Is the "Creation" story conspiracy theory?

Nov 13, 2012
141
0
USA
#41
Doesn't need one, you insist that theories are beliefs, perhaps people believe the theory but unlike a belief in God, there is irrefutable evidence that supports theories. God requires a leap of faith, the theory relies on evidence.
The Big Bang theory is the belief that there is something called "Dark Energy" is pushing the universe apart. Gravity is a function of mass, such that the mass of the earth causes a gravitational acceleration of 32ft/s^2 at sea level. What is Dark Energy a function of? What is an observed value of its strength?

You can't answer because it doesn't exist. I can directly measure the gravity of a bowling ball with little more than a piece of string. Why can't anyone directly measure Dark Energy? Because it doesn't exist.

Do you think Dark Energy is irrefutable evidence of the Big Bang?
 
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#42
Yea, I never said that. I can't tell if you have a comprehension issue or you actually disagree with me. And go ahead, go search through all my posts- you won't find me ever saying that a scientist can't believe some things (what I did say was that coming from a position of science you cannot believe- considerably different).

As for the arrogance bit again, if you were to argue 1+1=3 I don't really care how much you think it is opinion, the fact is 1+1=2. I know my credentials in real life and I have had the privilege of seeing science being conducted at a renowned, research university in this country. You can think it is arrogant when I say this is the way science is, but it is. You are arguing 1+1=3. If you saw someone do that, wouldn't you insist that 1+1=2 too? Or would you sit back because you think there is some validity to 1+1=3 and if you challenged it that would make you seem arrogant?

And I don't have a grudge against you...
I never argued against fact, if I did, what fact did I deny, I am reasonable.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#43
The Big Bang theory is the belief that there is something called "Dark Energy" is pushing the universe apart. Gravity is a function of mass, such that the mass of the earth causes a gravitational acceleration of 32ft/s^2 at sea level. What is Dark Energy a function of? What is an observed value of its strength?
Why are you focusing on dark energy as proof against the Big Bang? That isn't the primary conclusion or piece of evidence for the Big Bang.

You can't answer because it doesn't exist. I can directly measure the gravity of a bowling ball with little more than a piece of string. Why can't anyone directly measure Dark Energy? Because it doesn't exist.
By this logic, God doesn't exist either. Bet you didn't see that one coming :p That aside, observable evidence isn't everything- there are other forms of evidence and statistical solutions. When it comes to the Big Bang, there is observable data supporting it though such as the universe is expanding, etc.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#44
I never argued against fact, if I did, what fact did I deny, I am reasonable.
There are quite a few. I don't think you want me to go into it again, but you can figure out what I'll say- just look at our recent debates.
 
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#45
There are quite a few. I don't think you want me to go into it again, but you can figure out what I'll say- just look at our recent debates.
name an instance, just saying "every thing you ever said" is a cop out. In the past posts I was arguing from my perspective, if there is a fact that I mistook than you didn't say anything.

Facts are proven, of I argued with a fact, I'd like to know that, because if something is indeed a fact I was wrong, I would like to know what i was wrong about.

Present the fact and the proof, like I said I am reasonable.
 
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#46
The Big Bang theory is the belief that there is something called "Dark Energy" is pushing the universe apart. Gravity is a function of mass, such that the mass of the earth causes a gravitational acceleration of 32ft/s^2 at sea level. What is Dark Energy a function of? What is an observed value of its strength?

You can't answer because it doesn't exist. I can directly measure the gravity of a bowling ball with little more than a piece of string. Why can't anyone directly measure Dark Energy? Because it doesn't exist.

Do you think Dark Energy is irrefutable evidence of the Big Bang?
No, I don't, I don't think dark energy is even necessary to the theory. The fact that the universe is expanding is evidence enough that it has expanded from a point where every thing was closer together at some point prior. There are other theories that have been presented, coelecense, is one as well, the current observable data is leaning toward big bang. The theory serves a purpose, to have a rational explication that doesn't rely on pure faith.
 
Nov 13, 2012
141
0
USA
#47
Why are you focusing on dark energy as proof against the Big Bang? That isn't the primary conclusion or piece of evidence for the Big Bang.
A force that causes the universe to expand isn't the primary conclusion of the theory based on the universe expanding? Do you think Isaac Newton was wrong for reaching a conclusion primarily about gravity based on a falling apple?

By this logic, God doesn't exist either. Bet you didn't see that one coming :p
God isn't a part of nature.

That aside, observable evidence isn't everything- there are other forms of evidence and statistical solutions. When it comes to the Big Bang, there is observable data supporting it though such as the universe is expanding, etc.


We can't observe three quarters of the universe, specially a quarter of the universe that's a force like gravity? (Then there's the supposed 22% "Dark matter" which we also can't observe, but that's a little less unexcusable because matter isn't pervasive like forces.)

The expanding universe itself is not data. Expansion (whether or not to a past singularity) itself is a theory. But, even people who believe in Noah's Flood can find some compelling evidence on a simplistic level (a blanket of sedimentary rock around the globe, even on mountains).
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#48
A force that causes the universe to expand isn't the primary conclusion of the theory based on the universe expanding? Do you think Isaac Newton was wrong for reaching a conclusion primarily about gravity based on a falling apple?
The Big Bang primarily says that the universe is expanding and that it began at one point. You are talking about a theory that explains that expanding- those are two different things.

God isn't a part of nature.
I could say dark energy is not a part of nature either. Either way, it is not logical to use that as an argument for making a claim- you need actual evidence, suggestive or otherwise.

The expanding universe itself is not data. Expansion (whether or not to a past singularity) itself is a theory. But, even people who believe in Noah's Flood can find some compelling evidence on a simplistic level (a blanket of sedimentary rock around the globe, even on mountains).
There is a lot of data on the expanding universe including actual Hubble recordings. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

That is all observational evidence.
 
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#49
So I take it your claims that I argue against fact are false, due to your in ability to sight just one occasion where I did such a thing?

I expect an apology for your false accusations. Or support proving then correct.

Your desire to assassinate my character is really not a pleasant quality.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#50
So I take it your claims that I argue against fact are false, due to your in ability to sight just one occasion where I did such a thing?

I expect an apology for your false accusations. Or support proving then correct.

Your desire to assassinate my character is really not a pleasant quality.
clax, just because I didn't respond to your post first does not mean I was not going to respond. Like I said already though, I don't have the time or energy to spell everything out for you. I just don't want to do it. If you want to look it up, the information is readily available on the Internet. Here are some of the things you were said were not true, but are:

-peer review is a major part of science
-applying the scientific method, you can't come to the conclusion that God is real
-there have historically been clashes between science and religion. It doesn't matter that you don't take the stance of the church as gospel, but others do. For them, the church is the ultimate voice of the religion and the church's voice has often conflicted with science (from Galileo and Copernicus to evolution)
-the dictionary is not a comprehensive source of definitions. Furthermore, definitions are often vague (like with science the definition you use talked about a "systematic" approach. "systematic" is very vague and it includes peer review in modern science)

etc.
 
Nov 13, 2012
141
0
USA
#51
The Big Bang primarily says that the universe is expanding and that it began at one point. You are talking about a theory that explains that expanding- those are two different things.
If the universe is expanding, something has to be causing that expansion. To doubt "Dark Energy" (given the Big Bang) is like doubting gravity plays a role in an Apple falling from a tree.

There is a lot of data on the expanding universe including actual Hubble recordings. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

That is all observational evidence.
That's propaganda E.g. the first example from you link is "the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies." The redshifts are the data. The Hubble-type expansion is a theory. So, the first "pillar" of evidence of the Big Bang is itself just a theory.

There are a number of other mechanisms that can redshifted light other than than Hubble expansion. And, Hubble expansion itself could exist without the Big Big. But, there's no known mechanism to drive the Big Bang, unless you count Dark Energy.

Real science focuses on the difficulties, rather than focusing on the "proofs". Religion focuses on the "proofs"...

(The other three "pillars", CMB is a false prediction of the Big Bang due to decoupling of matter/energy early on, abundance of light elements is necessary with or without the Big Bang, and the Evolution of Galaxies under the Big Bang model violates the law of entropy.)
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#52
If the universe is expanding, something has to be causing that expansion. To doubt "Dark Energy" (given the Big Bang) is like doubting gravity plays a role in an Apple falling from a tree.
To put your gravity analogy into what I am saying, the apple falling and gravity causing the apple to fall are two different ideas.

That's propaganda E.g. the first example from you link is "the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies." The redshifts are the data. The Hubble-type expansion is a theory. So, the first "pillar" of evidence of the Big Bang is itself just a theory.

There are a number of other mechanisms that can redshifted light other than than Hubble expansion. And, Hubble expansion itself could exist without the Big Big. But, there's no known mechanism to drive the Big Bang, unless you count Dark Energy.
It is not propaganda. The redshifts along with other data are proof that the universe is expanding.

Real science focuses on the difficulties, rather than focusing on the "proofs". Religion focuses on the "proofs"...
What are you even trying to say? You call science propaganda when it is religious text that is closer to propaganda.

(The other three "pillars", CMB is a false prediction of the Big Bang due to decoupling of matter/energy early on, abundance of light elements is necessary with or without the Big Bang, and the Evolution of Galaxies under the Big Bang model violates the law of entropy.)
Scientists question everything- you think these possibilities were not considered? And some of these questionings like the evolution of galaxies and entropy doesn't even make sense (expanding celestial bodies = greater entropy)
 
Nov 13, 2012
141
0
USA
#53
To put your gravity analogy into what I am saying, the apple falling and gravity causing the apple to fall are two different ideas.
It is a force that causes the Apple to move, just like it would be a force that causes the universe to expand.

It is not propaganda. The redshifts along with other data are proof that the universe is expanding.
There are other mechanisms (e.g. gravitational effects) that can cause redshift, and some of them aren't half as impossible as the Big Bang. Therefor, with other mechanisms, redshift itself isn't proof of expansion (let alone of the Big Bang), it's merely semi-consistent with the Big Bang. ("Semi-consistant" because some possible features of the redshift contradict the Big Bang, like quantization.)

Scientists question everything-
Scientists question everything. Supporters of the Big Bang, such as the author of the article you linked to, don't really question anything.

you think these possibilities were not considered? And some of these questionings like the evolution of galaxies and entropy doesn't even make sense (expanding celestial bodies = greater entropy)
The universe is a closed system. In a closed system, the net entropy can only decrease over time. Under the Big Bang model, the universe would have to have been the most complex when it magically came into being. Yet, Big Bang illustrations show a universe overall decreasing in entropy as galaxies form. So, to point to the evolution of galaxies as a "pillar" of evidence of the Big Bang is scientifically absurd.
 
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#54
clax, just because I didn't respond to your post first does not mean I was not going to respond. Like I said already though, I don't have the time or energy to spell everything out for you. I just don't want to do it. If you want to look it up, the information is readily available on the Internet. Here are some of the things you were said were not true, but are:

-peer review is a major part of science
-applying the scientific method, you can't come to the conclusion that God is real
-there have historically been clashes between science and religion. It doesn't matter that you don't take the stance of the church as gospel, but others do. For them, the church is the ultimate voice of the religion and the church's voice has often conflicted with science (from Galileo and Copernicus to evolution)
-the dictionary is not a comprehensive source of definitions. Furthermore, definitions are often vague (like with science the definition you use talked about a "systematic" approach. "systematic" is very vague and it includes peer review in modern science)

etc.
No, you misunderstood every thing I said. First peer review is subjective, I can go into detail from my experience in the world of science, anybody with half a brain cell would understand why I say it is subjective but you wish to continue with your character assassination of me.

Second point I never stated that wasn't true, I mealy said being a scientist doesn't require you to look at everything scientifically, again you crammed words in my mouth, nasty habit of yours.

Third point, you mistake a collective for a person, and I never disagreed with you that the religious leaders denounced science, I simple explained the social structure that have them the power to halt the furthering of knowledge. You insist that it is a religion, it may be the people with in the religion but blame the proper people, I only took exception to your statement that religion (by which I assume you mean people) halts science, I exist in opposition to that statement. I am religious (mildly) but I do not wish to stand in the way of science. In fact quite the opposite I support the Bibles take on furthering of knowledge, it states that we should learn of things in science in proverbs.

I am a religious person that doesn't practice hypocrisy, my fellow Christians over look things to be part of a culture, that culture is what halts science.

Cough..cough. Sorry still choking on your words.

The last point you are correct on, the dictionary does not illustrate the entire meaning in words. The systematic approach, can include many things.

My exception was purely emotional on that peer review issue. I had an experience in academic science where peer review acted as the ninth Centry church. They rejected all the data I had gathered in a study, and my peers saw fit to cast me out much like Galileo was in the fifteenth century, and dub my findings heresy for lack of a better word. My grants were taken away because I fails that class because the findings were not something they could support.

I was lagitamatly treated as Galileo aside from the imprisonment. Because my study would be politically controversial and would potentially damage reputations.
Further more it took guts for Galileo to go against the church and not comprise, many people in the realm of academics are spineless. Although I can't say I blame them.


Peer review must be regarded, I was mistaken and for that I an sorry. But peer review can become much like the situation Galileo was in, especially when people have motives aside from advancing knowledge. Sorry that was all of my sour grapes from wasting time in that university.

Ontop of that my nature, slightly oblivious, severely dyslexic (as I am sure anybody who reads any of my posts is aware) forced me into outcast status in the group that had given me my grants, they were all about image, and pretended to be about intellect.

Perhaps I will start a thread to explain that dark side of peer review.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#55
I would be interested in reading about your experience if you would be so inclined. The greater point though is that despite your unfortunate experience, it is a major part of science. And sure, it has its flaws and sometimes it doesn't work optimally- I never denied that- but it is still better than the alternative, no?
 
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#56
I would be interested in reading about your experience if you would be so inclined. The greater point though is that despite your unfortunate experience, it is a major part of science. And sure, it has its flaws and sometimes it doesn't work optimally- I never denied that- but it is still better than the alternative, no?
The alternative being that scientific findings stand in their own merit, I would disagree.

I will start a separate thread regarding my experience.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#57
No, you misunderstood every thing I said. First peer review is subjective, I can go into detail from my experience in the world of science, anybody with half a brain cell would understand why I say it is subjective but you wish to continue with your character assassination of me.

Second point I never stated that wasn't true, I mealy said being a scientist doesn't require you to look at everything scientifically, again you crammed words in my mouth, nasty habit of yours.

Third point, you mistake a collective for a person, and I never disagreed with you that the religious leaders denounced science, I simple explained the social structure that have them the power to halt the furthering of knowledge. You insist that it is a religion, it may be the people with in the religion but blame the proper people, I only took exception to your statement that religion (by which I assume you mean people) halts science, I exist in opposition to that statement. I am religious (mildly) but I do not wish to stand in the way of science. In fact quite the opposite I support the Bibles take on furthering of knowledge, it states that we should learn of things in science in proverbs.

I am a religious person that doesn't practice hypocrisy, my fellow Christians over look things to be part of a culture, that culture is what halts science.

Cough..cough. Sorry still choking on your words.

The last point you are correct on, the dictionary does not illustrate the entire meaning in words. The systematic approach, can include many things.

My exception was purely emotional on that peer review issue. I had an experience in academic science where peer review acted as the ninth Centry church. They rejected all the data I had gathered in a study, and my peers saw fit to cast me out much like Galileo was in the fifteenth century, and dub my findings heresy for lack of a better word. My grants were taken away because I fails that class because the findings were not something they could support.

I was lagitamatly treated as Galileo aside from the imprisonment. Because my study would be politically controversial and would potentially damage reputations.
Further more it took guts for Galileo to go against the church and not comprise, many people in the realm of academics are spineless. Although I can't say I blame them.


Peer review must be regarded, I was mistaken and for that I an sorry. But peer review can become much like the situation Galileo was in, especially when people have motives aside from advancing knowledge. Sorry that was all of my sour grapes from wasting time in that university.

Ontop of that my nature, slightly oblivious, severely dyslexic (as I am sure anybody who reads any of my posts is aware) forced me into outcast status in the group that had given me my grants, they were all about image, and pretended to be about intellect.

Perhaps I will start a thread to explain that dark side of peer review.
Just to note...A university thesis committee does not much resemble the peer review process in science.
 
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#58
Just to note...A university thesis committee does not much resemble the peer review process in science.
Perhaps in most sciences but it seems to rule psychology. But psych isn't as black and white as say physics, that has constant.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#60
et al,

So the question has evolved. I just lost track of where we are.

v/r
R
Back to the debate then....

Creation is not conspiracy theory, instead falling under myth.

We have Moved into the reasoning why...going so far as to debate physics and theory that clearly dismiss the genesis hypothesis.
 

Similar Discussions