[
Replying to post 63 by DrNoGods]
This is your standard tactic ... change the subject completely (always to origins or other unsolved scientific problems) then rant about this instead of the topic at hand.
Humphreys makes assumptions that he does not and cannot show are valid, usually based on his interpretation of a bible verse or passage that he chooses, then develops his "theories" from those baseless assumptions. This is what I am pointing out, and it has nothing to do with Boltzmann Brains, matrix universes, or origins.
No, what I am pointing out is the hypocrisy in your own belief system. You claim that Humphreys "ASSUMPTIONS" are in valid. You really do not give a reason why you think they are invalid. I guess because you do not like the consequences if they are valid, who knows.
And yet the assumptions that your science god ask people to believe is off the insanity reservation.
Little or big green men with supercomputers. Black holes that project 3-D images on the interior. An infinite number of universes with which would mean an infinite number of Earth Science Guys!!! Well, maybe that one is not so bad.
But I digress, and you think belief in God is crazy. I think you need your crazy meter checked.
Quote:
Einstein really threw a wrench in any origins theory ...
Who is talking about origin theories? Your list of "God did it" creationist assumptions are not even remotely analogous to how real science works, but you don't seem to understand that point or why Humphreys' "theories" are not science because they are based on assumptions that have no validity. Modern cosmology is not based on any religious text, or anyone's interpretation of such a text. Things like the heliocentric model of our solar system are accepted to be fact because observation has shown this to be correct. It is not open to interpretation, and it is not based on flimsy subjective assumptions or connected to any religious document. You cannot compare what Humphreys and his ilk do with their fabricated and baseless assumptions, with how modern science works.
Assumptions are only baseless if they cannot produce valid theories that can make predictions.
A baseless assumption would be that we are all part of a computer generated simulation. Or that there are an infinite number of Earth Science Guys, as wonderful as that maybe. Although there would probably be an Evil Earth Science Guy that would agree with all of presupposition. Although the good Dr. NoGods might actually believe in God in that universe.
But an assumption that the fabric of space is like the canvas on a tent. And that this canvas is under acceleration. Would not be a baseless assumption. Because their could be accurate predictions made off of this assumption. Like the constant temperature of the Cosmic Background radiation. And the elimination of the need for dark matter and dark energy. Assumptions are only as good as the predictions that they can make.
Quote:
In fact modern science has its roots in the literal interpretation of the Bible which arose after the reformation.
Modern science has its roots in observation, experimentation, analysis of data, and continued development of mathematics and the physical sciences which explain nature consistently and have predictive capability. It builds on itself over time as new observations and discoveries are made. Literal interpretation of the bible has absolutely nothing to do with it. Present day people (like Humphreys) who attempt to twist modern science to be compatible with the old myths and stories from the bible are fortunately ignored by the science community and they have no impact on science, and this is as it should be. They contribute nothing to real science.
Quote:
It is impossible to separate modern science from the beliefs of Christianity.
There is no need to separate them because they are already unrelated. Christianity is a religion and science is not, and Christianity does not use or need science for its structure or messages. What makes you think they are intertwined in any way whatsoever?
Quote:
When is the last time you saw another universe with different laws of nature and time that can run forward and backward.
When did you ever see an ever expanding vacuum bubble with positive and negative energy perfectly balanced.
When did you ever seen an alien computer?
When have you ever seen an alien?
These are all assumptions made in modern cosmology.
What does any of this have to do with Humphreys (or anyone like him) using completely made up assumptions to produce "theories" that you defend as valid science? His "alternate cosmology" is based on assumptions crafted entirely in his head from bible verses, that he doesn't even attempt to validate (in his mind referencing the bible cannot be challenged, nor his specific interpretation of whatever biblical passage he uses to invent his assumption). If you think this is analogous to how real science works then you clearly don't understand the process. That is my point ... the two are entirely different.
A person could have the assumption that that the moon is made of swiss cheese, but this would not be a valid assumption because it would not make accurate predictions. My point is that there are not any assumptions in your modern cosmology that can make accurate predictions of the universe.
