ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
I have long admitted, and even itemized some misconceptions Darwin had.
Oh wow. The crack in the dam has not only begun. It's turned into a breach.
Quote:
More relevant is what you see in the question of light speed that is relevant to whether Dark Energy and Dark Matter are ad hoc or are credible ideas.
You really need to learn what ad hoc means and to deal with your false dichotomy.
Quote:
Early in this thread you said you had a “better theory”. But now you are waffling about “… before I commit to a model”. What is that “better theory” you laid claim to?
You agreed that the data on which the Dark Energy and Matter was postulated was credible, but you feel that proposing Dark Energy and Dark Matter is a bad solution to explain that data. For a better explanation ("better theory") you refer to a list of scriptures that talk of the Heavens being “stretched out” and “the beginning”.
Now look at the scriptures you provide, and see what they say if we assume (as the case was a few decades ago) that there was no Dark Matter or Energy. Now, since those scriptures that you present as a “better theory” need to give a better explanation for the anomalous data, show what in those scriptures speaks to the expansion of the universe actually accelerating over time, in opposition to what would be expected under gravitation.
What do you think Wiki meant by "vacuum fluctuations"? What is meant by "zero-point energy"? The science is there. Just ask Michael Shermer. Or read his article I linked to.
I can't help but notice, here, that you don't seem to be able to explain how these term have anything to do with energy spontaneously happening from out of nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Comet
In any event, this thread will have to carry on without me.
You agreed that the data on which the Dark Energy and Matter was postulated was credible
I agree that the observations are credible. DE&M are postulated upon a theory, not an observation.
Quote:
but you feel that proposing Dark Energy and Dark Matter is a bad solution to explain that data. For a better explanation ("better theory") you refer to a list of scriptures that talk of the Heavens being “stretched out” and “the beginning”.
Is it this important to you, the source of an idea?
Quote:
Now look at the scriptures you provide, and see what they say if we assume (as the case was a few decades ago) that there was no Dark Matter or Energy. Now, since those scriptures that you present as a “better theory” need to give a better explanation for the anomalous data, show what in those scriptures speaks to the expansion of the universe actually accelerating over time, in opposition to what would be expected under gravitation.
That is all a bit beyond me at the moment. I'll keep reading up.
But regardless of where I am at, DM&E remain an ad hoc addition to the big bang theory that deal a heavy blow to its credibility.
On the other hand, to many people, including me, it makes sense to retire obsolete terms like "God" when they become obsolete.
I agree. The term "God" has too many connotations attached to it -- stereotypes that atheists pick up and try to apply in all cases; e.g., the Shermer article I linked to and every other atheist who asks "who made God?" The term does, however, rightly denote something more than accident or the permutations of blind law and mechanical forces at work.
Quote:
Suppose that instead of adopting the term "Big Bang", we had just changed what we meant by "steady state" to include the possibility of a Universe that began and exploded. That way, no one would ever have to change any of their ideas in a way that might admit that an idea was wrong.
It was a Catholic priest who first proposed the idea
"Big Bang" came form a derogatory remark: "You expect us to believe it all began with a big bang?" or something to that effect.
Scientists didn't like it because it implies a First Cause
They initially disliked the anthropic principle for the same reason
Ever since, scientists have been working to circumvent those implications with various ideas
In any event, my theology is unaffected by whatever science may find.
“Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate.” ~ Tarthang Tulku
Last edited by Lost Comet; May 1st, 2012 at 02:07 AM.
That is all a bit beyond me at the moment. I'll keep reading up.
But regardless of where I am at, DM&E remain an ad hoc addition to the big bang theory that deal a heavy blow to its credibility.
Near the start of this tread you dissed the idea of dark energy and matter as being ad hoc inventions, and declared you had a better theory. When pressed, it turns out you have a miserable understanding of the principles underlying the dark energy and matter concepts, and what is more significant is that your better theory is “In the beginning God spread out the Heavens”.
Presenting that as a scientific theory encompassing the dark energy and matter data is so inane that I won’t waste my time arguing it. Once again, Stripe, you have been exposed as a fraud and a charlatan.
Slogan/motto:
"Think about how stupid the average person is; now realize half of them are dumber than that"
Reputation:
May 1st, 2012, 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavisBJ
Near the start of this tread you dissed the idea of dark energy and matter as being ad hoc inventions, and declared you had a better theory. When pressed, it turns out you have a miserable understanding of the principles underlying the dark energy and matter concepts, and what is more significant is that your better theory is “In the beginning God spread out the Heavens”.
Presenting that as a scientific theory encompassing the dark energy and matter data is so inane that I won’t waste my time arguing it. Once again, Stripe, you have been exposed as a fraud and a charlatan.
Stripe may have called me a troll for it but I did try to warn everyone that his theory was just "magic man done it"! Time proved me right
I have not said what the Creator has or has not done post big bang - I am agnostic on that particular issue.
The big bang theory tells us that the universe began as a ball of light 13.7 billion years ago. Science has and is uncovering more and more information on how that light became stuff and how that stuff became us.
The big bang theory tells us that the universe began as a ball of light 13.7 billion years ago. Science has and is uncovering more and more information on how that light became stuff and how that stuff became us.
Our 1 universe contains over 125 billion galaxies
Our 1 galaxy (the Milky Way) contains 200 billion stars
(the Milky Way has an estimated 6 billion stars with planetary systems like ours)
Our 1 solar system contains 1 star (the sun) and is orbited by 8 planets
Our 1 planet is orbited by 1 moon
Our planet's population - 7 billion
Composition of the human body
In summary, for a typical human almost 2/3 is hydrogen, 1/4 is oxygen, and about 1/10 is carbon. These three atoms add up to 99% of the total!
Atheists all seem to think they are capable of understanding all things. Can a cat understand the complexities of the internet? No? Then why would we assume that humans can understand all of reality? Whenever you throw something out there like dark energy, atheists love to use the line "we just haven't figured it out YET".
The big bang theory tells us that the universe began as a ball of light 13.7 billion years ago. Science has and is uncovering more and more information on how that light became stuff and how that stuff became us.
Not that long ago, we knew that the earth was flat. Now we look back and think how silly people were then.
Not that long from now there is a good chance people will be looking back on our time and thinking we were silly for thinking that everything formed from a "big bang".
Slogan/motto:
I'm not in this world
To live up to your expectations
Neither are you here to live up to mine
Reputation:
May 1st, 2012, 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudeman-x
Not that long ago, we knew that the earth was flat. Now we look back and think how silly people were then.
Not that long from now there is a good chance people will be looking back on our time and thinking we were silly for thinking that everything formed from a "big bang".
I guess we are going to have to wait and see, however. Or are you claiming that this "good chance" means we can bypass the standard scientific method?
In your opinion what is a "good chance", 50/50/ 60/40, 70/30....?
Slogan/motto:
I'm not in this world
To live up to your expectations
Neither are you here to live up to mine
Reputation:
May 1st, 2012, 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudeman-x
Atheists all seem to think they are capable of understanding all things. Can a cat understand the complexities of the internet? No? Then why would we assume that humans can understand all of reality? Whenever you throw something out there like dark energy, atheists love to use the line "we just haven't figured it out YET".
I am not quite sure why you see this as a problem only for atheists. Does being a theist in your mind mean one automtically has all the answers?
.. again.
Linear Mode
