Posted on 10/11/2007 8:52:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Cosmologies are metaphysical and if not blatantly crackpot are at least neither verifiable nor deniable. Unfortunately for science, these mathematical theories describing data of astronomical nature have been labeled cosmology, which is as appropriate as awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the latest version of the Population Bomb malthusian.
Scientists are free to test their cosmological claims as well.
Cosmologies and other metaphysical theses are logically coherent so long as they stay transcendent. Same for the antitheses. The theses are for warm, fuzzy feeling persons and the antitheses are for Nobel Peace Prize joke day.
Cosmologies and other metaphysical theses are logically coherent so long as they stay transcendent. Same for the antitheses. The theses are for warm, fuzzy feeling persons and the antitheses are for Nobel Peace Prize joke day.
[[Not only is this a horrible horrible non scientific way of thinking.]]
‘unscientific’ why? God declared that He stretched out hte heavens- one can come to a logical conclusion that the heavens were stretched from the center- what makes one persons hypothesis abotu the universe’ location scientific and one not? If you’ll read Humphrie’s book, I think you’ll see that he doesn’t simply give his opinion, but backs up his opinion with scientific evidences, and last I checked, that was how science works- one proposes a hypothesis, uses the available science to formulate the hypothesis further.
If all Humphries offered was ‘God dun it’ then yes, that would be a horrible attempt- however, He doesn’t offer the readers anythign akin to that.
[[you can’t take one problem and throw out hundreds of years of physics.]]
No? Might wanna tell that to evos who claim the second law of thermodynamics isn’t a problem fro macroevolution then lol
In the real world it's known as a conflict of interest.
It's like the DA or the cops, or government investigating themselves, and trying to pass it off as an independent, credible, unbiased.
I prefer relying on more independent sources, thanks.
You’re asking Doc to do some actual work and understand hwat he’s railing against? Nah- won’t ever happen- Bitterness can’t be bothered with facts and details- too much work! Much easier to rail incessently about subjects too deep to understand. Easier just to keep posting vitriolic ad hominem attacks- DC taught him well
[[”God did it.” Does not pass the smell test as an answer.]]
No? Niether does “Nature did it” Yet we teach it as fact in our schools despite havign NO science to back that up as fact- Strange huh?
[[The point is...GGG, you don’t get to use your “all-powerful” cop-out.]]
Really? Hmmmm- Shall I start a list of all the all powerful cop-outs used in evolutionary science?
[[Because your boy there proposes a solution that can not be falsified intrinsically, it is wrong. End of story]]
Best get on the horn and tell all our science professors in schools that their hypothesis can’t be taught in schools then- Heaven forbid anythign be taught that might stimulate further critical thinking then- Psssst- Evolution can’t be intrinsically falsified either- just htought you might like to know that little known fact.
==The problem with your statement “He has plugged the cosmological statements of the Bible into General Relativity” is that those so-called cosmological statements are open to interpretation by the admission of many biblical scholars.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see if his interpretation of the Bible’s cosmological statements makes correct predictions.
You have no concept of science. Give me an example that I can refute and stop speaking in generalities. I can give you plenty of examples that are not "nature did it" because nature isn't a thing as much as it is an abstract concept. (Unless you ask the envirowackos.)
Really? Hmmmm- Shall I start a list of all the all powerful cop-outs used in evolutionary science?
By "all-powerful" i was referring to the cop-out of saying "God did it." You want to debate evolution sure, let's do it. I'll give a very simple example. Why are humans taller on average now than at any point in history? Occam's Razor says we're evolving. What is the creationist theory?
Best get on the horn and tell all our science professors in schools that their hypothesis can’t be taught in schools then- Heaven forbid anythign be taught that might stimulate further critical thinking then- Psssst- Evolution can’t be intrinsically falsified either- just htought you might like to know that little known fact.
The difference is that unproven science is presented as a theory and a series of hypotheses, not as fact "because I said so" and "end of discussion." The VERY first things that science students are taught, before any proper science is taught are the definitions of both THEORY and HYPOTHESIS and the scientific method. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these concepts, they come in handy when arguing science.
[[You have no concept of science. Give me an example that I can refute and stop speaking in generalities.]]
Ah- getting personal- how quaint-
Want an example that is taught in school as fact? an example of ‘nature did it” and ‘because we said so’? Fine- Macroevolution!-
[[I’ll give a very simple example. Why are humans taller on average now than at any point in history?]]
We are? Hmmm- I guess someone forgot to tell Goliath and his clan that - oh, and you can chalk the average up to MICOEvolution- not Macroevolution
[[Occam’s Razor says we’re evolving. What is the creationist theory?]]
Lol- Species reamining within their own KINDS is a fien fine example of Macroevolution- whoops- no it isn’t
[[definitions of both THEORY and HYPOTHESIS and the scientific method. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these concepts, they come in handy when arguing science.]]
Lol- htis coming from someone who doesn’t understand the difference between Micro and Macro evolution? Wanna keep on with hte personal insults? Just say hte word. And just for the record- I know you’re all upset over Humphries- but how about at least keeping your accusations factual and representative of what Humpphries is actually saying instead of assigning false statements to him- Where is he stating that what he is proposiing is ‘fact’ ‘just because he says so’? Looks like I’m not hte one who needs to freshen up on their definitions there fella.
DR Humphreys, Sandia National Laboratory, astrophysics, retired
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=%22Humphreys%2C+DR%22+sandia
It’s amazing at how certain people literally come unglued when scientist employ the scientific method to investigate the historical claims of the Bible.
God - Science - Bible - Whaaaa... whaaa... whaaat? Heritic!!! How dare a person develop a hypothesis that doesn’t toe the naturalistic view line? To the electric chair!
It’s amazing at how certain people literally come unglued when scientist employ the scientific method to investigate the historical claims of the Bible.
First, how does one apply scientific method to a miracle?
Second, would you mind explaining your name to me?
They too get the chair...dept. chairs, that is.
I will remind you that I didn’t bring evolution into this thread, you did. But since you asked. The purely scientific opinion would be that evolution has yet to be disproven and the facts fit it as well as any other theory (and a little better than most) proposed so far, so it is the going theory on how things work. That being said...it IS still a theory. And until something concrete comes along that can DISprove it, then it is the theory that science is working with. Again, it best fits the facts as they are known today.
As for what will henceforth be known as your “Goliath” example: I can give you singular data points too. Note I said AVERAGE human.
To the difference between micro- and macro- evolution, you never did specify in your earlier posts. You wanted me to give you an example of evolution, I did. But the point is I can give direct examples of evolution (macro and micro) all day long and you’ll just throw ad-hominem generalities back at me. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
Really when I first read this thread I was hoping it would be a scientific discussion of the Pioneer Anomaly, but unfortunately it’s been another thread ruined by those of you who value your imaginary friend over cold hard facts. I should know better by now than to try and get a reasonable scientific discussion going on FR.
Before I close, let me say this. I appreciate that people are able to find comfort in the idea that there is some greater plan, and that we’re put here for a reason. But from my point of view, logically speaking, this has no basis in fact. Again, this is my point of view, take it for what it’s worth. I have no problem with you believing whatever you need to to get yourself through the day. If it helps you sleep at night, then that’s fine. But, you also need to recognize a case of cognitive dissonance when you feel it coming on. I agree that having a completely open mind is a recipe for disaster, but I think that, like a border, you need to have controlled points of entry and exit, where things are checked thoroughly before they’re admitted. Closing yourself off completely will only cause internal discohesion and disintegration.
*Dons asbestos suit.*
==The purely scientific opinion would be that evolution has yet to be disproven and the facts fit it as well as any other theory (and a little better than most) proposed so far, so it is the going theory on how things work. That being said...it IS still a theory. And until something concrete comes along that can DISprove it, then it is the theory that science is working with. Again, it best fits the facts as they are known today.
read: DARWIN OF THE GAPS THEORY
Russell Humphreys is quite important.
Its one thing for someone with no knowledge of science to deny evolution and the age of the earth - my Grandmother did that until her death and it didn’t particularly hurt her - she didn’t keep her kids from going to engineering school or medical school.
But Humphreys is in a different category - he has enough science background that he starts to understand how the different parts of science are related. The earth’s surface isn’t consistent with being shaped by a single great flood so You have to deny geology and geophysics and thus the underpinnings of the oil and mining industries.
Since the universe is supposed to be less than 10,000 year this causes a problem with comets so Humprheys has to deny not just astro-physics but has to deny the existence of the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt where comets come from.
Too much silt on the bottom of the ocean to be deposited in 5,000 years? Uh oh - there goes plate tectonics and subduction.
The earth’s magnet field is decreasing - Humprheys explains that as the planned end of the earth - it was never meant to last millions of years. To take this position he has to ignore the histeresis effect and the magentic record showing the earthc field has increased and decreased and even flipped upside down many times.
I could go on but basically Humphreys is very useful to science because he shows how starting as anti-evolution leads to massive science denial in dozens of fields.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.