A discussion about Science and religion

[1over137]

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.

Holy grail of science is to understand the universe. Some scientists may produce 'rubbish' but I would not paint with a broad brush. Not all scientists are anti-scientists.

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.

It may appear that we are in centre but it may appear from other galaxies as well.

No galaxy has disappeared out of sight although theorized to be expanding away from the Milky Way faster than the speed of light.

How we can see it disappear once we see it? We would see coming light in more reddish spectrum. Or not?

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.

Do we have bucket loads of statistic? How many stars are there and how many we examined?

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.

One day more scientists may realize God created the universe.

[Mazzy]

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.

Holy grail of science is to understand the universe. Some scientists may produce 'rubbish' but I would not paint with a broad brush. Not all scientists are anti-scientists.

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.

It may appear that we are in centre but it may appear from other galaxies as well.

Don't confuse what is observed with a wish list! If the Milky Way and the universe were on the outer edge of a ball then there should be fewer galaxies to observe in one direction. That is not the case, and likely partly why scientists have to invent non plausible nonsense like geometric shapes with no centre.

No galaxy has disappeared out of sight although theorized to be expanding away from the Milky Way faster than the speed of light.

How we can see it disappear once we see it? We would see coming light in more reddish spectrum. Or not?

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.

Do we have bucket loads of statistic? How many stars are there and how many we examined?

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.

One day more scientists may realize God created the universe.

I have posted much that demonstrates the redshift rhetoric is rubbish and Big Bang theory is more a matter of faith, than credible science. I am sure these scientists actually believe their myth. The hoot for me is they will ridicule any one that calls their faith, for what it is.

I think scientists already have enough 'evidence' in physics and on our own planet to strongly support the claim there must be a designer. The wonders of the universe and life could not have happened by sheer luck, there was never a universe prior to this one, there will never be another ever again and chemical reactions will never create a complex living life form. Mainstream scientists just don't want to accept it. However, we can always hope that one day the obvious will bink on like a light bulb.

The bucket loads of statistics I am talking about, refers to all the waffle these scientists come up with in providing stats on the likelihood of life arising elsewhere, when they haven't got a clue how it arose on this goldilocks planet with a plethora of traits going for it, apparently out of sheer luck! LOL!

[1over137]

I will get back to you in a week maybe. Bosses are coming to work and then we have team building. Until then, have nice week.

[Morny]

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.

Got it. Taking the time to understand whatever I was "going on about" seems like a waste of time. I hear that a lot.

A previous post of mine went "on about" the very tentative nature of Temple Smoller from top physicists. Maybe you skimmed that also? See http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p157139.

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

Even your redshift quantization data seems questionable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization:

Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced no evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering, and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to the distribution of galaxies across voids and filaments.

All the above material points out serious specific problems with what you have been espousing. Address those specific problems with specific counter-evidence, before so confidently claiming you have toppled modern cosmology.

[Mazzy]

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.

Got it. Taking the time to understand whatever I was "going on about" seems like a waste of time. I hear that a lot.

A previous post of mine went "on about" the very tentative nature of Temple Smoller from top physicists. Maybe you skimmed that also? See http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p157139.

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

Even your redshift quantization data seems questionable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization:

Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced no evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering, and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to the distribution of galaxies across voids and filaments.

It doesn't matter if you can quote other work that speak to the bluster of the majority. The work I posted demonstrates scientists have no clue what they are talking about. It is that simple and if you believe what they say then you have faith and good for you. The myth of using redshift to define the universe is also based on the age of universe which is just anyother myhtical wishlist they wish they knew.

Ther eason why there is so much published that goes agains Big Bang and what is used to support it is that many well credentialled scientists don't believe such a far fetched dogma.

All the above material points out serious specific problems with what you have been espousing. Address those specific problems with specific counter-evidence, before so confidently claiming you have toppled modern cosmology.

[Mazzy]

Morny said "A previous post of mine went "on about" the very tentative nature of Temple Smoller from top physicists. Maybe you skimmed that also? "

What you missed is that I don't much care what a bunch of scientists have to say about other researchers that falsify their own work. Temple and Smoller have published loads of work. I have also quoted physicists that have huge problems with Big Bang and what redshift is telling them.

You might r emember this I posted ?
"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

I don't care if Temple as Smoller are right, close or wrong. What we see are galaxies all around us, no sign of life anywhere else, the earth and mankind being special, and Big Bang is full of non plausible nonsense.

[Mazzy]

I will get back to you in a week maybe. Bosses are coming to work and then we have team building. Until then, have nice week.

No worries. Let's hope 'science' is the same when you get back.

"The current standard model of cosmology (SMoC) requires The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem to be true according to which two types of dwarf galaxies must exist: primordial dark-matter (DM) dominated (type A) dwarf galaxies, and tidal-dwarf and ram-pressure-dwarf (type B) galaxies void of DM"

" It is shown that the SMoC is incompatible with a large set of other extragalactic observations. Other theoretical solutions to cosmological observations exist. In particular, alone the empirical mass-discrepancy--acceleration correlation constitutes convincing evidence that galactic-scale dynamics must be Milgromian. Major problems with inflationary big bang cosmologies remain unresolved."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2546

So basically the theory behind Big Bang, or rather the Litlle Fluff, has predictive ability except when it hasn't, and is supported except when its' not. LOL!
.

[Morny]

It doesn't matter if you can quote other work that speak to the bluster of the majority. [...] I don't much care what a bunch of scientists have to say about other researchers that falsify their own work.

I agree, which is why I rely on evidence.

In 1973, Tifft reported redshift clustering/periodicity. In the 1990's a few other researchers reported similar possible redshift anomalies.

_After_ those reports, starting at the end of the 1990's, the number of measured galaxy redshifts increased by several orders of magnitude. With the vastly larger and higher quality data, new redshift studies no longer found those redshift anomalies you endlessly bring up. One study even found selection bias in those earlier studies that _did_ find redshift anomalies.

So were all the investigators after the end of the 1990's lying? Biased against God creating a Milky Way centric universe? Using flawed statistics? Stupid? Or my new personal favorite, "going on about whatever"?

[neo-x]

For once I agree with Morny. Mazzy your copy pasting of professional anecdotes really don't prove anything. We know there are problems to be solved but that does not mean everything else we know is just arbitrary as well.

To be honest with you, I have no trouble with Milky way being the center of the universe, the problem I have is with the reasons you are try to achieve that conclusion. Glactocentracity proves nothing, and also has zero weight in the theology department.

[Mazzy]

For once I agree with Morny. Mazzy your copy pasting of professional anecdotes really don't prove anything. We know there are problems to be solved but that does not mean everything else we know is just arbitrary as well.

To be honest with you, I have no trouble with Milky way being the center of the universe, the problem I have is with the reasons you are try to achieve that conclusion. Glactocentracity proves nothing, and also has zero weight in the theology department.

Again I restate, your belief in Big Bang can be no more than a basis of faith. There are too many things wrong with the theory and I have posted some of them. These contradictions are not simply creationist antics, they are profound concerns that bring BB and the understanding of redshift into question.

Big Bang is the best they have to offer. Therefore it does not matter when contradictions or straight out falsifications come to light. Just like TOE, scientists wave their hands and think "Oh well, BB must be true, so we'll work it out one day".

Good for you and Morny if you both have faith in BB. I hear you both clearly. I have faith in the Milky Way being the centre of the universe and having been restored to our favoured position. Your problem would be you can't prove your faith any more than I can mine. Even Hubble was disturbed with his own observations and their indication that we are central within the universe, so I don't blame you for your faith. Just don't call it 'science', as if you have an irrefuteable claim because you most certainly do not. Neither does majority opinion have any validity given majority opinion did not profess an accelerating universe a mere 15 years ago.

Here is yet another, of a plethora, that contradicts the current status quo.

Our Sun demonstrates redshift, yet is not expanding away from us. There have been many flavours of the month that have tried to offer complicated rhetoric to resolve the dilemma, to no avail to date.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1960MNRAS.121..421H

In discussing 'science and religion' one needs to take care what one is basing their faith on, and if indeed the 'empirical' evidence of the day, has any credibility to argue any case from.

One cannot argue what is observed. What is observed is galaxies all around us that continue to shine and do not appear to be disappearing with distance (let alone faster than the speed of light) as prophesisied by the intelligencia.

[Mazzy]

It doesn't matter if you can quote other work that speak to the bluster of the majority. [...] I don't much care what a bunch of scientists have to say about other researchers that falsify their own work.

I agree, which is why I rely on evidence.

In 1973, Tifft reported redshift clustering/periodicity. In the 1990's a few other researchers reported similar possible redshift anomalies.

_After_ those reports, starting at the end of the 1990's, the number of measured galaxy redshifts increased by several orders of magnitude. With the vastly larger and higher quality data, new redshift studies no longer found those redshift anomalies you endlessly bring up. One study even found selection bias in those earlier studies that _did_ find redshift anomalies.

So were all the investigators after the end of the 1990's lying? Biased against God creating a Milky Way centric universe? Using flawed statistics? Stupid? Or my new personal favorite, "going on about whatever"?

Oh Morny, it is so easy to listen to that which agrees with your faith and totally ignore that which does not and actually falsifies it. Your faith is strong! Good for you!

[neo-x]

For once I agree with Morny. Mazzy your copy pasting of professional anecdotes really don't prove anything. We know there are problems to be solved but that does not mean everything else we know is just arbitrary as well.

To be honest with you, I have no trouble with Milky way being the center of the universe, the problem I have is with the reasons you are try to achieve that conclusion. Glactocentracity proves nothing, and also has zero weight in the theology department.

Again I restate, your belief in Big Bang can be no more than a basis of faith. There are too many things wrong with the theory and I have posted some of them. These contradictions are not simply creationist antics, they are profound concerns that bring BB and the understanding of redshift into question.

Big Bang is the best they have to offer. Therefore it does not matter when contradictions or straight out falsifications come to light. Just like TOE, scientists wave their hands and think "Oh well, BB must be true, so we'll work it out one day".

Good for you and Morny if you both have faith in BB. I hear you both clearly. I have faith in the Milky Way being the centre of the universe and having been restored to our favoured position. Your problem would be you can't prove your faith any more than I can mine. Even Hubble was disturbed with his own observations and their indication that we are central within the universe, so I don't blame you for your faith. Just don't call it 'science', as if you have an irrefuteable claim because you most certainly do not. Neither does majority opinion have any validity given majority opinion did not profess an accelerating universe a mere 15 years ago.

Here is yet another, of a plethora, that contradicts the current status quo.

Our Sun demonstrates redshift, yet is not expanding away from us. There have been many flavours of the month that have tried to offer complicated rhetoric to resolve the dilemma, to no avail to date.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1960MNRAS.121..421H

In discussing 'science and religion' one needs to take care what one is basing their faith on, and if indeed the 'empirical' evidence of the day, has any credibility to argue any case from.

One cannot argue what is observed. What is observed is galaxies all around us that continue to shine and do not appear to be disappearing with distance (let alone faster than the speed of light) as prophesisied by the intelligencia.

You are quoting a journal that was published nearly 6 decades ago? Do you know how much has changed since then?

Galaxies are moving faster and further away, dimming the further they go. Your lack of admittance of such facts are troubling. And it is now my firm conclusion that you are not up to date with the research. And probably do not know the subject matter as is understood.

I think you should study modern cosmology.

[Mazzy]

For once I agree with Morny. Mazzy your copy pasting of professional anecdotes really don't prove anything. We know there are problems to be solved but that does not mean everything else we know is just arbitrary as well.

To be honest with you, I have no trouble with Milky way being the center of the universe, the problem I have is with the reasons you are try to achieve that conclusion. Glactocentracity proves nothing, and also has zero weight in the theology department.

Again I restate, your belief in Big Bang can be no more than a basis of faith. There are too many things wrong with the theory and I have posted some of them. These contradictions are not simply creationist antics, they are profound concerns that bring BB and the understanding of redshift into question.

Big Bang is the best they have to offer. Therefore it does not matter when contradictions or straight out falsifications come to light. Just like TOE, scientists wave their hands and think "Oh well, BB must be true, so we'll work it out one day".

Good for you and Morny if you both have faith in BB. I hear you both clearly. I have faith in the Milky Way being the centre of the universe and having been restored to our favoured position. Your problem would be you can't prove your faith any more than I can mine. Even Hubble was disturbed with his own observations and their indication that we are central within the universe, so I don't blame you for your faith. Just don't call it 'science', as if you have an irrefuteable claim because you most certainly do not. Neither does majority opinion have any validity given majority opinion did not profess an accelerating universe a mere 15 years ago.

Here is yet another, of a plethora, that contradicts the current status quo.

Our Sun demonstrates redshift, yet is not expanding away from us. There have been many flavours of the month that have tried to offer complicated rhetoric to resolve the dilemma, to no avail to date.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1960MNRAS.121..421H

In discussing 'science and religion' one needs to take care what one is basing their faith on, and if indeed the 'empirical' evidence of the day, has any credibility to argue any case from.

One cannot argue what is observed. What is observed is galaxies all around us that continue to shine and do not appear to be disappearing with distance (let alone faster than the speed of light) as prophesisied by the intelligencia.

You are quoting a journal that was published nearly 6 decades ago? Do you know how much has changed since then?

Galaxies are moving faster and further away, dimming the further they go. Your lack of admittance of such facts are troubling. And it is now my firm conclusion that you are not up to date with the research. And probably do not know the subject matter as is understood.

I think you should study modern cosmology.

I think current cosmology needs to throw away the thinking mind so it can stroke its own ego faith in Copernicas.

Everything these researchers come up with to date says much the same thing. Even the voodoo performed to find what is called afterglow from the Big Bang, is the same in all directions, just like a galactocentric model would predict. These so called scientists would rather die than actually look at what their findings are telling them. Instead they offer complicated rhetoric that they do not even understand themselves.

They shouldn't be getting rounded afterglow pictures in a universe that looks like a funnel. Redshift is telling us absolutely zilch about the universe as demonstrated by the many falsifications of redshifts validity. Observation and having a mind that thinks tells us that if some outer shell galaxies were truly expanding away from us at the speed of light they should become noticeably dimmer over a decade, which does not happen.

All these headlines about great discoveries that support expansion and BB are more reflective of scientists trying to convince themselves that regardless of the plethora of falsifications, a little bit of straw grabbing will give their life's work some credibility. Big Bang is the best they have to support the Copernican philosophy that actually goes against the facts of life. We are alone in the universe, and the earth, the Milky Way and mankind are very special as if created with purpose and by a designer.

[neo-x]

As usual there's nothing of any value in this. Carry on. I tried to show you but you are more interested in your own beliefs rather than science.

[Mazzy]

As usual there's nothing of any value in this. Carry on. I tried to show you but you are more interested in your own beliefs rather than science.

You trying to SHOW me anything is you being interested in your own beliefs. I have quoted much recent research as well as some older stuff that remains valid to date. They still have no clue why the sun redshifts regardless of much algorithmic magic and complicated rhetoric as to why this is so. Rounded pretty pictures of afterglow does not reconcile with other pretty pictures of a funnel shaped universe.

I actually have presented some of that wonderful 'empirical' evidence people like to see, that demonstrates these researchers have no clue what they are talking about. Until you can offer more than your opinion it is you that may ''carry on" regardless of the obvious.