The Good in Bad Science

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh no. You don’t accept Big Bang cosmology either.

Don’t tell me now that you believe the Universe is a few thousands years old, while still stating science and scriptures agree.

By the way, do you think common sense is useful for things like quantum mechanics or relativity?

Remember, our brain evolved for survival and not to have a common sense for things not related to it.

Ciao

- viole

I have difficulty teasing out evidence of common sense in the work of many of those claiming to have it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which discussion are you referring to?
Certainly possible that I simply forgot about it and that your notification of a reply got lost in the long list of other notifications. Usually I actively try to not just leave conversations. But sometimes, I don't come to the forums for a few days and I won't rule out that I might have missed a post or two during one of such intervals.

I recall him mentioning several times how difficult it is for him to keep up with all the responses he gets. Apparently, he demands others accommodate his needs, but does not offer the same consideration.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Claiming that people claim that people have a religious agenda when those people don't claim that people claim that people have a religious agenda is a straw man. I think.

Anyway, for the record, I believe there is plenty of evidence for the BB and evolution and I don't believe that religious people refuse to see the evidence because they have a religious agenda, I believe they don't see it because they are blind fools who would not recognize a genuine piece of evidence if one jumped up and punched them on the nose...and there is no purpose in arguing with such people except for gratuitous discussion forum entertainment purposes.

In addition to religious agendas, I think that is the other big reason they do not see evidence, recognize science and make all these claims against science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The thread is here.

2 months ago it seems.
I vaguely remember getting very frustrated with you and your stubborness concerning your lack of understanding of what constitutes evidence.

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

I don't have such beliefs or worship. So I'm not religious.

Atheist are not free from faith, belief system, or religion.

It's literally what "atheist" means.... to not follow a religion and to not believe claims of the supernatural.

But sure, an atheist is surely capapble of believe other things on bad evidence.
So, you are of the opinion that I believe certain things on bad or no evidence?

Feel free to inform me what those beliefs are and how you know I believe them on bad or no evidence...

To think otherwise, is also a fallacy.

??
Please learn what a "fallacy" is, because you're using it wrong.

The same applies to Atheist, and unbelievers.

No, fundamentalist religious beliefs about creationistic nonsense, does not apply to atheists as atheists don't believe in supernatural creators....

You probably are not aware that people have doubts, and they discuss these before making up their mind to choose an alternative, to what they have doubts about.
If you don't know that, don't bother about it.

You are just repeating your claim.
I asked you for examples. Do you have any? Or do you just have this vague claim?

Go ahead, give me examples of people who have genuine objections to evolution theory, not rooted in some faith based and/or conspiratory faith based beliefs that are incompatible with evolution theory.

Antony Garrard Newton Flew (/fluː/; 11 February 1923 – 8 April 2010) was an English philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, Flew was most notable for his work related to the philosophy of religion. During the course of his career he taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, and at York University in Toronto.

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will defence to the problem of evil,[4]and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III.

However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an Intelligent Creator of the universe, shocking his fellow colleagues and atheists.

This is not an answer to my question.
I asked for an example of someone who argues against evolution theory without having creationistic religious beliefs.

Flew, basically fell for the "arguments" of the Discovery Institute. Meaning that whatever objection he had to natural sciences of biology, were religious in nature.

You are welcome to try again.

There is only one truth, and many claims to that truth.
It is no surprise that those claiming to hold that truth will stand by it.
Some who feel they have truth, want everyone to let go of 'their claim to truth', while others are content to allow others to make their choice to hold to what they claim is truth.
No nose bleeds.

Sorry, no.
People can have their own opinions, but facts are facts.
What is true for you can not be not true for me.

Evolution theory is either accurate or it isn't. It's not a matter of "beliefs" or "choice".
And what determines the accuracy of evolution, is the actual evidence of reality - not some bronze age story.

 

[nPeace]

@TagliatelliMonster I'll get back to you, in a weeks time. Thanks for responding to the other thread also.
@sayak83 Something came up unexpectedly today, so I won't be able to start the thread until a week from now.
Later all.

 

[sayak83]

@TagliatelliMonster I'll get back to you, in a weeks time. Thanks for responding to the other thread also.
@sayak83 Something came up unexpectedly today, so I won't be able to start the thread until a week from now.
Later all.

ok.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes.
Please don't assume what you think you know of others.
These guys study more than any layman.
A new paper, inspired by alternative explanations of the physics of black holes, explores the latter possibility, and rejects a core tenet of the Big Bang hypothesis.
...there were a number of serious alternatives [to the Big Bang hypothesis] considered for decades, throughout the 20th century, a scientific consensus emerged more than 50 years ago with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Despite many attempts to revive a variety of the discredited ideas, as well as attempts to formulate new possibilities...
Are they ignorant as well.
Oh wait. No they are just stubborn religious fanatics. Riiiight.

I fail to see what your objection is here.

In the first link, it is noted that the universe does, in fact, expand. The only question is whether the 'singularity' is a real thing or not. And, the fact is that with many versions of quantum gravity, it need not be. The singularity is based on general relativity which is *known* to be inadequate to deal with the very, very early universe where quantum effects are relevant.

In your second link, the reason why none of the alternatives are regarded as plausible is given: we now have the data that we didn't have before. So, yes, before that data was available it was possible to have other explanations. But, as we gathered more data those alternatives became less and less workable.

So, no, those were not alternatives proposed by religious fanatics. They were valid scientific hypotheses at the time, but are no longer because we have more information now than we did then.

Don't go there. Already your bias is shinning like a fluorescent bulb, in a sealed coffin.


My "deep knowledge of cosmology".
Oh sorry to disagree with your established truth. Pardon my presumptuousness.

OK, so you don't agree. Why not? What *evidence* do you have that the current, standard model is wrong?

A little over thirty years ago, when the universe was about 15 billion years old, were you clobbering someone over the head too. I hope none of them came up to you 35 years later, and laughed in your face.
Perhaps 30 years from now, we will be alive.
I won't laugh in you face either, but I may not hide the
You do cause me to marvel.

You realize that the 15 billion years estimate had error bars on it? So, it was something like 15+-4 billion years. The current estimate is 13.7+-.1 billion years. Those are consistent. So, once again, I fail to see what you find to be problematic.

 

[viole]

You kinda lost me momentarily
Are you trying to take away @sayak83 opportunity?
Are you a scientist?

I will discuss with you what we are on currently.
You say you are debating me, so in that case, I think you need to understand what I am saying.

In the first place, the links I posted.. They are probably science journals, and the 'they' are scientists.
You claimed that the individuals who oppose the theory "might simply be totally ignorant about the subject". Thanks for using the word 'may'.
This is squarely in line with the point of the OP.

It is not only the average person on the street that disagree with these theories.
There are scientists who disagree, also.
That was the purpose of those two links I posted.
So if you are going to blame ignorance on the average person, then perhaps the scientists are ignorant as well?
No?
Then they must be religious.
So? Religious people accept the theory.
No, it can be religion, but I don't see why it has to be.
Because scientists have different opinions and ideas - They all come to the table with different propositions.
The one that seems to be the - in my own words - less problematic, becomes 'kingpin'.

So the way I see it,, it's not that anyone is ignorant (even though some persons know little), or religious (as many are).
At this point, I also want to specifically address @QuestioningMind who just posted his best opinion. It's about the fact that the limits of science forces it to use "the better explanation", or - in my own words - the best opinion.
If it were not an opinion, there is nothing that could replace it, and no one would say "scientists assumed", or "scientists asserted" etc.,

Again @QuestioningMind, if your opinion were true, then I would not even mention BB, and cosmology on a whole, because there is no conflict with my understanding of the Bible.
However, the other unfounded assumptions that are pseudoscience clearly do.
Just one of many articles - What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated (Op-Ed)

What banged the Big Bang?
The bronze age book tells us. I believe it. I believe in creation. The word some hate to hear.

You said, sorry @viole I'm back to you, you behave as though one who does not agree with all science is denying truth, and therefore either ignorant, or according to Richard Dawkins the other things.
However, I think that works two ways. You see, I believe that it's simply blind faith driven by personal desire... may be fear too, that causes persons to think science is the sin parecido.

How can I describe that... It seems to me, that's far from the truth.
In the mid-1990s, observations of certain globular clusters appeared to indicate that they were about 15 billion years old
At that time, I'm quite sure that some would also have felt that anyone who did not accept this was ignorant of science, but I think it's the other way around. I think some forget what science is, and elevate it to a level it cannot reach. Then they claim they have no religion.

With regard to the video, In the OP, it really was not meant to be the focus, as I was more focused on the point that persons were changing their view based on the fact that there were things being presented in science as evidence... where they exist none.
Hypothetical seem to be the explanations for everything.

BB theory is considered by scientists, the best accepted idea for explaining some observed phenomenon in the universe, but to many, much of it seems to be pseudoscience.

For me, I don't see any of this as meaningful to me. See my thread here.
Whether the universe banged or blipped according to scientists, does not affect the fact that the universe exists, and will continue to exist, regardless of what scientists know, or don't know.
Whether the story told (I call it myth), is repeated a million times, does not change the facts about the universe with its billions of galaxies and heavenly bodies.
I don't see why any of these thing should mean anything to me. So you split the atom. So what? You smashed particles together. So what? How about smashing them at twice the speed, and see what happens.
I mean... What has man really done?
I look at my life, and I see greater things than any scientists can achieve. These things are spiritual, and have so much meaning. What can replace true inner joy peace and happiness? When you can share that with others and experience their joy, there is nothing greater.
No scientists can accomplish that. Besides they are totally committed to naturalism.
Now tell me... give me one good reason why I need that. Just one.

If the destroy humanity, what's left... and they are not far from that.
Only if it were up to them, but I believe in an intelligent designer - a creator. You think it's an assumption. Well I believe it's a better assumption. Although, to me, it's not an assumption. There is mountains of evidence - to use your term - for it.

Where is all the good use being put to so much knowledge. I don't see it.
I could go on, but then you would not read such a long post. So I'll stop at this point.
Do you want to talk about other things? Inflation?
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia
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 continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.

They even admit, the Big Bang singularity is an opinion. Obviously. How could they know there was a singularity? How could they know the rate of speed of the expansion throughout time?
It's all conjecture.
Okay. I'm done. (Too much to spell check)

Well, you started this thread called the good in bad science.

So, in order to put some structure, my question can be compressed into one: how do you know what is good science and what not?

It is a honest question. It entirely possible that what we consider good science is wrong or incomplete. But you seem to hold the holy grail that would allow us to abandon avenues of research that will lead nowhere, given your confidence.

So, how do you do it?

Give me an example of something that is currently orthodox science that you consider a fairy tale, and why you consider it such.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

Actually, I recall we were having a discussion, and you abruptly disappeared without what I would consider the courtesy to say... well... I don't know.... something at least.
I find persons with a faith in an unsupported claim, are usually the ones who can't seem to stand behind the 'mountains of evidence' claim.
Why is it that it's always about another person's religious belief?
Why is it never about the fact that your own religious beliefs is what drives your faith?
If it's not a religious belief then why is it, you can't seem to stand and answer question that dig into that evidence?

People with a religious belief are willing to stand up and debate the evolutionists. Why is that? Certainly, it can't be that they don't have a reasonable basis for doing so. It's not about religion obviously.
Even non-religious people question and argue against the theory.... and in fact, as I pointed out, some even change their view about it, because of the lack of evidence.
Clearly, rather than seeing a mountain, they see a valley - actually more like a deep trench, or gully.

Claiming that people have a religious agenda, is simply a strawman... and a fallacy itself.

The legitimate arguments in science always have reference to observations and the way to account for them and to predict further ones.

Religious people who oppose evolution do not proceed in this way. They start - as you do - by wanting to prove evolution wrong because it does not fit their religious belief, not because of any observations. What they may then do is go off to a creo website, to find some carefully cherry-picked observations that they can pretend are their reason for challenging the theory.

I have seen this pattern of dishonest behaviour innumerable times, over the years. They consider themselves "Liars for Christ", I suppose.

So you have to expect a certain sense of weary irritation when yet another creationist trots up, with another tedious variant of the same, worn-out, bogus arguments.

 

[gnostic]

In your second link, the reason why none of the alternatives are regarded as plausible is given: we now have the data that we didn't have before. So, yes, before that data was available it was possible to have other explanations. But, as we gathered more data those alternatives became less and less workable.

Yes, those alternatives are classified as “theoretical” cosmologies for good reasons; they are proposed hypotheses, like draft alternatives, not accepted yet, because they haven’t rigorously tested.

Just because they are alternatives, don’t mean they have to be accepted by de facto. No hypotheses should be accepted by de facto.

No matter how logical any new alternative may sound, or how good the maths, no hypotheses can be accepted as true until it meet the requirements of being falsifiable, be tested with real world evidences, and the papers along with test results or evidences be made available and come under scrutiny of peer review.

Alternatives like multiverse model or the oscillating model have failed to be tested, therefore are listed in the theoretical camp, not as well-tested “scientific theory”.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, those alternatives are classified as “theoretical” cosmologies for good reasons; they are proposed hypotheses, like draft alternatives, not accepted yet, because they haven’t rigorously tested.

Just because they are alternatives, don’t mean they have to be accepted by de facto. No hypotheses should be accepted by de facto.

No matter how logical any new alternative may sound, or how good the maths, no hypotheses can be accepted as true until it meet the requirements of being falsifiable, be tested with real world evidences, and the papers along with test results or evidences be made available and come under scrutiny of peer review.

Alternatives like multiverse model or the oscillating model have failed to be tested, therefore are listed in the theoretical camp, not as well-tested “scientific theory”.

And for a long time, the Big Bang theory was put in the category of 'one of the alternatives'. It's main competitor was the Steady State theory buy Hoyle, but that one had some internal issues that made it not as pleasant (violation of the conservation of energy was the main issue).

Also, even in the Big Bang scenario, as originally formulated, there were many parameters that needed to be determined. For example, when I was young, a big question was the value of Hubble's constant, which relates the rate of expansion to the distance. This had a direct bearing on the age of the universe, but measurements at the time were uncertain to the point that we know the universe to be 'somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years old'.

The question of whether the universe is flat, positively curved, or negatively curved was a *huge* question for decades. This is a factor in the ultimate fate of the universe. If it was negatively curved, there would be a 'Big Crunch' at the end. Otherwise, it would expand forever. and this was before the cosmological constant (dark energy) fooled around with the precise play-off between density and curvature.

What many people don't seem to understand is that with the investigation of the CMBR we have entered into the era of precision cosmology. That 10-20 billion years spread has been refined to 13.7-13.8 billion years. We now know that the universe is flat to a very high degree of accuracy. We see the effects of dark matter on the CMBR and it matches the results we get from studies of galaxies. We are finally getting answers to questions that have been open for a century.

 

[tas8831]

On these forums, the usual claim of most Atheist and believers in scientific myths and fairytale stories, is that the reason people don't believe those cosmology and evolution stories, is because of a religious agenda. However, the evidence says otherwise.

Remember that time you made a fool of yourself trying to 'debunk' phylogenetics?

You folks don't know when to quit, do you?

Is this some kind of "mission" - to make intellectual martyrs of yourselves?

 

[nPeace]

2 months ago it seems.
I vaguely remember getting very frustrated with you and your stubborness concerning your lack of understanding of what constitutes evidence.

That may well be a difference between you and I.
I am able to deal with stubborn arrogance, without getting frustrated, because of not only my training but my discipline, and unlike those who depend on just academics - head knowledge - often giving them a sense of superiority, I take the approach of reasoning.
A person who is weak at reasoning, is going to get frustrated.
Why? Because he does not know how to explain what he is taught. He merely repeats what has been put into his head, but he does not understand it, except superficially.
So when challenged, or put in a position to reason on the subject, the only thing he can do, is panic, so he becomes annoyed at the one who challenges him, because he believe that that person should be accepting what he thinks is superior knowledge.

Just imagine teaching a class, and a student using reason, challenges what you are teaching.
If you are unable to demonstrate by examples, and reasoning, you look incompetent, and you will get annoyed at the student.
A person who understands what they are teaching, can use reasoning to put the student to silence - a series of questions that can only lead to one conclusion. The student has no choice but to admit he is wrong, or keep silent.
I would know, because I teach. Teaching requires the ability to reason, using logic, and skill to lead your student to the answer... without telling him. That way your student has a better understanding of the subject, and can explain it. He becomes a teacher himself.

So while you are there thinking that I am stubborn, I'm thinking you don't know what you are saying, but saying it because it's what you were taught, and trying to pretend you know what you are saying.
I'll respond to that thread shortly, and show you what I mean.

I don't have such beliefs or worship. So I'm not religious.


It's literally what "atheist" means.... to not follow a religion and to not believe claims of the supernatural.

But sure, an atheist is surely capapble of believe other things on bad evidence.
So, you are of the opinion that I believe certain things on bad or no evidence?

Feel free to inform me what those beliefs are and how you know I believe them on bad or no evidence...

You deny it, but it seems to me you do. You have a particular system of faith - believing in an idea of a man... in fact men.
That is a religion.
You do believe in the proposed idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor, don't you?

??
Please learn what a "fallacy" is, because you're using it wrong.

Wow. I can't help but love you guys.
So eager to be teachers.

Fallacy
noun

1. a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
   "the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"
   synonyms: misconception, mistaken belief, misbelief, delusion, false notion, mistaken impression, misapprehension, misjudgment, miscalculation, misinterpretation, misconstruction, error, mistake, untruth, inconsistency, illusion, myth, fantasy, deceit, deception, sophism; More
   
   • LOGIC
     a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.
   • faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
     "the potential for fallacy which lies behind the notion of self-esteem"

Atheist are not free from faith, belief system, or religion. To think otherwise, is also a fallacy.

I understand religion to be, simply put, a form of worship.
I understand worship to be venerating of, or the rendering of reverent honor or homage to an object, whether that object be human, animal, place, or thing.
If my understanding is wrong, then I will admit, I am wrong.

Are you saying Atheist do not fit in there at all?
Come let us reason together on the matter.
How am I wrong?

No, fundamentalist religious beliefs about creationistic nonsense, does not apply to atheists as atheists don't believe in supernatural creators....

Because they feel a need to spread their religious beliefs, I'ld guess.

Why can't that be the case?
Obviously, creationists will find creationism and their fundamentalist religious beliefs a "reasonable basis". Obviously, I don't agree at all.

The same can apply to Atheists.
All you need to do is replace Creationist, and creationism with atheists and atheism respectively.

You are just repeating your claim.
I asked you for examples. Do you have any? Or do you just have this vague claim?

Go ahead, give me examples of people who have genuine objections to evolution theory, not rooted in some faith based and/or conspiratory faith based beliefs that are incompatible with evolution theory.

I just did. Are you okay, where your vision is concerned?
There are more of course, but why waste ammunition, when one gets the job done.
Let's see how you deal with this first.

This is not an answer to my question.
I asked for an example of someone who argues against evolution theory without having creationistic religious beliefs.

Flew, basically fell for the "arguments" of the Discovery Institute. Meaning that whatever objection he had to natural sciences of biology, were religious in nature.

You are welcome to try again.

No no. You try again. ...and please don't tell me that what yu think of others is true because you think it.
Since you are in Fkew's mind, surely you can produce the facts to prove your claim.

Sorry, no.
People can have their own opinions, but facts are facts.
What is true for you can not be not true for me.

Please, for us to have a proper discussion, we need to understand each other.
What statement(s) did you just disagree to?
A. There is only one truth, and many claims to that truth.
It is no surprise that those claiming to hold that truth will stand by it.
B. Some who feel they have truth, want everyone to let go of 'their claim to truth', while others are content to allow others to make their choice to hold to what they claim is truth.
No nose bleeds.

Evolution theory is either accurate or it isn't. It's not a matter of "beliefs" or "choice".
And what determines the accuracy of evolution, is the actual evidence of reality - not some bronze age story.

Yes. A cannot be A and yet not A. What are you saying... that you know it's true?
The actual evidence of reality does not support evolution dude. You are looking at reality. Which part of it says evolution is accurate?
Please, can you tell me them, and can we do it on my other thread, since I want to discuss those particulars there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That may well be a difference between you and I.
I am able to deal with stubborn arrogance, without getting frustrated, because of not only my training but my discipline, and unlike those who depend on just academics - head knowledge - often giving them a sense of superiority, I take the approach of reasoning.
A person who is weak at reasoning, is going to get frustrated.
Why? Because he does not know how to explain what he is taught. He merely repeats what has been put into his head, but he does not understand it, except superficially.
So when challenged, or put in a position to reason on the subject, the only thing he can do, is panic, so he becomes annoyed at the one who challenges him, because he believe that that person should be accepting what he thinks is superior knowledge.

Just imagine teaching a class, and a student using reason, challenges what you are teaching.
If you are unable to demonstrate by examples, and reasoning, you look incompetent, and you will get annoyed at the student.
A person who understands what they are teaching, can use reasoning to put the student to silence - a series of questions that can only lead to one conclusion. The student has no choice but to admit he is wrong, or keep silent.
I would know, because I teach. Teaching requires the ability to reason, using logic, and skill to lead your student to the answer... without telling him. That way your student has a better understanding of the subject, and can explain it. He becomes a teacher himself.

So while you are there thinking that I am stubborn, I'm thinking you don't know what you are saying, but saying it because it's what you were taught, and trying to pretend you know what you are saying.
I'll respond to that thread shortly, and show you what I mean.


You deny it, but it seems to me you do. You have a particular system of faith - believing in an idea of a man... in fact men.
That is a religion.
You do believe in the proposed idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor, don't you?



Wow. I can't help but love you guys.
So eager to be teachers.

Fallacy
noun

1. a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
   "the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"
   synonyms: misconception, mistaken belief, misbelief, delusion, false notion, mistaken impression, misapprehension, misjudgment, miscalculation, misinterpretation, misconstruction, error, mistake, untruth, inconsistency, illusion, myth, fantasy, deceit, deception, sophism; More
   • LOGIC
     a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.
   • faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
     "the potential for fallacy which lies behind the notion of self-esteem"

Atheist are not free from faith, belief system, or religion. To think otherwise, is also a fallacy.

I understand religion to be, simply put, a form of worship.
I understand worship to be venerating of, or the rendering of reverent honor or homage to an object, whether that object be human, animal, place, or thing.
If my understanding is wrong, then I will admit, I am wrong.

Are you saying Atheist do not fit in there at all?
Come let us reason together on the matter.
How am I wrong?


Because they feel a need to spread their religious beliefs, I'ld guess.

Why can't that be the case?
Obviously, creationists will find creationism and their fundamentalist religious beliefs a "reasonable basis". Obviously, I don't agree at all.

The same can apply to Atheists.
All you need to do is replace Creationist, and creationism with atheists and atheism respectively.


I just did. Are you okay, where your vision is concerned?
There are more of course, but why waste ammunition, when one gets the job done.
Let's see how you deal with this first.


No no. You try again. ...and please don't tell me that what yu think of others is true because you think it.
Since you are in Fkew's mind, surely you can produce the facts to prove your claim.


Please, for us to have a proper discussion, we need to understand each other.
What statement(s) did you just disagree to?
A. There is only one truth, and many claims to that truth.
It is no surprise that those claiming to hold that truth will stand by it.
B. Some who feel they have truth, want everyone to let go of 'their claim to truth', while others are content to allow others to make their choice to hold to what they claim is truth.
No nose bleeds.


Yes. A cannot be A and yet not A. What are you saying... that you know it's true?
The actual evidence of reality does not support evolution dude. You are looking at reality. Which part of it says evolution is accurate?
Please, can you tell me them, and can we do it on my other thread, since I want to discuss those particulars there.

I am sorry, but this is just the most massive projection that I have seen in a long time.

Didn't you want to learn what the scientific method was and what is and what is not evidence? But let's see what is going on in your other thread.

 

[nPeace]

I fail to see what your objection is here.

In the first link, it is noted that the universe does, in fact, expand. The only question is whether the 'singularity' is a real thing or not. And, the fact is that with many versions of quantum gravity, it need not be. The singularity is based on general relativity which is *known* to be inadequate to deal with the very, very early universe where quantum effects are relevant.

In your second link, the reason why none of the alternatives are regarded as plausible is given: we now have the data that we didn't have before. So, yes, before that data was available it was possible to have other explanations. But, as we gathered more data those alternatives became less and less workable.

So, no, those were not alternatives proposed by religious fanatics. They were valid scientific hypotheses at the time, but are no longer because we have more information now than we did then.

Yes, you apparently failed to see my objective, but that can happen if we didn't properly connect the dots. That may be my fault, since I didn't number them.
The point I was making is that not all scientist accept the BB theory as the only, and right explanation, or proposal... even today, despite the "evidence" to explain the phenomenons.
Am I wrong?
Therefore, it is not the layman, and 'religious fanatic', alone in this.

OK, so you don't agree. Why not? What *evidence* do you have that the current, standard model is wrong?

Why I don't agree, is simple. It's not established truth, simply because building on a few assumptions leads you to a conclusion.
As I said before, science has limits, and especially where historical science is concerned, your best truth can be furtherest from the truth.
Can you give me one reason why I should accept it?
That is in relation to the age of the earth, and universe.
Regarding the cosmological model, aside from what was mentioned in the video in the OP, primarily, as I said before, the use of the hypothetical to explain everything, and establish them as truth. The hypotheses seem to be the observable evidence.

Take cosmic inflation for example
It seem to go something like this...
Let's propose inflation as an explanation for all the problems with the Big Bang Theory... which was proposed to explain certain observed phenomenon.
Let's test it. Run the experiment (if we apply inflation in this particular way). What do we observe? Hey! It works! Inflation did happen!

How about this...
It was the hand of God.
Let's test it? Experiment. Yes we observe that works perfectly! God did it!

We can come up with all sorts of ideas, and form our little story, by just making sure that our proposal can explain what we observe.
Is that good science? Or pseudoscience?
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers:

“[T]he cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened. Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.”

And it's even worse, they argue, inflation is not even a scientific theory:
“nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
As alternative to inflation, Steinhardt et al. promote a “big bounce.” In this scenario, the universe’s current expansion was preceded by a phase of contraction, yielding similar benefits to inflation.

The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas

How did it become a theory in the first place?
...and these are the things they tell us...
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.

Give me please, one reason why anyoneshould trust such a belief system.

Cosmic inflation debate bleeds into popular science media
When three physicists published “Cosmic inflation theory faces challenges” earlier this year in Scientific American, the article itself constituted a challenge. Its subhead declared, “The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas.” The trio’s aggressive reappraisal of a scientific consensus inspired an energetic rebuttal, also in Scientific American, from 33 prominent physicists, including four Nobel laureates.

33 Top Physicists Including Hawking Defend the Theory of Cosmic Inflation
"The latest measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the universe's oldest light, raise concerns about the inflationary theory of the cosmos—the idea that space expanded exponentially in the first moments of time. Inflation typically produces a different pattern of temperature variation in the CMB (although it can be made to predict almost any outcome). It would also generate primordial gravitational waves, which have not been found. The data suggest cosmologists should reassess this favored paradigm and consider new ideas about how the universe began".

[Three physicists - Anna Ijjas, the John A. Wheeler postdoctoral fellow at the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science; Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science at Princeton University, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, and an original architect of cosmic inflation theory; and Abraham Loeb, Harvard University’s astronomy chair, founding director of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative, and director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics] also went on to say that other scientists are taking a new avenue to reinforce the idea of cosmic inflation by discarding empirical science and adapting a more theoretical approach on the matter.

"Some scientists accept that inflation is untestable but refuse to abandon it. They have proposed that, instead, science must change by discarding one of its defining properties: empirical testability. This notion has triggered a roller coaster of discussions about the nature of science and its possible redefinition, promoting the idea of some kind of non-empirical science".
Moreover, they claim that the inflation theory is untestable because of its flexible nature.
"Individually and collectively, these features make inflation so flexible that no experiment can ever disprove it". [Sounds familiar]

...Steinhardt, and fellow Princeton physicist Anna Ijjas, and Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb published a feature in Scientific American criticizing inflation. They concluded by characterizing it as an idea outside of empirical science altogether. The myriad ways inflation could have played out would lead to so many possible outcomes that no astronomical observation can ever rule the general idea out, they say—and moreover, some advocates for inflation know it. This would go against a basic, popular framing of science suggested by philosopher Karl Popper, in which a theory becomes scientific when it takes the risk of making predictions that nature could then uphold or disprove.

Here is the point I made in the OP, and was making again, which you seem to have missed.
These physicists must be Creationists with a religious agenda. There is no other explanation. Right?
Religion is not the issue, unless it involves both sides.

THE LATEST ASTROPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS, COMBINED WITH THEORETICAL PROBLEMS, CAST DOUBT ON THE LONG-CHERISHED INFLATIONARY THEORY OF THE EARLY COSMOS AND SUGGEST WE NEED NEW IDEAS

The limits of science - May the best opinion win.
Give me the observable science.

You realize that the 15 billion years estimate had error bars on it? So, it was something like 15+-4 billion years. The current estimate is 13.7+-.1 billion years. Those are consistent. So, once again, I fail to see what you find to be problematic.

It doesn't matter does it? The consistency is still due to the starting point - which begins with assumptions, or proposed ideas. One is better than the other.
I can have my own.

 

[nPeace]

Well, you started this thread called the good in bad science.

So, in order to put some structure, my question can be compressed into one: how do you know what is good science and what not?

It is a honest question. It entirely possible that what we consider good science is wrong or incomplete. But you seem to hold the holy grail that would allow us to abandon avenues of research that will lead nowhere, given your confidence.

So, how do you do it?

Give me an example of something that is currently orthodox science that you consider a fairy tale, and why you consider it such.

Ciao

- viole

I have gone through this before.
I even posted a link - actually two - that gave an explanation on determining good science from bad. Despite that, I had someone chasing every post I made, asking me to say what good science is.
Perhaps you honestly miss these posts, so I won't hold it against you.
I would like to know though that if one is trying to understand me, they would want to know what I said, so it would be helpful if you followed this thread.
I said it on more than one page, but just look at the first page.
With regard to what is bad science, I mentioned that in the same thread, somewhere near the end, and I mentioned one here on this thread not long ago.

Specifically, you can consider the one here.

 

[nPeace]

The legitimate arguments in science always have reference to observations and the way to account for them and to predict further ones.

Religious people who oppose evolution do not proceed in this way. They start - as you do - by wanting to prove evolution wrong because it does not fit their religious belief, not because of any observations. What they may then do is go off to a creo website, to find some carefully cherry-picked observations that they can pretend are their reason for challenging the theory.

I have seen this pattern of dishonest behaviour innumerable times, over the years. They consider themselves "Liars for Christ", I suppose.

So you have to expect a certain sense of weary irritation when yet another creationist trots up, with another tedious variant of the same, worn-out, bogus arguments.

I understand this is your opinion.
It is a wrong opinion, but your opinion nonetheless.
I speak what I believe to be the truth, and I speak against what I believe to be untruth, or against truth. It is part of my life. It has nothing to do with fear.
Perhaps that is your personal experience, and I can appreciate that, because I find that people who are part of a religious system that have no foundation - where its members hardly understand the Bible, because most of their services are on politics, or singing songs, and passing the loot - primarily emotion based, do not have much interest in standing on the side of truth. Their faith is fickle.

This is to me about truth against untruth. Nothing more.
So if you have a problem with it, you have a few people to blame - Jesus Christ, and the Christian apostle Paul.
John 18:37 For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.”

2 Corinthians 10:4-6
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ; 6 and we are prepared to inflict punishment for every disobedience, as soon as your own obedience is complete.

Sorry. I make no apology, if speaking the truth, as I see it, offends you.
Perhaps there is a good reason why you can't convince me, and I can't convince you.
We make our choice. There is only one.

 

[Polymath257]

Take cosmic inflation for example
It seem to go something like this...
Let's propose inflation as an explanation for all the problems with the Big Bang Theory... which was proposed to explain certain observed phenomenon.
Let's test it. Run the experiment (if we apply inflation in this particular way). What do we observe? Hey! It works! Inflation did happen!

How about this...
It was the hand of God.
Let's test it? Experiment. Yes we observe that works perfectly! God did it!

First, inflation has *not* been verified yet. But the basic Big Bang theory and the age of the current expansion phase has been.

Second, your characterization of the process here is faulty.

Big Bang: If this is true, here are some things you will see. here is the expected size of the effects, and here is the math behnd those effect. Now, go out and look to see if you see them. For example, details of the structure of the CMBR, abundances of the light elements, pattern of expansion.

Inflation: if this is true, here are some very specific observations that you can make and here is what you should see. Now go out and look (develop the instruments to do so) and see what you find.

Hand of God: Go out and look and I will give an explanation after. I can explain anything by 'God did it'.

Do you see how these are fundamentally different? In fact, the second is no explanation at all. The second makes predictions *first* that are specific and testable. If those predictions are not held up by observation, the theory has to change or be discarded.

For the God non-explanation, *nothing* is a test. There is no way to do anything that actually gives evidence one way or the other. It is pure faith.

 

[exchemist]

I understand this is your opinion.
It is a wrong opinion, but your opinion nonetheless.
I speak what I believe to be the truth, and I speak against what I believe to be untruth, or against truth. It is part of my life. It has nothing to do with fear.
Perhaps that is your personal experience, and I can appreciate that, because I find that people who are part of a religious system that have no foundation - where its members hardly understand the Bible, because most of their services are on politics, or singing songs, and passing the loot - primarily emotion based, do not have much interest in standing on the side of truth. Their faith is fickle.

This is to me about truth against untruth. Nothing more.
So if you have a problem with it, you have a few people to blame - Jesus Christ, and the Christian apostle Paul.
John 18:37 For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.”

2 Corinthians 10:4-6
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ; 6 and we are prepared to inflict punishment for every disobedience, as soon as your own obedience is complete.

Sorry. I make no apology, if speaking the truth, as I see it, offends you.
Perhaps there is a good reason why you can't convince me, and I can't convince you.
We make our choice. There is only one.

"Sorry. I make no apology" must set some sort of record for immediate self-contradiction.

I have no intention of trying to persuade you of anything. I know that is impossible. Your responding to my post with a load of biblical quotations makes clear the futility of any attempt. (Who's the charlatan with the 'tache, by the way?)

What I won't do however is let you, or others like you, get way Scot-free with false assertions about science. There are other readers on these forums who might get wrong ideas.

 

[viole]

I have gone through this before.
I even posted a link - actually two - that gave an explanation on determining good science from bad. Despite that, I had someone chasing every post I made, asking me to say what good science is.
Perhaps you honestly miss these posts, so I won't hold it against you.
I would like to know though that if one is trying to understand me, they would want to know what I said, so it would be helpful if you followed this thread.
I said it on more than one page, but just look at the first page.
With regard to what is bad science, I mentioned that in the same thread, somewhere near the end, and I mentioned one here on this thread not long ago.

Specifically, you can consider the one here.

Well, I do not debate links. For obvious reasons. Let’s see if I will understand by interpolation.

Which of the following is good science and which bad science.

1) cosmology. Most specifically inflation theory.
2) astrophysics/physics. Most specifically the theory of origin of heavy materials
3) forensic science. Most specifically how to gather evidence in the absence of witnesses
4) geology. Most specifically the tectonic theory and all theories surrounding the far past of our planet.

So, i just need 4 bits of information. For starters.

Ciao

- viole