Some philosophical misunderstandings (at best)

[QED]

Evidently, there are still one or two on this board who have yet to discover the difference between methodological naturalism and philosphical materialism. This is even more shameful because at least one of these individuals is a methodological naturalist by profession!!! We have a situation here that is analogous to an apple farmer - who calls himself an apple farmer - who is proud of his ability to farm apples, and thinks of himself as an authority on farming apples - but who habitually criticizes other apple farmers for growing apples!!!



Who is to blame for this troublesome turn? I point the finger at the likes of Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Jon Safarti (of AiG), and some of his cronies there. I don't know if these folks are misleading the public about the nature of scientific investigation intentionally, in order to bolster their weak arguments against certain scientific conclusions. I don't know if, instead, they are equivocating on the names of the methods of science in order to defend their own claims that they don't reject "real" science. I don't know if these folks are just ignorant of the truth and need a quick primer on the philosophy of science. But for whatever reason, these folks are influencing otherwise rational people to believe that science can be divorced from its most central methods. And thus, after numerous attempts at explanation, we find that people on this board still suffer under the delusion that methodologically non-naturalistic pursuits are science: in other words, science just cannot postulate a non-natural (untestable) cause to explain material phenomena. If a testable and natural explanation is unavailable, then science must content itself with ignorance. That's the only alternative available to science.



Why must science rely on methodological naturalism? It is very simple. Science lacks the diagnostic tools to test a non-naturalistic explanation. If iodine and starch turn purple in solution, science cannot suggest that it is a purple-loving demon that does this, because there is no means by which they can test the existence of a purple-loving demon, and - even assuming that they believe in one - cannot set up a similar observation in a demon-proof flask in order to

test whether this demon is responsible for the behavior of iodine solution in starch. The purple demon hypothesis is strictly an idea to be accepted or rejected on faith - never science.



Let's pretend, though, that Bob has religious faith in the purple demon. Let's pretend that Bob takes a chemistry class where the reaction of starch in iodine is explained naturalistically. Bob has some options.



1) He can abandon religious faith in the purple demon. This isn't required, though, because a naturalistic explanation doesn't disprove a non-naturalistic one. Remember a non-naturalistic explanation cannot be disproven!



2) He can accept the naturalistic explanation discovered by science, and reconcile it with the purple-demon religion. He can suggest that the purple-demon uses secondary causes, like the laws of chemistry, to make starch and iodine purple.



3) He can rail against the "dogmatic materialism" of the scientists who will not accept his purple-demon in place of the chemical explanation.



Which choice makes sense?



To the normal person, choice #2 makes sense. Socrates, in another thread, criticizes Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project precisely for taking the sensible view of #2 over the radical views of #1 & #3. Here are his words:






Indeed he may well have. OTOH, I first heard of him in a Scientific American article a few years ago, and he was praised by some dogmatic materialist for not letting his faith interfere with his work. If that was an accurate characterization, then Collins may well be a Christian, but he has all the philosophical astuteness of a demented dryopithecine.

This sort of thinking is what the Bible calls double-minded, and is also called compartmentalization.




So I ask Socrates: do you never "compartmentalize?" Let's see, before you write up a paper for publication, do you:

a) Do methodologically naturalistic research, or

b) Read Leviticus?



Here's an even better test. If I asked you whether you believed there were floodgates in the sky capable of being opened to release rain, and given your belief that the Bible is a true account of all that it touches on, and given that the Bible does speak of these floodgates, and given that the context is historical narrative, not poetry, and that there is no context that would require you to believe it is a metaphor, would you:

a) Use your knowledge gained from methodologically naturalistic investigation to conclude that there must be a non-literal interpretation of the "floodgates" and interpret the passage non-literally, or

b) Rail against the dogmatic materialism of atmospheric scientists who do not accept the "floodgate model"?

Scoring: Give yourself 1 point for every A) answer, and 0 points for every B) answer. If you scored a 1 or higher, then you are likely able to tell the difference in method between science and faith. If you scored 2, then Congratulations! You have the necessary skills to understand naturalistic investigation (aka science), and to reconcile apparent disharmony between its results with your religious beliefs! You may qualify for the prestigious "Double Minded Compartmentalizer" award!

The simple fact is that the Bible doesn't tell us about nature. We read the Bible and we try to understand what it means - and based on our own understanding of what the Bible means, we may make a tentative proposition about nature. Sometimes, when we do this, we will be wrong - as we would be if we understood Gen 7:11 literally and proposed that there were floodgates in the heavens. In those times, science can actually help inform our understanding of scripture!

Does science require philosohpical materialism? Of the dogmatic nature? Of any nature?

Well, according to some who do not grasp the difference, the answer would have to be yes, because it requires methodological naturalism. The real answer - no. Philosophical materialism is the position that all of nature can be explained by natural processes. In other words, Philosophical materialism reduces to the idea that all true statements about the universe are subject to scientific inquiry. This is a philosophical notion, not a scientific one. Some scientists hold it. The majority do not.

Yet, every scientist approaches every question as though it does have a materialistic explanation? Why? Because there is no scientific way to rule out the possibility that any given phenomenon has a natural cause. Because if it does not have one, then the answer lies outside of science and science will eventually falsify any mistaken naturalistic explanation. But, if it does have a natural explanation -- there is only one method available to find it.

Socrates thinks that methodological naturalism is objectionable to Christianity. He says this about Collins' position:

It makes a false distinction between reality/facts/science/history v faith/religion/morality which is totally foreign to Christ who is the Creator of the World and Lord of History.

What we actually find is that Collins recognizes a real distinction between very different methods of acquiring knowledge. He recognizes a real distinction between very different ways of evaluating propositions.

There is no indication that he makes a false distinction between different kinds of reality, but there is every indication that Socrates hasn't learned to distinguish different methods of learning about reality. Does Socrates really think scientists should make no distinction between science and faith? Does Socrates really see no difference between facts and morals?

Socrates:


Furthermore, atheistic evolutionists are certainly NOT reticent about letting THEIR faith interfere with their work,

Even if this is true, does "he does it, too!" is not a valid defense for you to do it. Given your record on accurately understanding the not-so-subtle differences between philosophy, science, and religion, I'd expect that your claim here is equally ill-founded anyway.

Maybe you could name a paper where Dawkins uses the non-existence of God as a scientific proposition, used to interpret data. But more likely, you can't.


So Collins has not only let his mind be taken captive by secular philosophy (cf. Col. 2:8),

What secular philosophy has Collins become ensnared by, pray tell? Surely not the philosophy that guides science's methodologically naturalistic results: the philosophy that observation of nature can help us to understand nature? What heresy! I hope Socrates hasn't also been taken captive by this outrage!


he has also, in effect, entrenched a position where the only faith allowed is practical atheism

What position would this be? I think that you will probably be embarrassed to reply, knowing that you only have options that have nothing to do with Collins, or the position that evolution is scientifically sound --- and you know that I can demonstrate that many non-atheistic view-points are whole-heartedly included there.

I would say there are some accusations you will need to back up here, or to back off of - at the risk of making a liar of yourself.

A side-note. I won't quote the relevant language from your post, but you obviously still don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. The ten commandments may or may not be a proper objective moral standard. The faith that they are an objective moral standard is a subjective faith. If you can use your subjective faith to arrive at your moral standard, then you do not have room to criticize others for using their subjective philosophies for arriving at a moral standard - except on the grounds that you think your subjective faith is better than their subjective philosophies. You do not have any "objective" upper hand. As it is written: we walk by faith, not by sight.

For the record: a compartmentalized world view would be a none-of-the-above sort of view with respect to the "options" I listed above. I could have listed it, but it would have distracted from the realities of the situation. A compartmentalized world-view would result from this sequence of events:

A) Person has faith, which leads them to believe proposition X
B) Person sees that science is partly or wholly incompatible with X
C) Person fails to reconcile faith with science on point of proposition X
D) Person is unwilling to give up either faith or science, therefore
E) Person holds both faith and scientific view as equally believable, and does not favor either view in her mind.

This is clearly not what Collins does. Perhaps it is what Andrew Snelling does?

[QED]

Reading through another thread, my attention was drawn to another philosophical misunderstanding, that needs to be cleared up now.

Anyone in this forum who does not, for whatever reason, feel that dishonesty or hypocrisy is wrong, please excuse yourself.

Everyone who is left agrees - for whatever reason - that honesty and consistency are valuable.

Socrates (and others?), never content with a level playing field, want to pretend that YECers have some special relationship with honesty and consistency that no one else, Christian or otherwise, has. He likes to pretend that he is therefore immune to criticisms on these points from anyone who is not a YEC (or at least OEC).

Just for the record, this is malarkey. Subjective value judgements based on faith that the Bible is a perfect and objective moral standard are no more objective than subjective value judgements based on any other philosophical position. They do not lend a person a unique claim to moral sensibility.

Christianity may be right, and the values that Christians walk in by faith may be the ones ordained objectively by God. But this is still a proposition of faith, even if it turns out to be correct.

Logic proves it, but for the Christian it may be more important to notice that the Bible endorses this view. Christians are to walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Chronicles 5:7) Blessed is he who has not seen, yet believes (John 20:29).

Faith is subjective. It cannot be proven. It is not subject to demonstration under experimental controls. The values of Christianity are taken on faith in the authority of the Bible.

Some values are universally, or nearly universally accepted. They may find their basis in pragmatism, in philosophies of human nature, or in Platonic views of "the Good".

Christians do not have that market cornered.

Please link to this post any time you see a YEC pretending to a special claim to valuing truth. Especially if you see them using it as a rhetorical dodge to avoid admitting an error.

[James]

In all possible fairness, I've noticed that in the heat of debate, just about everyone on this forum has called someone who disagrees with him/her a liar, whether justifiably or not. I'd like to see, as it seems the moderators would, a departure from any sort of name-calling, because it doesn't prove anything. Please, before posting anything in anger, just reread your post and "highlight/delete" anything that refers to another person's character or any statement excessively critical of the person and not the idea. You will probably feel very justified in whatever you want to post, but realize that personal attacks *never solve anything* and just make others angry at the attacker.

[Socratism]

This whole convoluted thread needs simplification.

Evolutionists claim they don't assume abiogenesis to explain how life got started because evolution does not include abiogenesis.

Creationists assume life did not get started naturally.

Then evolutionists criticize creationists for their "unscientific" assumption.

Why not admit that both sides assume something and talk about what would logically follow depending upon which assumption is made?

The alternative is to talk about how much better one assumption is than the other.

Of course science can not investigate creation, but if materialistic abiogenesis is false (which it obviously is) then what is the alternative?

At least creation has evidence going for it in the form of an ancient document that nobody has ever been able to falsify no matter how hard they have tried and is light years more accurate in what has been verified so far than any other ancient document or series of documents.

Not only that but it is far more logical to assume that life was once more free of mutations than today and has been running down ever since than to assume that it started with an undefined simple replicating molecule and built itself up to the marvels we see today through the preposterous mechanism of a long series of fortuitous copying errors.

No wonder that despite the intense government funded propaganda of the past 50 years or so the majority of the population still rejects this "loony" idea.

As the song from "South Pacific" put it , "You have to be carefully taught".

[Woman]

I have argued myself blue in the face maintaining that there is no such thing as "creation science" because it's a contradiction in terms.

To his credit, Socratism seems to have recognized this at last.


Of course science can not investigate creation...

[Socratism]

Woman,

I hope you did not interpret my statement to mean that one can not investigate scientifically the consequences of the creative acts described in Genesis.

For me it is much more scientifically credible to assume that life started out with complete cells and many types of advanced multicelled creatures, and has been expanding in variety, although "running down" ever since due to mutations, than it is to assume that there has been an "upward trend" powered by copying errors and natural selection from an original hypothetical primitive protocell.

The fact that this "multiple advanced types" theory happens to be authenticated by the revelation from God to Adam and made available to us as an antidote to the preposterous theory of evolution is very nice icing on the cake.

[WinAce]

The empirical consequences of Genesis can be tested, so it's no more unscientific than postulating an unobservable particle. The problem is when your model consistently fails in experiments.

For example, per Genesis, no retroviral fragments or pseudogenes should exist in two different kinds (although it's perfectly OK to have them terminate at exactly the kind boundary). The fossil record must either show all creatures living at the same time or, if deposited during Noah's flood, show all creatures sorted by hydrodynamic properties instead of lineage. No stars farther than 6000 light years should be visible, with new ones at the very edge of what appears to us blank space appearing all the time (now THAT would be a smoking-gun indication of a young earth). Etc.

Frankly, it's not naturalism vs. supernaturalism. It's two competing naturalistic hypotheses (mainstream science and creationism), one of which is standing in direct contradiction to the last 500 years of scientific knowledge.

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82099#post82099)
WinAce:

The empirical consequences of Genesis can be tested, so it's no more unscientific than postulating an unobservable particle. The problem is when your model consistently fails in experiments.

For example, per Genesis, no retroviral fragments or pseudogenes should exist in two different kinds (although it's perfectly OK to have them terminate at exactly the kind boundary).

The problem with "evidence" of this kind is that it is based on ignorance of root causes, causing people to prematurely conclude that the only way for the evidence to have come about is through the mainline paradigm.


The fossil record must either show all creatures living at the same time or, if deposited during Noah's flood, show all creatures sorted by hydrodynamic properties instead of lineage.

Again, ignorance of how the evidence came about causes supporters of the mainline paradigm to conclude that their scenarios are the only possible explanations for the evidence. My own favorite speculation for much of the evidence is that it was deposited by tidal flows, among other phenomena.


No stars farther than 6000 light years should be visible, with new ones at the very edge of what appears to us blank space appearing all the time (now THAT would be a smoking-gun indication of a young earth). Etc.

Again, ignorance reigns. It is a poor assumption to not consider known phenomena such as time dilation, as well as the falsifications inherent in ad hoc assumptions of "dark mass" and "dark energy". It should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see that cosmological theories are in deep doodoo and new theories must necessarily arise in the next few years to more reasonably solve current major discrepancies between theory and observation.


Frankly, it's not naturalism vs. supernaturalism. It's two competing naturalistic hypotheses (mainstream science and creationism), one of which is standing in direct contradiction to the last 500 years of scientific knowledge.

The problem with this observation is its failure to note that scientific theories change over time to more accurately reflect new information. That is the way that science works.

The two theories that are in the most need today to change are the civil war era "goo to you" and the now obviously incorrect "Big Bang", both of which rely on unlimited extrapolation of current data all the way back to ridiculous starting points.

In view of this there is still optimism that sanity will eventually prevail and more and more scientists will begin to consider the currently "blasphemous" concept that "maybe Genesis wasn't that far off after all".

[RufusAtticus]

Socrates, where are you? I'm curious what your response will be.

[Woman]

Socratism:

For me it is much more scientifically credible to assume that life started out with complete cells and many types of advanced multicelled creatures.

How is this "scientifically" credible at all?

Socratism:

It should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see that cosmological theories are in deep doodoo and new theories must necessarily arise in the next few years to more reasonably solve current major discrepancies between theory and observation.

Cosmology is hardly in deep doo doo. It is awash with data as never before. Theories are constantly refined, tweaked and changed as the new information pours in. These scientists aren't especially wedded to any answer to some of the questions that have arisen about the 'horizon problem' the 'smoothness problem,' does Omega =1, etc.

They aren't trying to "prove" anything. they are seeking the truth.

And because they aren't hampered by a YEC world view, some of them think they are seeing the fingerprint of God in the Cosmos.

[Joe_Sixpack]

Socratism,

"Of course science can not investigate creation, but if materialistic abiogenesis is false (which it obviously is) then what is the alternative?"

Which theory of abiogenesis is "obviously" false? I wasn't aware of a theory of abiogenesis ever being formalized. Maybe this physicist is just typically behind on his molecular biology reading...

"the now obviously incorrect "Big Bang""

Umm, now again, I'm a little confused. Being a quantum jock, I can't say I have studied the Big Bang Model to the depth of such notables as Guth and Hawking, but I have at least given it cursory consideration. Maybe in all my coursework on General Relativity, I missed that falsification of the Big Bang Model. Considering it is so "obviously incorrect," you won't mind elucidating this obviously dense physicist before you go off to Sweden to claim your prize, would you?

Thanks

[Socratism]

There have been many books written outlining the difficulties that have arisen with Big Bang models.

Here can be found a listing of a few of the difficulties.

http://www.metaresearch.org/

My own skepticism revolves around two major points:

1. The assumption without any evidence whatsoever that the coordinates of space are expanding, and

2. The assumption that a trend can be extrapolated without limit, in this case leading to the absurd notion that all of the mass and energy of the universe was once contained in an area smaller than the head of a pin.

----------

I never referred to a "theory" of abiogenesis. I used the term "materialistic abiogenesis", which of course means the notion that living cells came into existence through materialistic means. As research continues and more and more details and sophistication are revealed about the workings of the cell, the "materialistic abiogenesis" notion recedes beyond the realm of mere science fiction into the world of science fantasy.

[Joe_Sixpack]

"There have been many books written outlining the difficulties that have arisen with Big Bang models."

Yes and there have been many books that have outlined the evidence supporting it.

"Here can be found a listing of a few of the difficulties.

http://www.metaresearch.org/"

I went through it and I have found their arguments unconvincing because they seem to be basing their opinion on out-dated Big Bang Models. I will agree though that even the current models still have problems, but the explanatory power of the model cannot be denied.

"My own skepticism revolves around two major points:"

Let's be honest - your skepticism comes not from these points but from your stance of young earth Biblical creationism.

"1. The assumption without any evidence whatsoever that the coordinates of space are expanding, and"

Actually, there is evidence, both theoretical and observational. The expansion is something that flows directly out of the equations of General Relativity and is observed.

"2. The assumption that a trend can be extrapolated without limit, in this case leading to the absurd notion that all of the mass and energy of the universe was once contained in an area smaller than the head of a pin."

Much smaller than that actually, but why is that absurd? What is the limit to density? Why do you think there is such a limit? Do you have any evidence to support a maximum density?

"I never referred to a "theory" of abiogenesis. I used the term "materialistic abiogenesis", which of course means the notion that living cells came into existence through materialistic means. As research continues and more and more details and sophistication are revealed about the workings of the cell, the "materialistic abiogenesis" notion recedes beyond the realm of mere science fiction into the world of science fantasy."

You like making grand claims, do you? Actually there is quite a bit of research going on in abiogenesis and many of the problems you perceive are not as insurmountable as you would like them to be. Though it is still the case that molecular biologists do not have a solid understanding of how life originated, do you think it is a good idea to stop their searches just because you believe it to "science fantasy?"

[Socratism]

I will agree though that even the current models [of thge Big Bang] still have problems, but the explanatory power of the model cannot be denied.

Any model can be forced to fit at least some portions of reality if one is allowed to "diddle" with enough parameters or introduce enough unexplained secondary factors [such as hyper light speed expansions]. At some point such antics begin to resemble nothing more than super sophisticated "curve fits".
(BTW, this is precisely what happened in the Galileo affair where proponents of the Ptolemic model kept adding more "epicycles" so that their "predictions" of the planetary orbits could be made to fit reality. Then they argued that their method was better than Galileo's because it was more accurate in predicting the planetary orbits).


Actually, there is evidence, [that the coordinates of space are expanding] both theoretical and observational. The expansion is something that flows directly out of the equations of General Relativity and is observed.

I am beginning to think that you make grand claims also.

Perhaps you would enlighten us regarding this "direct flow".

Besides, the only thing that really counts for much in physics is if one can verify ideas experimentally, because the world of mathematics consists of an infinite variety of potential possibilities, the vast majority of which are not realized in the physical universe that we inhabit.

I hope that the "observations" that verify the hypothetical expansion of the coordinates of the universe are not simply that without such a mathematical construction other hypothetical constructions would not fit reality.


Much smaller than that [head of a pin] actually, but why is that absurd? What is the limit to density? Why do you think there is such a limit? Do you have any evidence to support a maximum density?

I marvel at people who can actually believe fantasies such as that there is no limit to the density of matter.

Everything physical in the physical universe has limits. Don't you know that, or are you lost in the realm of mathematical abstractions?


You like making grand claims, do you?

Actually I do, it is a habit of mine, reinforced I suppose by another habit, which is that I am usually right about the grand claims that I make [or the hoaxes I expose in a rude manner]. This annoys some people.


Actually there is quite a bit of research going on in abiogenesis and many of the problems you perceive are not as insurmountable as you would like them to be.

What problems that you perceive I think are insurmountable are not as insurmountable as you think I would like them to be, and why?


do you think it is a good idea to stop their searches just because you believe it to "science fantasy?"

I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to which I don't. Their researches may be valuable to advance knowledge in chemistry and biology even though the goal itself is not achievable. I simply gave my opinion that the goal of demonstrating life (cells to be specific) appearing "naturally" will never be met.

[Joe_Sixpack]

"Actually I do, it is a habit of mine, reinforced I suppose by another habit, which is that I am usually right about the grand claims that I make [or the hoaxes I expose in a rude manner]. This annoys some people."

I see - does your arrogance have a limit like you believe density to have (though you cannot support)?

[QED]

Today @ 01:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83591#post83591)
Socratism:



Perhaps you would enlighten us regarding this "direct flow".

I don't know about following directly from gen relativity, but the expansion of space-time is not an assumption... rather it is a deduction. I'm not the type to propound on things that I understand poorly or not at all, but I will offer some resources that might help you.

For laymen:

Hubble discovered that red-shifting of light coming from luminous bodies in space is proportional to distance.[3] And the amount of the observed red-shifting indicates that these bodies are moving at up to 2/3 the speed of light. But motion of matter at these relativistic speeds would significantly increase mass; and this does not appear to be happening. The motion of distant stars as indicated by red-shift is therefore interpreted as being caused by the expansion of spacetime itself. And also, we do not live in a "steady-state" universe, so no new spacetime is currently being created, and there is thus only a certain amount of spacetime in existence.[2] But a finite amount of spacetime which is expanding must change, and that change would be expressed in its curvature. So expansion of an unchanging amount of space has no alternative but to stretch existing spacetime in an increasingly negative curvature.
From this page: http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0004059

And, for the somewhat more advanced, this might be interesting as well:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept02/Kinney/Kinney_contents.html
(Pay special attention to the the first three sections under "Resurrecting Einstein's Greatest Blunder")

Good luck!

[Socratism]

So we can conclude from what you stated that the Big Bang hypothesis is supported solely by the observation that the red shift of light is proportional to distance?

But what about the fact that it was shown in a technical paper published in a mainline journal a few years ago that if the coordinates of space are expanding that this would have effects at the atomic level that should yield a blue shift of light instead of red?

To solve this problem some astronomers airly say that the expansion of the coordinates of space does not occur at atomic dimensions ??????

Life is not all that simple, is it?

[Bald Ape]

But what about the fact that it was shown in a technical paper published in a mainline journal a few years ago that if the coordinates of space are expanding that this would have effects at the atomic level that should yield a blue shift of light instead of red?

References?

[Woman]

Socratism,

Why is it that anything "mainstream" seems to be anathema to you? I guess AiG just didn't have anything about cosmology that you could use, so you choose Meta Research - which is a nice site, but as they boast it is "Scientifically viable challenges to mainstream paradigms"

Socratism:

Any model can be forced to fit at least some portions of reality if one is allowed to "diddle" with enough parameters or introduce enough unexplained secondary factors

You mean like creation or Biblical inerrancy?

Socrates:

Actually I do, it is a habit of mine, reinforced I suppose by another habit, which is that I am usually right about the grand claims that I make [or the hoaxes I expose in a rude manner]. This annoys some people.

Joe Sixpack beat me to the idea of comparing your ego to the Big Bang.

The information streaming in from the Hubble telescope is just astounding in its implications. There is so much new data it can't be processed at once. Astronomy and cosmology are perhaps on the cusp of where genetics was a decade ago, mapping the human genome. The things they are learning will have far reaching consequences on our lives and world views.

This is just one incredibly exciting time to be alive, ain't it?

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83807#post83807)
Woman:

Socratism,

Why is it that anything "mainstream" seems to be anathema to you? I guess AiG just didn't have anything about cosmology that you could use, so you choose Meta Research - which is a nice site, but as they boast it is "Scientifically viable challenges to mainstream paradigms"

Socratism:


You mean like creation or Biblical inerrancy?

Socrates:


Joe Sixpack beat me to the idea of comparing your ego to the Big Bang.

The information streaming in from the Hubble telescope is just astounding in its implications. There is so much new data it can't be processed at once. Astronomy and cosmology are perhaps on the cusp of where genetics was a decade ago, mapping the human genome. The things they are learning will have far reaching consequences on our lives and world views.

This is just one incredibly exciting time to be alive, ain't it?










The second quote was by socratism, not socrates. I know this was just a typo, but with all the attacks socrates gets about his comments I just wanted to make sure he doesnt get blamed for saying what socratiam said.



Russ

[Socrates]

Woman to Socratism:Why is it that anything "mainstream" seems to be anathema to you? I guess AiG just didn't have anything about cosmology that you could use, so you choose Meta Research - which is a nice site, but as they boast it is "Scientifically viable challenges to mainstream paradigms".I doubt that Socratism has any problems with anything mainstream in true operational/observational science. But even cosmologists admit that mcuh of their modeling is speculative, so going outside the mainstream is perfectly reasonable for that.

Socratism:


Any model can be forced to fit at least some portions of reality if one is allowed to "diddle" with enough parameters or introduce enough unexplained secondary factors

Woman:You mean like creation or Biblical inerrancy?No, because these are not models, but frameworks by which we should construct models. Therefore any framework that opposes these, e.g. evolutionary materialism, can be rejected. And therein lies the basis for the futile attacks on creation and inerrancy -- the attackers have asserted that materialism is the only viable paradigm by which we should model Earth history. Their attacks against creation are not really about data, but how creationists break their self-serving rules by proposing that God created in the past.

So surprise, surprise, the misotheists claim to have proven creation and Biblical inerrancy wrong. but it would be a miracle if they had NOT, given their starting ASSUMPTIONS. Joe Sixpack beat me to the idea of comparing your ego to the Big Bang.Did Woman crawl out of the wrong side of bed this morning? :poke:

[QED]

Today @ 03:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83732#post83732)
Socratism:

So we can conclude from what you stated that the Big Bang hypothesis is supported solely by the observation that the red shift of light is proportional to distance?

Who me? No, I didn't say anything of the kind. That wouldn't even be accurate as an oversimplification. Red-shift is one measure supporting Big Bang, but the cosmic microwave background radiation supports big bang, too. I was actually just posting information showing that the expansion of space-time was not just an assumption.


But what about the fact that it was shown in a technical paper published in a mainline journal a few years ago that if the coordinates of space are expanding that this would have effects at the atomic level that should yield a blue shift of light instead of red?

You are asking me (or someone else?) to do something that (as I noted before) I'm not comfortable with - pontificating well outside the area where I have competent understanding. You do make me curious, though... in summing up this technical article, you say that expanding should yield a blue shift from effects at the atomic level. Does that mean that you would have to look at the atomic level to perceive the blue shift? Or does this paper purport to show blue shift from stars if the universe is expanding (owing to the atomic level effects)?




To solve this problem some astronomers airly say that the expansion of the coordinates of space does not occur at atomic dimensions ??????

I don't know if this is related or not, but I did read once that matter in solid bodies does not expand with the universe due to the strength of the inter- and intra-atomic forces. Essentially, the "edges" of such objects are accelerated against the expansion of space-time. From what I read, this would apply at the atomic level as well.



Life is not all that simple, is it?

No, it isn't. That's to keep us from getting bored. :teeth:

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83992#post83992)
QED:

[quote]Red-shift is one measure supporting Big Bang, but the cosmic microwave background radiation supports big bang, too.


The temperature of the background is better explained by other phenomena as the article I posted noted. Red shift is a measure of distance not velocity for the discovery of red-shift "quantization" falsified the velocity hypothesis.


I was actually just posting information showing that the expansion of space-time was not just an assumption.

It is merely an incorrect inference from early red shift observations. As more data is gathered and analyzed the hypothesis can be seen to be false.

Interestingly, the data does point to a universe that once was expanded from nothing. It is just that the evidence shows that it is no longer expanding as Big Bang proponents would have you believe.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

There are verses in other books of the Bible which indicate that God once "stretcheth out the heavens".

If that is the case then it would perhaps explain both the phenomenon of the Red Shift as well as how we are able to see distant stars in a young universe.

Isn't science wonderful?

[Socratism]

Woman,

Why is it that anything "mainstream" seems to be anathema to you?

It is a great exaggeration to accuse me of rejecting anything mainstream. I am much more selective than that, for it is only things that are not true that I reject.

Evolution from slime is not true nor is the Big Bang, which is why I reject them.

[QED]

Red shift is a measure of distance not velocity for the discovery of red-shift "quantization" falsified the velocity hypothesis.

I thought that the paper that reported red-shift quantization was itself shown to be in error, but I could be mistaken about that. Furthermore, I can't see why that would be falsification of red-shift as expansion.


The temperature of the background is better explained by other phenomena as the article I posted noted.

I'm skeptical of this claim. I'll check out the article when I get a chance though.

[Socratism]

Today @ 09:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84055#post84055)
QED:

I thought that the paper that reported red-shift quantization was itself shown to be in error, but I could be mistaken about that. Furthermore, I can't see why that would be falsification of red-shift as expansion.

Actually there was more than one study and different teams as well, some intially hostile to the concept. In fairness there have been other studies which failed to find "quantization".

Red shift means that the wavelengths of the various components of starlight have shifted toward the red. Since this seems to be roughly linear with distance it has been interpreted as a velocity effect analogous to what occurs with soundwaves from a moving train (the "pitch" changes when the train passes by).

The problem is that as one gets further and further out in space the shift becomes so extreme that it implies velocities which approach a significant fraction of the speed of light. Thus, most astronomers believe that this would cause stellar instability and to avoid this problem they believe that the effect must be due to expansion of the coordinates of space, not hperspeed velocities in fixed spacial coordinates.

However, if the red shift is actually occuring not in a smoothly increasing way with distance, but instead occurs in fixed increments or "jumps" as appears to be the case from most of the studies, the likelihood is that the shift is not due to velocity, either in fixed or expanding space coordinates.

An alternative for the shift could be a quantum effect at the atomic level, similar to the way that electrons are found in discrete "jumps" of orbits, or something else not yet discovered or imagined.

[Joe_Sixpack]

"Interestingly, the data does point to a universe that once was expanded from nothing. It is just that the evidence shows that it is no longer expanding as Big Bang proponents would have you believe."

Actually it is still expanding and at an accelerating rate according to Perlmutter et al.' s observations of distant supernova. You should take look at their work.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84154#post84154)
Joe_Sixpack:

Actually it is still expanding and at an accelerating rate according to Perlmutter et al.' s observations of distant supernova. You should take look at their work

Well, I have looked at such work. The problem seems to be that no matter what current idea is followed problems arise. None of the current theories are able to be consistent with all the data that is available.

My own wild speculations are probably no exception.

It will be interesting to see how it all eventually turns out

[QED]

However, if the red shift is actually occuring not in a smoothly increasing way with distance, but instead occurs in fixed increments or "jumps" as appears to be the case from most of the studies, the likelihood is that the shift is not due to velocity, either in fixed or expanding space coordinates.

Why not?

By the way, last I read, quantized red-shifts as an artifact of a faulty data collection scheme had not been ruled out, and the apparent effect was certainly not confirmed.

[Joe_Sixpack]

"The problem seems to be that no matter what current idea is followed problems arise."

Answers only beget more questions. This is the nature of science and is especially common in relatively young sciences like cosmology.

"None of the current theories are able to be consistent with all the data that is available."

This is no a well supported statement. Yes, there are some questionable pieces of data that conflict with current models, but none are as glaring as you seem to be implying. Inflationary Big Bang models have yet to be falsified by the data, and although they certainly have things that they cannot fully explain, they remain consistent with observation.

"It will be interesting to see how it all eventually turns out"

No doubt - and undoubtably current models are still far from the mark. Personally, I would only give the current inflationary models of the Big Bang a "B" or "B+" - they have some very good ideas and some powerful explanations for the evidence, but they still have problems that need to be addressed.

Had you worded your earlier posts as you did the last one, I would have thought much more of you. Challenging the accepted paradigm is something that should be lauded, but only if it is done from and honest and reasonable discussion of the evidence. Bold faced claims that are contrary to the work of thousands of very intelligent and diligent physicists without any support is simply arrogant. You may be right - the Big Bang may be entirely false, but you certainly haven't shown that and neither has metaresearch.org.

[Woman]

Joe Sixpack to Socratism:

Had you worded your earlier posts as you did the last one, I would have thought much more of you. Challenging the accepted paradigm is something that should be lauded, but only if it is done from and honest and reasonable discussion of the evidence. Bold faced claims that are contrary to the work of thousands of very intelligent and diligent physicists without any support is simply arrogant. You may be right - the Big Bang may be entirely false, but you certainly haven't shown that and neither has metaresearch.org.

Well said!

:cheers:

[AtheistArchon]

Evolution from slime is not true nor is the Big Bang, which is why I reject them.

- A truly excellent quote. :smile: So simple. So quaint.

- So illustrative.

- Perhaps we should apply this method all the time? Let me try it. "Christianity is not true, that is why I reject it." Hey! It works!

:ahem:

[Socratism]

Joe Sixpack


Bold faced claims that are contrary to the work of thousands of very intelligent and diligent physicists without any support is simply arrogant.

But I have the best support for my viewpoint about Origins that a human being could possibly have. You (and many others) simply refuse to listen to it, because you probably feel that human reasoning about things in the past is vastly superior to revealed truth.

"Please God, I would rather figure these things out for myself".
(With apologies to a similar line from a famous TV commercial of yesteryear).

[Socrates]

Tifft's documentation of quantized red shifts is a strong indicator that our galaxy is near the center of the universe. Conversely, the idea that the universe has no preferred direction or position is therefore a faulty ASSUMPTION, although it is behind big bang cosmology.

See Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show ( Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show).