rrobs
Well-Known Member
So they have proven the existence of dark matter? As I said, I thought it was simply a model. Wherein lies my ignorance?
-
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!
Gravity and the Expanding Universe
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Why in the world do you even engage with a mad man? Seems futile to me.
ID is my drivers license.
Look up 'arguing from ignorance' it does not mean what you think. It is a fallacy in arguments.
Basically it is 'We do not know the answer therefore . . . .'
Demanding negative evidence something is false or does not exist is an example.
Last edited:
No, ID has no bearing on determining the position of stars. We can extrapolate from the observed motions backwards in time, but that requires no assumption of ID (or anything other than Newton's laws).
You seem to be obsessed with the notion of chance. But that is quite far from how science explains how things happen. Instead, it says that the universe works under orderly laws. While there is an aspect of chance in the details, the overall structure is not random at all.
Not a caused thing. Causality is one aspect of natural law.
Yes, the existence is established. What it is composed of is not known.
gnostic
The Lost One
Before I joined RF (back in 2006), I was read many different religious literature, including the Gnostic codices from Nag Hammadi.
Especially focusing my interests on the Gnostic versions of creation, eg Apocryphon of John, On Origin of the World, Hypotasis of the Archons, etc.
Hence, the name “gnostic”.
But I have been reading other texts, not just on Gnosticism. I have been reading the rabbinical Aggadah, the Hellenistic Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (books of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, etc), Egyptian literature (eg Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, Book of the Dead, and a number of other papyri), Sumerian poems and hymns, Babylonian epics (Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish), and even Ugaritic epics and Hittite myths.
I love ancient storytelling, but liking myths don’t mean that I believe them to be true.
I used to believe in the Bible, but since 2000, I have considered myself as an agnostic, not because of science or evolution, but because I disagree with the gospels interpretations of the messianic prophecies, eg Matthew 1:22-23 cf Isaiah 7:14, and church teachings regarding to those prophecies or signs.
gnostic
The Lost One
Natural law is just “is”, rrobs.
Things like Genesis creation story and flood story, and the idiocy of book of Job, and the supposed “miracles”, defied the natural laws with supernatural and magic.
In Natural Sciences, scientists attempt to explain what they observe, through models (explanatory and predictive models, eg hypothesis is a proposed explanation, while a “scientific theory” is explanation that have already been tested, verified and accepted), and then undergo more observations (eg evidence, experiments).
The only ways to test a model (be they hypothesis or theory) is through observations, meaning finding evidence or doing experiments. And verification can only occur if the experiments are repeatable or you have multiple evidence.
But testing don’t mean it would only validate hypothesis or theory.
Negative evidence are just as good, because it would mean that hypothesis is weak or wrong, or current theory is outdated or wrong. Negative evidence help the science community to weed out weak or faulty models.
So all evidence are good, whether they verified the models to be true, or refuted/debunked models if they are false.
What is bad, are models that have no evidence (zero evidence), which would mean the models are untestable, hence unfalsifiable. These models are considered pseudoscience - junk. Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design fall under this category.
Even a model that have been debunked by negative evidence is better than pseudoscience with no evidence, because a debunked model is falsifiable/testable, where as pseudoscience model is unfalsifiable/untestable, and cannot be tested.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I demanded no evidence. I stated a fact, i.e. dark matter is not understood. Or have they found a complete explanation in the last few days?
Kind of old, and you need to cite actually what John Polkingham proposed?
Not talking about the latest diversion into 'dark matter.' The 'dark energy' issue is meaningless.
I am referring to your probability estimate concerning the physical constant of our universe, and it is possible that our physical constant are the only way we can have base don the Laws of Nature..
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Both to the extent that I can figure out their intent.
There is no evidence that science claims any such thing. It simply uses the evidence to describe the universe as it is and the origin's of our universe has consistent and predictable properties described as originating from a singularity or black hole. No blind faith just evidence and science.
Again calculating probability for something, physical constants, that has no known possible range of properties.
From what I read and jogged my memories of past reading is yes he believed in the harmony of science and religion as I do and the Baha'i Faith, but he does not advocate that probability is an argument for ID.
In terms of math in describing the nature, history of our universe and origins He does believe like I do that 'Chaos Theory' fractal math is part of the cause and effect outcome patterns that is the determining nature of our universe. I share his view of descriptive nature of the math behind the origins and history of the physical existence. We both believe in science, God and Divine Creation, but not the argument you present.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, that is a problem. Like the Christians, Muslims, Bahais etc. would take what is written in their scriptures and what was supposed to have been said by their Prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis as God's own truth, but science would not take that as any proof. To search for God, the criteria will be to see if God makes any verifiable difference in reality of the world or in life of men.
It will be interesting to see what Samkhya philosophy of Hinduism has to say about it: Samkhya - Wikipedia (Arguments against Ishvara's existence)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I think that will be nice. It will help you to realize your limitations. Not a bad thing, we all have our limitations.
Does it come from God? Prove it.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
" but science would not take that as any proof "
Science has no business in religious issues, The Truthful Religion doesn't present any proof/evidences for science as per its definitions. The Truthful Religion presents brilliant Signs for benefit of the reasonable humanity, I understand. Right, please?
Regards
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"The Truthful Religions" can neither give any evidence for their God / Allah nor that this God / Allah has sent prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis with his messages. If I say that they were all ignorants, egoists, frauds, charlatans, then you have no evidence to prove it otherwise.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Not in our scenario. When gravity increases fast, the perihelion will be closer to earth. When gravity increases over a longer period, the orbit will stay mostly circular. When gravity increases fast and several thousand percent, not only ten, the moon will crash into earth.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Given that creationists have a massive problem with accepting reality, I suspect that that is not the final word. But at least for now it is the preliminary verdict on what can be taught as science at schools. And ID isn't.