On natural phenomena

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

On natural phenomena

Post #1

Post by Diagoras »

Inspired by this quote in the ‘Questions about the earth’ topic, posted in the Science and Religion forum by brunumb:
No phenomena previously attributed to a god has been resolved in favour of a god rather than natural phenomena.
I’m interested in debating this, as I consider the claim as it stands to be truthful. In support of the claim, however, I would like to stress the significance of the word ‘resolved’ as used above. Used as a verb, it is usually defined as ‘to come to a determination; to make up one's mind’, but I think it makes the statement clearer if ‘resolved’ is taken as meaning ‘to establish the truth’ (i.e. confirm, settle, prove).

Therefore, the scope of this debate topic must necessarily exclude unresolved natural phenomena, i.e. ‘things for which there is currently no single, accepted scientific explanation’. An obvious example would be the beginning of the universe: something which science would accept as being currently ‘unresolved’ (although not necessarily unresolvable in the future). On the other hand, the theory of plate tectonics is a ‘single, accepted scientific explanation’ of why we see similar fossil strata on separate coastlines, and find seashells on mountain tops.


So, rewritten slightly, the question for debate is:

“No observed natural phenomena previously attributed to a god has been proven to be explained in favour of a god rather than by natural phenomena.�

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #81

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 79 by EarthScienceguy]
What type of universe would form if there were the mass of 20 universes around our universe.


What type of universe would form if there were not the mass of 20 universes around our universe? One exactly like we live in perhaps? A "flat" universe is just one of a huge number of implications if the universe we live in was surrounded by a shell of H2O having a mass 20x greater than all of the galaxies combined. But of course you ignore all of those because this ridiculous idea creates the gravitational potential well Humphreys needed for his "theory." And you buy this nonsense hook, line and sinker.
That is exactly did. They made observations that did not fit their models so they pulled dark matter out of thin air. Dark matter is not a predicted substance in any cosmological theory. It is a made up substance that naturalistic theory needs as a fudge mechanism when their observations did not correlate with mathematical predictions. That is just about the worst example you could come up with.


This is exactly did ??? Anyway, this set of statements prove that you completely misunderstand how science works. Dark matter (and dark energy) are hypotheses. Dark matter is postulated to exist because it can explain certain observations (not mathematical predictions) if it is indeed there. Work is ongoing to understand what it actually is. This is called an open scientific problem and work on it is following the same procedure (scientific method) as usual. It is no different than astronomers of centuries ago observing the movement of the planets and coming up with hypotheses for what might explain this. A heliocentric model worked to explain the motions of the planets and was refined over time, including relativistic effects on the orbit of Mercury, etc. You're describing dark matter as some completely pulled from thin air fudge factor that has no basis, like Humphrey's inventions that really do have no basis in observational or theoretical science (they are based on bible verses that he interprets as he pleases). The two are completely different, and the fact that you can't see this shows very clearly that you don't understand how real science works.
And actually Humphrey's view of the cosmos gets rid of the need for dark matter an and dark energy.


So does the idea that the universe was made by a god who can do anything he wants, or that stars are not made of what we think they are, or countless other baseless ideas that aren't science. You consistently support the idea that any assumptions, no matter how outrageous, are fine as long as they can produce just one prediction that matches one observation, even if the implications are for many other effects that would destroy the universe (those are conveniently ignored).
Observations are open to any interpretation as long as they can make accurate prediction.


That speaks for itself for anyone with even a bare bones science education. Utterly wrong, but you've supported this idea from day one and it is the only way to fall for the kind of nonsense people like Humphreys throw out. The end justifies the means is not the guiding principle of science, but evidently is perfectly fine in "creation science."
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #82

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 80 by DrNoGods]
What type of universe would form if there were not the mass of 20 universes around our universe? One exactly like we live in perhaps? A "flat" universe is just one of a huge number of implications if the universe we live in was surrounded by a shell of H2O having a mass 20x greater than all of the galaxies combined. But of course you ignore all of those because this ridiculous idea creates the gravitational potential well Humphreys needed for his "theory." And you buy this nonsense hook, line and sinker.
How would this make a prediction that is not correct? If it does not describe reality.

This is exactly did ???
Wow! I forgot some words did I. Oh it was going to be so good to.
Anyway, this set of statements prove that you completely misunderstand how science works. Dark matter (and dark energy) are hypotheses. Dark matter is postulated to exist because it can explain certain observations (not mathematical predictions) if it is indeed there.


Oh, my!!

Dark matter was snatched out of thin air when oh if forget that lady's name right now. Well, anyway what she found when she was observing galaxies was a problem with the angular moment of the galaxy was concentrated in the arms instead of the center. So either there was a problem with our calculation of angular momentum or there was more mass in the galaxy than what we could observe.

It was also observed that that the luminous matter in galaxy did not add up to the gravitational effect that the galaxy was having.

That is what led to the introduction of dark matter into cosmology.

Dark energy was introduced when in the late 1990's it was observed that the universe was expanding much to faster than predicted. This is also called the cosmological constant problem.
Work is ongoing to understand what it actually is. This is called an open scientific problem and work on it is following the same procedure (scientific method) as usual. It is no different than astronomers of centuries ago observing the movement of the planets and coming up with hypotheses for what might explain this. A heliocentric model worked to explain the motions of the planets and was refined over time, including relativistic effects on the orbit of Mercury, etc. You're describing dark matter as some completely pulled from thin air fudge factor that has no basis, like Humphrey's inventions that really do have no basis in observational or theoretical science (they are based on bible verses that he interprets as he pleases). The two are completely different, and the fact that you can't see this shows very clearly that you don't understand how real science works.
No it is more like the earlier theories of heat where an heat ether was introduced out of thin air when it was observed that heat seemed to flow.

Quote:
And actually Humphrey's view of the cosmos gets rid of the need for dark matter an and dark energy.

So does the idea that the universe was made by a god who can do anything he wants, or that stars are not made of what we think they are, or countless other baseless ideas that aren't science. You consistently support the idea that any assumptions, no matter how outrageous, are fine as long as they can produce just one prediction that matches one observation, even if the implications are for many other effects that would destroy the universe (those are conveniently ignored).
No, the theory has to describe reality, in which naturalistic theories do not.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #83

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 81 by EarthScienceguy]
And actually Humphrey's view of the cosmos gets rid of the need for dark matter an and dark energy.


The fundamental point, that you still clearly fail to grasp, is that there is a gigantic difference between assumptions and hypotheses based on solid experimental results and/or direct observation (such as dark matter and dark energy), and what people like Humphreys concoct based solely on their personal interpretation of a bible verse or passage that might suit their needs (like planets starting as balls of H2O, or a shell of H2O surrounding the entire universe).

Since you cannot understand the difference between these two things, you fall victim to believing that Humphreys' "theories" are equivalent to legitimate scientific theories, then try to defend his nonsense. But there is no scientific basis for Humphreys' assumptions or his "theories" ... they are based purely on his interpretations of bible verses and the license he thinks that gives him to invent outrageous assumptions that he then uses to try to imply that creationism is compatible with modern science.

He's failed miserably, obviously, as none of his "theories" has gained any acceptance in the science community. Zero. Instead, he is a joke just like Ken Ham and the rest of their ilk when it comes to respect and acceptance by the real science community. So they create their own journals to publish their "research" in, and their own websites, and use their own language (eg. "creation science") to try and convince the gullible and scientifically illiterate that what they are doing is legitimate science. Given the level of acceptance by the scientific community of their efforts (ie. zero), it is clear where they stand.

I don't understand the reason for the effort, though, of any of these people (or yourself). If you have a god being handy who is all powerful and can do virtually anything imaginable, and you really believe that this entity exists, then there is no need to go through all these gyrations to try (and fail) to show that creationism and other bible stories are compatible with modern science. Just state that "god did it" and your problem is solved. No need for all the wasted efforts to keep fighting a battle that was lost a very long time ago when science showed the old bible stories to be nothing but myth, allegory and fables.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #84

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 82 by DrNoGods]
The fundamental point, that you still clearly fail to grasp, is that there is a gigantic difference between assumptions and hypotheses based on solid experimental results and/or direct observation (such as dark matter and dark energy), and what people like Humphreys concoct based solely on their personal interpretation of a bible verse or passage that might suit their needs (like planets starting as balls of H2O, or a shell of H2O surrounding the entire universe).
I believe what you are saying is demonstratively incorrect and incredibly unscientific.

If what you are saying is true then it would be impossible to use the scientific method to disprove the hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese. If what you are saying is true then all we could do is look up at the moon and wonder if it were made of cheese or some other dairy product like maybe Goat cheese.

Is this what you are trying to communicate?

Since you cannot understand the difference between these two things, you fall victim to believing that Humphreys' "theories" are equivalent to legitimate scientific theories, then try to defend his nonsense. But there is no scientific basis for Humphreys' assumptions or his "theories" ... they are based purely on his interpretations of bible verses and the license he thinks that gives him to invent outrageous assumptions that he then uses to try to imply that creationism is compatible with modern science.
if this is true then the scientific method should indicate what reality is.
He's failed miserably, obviously, as none of his "theories" has gained any acceptance in the science community. Zero. Instead, he is a joke just like Ken Ham and the rest of their ilk when it comes to respect and acceptance by the real science community. So they create their own journals to publish their "research" in, and their own websites, and use their own language (eg. "creation science") to try and convince the gullible and scientifically illiterate that what they are doing is legitimate science. Given the level of acceptance by the scientific community of their efforts (ie. zero), it is clear where they stand.
Science is not a popularity contest. Besides are you trying to say that the Doctorates creationist have from even secular universities are not valid. Besides creationist theories make far better predictions than secular theories. in cosmology.
I don't understand the reason for the effort, though, of any of these people (or yourself). If you have a god being handy who is all powerful and can do virtually anything imaginable, and you really believe that this entity exists, then there is no need to go through all these gyrations to try (and fail) to show that creationism and other bible stories are compatible with modern science. Just state that "god did it" and your problem is solved. No need for all the wasted efforts to keep fighting a battle that was lost a very long time ago when science showed the old bible stories to be nothing but myth, allegory and fables.ionist
Christians did not create the scientific method to prove that God existed. Christians created the scientific method to discover more about God in the creation He made.

Like for example Relativity which says that past, present and future all exist. I used this as a proof but that is not what I found most fascinating about this fact of nature. The fascinating thing I found was how this revealed some of the attributes of God in creation. Like how God used His omnipresence and His omnipotence in creation and how that can give us the free will that we have and how God and be sovereign over all things like the Bible says He is. I can get a sermon out of science.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #85

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 83 by EarthScienceguy]
I believe what you are saying is demonstratively incorrect and incredibly unscientific.


Then you've proved my point. You genuinely do not understand the difference between Humphreys' and people like him using assumptions derived solely from the subjective interpretation of bible verses, and real science which formulates hypotheses from observations and experimental measurements in the real world. If you don't see the difference, and you clearly do not, then you simply do not understand how science works at the most basic level.
If what you are saying is true then it would be impossible to use the scientific method to disprove the hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese. If what you are saying is true then all we could do is look up at the moon and wonder if it were made of cheese or some other dairy product like maybe Goat cheese.


Not even close. If I hypothesize that the moon is made of cheese, that can be tested in many ways from Earth-based measurements of its orbital characteristics (to determine its mass), its diameter (from which its density can be determined if the mass is known), its albedo for ideas on surface composition, its surface structure which we can see with telescopes, etc. All of these measurements can be analyzed to test the cheese hypothesis and possibly rule it out, or not. Then we can consider how reasonable it is that the moon is made of cheese, given what we know about how cheese is made and where it comes from. This would rule out cheese, but the point is a hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese can be tested and assessed via the scientific method.

On the other hand, if Humphreys found a bible verse that even remotely suggested that the moon could possibly have some connection to cheese, he could claim that it was in fact made of cheese because the bible said so, and develop a theory of anything he wants and you'd defend it. He has no obligation to show that his assumption that it was made of cheese is correct or valid. All he has to do if find a bible verse that suits his needs and off he goes. But you obviously don't see the problem with this approach, and it certainly is not science by any stretch.
Science is not a popularity contest. Besides are you trying to say that the Doctorates creationist have from even secular universities are not valid. Besides creationist theories make far better predictions than secular theories. in cosmology.


I'm making no comments on the degrees any of these creation "scientists" have, and indeed many of them have published papers in refereed journals on what you call secular subjects. But the nonsense these people publish in creation journals and websites would never be published in legitimate science journals specifically because it isn't science. What they do in this area is purely to try and legitimize creationism by pretending that it is compatible with modern science, and they've failed miserably. It has nothing to do with what degrees they have ... it is because trying to make creationism compatible with modern science cannot be done.
Christians did not create the scientific method to prove that God existed. Christians created the scientific method to discover more about God in the creation He made.


The scientific method developed over time from the contributions of people from all over the world, with all kinds of religious beliefs (including none). It wasn't developed only by Christians, and it was not developed to discover anything about gods.
I can get a sermon out of science.


That's evidently all you have gotten out of it, because preaching is what you do in most of these posts. The science comments are almost always demonstrably wrong. You cannot make creationism compatible with modern science, or justify it using modern science. It simply cannot be done.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #86

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 84 by DrNoGods]
Not even close. If I hypothesize that the moon is made of cheese, that can be tested in many ways from Earth-based measurements of its orbital characteristics (to determine its mass), its diameter (from which its density can be determined if the mass is known), its albedo for ideas on surface composition, its surface structure which we can see with telescopes, etc. All of these measurements can be analyzed to test the cheese hypothesis and possibly rule it out, or not. Then we can consider how reasonable it is that the moon is made of cheese, given what we know about how cheese is made and where it comes from. This would rule out cheese, but the point is a hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese can be tested and assessed via the scientific method.

On the other hand, if Humphreys found a bible verse that even remotely suggested that the moon could possibly have some connection to cheese, he could claim that it was in fact made of cheese because the bible said so, and develop a theory of anything he wants and you'd defend it. He has no obligation to show that his assumption that it was made of cheese is correct or valid. All he has to do if find a bible verse that suits his needs and off he goes. But you obviously don't see the problem with this approach, and it certainly is not science by any stretch.
Totally incorrect.

As I have said before creation science has a two axioms:
1. Any theory must agree with what the Bible says.
2. Any theory must also obey the laws of physics unless Scripture directly expresses God's direct involvement.

Example:
At one time there was a hypothesis described the waters above as an icy layer above the Earth that collapsed during Noah's flood. It was shown that if this were the pressure on the earth would crush everything on the Earth. There were more problems that violated the laws of physics so that theory was discarded.

You being a naturalist also have two axioms
1. Any theory must be devoid of an intelligent being.
2. Any theory must also obey the laws of physics unless it expresses God's direct involvement.

Example: BB theory has failed many times to make successful predictions.

1. Star formation of population III stars
2. Lithium in the universe
3. Inflation
4. Cosmological constant problem
5. Boltzmann Brain paradox

For most theories these failed prediction would cause the theory to be discarded but because their is no alternative theory it is not discarded.




Quote:
Science is not a popularity contest. Besides are you trying to say that the Doctorates creationist have from even secular universities are not valid. Besides creationist theories make far better predictions than secular theories. in cosmology.

I'm making no comments on the degrees any of these creation "scientists" have, and indeed many of them have published papers in refereed journals on what you call secular subjects. But the nonsense these people publish in creation journals and websites would never be published in legitimate science journals specifically because it isn't science. What they do in this area is purely to try and legitimize creationism by pretending that it is compatible with modern science, and they've failed miserably. It has nothing to do with what degrees they have ... it is because trying to make creationism compatible with modern science cannot be done.
The two sets of axioms above only clash at creation events and the flood event. Both of these events in history are a result of God's direct involvement in history. How can these to sets of beliefs be harmonized at these moment in history with the conflicting axioms above.

So why would creation scientist even want the opinion of people who have a totally different belief system. Secular scientist have nothing to offer creation scientist.

So keep going on about how creation theories cannot get published in seculary journals. You know what else is true no theories supporting BB has been published in creation journals.

Quote:
Christians did not create the scientific method to prove that God existed. Christians created the scientific method to discover more about God in the creation He made.

The scientific method developed over time from the contributions of people from all over the world, with all kinds of religious beliefs (including none). It wasn't developed only by Christians, and it was not developed to discover anything about gods.
What!! Where do you get that from?

Francis Bacon

Quote:
I can get a sermon out of science.

That's evidently all you have gotten out of it, because preaching is what you do in most of these posts. The science comments are almost always demonstrably wrong. You cannot make creationism compatible with modern science, or justify it using modern science. It simply cannot be done.
According to your worldview maybe. But what can you expect from people who throw causality out the window with a worldview that has the universe and life coming from nowhere and nothing. So it seems that your view or modern physics means that there is not such thing as causality one of the most basic of physics principles. Wow!!

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #87

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 83 by EarthScienceguy]

Christians created the scientific method to discover more about God in the creation He made.
I have to admit that I actually burst out laughing when I read that. The scientific method has no definitive source but it certainly did not have its basis in Christianity. If anything, "Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method*. They were the first to use experiment and observation as the basis of science, and many historians regard science as starting during this period." The scientific method is the antithesis of religious dogma which in the past basically said "God-did-it, question it at your own peril".

*https://explorable.com/who-invented-the ... fic-method
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #88

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 86 by brunumb]
I have to admit that I actually burst out laughing when I read that. The scientific method has no definitive source but it certainly did not have its basis in Christianity. If anything, "Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method*. They were the first to use experiment and observation as the basis of science, and many historians regard science as starting during this period." The scientific method is the antithesis of religious dogma which in the past basically said "God-did-it, question it at your own peril".

*https://explorable.com/who-invented-the ... fic-method
I think your article might have a little bias to it or maybe they just do not what they are talking about. Because it also says the following.

Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626), was one of the greatest movers behind the development of the scientific method.

He reiterated the importance of induction as part of the scientific method, believing that all scientific discovery should proceed through a process of observation, experimentation, analysis and inductive reasoning, to apply the findings to the universe as a whole.

He also believed that experimental evidence could be used to eliminate conflicting theories and move closer to the truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #89

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 86 by brunumb]
I have to admit that I actually burst out laughing when I read that. The scientific method has no definitive source but it certainly did not have its basis in Christianity. If anything, "Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method*. They were the first to use experiment and observation as the basis of science, and many historians regard science as starting during this period." The scientific method is the antithesis of religious dogma which in the past basically said "God-did-it, question it at your own peril".

*https://explorable.com/who-invented-the ... fic-method
I think your article might have a little bias to it or maybe they just do not what they are talking about. Because it also says the following.

Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626), was one of the greatest movers behind the development of the scientific method.

He reiterated the importance of induction as part of the scientific method, believing that all scientific discovery should proceed through a process of observation, experimentation, analysis and inductive reasoning, to apply the findings to the universe as a whole.

He also believed that experimental evidence could be used to eliminate conflicting theories and move closer to the truth.
That's a far cry from the idea that "Christians created the scientific method to discover more about God in the creation He made".
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #90

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 88 by brunumb]

What about this article!!!

Sir Francis Bacon
In 1620, around the time that people first began to look through microscopes, an English politician named Sir Francis Bacon developed a method for philosophers to use in weighing the truthfulness of knowledge. While Bacon agreed with medieval thinkers that humans too often erred in interpreting what their five senses perceived, he also realized that people's sensory experiences provided the best possible means of making sense of the world. Because humans could incorrectly interpret anything they saw, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, Bacon insisted that they must doubt everything before assuming its truth.


Testing hypotheses
In order to test potential truths, or hypotheses, Bacon devised a method whereby scientists set up experiments to manipulate nature and attempt to prove their hypotheses wrong. For example, in order to test the idea that sickness came from external causes, Bacon argued that scientists should expose healthy people to outside influences such as coldness, wetness, or other sick people to discover if any of these external variables resulted in more people getting sick. Knowing that many different causes for sickness might be missed by humans who are unable or unwilling to perceive them, Bacon insisted that these experiments must be consistently repeated before truth could be known: a scientist must show that patients exposed to a specific variable more frequently got sick again, and again, and again.


https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ ... revolution


So you want to play who can cherry pick articles better?

Post Reply