Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Subduction Zone]

Boom goes the dark matter irony meter!

I hear an ecco, you are just repeating back to me what I am telling you. Are you a bot?

No, I am willing to support my claims with evidence. I know that you and Mike can't. Sadly Mike has no understanding of evidence at all, though he claims to be a fan of science.

 

[Michael]

No, I am willing to support my claims with evidence. I know that you and Mike can't. Sadly Mike has no understanding of evidence at all, though he claims to be a fan of science.

I think the irony meter actually imploded on that one. You have the whole of science standing on it's head with respect to providing evidence to support and refute various ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the irony meter actually imploded on that one. You have the whole of science standing on it's head with respect to providing evidence to support and refute various ideas.

That was merely yours reacting to your own nonsense. A little honesty from you would be appreciated from time to time. Please, no false accusations.

You seriously can't say that you do not know of the various "victories" of dark matter.

 

[dad]

Yes, that is because you are lacking that wisdom.

Zzzzzz snore...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Zzzzzz snore...

Yes,we all know that dotage is just around the block for you.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

Good-bye for awhile.

LOVE,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi,

Good-bye for awhile.

LOVE,

Have a good evening.

 

[Michael]

That was merely yours reacting to your own nonsense. A little honesty from you would be appreciated from time to time. Please, no false accusations.

You seriously can't say that you do not know of the various "victories" of dark matter.

I can seriously say that "dark matter" theory hasn't had a "victory" in more than a decade, and it's last claim to "victory" was based upon a now falsified premise that their 2006 baryonic mass estimates of galaxies was correct. It has since been shown that they miscounted entire stars in those galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20, and underestimated the number of stars *between* galaxies in those clusters too! There has never been a real or empirical "victory" for dark matter theory, and the past decade has been one falsification after another, after another, after another, after another.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, I am willing to support my claims with evidence.

We clearly have an abundance more of evidence then you do. It must be a different sort of evidence then you have if you do not see the evidence for God. All of creation and all of the natural laws are evidence for God. All of Science is filled with evidence for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can seriously say that "dark matter" theory hasn't had a "victory" in more than a decade, and it's last claim to "victory" was based upon a now falsified premise that their 2006 baryonic mass estimates of galaxies was correct. It has since been shown that they miscounted entire stars in those galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20, and underestimated the number of stars *between* galaxies in those clusters too! There has never been a real or empirical "victory" for dark matter theory, and the past decade has been one falsification after another, after another, after another, after another.

Do you need a victory every decade. The only thing that they have not done is to isolate the particle. They found evidence of it early on in the rotational speed of our galaxy. It was soon confirmed that all galaxies rotate too fast. Then it was observed by gravitational lensing when two galaxies collided and the dark matter lagged the regular matter after the collisions. And as you said the 2006 baryonic mass estimates. Meanwhile what have actual, and not hijacked, EU backers done? No explanations no predictions from what I have heard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We clearly have an abundance more of evidence then you do. It must be a different sort of evidence then you have if you do not see the evidence for God. All of creation and all of the natural laws are evidence for God. All of Science is filled with evidence for God.

When you make ignorant claims like this you cause people to laugh at you. I am not a specialist in astrophyscis, I know far more about evolution and I know that there is no scientific evidence for creationism and there are mountains of scientific evidence for evolution. Don't you remember the court cases you listed? The creationists have such a bad record because they have no supporting evidence. And it seems that you can't make up your mind. In one post you say that you accept evolution and in the next you are attacking the idea.

 

[Michael]

Do you need a victory every decade.

We've put billions into searching for these mythical invisible friends of yours over the past decade, and we've found zippity-do-da. How many more billions would would you like to invest in this invisible snipe hunt?

If the negative results don't falsify that claim, what will?

The worst part however is that the entire basis for proposing the existence of them was based upon what we now know to be a *completely false assumption*!

They didn't even come *close* to correctly predicting the amount of ordinary baryonic matter in that 2006 lensing study. They didn't find any evidence of dark matter either. All they found was evidence that their baryonic mass estimates weren't worth the paper they were printed on, and numerous studies since 2006 have demonstrated that point in lots of different and unique ways.

The only thing that they have not done is to isolate the particle.

So basically you "have faith", hold faith, hold belief that your invisible hypothetical entity will one day be observed, in spite of the fact that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates were complete trash in 2006?

They found evidence of it early on in the rotational speed of our galaxy. It was soon confirmed that all galaxies rotate too fast.

We also just (in 2012) found more mass in the form of million degree plasma surrounding and enveloping our galaxy than all the other mass known to exist in the galaxy. We found that missing mass.

Then it was observed by gravitational lensing when two galaxies collided and the dark matter lagged the regular matter after the collisions. And as you said the 2006 baryonic mass estimates.

If you had read the published papers I suggested, you'd know that those baryonic mass estimates were off by a factor of between 3 and 20.

Meanwhile what have actual, and not hijacked, EU backers done? No explanations no predictions from what I have heard.

Apparently you haven't heard much because you haven't read anything I've suggested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We've put billions into searching for these mythical invisible friends of yours over the past decade, and we've found zippity-do-da. How many more billions would would you like to invest in this invisible snipe hunt?

If the negative results don't falsify that claim, what will?

I see that you still do not understand science. All that was not confirmed was the particular model used. Not confirming a model is not refuting it. If you remember when they tried to find Tiktaalik by predicting where it could be found they almost ran out of time before finding their first specimen. One of the greatest finds ever was almost "refuted" by your standards.

The worst part however is that the entire basis for proposing the existence of them was based upon what we now know to be a *completely false assumption*!

And yet you can't show that is the case. Remember that as bad as you think the current model is yours is over ten times worse.

You bore me Mike. Contact me when you have some real science supporting your views.

 

[Michael]

I see that you still do not understand science. All that was not confirmed was the particular model used. Not confirming a model is not refuting it.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/science-and-god.7932671/page-3#post-69283057

I think we firmly established in that post that you're projecting your own inadequacies with respect to science on me personally. You just told me that they try to prove their theories *false*, yet here you are rejecting any and all "false" results.

If you remember when they tried to find Tiktaalik by predicting where it could be found they almost ran out of time before finding their first specimen. One of the greatest finds ever was almost "refuted" by your standards.

How many billions more dollars would you like to spend before spending a few million recreating lab experiments that actually work using modern technologies?

And yet you can't show that is the case.

Actually, I can and I have shown that is the case based upon published and peer reviewed materials galore. You simply won't be bothered to read any of it, but that's not my problem, it's yours.

Remember that as bad as you think the current model is yours is over ten times worse.

Worse at what? At least Birkeland got stuff to work in the lab that was useful too in terms of predictions about solar physics and predictions about Earth's aurora too. How can an empirical working model be "worse" that blowing billions of dollars on an invisible snipe hunt and getting *nothing* for it?

You bore me Mike. Contact me when you have some real science supporting your views.

I've already handed you tons of real science to support everything I've said about your dark matter claims, and you simply are bored because you won't read it and you don't want to deal with it. If you weren't in pure denial, you'd be busy reading and you wouldn't be bored.

 

[Michael]

FYI, the fact you won't read or deal with the published and peer reviewed material I handed you is exactly the way dad would deal with something he didn't want to hear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/science-and-god.7932671/page-3#post-69283057

I think we firmly established in that post that you're projecting your own inadequacies with respect to science on me personally. You just told me that they try to prove their theories *false*, yet here you are rejecting any and all "false" results.

Nope, you are merely delusional. Once again you can't even reply properly. You have a bad habit of excessively blowing up posts in response. You don't need to respond to every sentence. That shows that you know that you are wrong.

How many billions more dollars would you like to spend before spending a few million recreating lab experiments that actually work using modern technologies?

The lab is limited in its abilities. Demands that science be done only in the lab also tells us that you do not understand how science is done.

Actually, I can and I have shown that is the case based upon published and peer reviewed materials galore. You simply won't be bothered to read any of it, but that's not my problem, it's yours.

Sorry, but you can't. You try to hijack real science that is merely on plasma physics. You have not given any that argues for the EU. Real physicists actually do studies in plasma, that does not mean that they are EU believers.

Worse at what? At least Birkeland got stuff to work in the lab that was useful too in terms of predictions about solar physics and predictions about Earth's aurora too. How can an empirical working model be "worse" that blowing billions of dollars on an invisible snipe hunt and getting *nothing* for it?

This is an example of hijacking. Birkeland was an early experimenter with plasma, that does not mean he supports the EU.

I've already handed you tons of real science to support everything I've said about your dark matter claims, and you simply are bored because you won't read it and you don't want to deal with it. If you weren't in pure denial, you'd be busy reading and you wouldn't be bored.

Wrong again, the only "real science" that you gave was again work in plasma by plasma physicists. I got bored of the hijacking. Once again when you have some real science then you can respond to me.

 

[Michael]

Once again when you have some real science then you can respond to me.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...with-the-bible.7925530/page-105#post-69273115

I presented that to you previously in this same thread, and you can add the CresstII results (and I) to the list of negative results in the lab.

You haven't responded to any of the first 10 published references I've cited

I could of course point you to the collective works of Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt, and Lerner in terms of published work, but we both know full well that you would handwave away that evidence too, just like you did with the dark matter issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...with-the-bible.7925530/page-105#post-69273115

I presented that to you previously in this same thread, and you can add the CresstII results (and I) to the list of negative results in the lab.

You haven't responded to any of the first 10 published references I've cited

I could of course point you to the collective works of Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt, and Lerner in terms of published work, but we both know full well that you would handwave away that evidence too, just like you did with the dark matter issue.

Linking your old failures is simply just more failure on your part. You have no actual science that supports your worthless model.

I am still waiting.

 

[Kylie]

Even more it takes God's wisdom to bust the dickens out of it.

One day you will actually surprise me and back up your claims.

But not today.

 

[Kylie]

I bought one after getting saved.

That explains it.

You already believed that the Bible was true when you sat down to read the Bible. Thus, you were more likely to suffer from confirmation bias and allow the claims made in the Bible support the conclusions you had already reached.

Lurkers and I. Well I guess you too...as much as you squawk.

Ya huh.

Overruled. His word counts.

No it doesn't.

Or can I start posting passages from the Harry Potter series and whenever you complain that it's not real, I say, "Overruled, J K Rowling's word counts."

Not when claims are assumptions upon which it builds models.

You mean like the Bible?

The idea was that He came 2016 years ago...according to their best estimate.

Stop avoiding the issue and answer the question.