Key Assumption Made in Discovery of Dark Energy in Error

[ok doser]

"dark matter" is a fudge factor, familiar to any college freshman taking analytical chemistry 101

 

[Clete]

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?

The point is that intellectually honest people, most especially people who claim to be scientists, ought to be willing to let an idea that creates more problems than it solves die. It wasn't hyperbole when he said that Big Bang cosmology has many failed predictions and is buried under a tsunami of problems. Even the theory's principle underlying premise, red shift theory, is in question due to several objects found with anomalous red shifts that, once again, scientists simply form ad hoc theories to explain away. It's just a huge mess of a cosmology that is based at least as much on conjecture, assumption and even dogma as it is observation and experimentation.

If scientists really had the courage of their convictions (as atheists or otherwise) what they'd really be pushing for is to get the government out of the science business because a huge part of why modern mainstream cosmology is in the state that its in is because you're as likely as not to lose your funding (if not your entire career) if you stray too far from what is deemed acceptable by the scientific establishment. Funding for science should come from people and organizations that are interested in actual results rather than on the count of published papers, power, prestige and politics.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

The point is that intellectually honest people, most especially people who claim to be scientists, ought to be willing to let an idea that creates more problems than it solves die. It wasn't hyperbole when he said that Big Bang cosmology has many failed predictions and is buried under a tsunami of problems. Even the theory's principle underlying premise, red shift theory, is in question due to several objects found with anomalous red shifts that, once again, scientists simply form ad hoc theories to explain away. It's just a huge mess of a cosmology that is based at least as much on conjecture, assumption and even dogma as it is observation and experimentation.

If scientists really had the courage of their convictions (as atheists or otherwise) what they'd really be pushing for is to get the government out of the science business because a huge part of why modern mainstream cosmology is in the state that its in is because you're as likely as not to lose your funding (if not your entire career) if you stray too far from what is deemed acceptable by the scientific establishment. Funding for science should come from people and organizations that are interested in actual results rather than on the count of published papers, power, prestige and politics.

Clete

This is completely true. Is it any wonder that there's a "consensus"?

 

[Clete]

This is completely true. Is it any wonder that there's a "consensus"?

And since large percentages of the funding is from government, both for the science itself and for the universities that many scientists work for, it's politicians that comprise the committees that decided where the money goes. As such, not only is science restricted scientifically (i.e. academically) but also politically.

It seems the left destroys everything it touches.

 

[Bob Enyart]

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?

Hey again UN. The point is that the atheists who represent science to the world cannot be trusted. They've misled many into thinking that there are laws of science that imply no need for a Creator, whereas of course, there are no such laws.

And they've mislead many, maybe even you, into thinking that they have a reasonable theory of origins. But we can ask, Do atheists have even a hypothesis on origins?

Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness, therefore they don't even have a theory to explain where we've come from, let alone a robust theory. Worse than that though, I've noticed the following pattern which shows that atheists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these six observations:
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
- the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars and with protostars
- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with existing complex reproducing life
- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.

This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media who trust the atheists in science, have undue confidence in the materialist claims about origins. Consider also:
- Plate tectonics theory begins with plates already in existence, and has no mechanism for the initial breaking of the crustal plates.
- Water as the key to originate life ignores what NASA's senior astrobiologist Dr. Mary Voytek admitted to me that because water is the universal solvent, it is not the solution but the abiogenesis problem because it ruthelessly dissovles "prebiotic" molecules.
- Just the right chemicals could come together for life to arise, allegedly. Yet at every moment around the world quintillions of dead organisms at every stage of decomposition provide all the chemicals needed in astounding abundance yet as predictable from the foundational law of biogenesis, life does not arise.

The point of all this UN is that atheist lies have deceived millions of people, and perhaps you too, into assuming that science shows no need for a Creator, when the exact opposite is the truth.

 

[User Name]

So far, physicists have identified four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. But now, researchers have found new evidence for a fifth force of nature — and it could help us finally unravel the mystery of dark matter.

Source: https://futurism.com/the-byte/physi...4r1hsyeZCwcbM6RHCLYxoKAtmO2vjX5vWvsQKwpmWTS3E

 

[Right Divider]

So far, physicists have identified four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. But now, researchers have found new evidence for a fifth force of nature — and it could help us finally unravel the mystery of dark matter.

Source: https://futurism.com/the-byte/physi...4r1hsyeZCwcbM6RHCLYxoKAtmO2vjX5vWvsQKwpmWTS3E

Sounds like a rescue force to rescue the rescue device (dark whatever).

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hey again UN. The point is that the atheists who represent science to the world cannot be trusted. They've misled many into thinking that there are laws of science that imply no need for a Creator, whereas of course, there are no such laws.

And they've mislead many, maybe even you, into thinking that they have a reasonable theory of origins. But we can ask, Do atheists have even a hypothesis on origins?

Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness, therefore they don't even have a theory to explain where we've come from, let alone a robust theory. Worse than that though, I've noticed the following pattern which shows that atheists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these six observations:
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
- the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars and with protostars
- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with existing complex reproducing life
- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.

This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media who trust the atheists in science, have undue confidence in the materialist claims about origins. Consider also:
- Plate tectonics theory begins with plates already in existence, and has no mechanism for the initial breaking of the crustal plates.
- Water as the key to originate life ignores what NASA's senior astrobiologist Dr. Mary Voytek admitted to me that because water is the universal solvent, it is not the solution but the abiogenesis problem because it ruthelessly dissovles "prebiotic" molecules.
- Just the right chemicals could come together for life to arise, allegedly. Yet at every moment around the world quintillions of dead organisms at every stage of decomposition provide all the chemicals needed in astounding abundance yet as predictable from the foundational law of biogenesis, life does not arise.

The point of all this UN is that atheist lies have deceived millions of people, and perhaps you too, into assuming that science shows no need for a Creator, when the exact opposite is the truth.

Why are you making this into something about atheism? Science is science. Many scientists are not atheists and a belief in an old earth/universe/evolution etc does not rule out there being a creator regardless. The reason why there is a global consensus about such matters is because of the evidence and if you're aware of how the scientific method works and the stringency to which theories are continually subjected to, you wouldn't reduce it to such nonsense as this.

 

[7djengo7]

Why are you making this into something about atheism? Science is science. Many scientists are not atheists and a belief in an old earth/universe/evolution etc does not rule out there being a creator regardless. The reason why there is a global consensus about such matters is because of the evidence and if you're aware of how the scientific method works and the stringency to which theories are continually subjected to, you wouldn't reduce it to such nonsense as this.

Your "the scientific method" is to start and end by merely asserting that something is evidence for whatever it is you wish it to be evidence for. Notice how irate you will get when, after you've asserted that x is evidence for g, someone comes along and asks you for evidence for the proposition you just asserted: "Do you have evidence for your proposition, 'x is evidence for g'?"

Merely asserting that something is evidence for what you wish it to be evidence for is the sum and substance of your "the scientific method". Your "global consensus" is merely an agreement amongst you and your fellow errorists to always reduce yourselves to playing deaf and stonewalling against questions concerning your claims about evidence. Indeed, you subject yourselves to that commitment with impeccable stringency. But you know that you have to resort to stonewalling, because your language game is not, and could never be, capable of dealing with the contingency of such questions being asked of you.

Of course, you know, as well as we know, that you are, as a matter of course, incompetent to answer any questions concerning your claims regarding what is, and what is not, evidence.

You: "B is evidence for L."
Us: "Says you, but so what? What evidence would you say there is for your assertion that B is evidence for L?"
You: "How dare you ask me questions that embarrass me!!!!!!@#$%^&*!!!!!!Bladasgkhdslkjdslfjsdljfsdkjl fsdfkjldsfj!!!! My presupposition is that B is evidence for L; you've no right to question my presuppositions!!!!"​

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your "the scientific method" is to start and end by merely asserting that something is evidence for whatever it is you wish it to be evidence for. Notice how irate you will get when, after you've asserted that x is evidence for g, someone comes along and asks you for evidence for the proposition you just asserted: "Do you have evidence for your proposition, 'x is evidence for g'?"

Merely asserting that something is evidence for what you wish it to be evidence for is the sum and substance of your "the scientific method". Your "global consensus" is merely an agreement amongst you and your fellow errorists to always reduce yourselves to playing deaf and stonewalling against questions concerning your claims about evidence. Indeed, you subject yourselves to that commitment with impeccable stringency. But you know that you have to resort to stonewalling, because your language game is not, and could never be, capable of dealing with the contingency of such questions being asked of you.

Of course, you know, as well as we know, that you are, as a matter of course, incompetent to answer any questions concerning your claims regarding what is, and what is not, evidence.

You: "B is evidence for L."
Us: "Says you, but so what? What evidence would you say there is for your assertion that B is evidence for L?"
You: "How dare you ask me questions that embarrass me!!!!!!@#$%^&*!!!!!!Bladasgkhdslkjdslfjsdljfsdkjl fsdfkjldsfj!!!! My presupposition is that B is evidence for L; you've no right to question my presuppositions!!!!"​

Yeah, because the prevailing consensus in science came about because of a laugh between a bunch of atheists wearing lab coats and the like. Otherwise, do some math and acquaint yourself with how scientific theories come into being and the processes involved as to how they come to fruition.

Or play some Pokemon or something...

 

[Arthur Brain]

This is completely true. Is it any wonder that there's a "consensus"?

Really? Isn't there a consensus within creationist circles that the earth simply cannot be more than ten thousand years old give or take a few? Are you open to it being a fair bit older than that or not?

 

[7djengo7]

Yeah, because the prevailing consensus in science came about because of a laugh between a bunch of atheists wearing lab coats and the like. Otherwise, do some math and acquaint yourself with how scientific theories come into being and the processes involved as to how they come to fruition.

Or play some Pokemon or something...

Yeah, because I said anything about atheists in my post. Way to play deaf and stupid to my questions regarding evidence, just like I, in my post to which you just reacted, accurately predicted you must do.

Why would anyone take you seriously when you meaninglessly parrot the phrase, "scientific theories", when you, in the first place, have been forced into silence regarding questions asked you about evidence?

Hahahaha! Your "the scientific method" is supposed to be all about evidence, and you can't even answer questions about evidence. I definitely do not envy you the manifest, hopeless stupidity of the position you're in.:wazzup:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, because I said anything about atheists in my post. Way to play deaf and stupid to my questions regarding evidence, just like I, in my post to which you just reacted, accurately predicted you must do.

Why would anyone take you seriously when you meaninglessly parrot the phrase, "scientific theories", when you, in the first place, have been forced into silence regarding questions asked you about evidence?

Hahahaha! You can't even answer questions about evidence. I definitely do not envy you the manifest, hopeless stupidity of the position you're in.:wazzup:

Oh, well, I don't envy you the ignorance you have to continually wade in to deny what science has already clearly established the world over and if you want to cling to some fundamentalist belief system then have at it.

 

[Clete]

Your "the scientific method" is to start and end by merely asserting that something is evidence for whatever it is you wish it to be evidence for. Notice how irate you will get when, after you've asserted that x is evidence for g, someone comes along and asks you for evidence for the proposition you just asserted: "Do you have evidence for your proposition, 'x is evidence for g'?"

Merely asserting that something is evidence for what you wish it to be evidence for is the sum and substance of your "the scientific method". Your "global consensus" is merely an agreement amongst you and your fellow errorists to always reduce yourselves to playing deaf and stonewalling against questions concerning your claims about evidence. Indeed, you subject yourselves to that commitment with impeccable stringency. But you know that you have to resort to stonewalling, because your language game is not, and could never be, capable of dealing with the contingency of such questions being asked of you.

Of course, you know, as well as we know, that you are, as a matter of course, incompetent to answer any questions concerning your claims regarding what is, and what is not, evidence.

You: "B is evidence for L."
Us: "Says you, but so what? What evidence would you say there is for your assertion that B is evidence for L?"
You: "How dare you ask me questions that embarrass me!!!!!!@#$%^&*!!!!!!Bladasgkhdslkjdslfjsdljfsdkjl fsdfkjldsfj!!!! My presupposition is that B is evidence for L; you've no right to question my presuppositions!!!!"​

This is such a great point!

It's so true of the way scientists typically react to any probing question or common sense objection to any of the mainstream theories. I'm reminded of some of Bob Enyart's exchanges with Lawrence Krauss who just goes into hysterics before Bob has even made his point or gotten the question out of his mouth. If these scientists were so dispassionate and intellectually honest and our questions so juvenile and naive, you'd think that they'd simply answer the question and make the argument. Instead, it seems to almost always be vitriolic righteous indignation as though we had offended their moral sensibilities, insulted their mother and poked them in the eye all at once.

 

[Right Divider]

Really? Isn't there a consensus within creationist circles that the earth simply cannot be more than ten thousand years old give or take a few? Are you open to it being a fair bit older than that or not?

There are two types of consensus. One is based on facts (creation, global flood) and the other is based on foolishness (an "evolved" solar system, plate tectonics, single common ancestor).

 

[7djengo7]

Oh, well, I don't envy you the ignorance you have to continually wade in to deny what science has already clearly established the world over and if you want to cling to some fundamentalist belief system then have at it.

LOL

 

[Arthur Brain]

There are two types of consensus. One is based on facts (creation, global flood) and the other is based on foolishness (an "evolved" solar system, plate tectonics, single common ancestor).

So, you're not open to the possibility of the earth being considerably older than 10,000 years old then. Fair enough but the rest of this is opinion based on doctrinal interpretation of text and not fact by any stretch. Plenty of Christians alone can appreciate the difference.

 

[Right Divider]

So, you're not open to the possibility of the earth being considerably older than 10,000 years old then. Fair enough but the rest of this is opinion based on doctrinal interpretation of text and not fact by any stretch. Plenty of Christians alone can appreciate the difference.

I'm open to any facts. If you'd like to discuss some facts, please do.

P.S. You never did attempt to discuss the facts of radiometric dating. You always took the 'discussion' back to consensus.

 

[Clete]

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-eviden...very-dark.html

Dark Matter is a[n ad hoc] rescue device for scientists who reject God.

On the subject of modern cosmology adding ad hoc ideas to rescue their theories, I found the following diagram somewhere online some time ago that I think does a great job of describing the problem...

 

[JudgeRightly]

On the subject of modern cosmology adding ad hoc ideas to rescue their theories, I found the following diagram somewhere online some time ago that I think does a great job of describing the problem...

Indeed it does :think: