[Gerald]

Originally Posted by DavisBJ

Any physical phenomena understood by mainstream science to take more than 10,000 years to occur is pointless to study (unless maybe astrophysics is on the curriculum for new inductees into the eternities in the next life?) That means science’s explanations for stellar evolution are no more than wild guesses, most questions of long-term orbital stability are vacuous, and most cosmologists are working in fairyland.

Congratulations! You have summed up the creationist position.

Well done!

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by DavisBJ

I agree. That is why science asks that the evidence be looked at from a stance equally accessible to Hindu and Christian, believer and heathen. When we walk in the lab, we have all agreed on the methodology and how we will interpret the results we get. If your theology accurately describes reality, then you should have no fear in showing that the evidence fits your theology without imposing preconditions.

Correct, and you agreed that the observations are not at issue. The observation is that they rotate too fast. This is important below.

They only rotate "too fast" if your model predicts they should rotate slower.

Well, to be a bit more accurate, we are measuring red shifts. From that we can infer the speed of stars in the limbs of the galaxies. And from that we can infer the amount of gravity that would be required.

OK.

...what we would see is pretty much the way they were cobbled together at the moment of creation. No reason to try to make sense of why they cluster into galaxies, or why the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram is populated as it is. Any physical phenomena understood by mainstream science to take more than 10,000 years to occur is pointless to study (unless maybe astrophysics is on the curriculum for new inductees into the eternities in the next life?) That means science’s explanations for stellar evolution are no more than wild guesses, most questions of long-term orbital stability are vacuous, and most cosmologists are working in fairyland.

If the universe is indeed younger than 10,000 years, then yeah. Working under evolutionary timescales will lead to nonsense conclusions.

I understand he is quite responsive to questions. Want to ping him on this one, or do you have an explanation yourself? Perhaps he touches on this elsewhere in his book?

I don't quite understand or agree with all of Dr. Brown's analysis. I think the "winding up" issue is based upon the big bang model complete with dark matter. But it wasn't really my intention to delve into what he believes. More just to answer the question of what an alternate explanation might be. I.e. the universe was "stretched out" during creation week.

I think there are three things I need to come to grips with before I commit to a model:

1. Expansion - duration, extent, star content.
2. Lightspeed - has it changed?
3. Gravity - affecting light.

These three factors are the key assumptions to understanding the light we see from stars.

[bigbang123]

Originally Posted by Cleekster

i'm not trying to box you in dude but this is a non-negotiable aspect of Deism which doesn't allow for a personal God who intervenes on our behalf.

Hence the term / semi-deist.

For those who missed what I said before

Originally Posted by bigbang123

A pure deist says that the Creator after the big bang start has never and will never ever exert any influence in human affairs - I feel no confidence to say that that belief is 100% true.

I have not said what the Creator has or has not done post big bang - I am agnostic on the issue.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

Yup, but only in a way. For the sum of all things is zero.

There is no 'sum of all things'. It's an irrational statement.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

Logically, both "something" and "nothing" are meaningless without the other. Each defines the other; each gives rise to the other.

I understand that, but this only serves to support my point. We humans don't have the perspective from which we could confirm your assertion. We can't transcend the limitations of our own existence, which is what would be required.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

Wrong. Ever hear of the Casimir effect?

This has no bearing on the subject that I can see.

[Lost Comet]

Originally Posted by PureX

There is no 'sum of all things'. It's an irrational statement.

Written in formula, what I’m saying would look something like this: 0 = ∞ = 1 = 0. Interestingly, scientists and mathematicians routinely use a technique called "renormalization" to avoid infinities.

I understand that, but this only serves to support my point. We humans don't have the perspective from which we could confirm your assertion. We can't transcend the limitations of our own existence, which is what would be required.

I don't think you do understand. What limitations? What happened to "With God all things are possible"? I think you are still trying to see it from a space-time perspective. "Life is self-transcending." (Liv Ullman in the "cult classic" Mindwalk.) Note Kierkegaard's description of personhood: the relating of a relation — "relation" here being a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and the temporal, Freedom and necessity — relating to itself. We are different than God in degree, but not in kind.

This has no bearing on the subject that I can see.

Do a search on the Casimir effect. It is the demonstrable effect of something you say is impossible: energy that spontaneously just happens.

Note: there was a time not too long ago when I would have agreed with you.

[rexlunae]

Originally Posted by bigbang123

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God."
--English naturalist credited with theory of evolution.

Nice quote mine. But that's not a full stop at the end of that quote.

Originally Posted by Darwin

But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-8837

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Stripe

They only rotate "too fast" if your model predicts they should rotate slower.

The model is not much more than a rather trivial application of Newton’s Laws of motion and Gravitation, easily solvable by an undergrad. It’s the same math that is used for computing orbits in the solar system, oblateness of the earth due to rotation, and numerous other applications. Please don’t tell me you are so dogmatically resistant to dark matter that you are going to stoop that low.

If the universe is indeed younger than 10,000 years, then yeah. Working under evolutionary timescales will lead to nonsense conclusions.

I suspect you may have had an MRI, an X-ray, or any of several other medical procedures that rely on the same physical principles as are used in many old-earth dating techniques.

I don't quite understand or agree with all of Dr. Brown's analysis. I think the "winding up" issue is based upon the big bang model complete with dark matter.

Amazing, truly amazing. To my recollection this is the first time I have seen you express less than full support for Walt’s ideas. The crack is showing in Stripe’s dam.

But it wasn't really my intention to delve into what he believes.

Of course not. You used him without qualification right up until you realized that put you on shaky ground. Then suddenly your allegiance to him becomes expendable. Not a friend through thick and thin, are you?

I think there are three things I need to come to grips with before I commit to a model:

1. Expansion - duration, extent, star content.
2. Lightspeed - has it changed?
3. Gravity - affecting light.

These three factors are the key assumptions to understanding the light we see from stars.

Your evident retreat into a safely nebulous “I need to come to grips with before …” position is noted. Since you are clearly not conversant with the requisite physics to even understand what the implications of dark energy and matter issues are, and you are backing away from your former champion’s claims, I wonder what is left for you in pursuing this question. I would hope for an appreciable level of scientific credibility if you elect to continue this exchange, and that is not likely to be something you can provide by yourself.

As to your itemized list of the three factors above, do you know the scientific consensus on each, and on what evidence that is based?

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

Written in formula, what I’m saying would look something like this: 0 = ∞ = 1 = 0. Interestingly, scientists and mathematicians routinely use a technique called "renormalization" to avoid infinities.

Well sure. The problem with mathematics is that it really only works in theory. In reality, it only works to the extent that we ignore how it doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

I don't think you do understand. What limitations? What happened to "With God all things are possible"?

I certainly don't make that claim. And by limitations I mean that we are subject to the limitation of human existence. That includes space and time. But also of experience, of intellect, of imagination, and of cognition.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

I think you are still trying to see it from a space-time perspective.

How human of me.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

"Life is self-transcending." (Liv Ullman in the "cult classic" Mindwalk.) Note Kierkegaard's description of personhood: the relating of a relation — "relation" here being a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and the temporal, Freedom and necessity — relating to itself. We are different than God in degree, but not in kind.

Lots of pretty words that don't mean much.

"God" is the characterization of all those ideals that we are not: perfect, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, ... and all of those ideals are non-divisible. They don't exist by "degrees". We are not God by a lesser "degree".

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

Do a search on the Casimir effect. It is the demonstrable effect of something you say is impossible: energy that spontaneously just happens.

I did, and it's not.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

Note: there was a time not too long ago when I would have agreed with you.

I am always amazed that people think this matters.

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

It was a gratuitous slap at the comment I quoted. Shermer is just representative of that kind of mindset.

OK, thanks. As long as it was just a gratuitous thing on your part, it demonstrates your lack of character, and says nothing meaningful about the subject Shermer discussed.

[rexlunae]

Originally Posted by bigbang123

Since most scientist are certain that 96% of the universe is a mystery to us - how can you be so certain that God/Creator of the Universe does not exist?

You tell me, since you seem to know, how certain am I?

Originally Posted by bigbang123

And don't tell me that you are certain about the non-existence of God in the same way you are certain about the non-existence of the Easter Bunny. No one claims or believes that the Easter Bunny created the Universe.

How do you know the Easter Bunny isn't made of dark energy? Maybe that's why we can't see him.

Originally Posted by bigbang123

At best if they are honest each Atheist should instead call themselves an Agnostic.

If you disagree - tell me why

I look at it differently. For centuries, theists have been telling us that the Universe was designed with us in mind. Seems strange, then, that the vast majority of the stuff in the Universe is stuff we can barely interact with. In fact, there's little indication that I can see of design anywhere beyond the reach of life.

[SeraphimsCherub]

In the beginning everything that was not became everything that is. I think John already knew by the Omnipresent Spirit which was already here in our present day in the same instant. Knew this revelational theory would come about so he pinned:

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

[Lost Comet]

Originally Posted by PureX

I did, and it's not.

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.

Religious concepts must adapt to science. The "God" concept would less problematic if were more generally understood and taught that God is energy when viewed as an unspiritual (purposeless) phenomenon.

In any event, this thread will have to carry on without me.

[rexlunae]

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

[color="Black"]Religious concepts must adapt to science. The "God" concept would less problematic if were more generally understood and taught that God is energy when viewed as an unspiritual (purposeless) phenomenon.

On the other hand, to many people, including me, it makes sense to retire obsolete terms like "God" when they become obsolete. 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.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by DavisBJ

The model is not much more than a rather trivial application of Newton’s Laws of motion and Gravitation, easily solvable by an undergrad. It’s the same math that is used for computing orbits in the solar system, oblateness of the earth due to rotation, and numerous other applications. Please don’t tell me you are so dogmatically resistant to dark matter that you are going to stoop that low.

Stoop how low? Your model requires more time be taken. The observation of "too fast" is only because you have too much time.

I suspect you may have had an MRI, an X-ray, or any of several other medical procedures that rely on the same physical principles as are used in many old-earth dating techniques.

No assumptions need be made about the initial conditions when I had my x-ray taken.

Amazing, truly amazing. To my recollection this is the first time I have seen you express less than full support for Walt’s ideas. The crack is showing in Stripe’s dam.

And I've never seen you show anything but dogmatic adherence to Darwin.

Of course not. You used him without qualification right up until you realized that put you on shaky ground. Then suddenly your allegiance to him becomes expendable. Not a friend through thick and thin, are you?

Is this really the best you've got?

Your evident retreat into a safely nebulous “I need to come to grips with before …” position is noted. Since you are clearly not conversant with the requisite physics to even understand what the implications of dark energy and matter issues are, and you are backing away from your former champion’s claims, I wonder what is left for you in pursuing this question. I would hope for an appreciable level of scientific credibility if you elect to continue this exchange, and that is not likely to be something you can provide by yourself.

As to your itemized list of the three factors above, do you know the scientific consensus on each, and on what evidence that is based?

Two and three are pretty straightforward. Number one requires a little work.

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Stoop how low? Your model requires more time be taken. The observation of "too fast" is only because you have too much time.

Talk coherently, man. Our model requires more time to do what? Too much time for what?

No assumptions need be made about the initial conditions when I had my x-ray taken.

But there must also be understandings of how often a high-energy particle will be emitted, and what energy it will contain. That has nothing to do with initial parent/daughter concentrations.

And I've never seen you show anything but dogmatic adherence to Darwin.

I have long admitted, and even itemized some misconceptions Darwin had. Can you show me where you have done the same in the past as regards Walt Brown? As a specific case, for the current question you say that Walt may have been speaking of the spiral arms winding up with Dark Matter in place. Then he has diverged from you right there on even considering the Dark Matter as an explanation for the gravity needed to keep a spinning galaxy together. If he wasn’t postulating Dark Matter in his Galactic rotation criticism, then his argument falls apart, since the galaxy would fly apart. Now can you show where, anytime in the past, you parted ways with Walt on either of those issues?

That is pretty close to the level of scientific credibility you personally bring to these discussions.

Two and three are pretty straightforward. Number one requires a little work.

Ok then. For number 2) What is science's stance on the constancy of the speed of light over time, and on what is that based?

And number 3) What does science say about gravity affecting light, and what evidence is there of that happening?

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. Same question for gravity affecting light – what relevance to the Dark Matter and Dark Energy issues do you thing it plays?

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? Remember a theory provides an explanation for an array of data, and allows one to make new predictions. State your “better theory” in clear terms. The OP pretty well summarized theories about BE and BM from a scientific view, now you need to tell us what your competing theory is that explains that same set of data.