interactions between dark and ordinary matter could be more important and more complex than previously thought, and even speculate that dark matter might not exist and that the anomalous motions of stars in galaxies are due to a modification of gravity on extragalactic scales."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... pular.html

Here is another one...

"The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighborhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111923.htm

It is not only me that thinks the idea of dark matter is a lot of non plausible nonsense.

The Temple & Smoller model I have presented works well and does not need dark matter. The only reason these BB supporters persist is because they cannot bear the thought of the Milky Way being in the centre of the universe. They can't even bear the thought of the universe having a centre. They have to come with nonsense such as geometric shapes with no centre. Seriously, the entire big bang shebang sounds like nonsense because the faithful would rather invent more and more complicated rhetoric than accept the obvious. Any other theory that has had so many contradictions found would have been falsified and thrown in the rubbish bin by now. Such work as Temple and Smoller present, (and they have volumes of published research), will never be seriously funded because so many researchers would look like fools if the Temple/Smoller work is actually validated.

If I read correctly Temple and Smoller model adresses dark energy problem. I have not seen them talked about dark matter problem. Have I missed something? But still, interesting proposal.

Anyway, in the dailygalaxy.com link they are adressing dark matter. They propose another theory for gravity. There, force closely related to the distribution of visible matter replaces the effective action of hyphotetical dark matter.

If I read you correctly you complain about scientists pushing their views and funding according to their views. It is not first time. History reveals arrogancy and laughs and ridicule of new ideas. Such is the history.

You reminded me of words by Richard Feynman
"We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. There are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on. It is our responsibility to leave the men of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant; if we suppress all discussion, all criticism, saying, ‘This is it, boys, man is saved!’ and thus doom man for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."

As far as the thread topic is concerned what is currently called 'science' in relation to the universe and how mankind came to be is not science at all, as you indicated. What is often argued to be science that only the ignorant would challenge, is no more than a faith that is pushed onto others as almost irrefuteable in essence. The sad fact is that current models often do not meet expected predictability. The current scientific method is a crock as evidenced by a rubbish bin full of falsified 'empirical evidence'. The holy grail of this so called science, is to reduce the earth and mankind to nothing of significance.

What is observed and does not need models and theories is that there are galaxies all around us as if our galaxy is a cenrtral view point. No galaxy has disappeared out of sight although theorized to be expanding away from the Milky Way faster than the speed of light. Despite bucket loads of statistics there is no sign of single celled life anywhere, let alone any evidence of intelligent life elsewhere to date. There are bucket loads of contrived reasons as to life has not been found, no sound heard by SETI, no life on Mars. To date, what is observed is that the earth is special. Mankind is special and the only species wishing to make sense of the universe.

In other words if the theory claimed is that 'earth and mankind are special', then what is observed and what has been found with the exploration done so far, supports this claim. There is no solid evidence to contradict this claim and all that has been observed is supportive of this claim.

Supporting or even one day proving the earth and mankind are special, which for atheists would take exploration of every single galaxy in the entire universe, may not 'prove' there is a God. Even then, atheists would lodge long winded arguments as to why no life has been found. However finding mankind and earth to be special goes a long way in progressing a strong argument that such co-incidence is unlikely if there is no Creator.