nPeace
Veteran Member
The failure is in your lack of understanding.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Good in Bad Science
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please try to understand.
I used the Bible to show that there were many witnesses, and particularly to the Genesis, when you claimed only a few, and did not include Genesis, nor the witnesses I presented.
Proving you are no Bible scholar. You only dream of it.
And that is circular reasoning. You can't use the Bible to prove the bogus claims of the Bible. You do not even seem to understand what eyewitness testimony is in the first place. The Bible is hearsay at best. There are practically no witnesses. The Gospels are stories from an oral tradition. As is most of the Old Testament.
You are having a serious attack of the Dunning Kruger effect when you claim that others are not scholars.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong again. In fact this relates to the title of this thread. "Bad science" is supposed science that cannot be falsified. Your just so stories cannot be falsified. The real science that you hate so much can be falsified.
That is why you lose the debate when you cannot come up with a reasonable test for your beliefs. By doing so you admit that they are "Bad science" .
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
@Hockeycowboy why the raiinbow? It appears that you were insulting @nPeace . Do you think that he will not allow himself to see his error? You may be right.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I give up.
Stick to your scripts, if they make your day.
The only thing I will gain is an increasing headache.
Please note. You are the one requesting something that is not workable. Not I. I don't know why you keep doing that, when I am on a completely different path to knowledge.
What's up with that?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I give up.
Stick to your scripts, if they make your day.
The only thing I will gain is an increasing headache.
Seriously, you should be facepalming yourself. You keep using circular reasoning. Your headaches are probably from self imposed cognitive dissonance. When one's superstitious beliefs are threatened it can kick in big time.
Please note. You are the one requesting something that is not workable. Not I. I don't know why you keep doing that, when I am on a completely different path to knowledge.
What's up with that?
How so? You are the one asking about science in this thread and when it is explained to you you can only respond rudely.
You used a flawed definition of what a just so story is. And ironically you cannot see that no matter which version you use your personal beliefs are just so stories. I
in the sciences one cannot prove an idea correct. But one can make testable models. For some odd reason you may think that the fact that an idea is falsifiable means that it is false. That is not the case. The theory of evolution is falsifiable and it has never been falsified. The theory of gravity is falsifiable and it has never been falsified. A concept that cannot be tested is unscientific. It is in the low!y category of "not even wrong" since scientists can learn from their errors being wrong is not the end of the world.
Sadly creationists tend to be cowards when it comes to testing their ideas. They have failed far too often in the past.
I am not asking for something that is not workable. I am asking for something that is testable. "I am right because this book of myths says so" does not cut it in a scientific debate.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Are you saying the only persons allowed to use models to test concepts or determine whether something is true or false, are those in the scientific community?
Okay then.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, anyone can use models to test an idea. But models are worthless for the task if they are not falsifiable. All that bad models give is confirmation bias.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Are you the same person that said nothing in this world can be "proven" true? What does falsifiable mean?
If something is not true, what is it?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Don't blame others for your own inability to understand. Concepts in science are only taken to be "provisionally true". For example the theory of gravity is provisionally true. It could be falsified and shown to be wrong. That is highly unlikely, but it could happen. Likewise the theory of evolution is provisionally true. But with even more evidence supporting it than supports the theory of gravity that is even less likely to be shown to be wrong.Are you the same person that said nothing in this world can be "proven" true? What does falsifiable mean?
If something is not true, what is it?
In the sciences one cannot even begin to claim to have evidence for a concept without a testable hypothesis. That is why I have no problem claiming that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. Until creationists get good enough to form a testable hypothesis they cannot claim to have any scientific evidence for their beliefs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
@nPeace I see that you started a private debate. That is a good idea. If you want some basics on the sciences while you wait I will be glad to give you a head start. I am sure that the topics of testability, the scientific method, and evidence will arise. I can both explain these and provide sources for you on them.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Oh. I understand very well.
I understand that you are living in a bubble - trying desperately to declare that your view is somehow superior to the Christian's, or other religious person.
Do you think Christians are sitting around waiting for secular ideas to determine if what they have tested and found to be true, is considered such by philosophical methodologies.
Are you really listening to yourself?
Nothing can be proved true.
We can only prove something not true.
What we have is provisionally true.
You do like to use gravity as a crutch, don't you. However, whatever observations we make - which need to be be explained by hypothetical - is subject to interpretation no matter the amount of tests run on them.
Giving it a name, and declaring that it is what one says it is, doesn't make it such.
I understand very well where you are, and it's not where I want to be actually - floating in a bubble of hopelessness, and hoping that it is on the right course. Not to mention, grabbing at anything you think will make your 'pipe dream' materialize.
I have no idea what could be positive about that dream. It just looks like rotting flesh being eaten by maggots.
Wild guess.
Anyway, we have evidence. I am sorry that you think you need scientific evidence to know when you get wet walking through the rain.
Perhaps it not rain.
Maybe it's alien urine, and we need to call a scientist to strip off your clothes and test that hypothesis.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my! Massive projection again.Oh. I understand very well.
I understand that you are living in a bubble - trying desperately to declare that your view is somehow superior to the Christian's, or other religious person.
Do you think Christians are sitting around waiting for secular ideas to determine if what they have tested and found to be true, is considered such by philosophical methodologies.
Are you really listening to yourself?
Nothing can be proved true.
We can only prove something not true.
What we have is provisionally true.
You do like to use gravity as a crutch, don't you. However, whatever observations we make is subject to interpretation no matter the amount of tests run on them.
Giving it a name, and declaring that it is what one says it is, doesn't make it such.
I understand very well where you are, and it's not where I want to be actually - floating in a bubble of hopelessness, and hoping that it is on the right course. Not to mention, grabbing at anything you think will make your 'pipe dream' materialize.
I have no idea what could be positive about that dream. It just looks like rotting flesh being eaten by maggots.
Wild guess.
Anyway, we have evidence. I am sorry that you think you need scientific evidence to know when you get wet walking through the rain.
Perhaps it not rain.
Maybe it's alien urine, and we need to call a scientist to strip off your clothes and test that hypothesis.
All I can say is once again, do not blame others when you won't let yourself understand.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Big Bang Dogma
For many years now, there's been a controversy brewing. Two different measurement methods — one using the cosmic distance ladder and one using the first observable light in the Universe — give results that are mutually inconsistent. While it's possible that one (or both) groups are in error, the tension has enormous implications for something being wrong with how we conceive of the Universe.
There's an enormous controversy in astrophysics today over how quickly the Universe is expanding.
...new physics might be the culprit.
Do We Have the Big Bang Theory All Wrong?
Contradictions between the Black Hole and the Big-Bang Theories, and the Structure of the Universe
Problems with the Big Bang Theory
THE GROWING CASE AGAINST THE BIG BANG
A Summary from LPPFusion, Inc.
The new evidence on surface brightness is by no means the only recent research that contradicts the Big Bang theory. Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers. The observations are, on the other hand, consistent with a non-expanding universe with no Big Bang.
Conclusion
Each of these sets of problems could be, and in fact often are, dismissed as mere “anomalies” in an otherwise well-supported theory. But taken collectively they contradict all the predictions of the theory, leaving no support at all. The response of supporters of the Big Bang theory has been to continually add “parameters” to the theory to account for new discordant data. As a result, as Michael Disney has demonstrated, the theory, now with over 20 parameters to be adjusted, has never had any power to predict new results. So it lacks the basic hallmark of a sound scientific theory. Indeed, the recent, well-publicized results from the BiCEPS instrument has led many researchers to add yet more parameters to the theory to explain apparent contradictions between BiCEPS and Planck results.
In contrast, the data that contradicts the Big Bang theory can be explained far more simply with hypotheses that are consistent with a universe that had no beginning in time and no Big Bang.
Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
The field relies on a conceptual framework that has trouble accounting for new observations
“Big Bang Vanishes” –Quantum Theory Describes an Eternal Universe
An intriguing new theory suggests there was no Big Bang singularity, no starting point and points at the possibility that the universe had no beginning.
The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there according to Ahmed Farag Ali at Egypt’s Benha University. Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
...the theory has a serious physical and mathematical problem known as Big Bang Singularity that predicts that our universe began from an infinitely dense point at which the laws of physics break down.
This means the theory contains its own contradiction.
Fascinating New Study Claims Dark Matter May Be Older Than The Big Bang
At this stage we just have no way of knowing. As Harvard-Smithsonian theoretical physicist Avi Loeb said earlier this year, "the current situation for inflation is that it's such a flexible idea, it cannot be falsified experimentally." He was talking about whether or not cosmic inflation actually happened (also a matter of debate), but the statement works for the timing of the whoompf, too.
It seems whenever they can no longer plug the large holes in their theories, all the truth they hide from the public are freely released. Otherwise, those truths are ignored - pushed under the carpet.
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia
Criticisms
Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support.
At a conference in 2015, Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. [...] BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."
Counter-arguments were presented by Alan Guth, David Kaiser, and Yasunori Nomura[147] and by Andrei Linde saying that "cosmic inflation is on a stronger footing than ever before".
What were we told?
In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but the expansion was no longer accelerating.
The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown. The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation; however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position. The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.
When something is so dogmatically asserted, with very little evidence - based on assumptions, at best (Non-standard cosmology - Wikipedia), and so many problem against it, one has to ask, why? Why do persons seem so desperate to force a theory to be true?
The logical answer to me... It's a philosophy - a doctrine purported by men. Not supported by solid evidence or fact... but publicized in that way.
So we get stories that children must just believe - just so stories.
Nobody seriously questions that the universe began 14 billion years ago.
Really? ...and half truths and lies.
The search for the origin of the universe continues... for the materialists.
The best fix to the Big Bang problems seem simple. Back to the universe has no beginning, nor end.
Scrap the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy... Problems solved. Really?
For many years now, there's been a controversy brewing. Two different measurement methods — one using the cosmic distance ladder and one using the first observable light in the Universe — give results that are mutually inconsistent. While it's possible that one (or both) groups are in error, the tension has enormous implications for something being wrong with how we conceive of the Universe.
There's an enormous controversy in astrophysics today over how quickly the Universe is expanding.
...new physics might be the culprit.
Do We Have the Big Bang Theory All Wrong?
Contradictions between the Black Hole and the Big-Bang Theories, and the Structure of the Universe
Problems with the Big Bang Theory
THE GROWING CASE AGAINST THE BIG BANG
A Summary from LPPFusion, Inc.
The new evidence on surface brightness is by no means the only recent research that contradicts the Big Bang theory. Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers. The observations are, on the other hand, consistent with a non-expanding universe with no Big Bang.
Conclusion
Each of these sets of problems could be, and in fact often are, dismissed as mere “anomalies” in an otherwise well-supported theory. But taken collectively they contradict all the predictions of the theory, leaving no support at all. The response of supporters of the Big Bang theory has been to continually add “parameters” to the theory to account for new discordant data. As a result, as Michael Disney has demonstrated, the theory, now with over 20 parameters to be adjusted, has never had any power to predict new results. So it lacks the basic hallmark of a sound scientific theory. Indeed, the recent, well-publicized results from the BiCEPS instrument has led many researchers to add yet more parameters to the theory to explain apparent contradictions between BiCEPS and Planck results.
In contrast, the data that contradicts the Big Bang theory can be explained far more simply with hypotheses that are consistent with a universe that had no beginning in time and no Big Bang.
Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
The field relies on a conceptual framework that has trouble accounting for new observations
“Big Bang Vanishes” –Quantum Theory Describes an Eternal Universe
An intriguing new theory suggests there was no Big Bang singularity, no starting point and points at the possibility that the universe had no beginning.
The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there according to Ahmed Farag Ali at Egypt’s Benha University. Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
...the theory has a serious physical and mathematical problem known as Big Bang Singularity that predicts that our universe began from an infinitely dense point at which the laws of physics break down.
This means the theory contains its own contradiction.
Fascinating New Study Claims Dark Matter May Be Older Than The Big Bang
At this stage we just have no way of knowing. As Harvard-Smithsonian theoretical physicist Avi Loeb said earlier this year, "the current situation for inflation is that it's such a flexible idea, it cannot be falsified experimentally." He was talking about whether or not cosmic inflation actually happened (also a matter of debate), but the statement works for the timing of the whoompf, too.
It seems whenever they can no longer plug the large holes in their theories, all the truth they hide from the public are freely released. Otherwise, those truths are ignored - pushed under the carpet.
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia
Criticisms
Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and a lack of serious empirical support.
At a conference in 2015, Penrose said that "inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified. [...] BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye."
Counter-arguments were presented by Alan Guth, David Kaiser, and Yasunori Nomura[147] and by Andrei Linde saying that "cosmic inflation is on a stronger footing than ever before".
What were we told?
In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but the expansion was no longer accelerating.
The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown. The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation; however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position. The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.
When something is so dogmatically asserted, with very little evidence - based on assumptions, at best (Non-standard cosmology - Wikipedia), and so many problem against it, one has to ask, why? Why do persons seem so desperate to force a theory to be true?
The logical answer to me... It's a philosophy - a doctrine purported by men. Not supported by solid evidence or fact... but publicized in that way.
So we get stories that children must just believe - just so stories.
Nobody seriously questions that the universe began 14 billion years ago.
Really? ...and half truths and lies.
The search for the origin of the universe continues... for the materialists.
The best fix to the Big Bang problems seem simple. Back to the universe has no beginning, nor end.
Scrap the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy... Problems solved. Really?
My brother, @1:20, the question was asked, rhetorically, "who compressed the spring?" Keep in mind, this is from a materialist scientist! We know Who did it!I like this comment. It's good for some to pay attention to... for their own good.
Why are you having a problem with the BBT?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That was a rhetorical question. Physicists still have a lot to learn. No evidence as of yet fora God.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I was referring to the comment at 4:24, but apparently it's not starting there.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Do you have a point?