https://phys.org/news/2020-01-eviden...very-dark.html
Dark Matter is a[n ad hoc] rescue device for scientists who reject God.
Dark Matter is a[n ad hoc] rescue device for scientists who reject God.
Last edited:
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Key Assumption Made in Discovery of Dark Energy in Error
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/12/astronomers-find-19-more-galaxies-missing-their-dark-matter
Missing dark matter is a huge problem for secular scientists.
Missing dark matter is a huge problem for secular scientists.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/no-dark-energy-no-chance-cosmologists-contend-20191217/
More problems for dark matter proponents.
More problems for dark matter proponents.
I'm not a proponent of the "God of the Gaps" position.
Try again.
Did you even bother to read the first article, let alone the other two?
If you aren't trying to make a "god of the gaps" argument, then what are you trying to do by pointing out current mysteries surrounding dark matter?
Did you even bother to read the first article, let alone the other two?
Yes. In the words of 7d7, "What, if anything, are you trying to say here?"
Also, this is a loaded question.
Again: Dark Matter is an ad hoc rescue device for scientists who reject God.
It's not that we don't understand it. It's not even that we can't find it.
It's that dark matter doesn't exist to begin with, and without it, secular theories of the universe fall apart.
Hence, "ad hoc rescue device."
That which is called "dark matter" is simply something that physicists currently do not understand. They'll figure it out eventually, and when they do, you'll be left with this "god of the gaps argument" that no longer applies.
I'd like to correct something here, the first article is talking about "dark energy," not "dark matter," yet my argument remains, however. Such is still an ad hoc rescue device.
The rest of this discussion, unless stated otherwise, will be about DE, not DM.
Maybe we should be calling it "Dark Matter/Energy of the gaps"...
:think:
You don't seem to have grasped what the first article was saying.
It was saying that the key assumption that was made to explain Dark Energy was wrong, and that:
The rest of this discussion, unless stated otherwise, will be about DE, not DM.
Maybe we should be calling it "Dark Matter/Energy of the gaps"...
:think:
You don't seem to have grasped what the first article was saying.
It was saying that the key assumption that was made to explain Dark Energy was wrong, and that:
| ... Taken at face values, the luminosity evolution of SN is significant enough to question the very existence of dark energy. When the luminosity evolution of SN is properly taken into account, the team found that the evidence for the existence of dark energy simply goes away (see Figure 1).[/QUOTE] Simply put, unless there is other evidence found, there is no evidence for Dark Energy, and therefore scientists should look for other explanations. Are you stupid? Or just being a troll? Read post #5 again. |
I really can't tell if you don't understand JR's point or not so let me give it a shot.
The argument JR is making is not an affirmative argument in favor of the existence of God (although it could rightly be used as such) but rather, the argument is a refutation of modern cosmology which is fundamentally unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific and therefore self-defeating.
Dark energy and dark matter are both rescue devices. What's more is that they are ad-hoc rescue devices. There is no evidence that either of them exists nor is there any theory that predicts their existence. The reason its believed to exists is because some mathematician forced the numbers to come out right by adding mass and/or energy to the equations that they BELIEVE describe the physics of the universe. In other words, observations of real phenomena in the universe demonstrate that reality is different that their theories say it should be and so, instead of allowing reality to falsify the theories, they fiddle with the numbers until the results match the observations and then use whatever they did with the math to modify their theory.
The point is that this sort of mathematical game playing isn't physics. It isn't even science. It isn't falsifiable because you can twiddle around with math equations in an almost infinite number of creative ways in order to get a needed result. I mean, even the name they've given it tacitly concedes the point. The whole reason they call it "dark" matter and "dark" energy is because there is no evidence that it exists! You can't see it, you can't even detect it with instruments. Now how is it science to postulate the existence of something that you cannot observe? Isn't it the atheists that says that since God can't been observed that His existence is fundamentally outside the purview of science? Shouldn't the atheist reject "dark" anything for the same reason they reject the existence of God?
Basically we're saying that modern cosmology isn't science. It hasn't been science for about the last century when physics was taken out of the lab and moved onto the blackboard and stopped being about performing repeatable tests of hypotheses that were based on confirmable observations and started being about mathematics and computer models.
So, it isn't that we are saying that God is the one who has directly caused the orbital velocities observed in galaxies. Nor are we saying that the current inability of atheistic science to explain those velocities is evidence of God's existence, never mind His direct involvement. We're saying that the atheistic worldview is dishonest; that they are not willing to allow observation to falsify certain high level theoretical constructs and as such are in violation of their very own worldview, which would be expected if their atheistic worldview was false and as such, their conduct stands as evidence of exactly that.
Do you see the distinction? It is the atheist's never ending and even inevitable contradiction of their own worldview that stands as evidence of God, not the lack of ability to explain certain natural phenomena. It was Christians (for the most part) that got the science ball rolling in the first place. Christians aren't afraid of science. On the contrary, we desire to understand God creation so that we might better understand Him Who created all things! It is the atheist who ignores the testimony of the very things he claims to study! The physicists ignores astronomical observation and laboratory experimentation, the evolutionist ignores biology and geology, the climatologists ignores not only geology but failed prediction after failed prediction preferring instead to trust their assumptions, estimations, math and their subsequent computer models much the same as their cosmologist counterparts do. All of which is informed and motivated by an underlying a-priori and aggressive atheism, which is not born out of some objective, dispassionate lack of evidence for the existence of God. On the contrary, atheistic science actively avoids and is aggressively repelled by the very notion of God's existence and intuitively rejects any evidence that they might come across, like Big Bang falsifying red-shifts observed in quasars in other galaxies or the evolution falsiying incomprehensible complexity of even the simplest of biological systems, etc.
Frustrating! - More to say but I'm totally out of time! That's enough for now I suppose anyway.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
Great post Clete! :thumb: :cigar::first:
Right Divider
Body part
Still not understanding the concept of a discussion forum, eh?
Right Divider
Body part
Rather than just posting a link, make a point about the referenced article.
Hey UN! You've just illustrated a point we make at a highly ranked article. If you Google: big bang predictions, you'll see my article at rsr.org/bbp ranked by Google #1 out of a million related pages. Of course that doesn't mean that it's correct, but a #1 ranking often means that a page may be the best presentation on the entire web from its perspective. It's common for supporters of a failed paradigm to do what you've just done, and divorce their theory's many failed predictions from one another, as though its not being buried by a tsunami of problems, but that it just has a "current mystery" or two. JudgeRightly, thanks for bringing this to my attention!
I've got plenty more articles to post.
Don't wanna flood the forum though haha.
Good to see you on here again, Pastor!
So what is the point you're trying to make here? There are lots of things we don't currently understand in science, therefore...what?