[
Replying to post 69 by DrNoGods]
It is because they are not justified in any way whatsoever. You've shown repeatedly in the other discussion about Humphreys' planetary magnetic field "theory" that you think any assumptions are fine no matter how outlandish, as long as they can lead to some result that by pure coincidence might match measurements in a few cases. In no way can you claim that Humphreys' statement that god came along and aligned all of the H-atom nuclear spins in his imaginary balls of water planets is science, or that these are valid assumptions. They are completely made up with no observational or physical support.
That is not true. Using the equation Humphrey's drived he made plenty of predictions that turned out to be correct. Only modern day naturalist have to believe that exact coincidences happen, because of evolution and modern cosmology. Where exact coincidences have to happen all the time, like the cosmological constant problem. But solutions well within the margin of error needs to be explained if a person is trying to discredit a theory. Which no one as far as what I have read has done.
Compare this to something like General Relativity which you are butchering in another thread.
If you have a problem with mine, Dr. Greene's and others interpretation of relativity you are free to join in the fun.
Einstein and his colleagues worked out the mathematics of that hypothesis using known axioms of mathematics and the physics of the day (various tensor definitions, coordinate transformations, etc.). It was all put together within the known laws of physics and it made predictions such as how the precession in the orbit of Mercury could be explained, and that light from distance stars passing close to the sun from our Earth viewpoint would be deflected making the stars appear to be shifted from their positions relative to when the sun was not close to the direct light path from the stars to Earth. There were no assumptions pulled from the hind end (or vague interpretations of bible verses) involved. It is science building on prior science, with no baseless assumptions needed, and subsequently confirmed (repeatedly) by measurements.
Neither of his assumptions can be validated everywhere in the universe. But they can be validated around the Earth and so it is safe to assume they are valid everywhere.
All of the mathematics derived in relativity comes from Einsteins original assumptions. They are not derived from the mathematics. Assumptions are the parameters that indicate which mathematical solutions are correct.
That speaks for itself. You just don't understand how real science works at the most basic level. Assumptions may be needed to formulate a hypothesis, but it is testing, measurements, experiments, analysis, etc. that must confirm the validity of the assumptions within a theory for it to be internally consistent.
This is what i have bee saying the whole time.
It depends on what you are trying to predict. If it was albedo under certain conditions a cheese may measure up pretty well. In your view someone could assume the moon is made of concrete and glass, and since that might produce a mass roughly close to that of the moon you'd say that the assumption is perfectly valid. Then we can go to the moon, collect samples and do measurements, and show that it is not made of concrete and glass (or cheese), thereby invalidating the original assumption.
Yes, exactly!!! The assumption would not be proven incorrect until observations were made to show that it was in correct. Like for example the rings of Saturn, at one time some scientists believed that they were made of gas others believed that they were made of rock. it was not until voyager were the assumptions of the one view discarded.
Humphreys (or any of this type of charlatan) makes assumptions for his own convenience, tries to find some bible reference to justify it (usually all he needs is for there to be water, which he then claims is present at whatever level is needed, at whatever location, in any phase), then creates a "theory" to try and convince people that modern science is consistent with biblical stories. His entire goal is that ... to try and legitimize creationism as actual science.
I will agree that creationist will not accept a theory that is not in line with what the Bible indicates as reality. The Bible is our worldview, I make no bones about that and I am good with that. What you are trying to say is that your worldview is superior to my worldview or another way to put this is that your worldview is a better view or reality than my worldview and I simply do not see it like that at all. Especially with the crazy and outlandish theories that naturalist are putting forward.
Reality is not what they are saying it is so I do not know how you can defend the crazy things cosmology is putting forward today.
His planetary magnetic field "theory" can be shown to be completely false because we know the planets did not start as balls of H2O (a primary assumption he made), and the idea that a god came along and aligned all of the H-atom nuclear spins is just utter nonsense that cannot be tested even if it wasn't utter nonsense. Yet you are happy to believe this kind of thing and call it science, thereby proving you don't really understand how actual science works. An internally consistent theory cannot be based on random assumptions that cannot be verified via tests, experiments, observations, etc.
No you cannot all you can simply say is that they are not made of water today. Modern cosmology actually says that everything that we see today was made of hydrogen. So I am not sure why you think that the original matter used to create everything we see came from hydrogen and oxygen.
