Many Worlds

[SelfSim]

Very much so. "falsifiability" works fine for small claims, but the big frameworks with lots of evidence aren't going to fall to one anomaly that seems to "falsify" things. (A sub-sub-sub theory might fall.)

IMO, objective evidence of the usage of the scientific method in arriving at affirming statements, distinguishes 'scientific' from 'non scientific'. Scientific theories are usually supported by lots of consistent, independently verifiable, well tested results, no(?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's in the subforum where you can't post and anti-science prevails.

50 Years of Deafening Silence Confirms Radioisotope Halos Have Destroyed Evolution - It's Time For A Proper Burial

**** Note **** (If you wish to skip the boring science lesson and head down to the bottom to find out about the "50 years of deafening silence" - be my guest) Dr. Robert Gentry, a Seventh-day Adventist scientist, made an extremely important discovery many years ago. After much research, in...

www.christianforums.com

I saw that thread last week or so in the cesspool. The OP's argument is largely: "Fancy science guys won't respond to obvious nonsense in the peer-review literature, so it must be true."

If only those posters knew what happens when we get such a missive from one of the science cranks:

We read aloud from it at lunch or something and mock it to our great amusement. We do not write papers to refute it.

(That's how I first encountered Mr. Mozina's "writing partner" with his "NS in the core of the Sun" model of non-reality.)

 

[Astrid]

Do you buy that argument? Why do you bring them up?

Of course not. It was just a dumb
response.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah, well, polonium halos.

That claim was debunked last century - we've had at least one thread where it was covered.

"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one-time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness."​

See TalkOrigins for details.​

 

[Astrid]

That claim was debunked last century - we've had at least one thread where it was covered.

"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one-time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness."​

See TalkOrigins for details.​

For those duped by creationist claims

 

[sjastro]

I saw that thread last week or so in the cesspool. The OP's argument is largely: "Fancy science guys won't respond to obvious nonsense in the peer-review literature, so it must be true."

If only those posters knew what happens when we get such a missive from one of the science cranks:

We read aloud from it at lunch or something and mock it to our great amusement. We do not write papers to refute it.

(That's how I first encountered Mr. Mozina's "writing partner" with his "NS in the core of the Sun" model of non-reality.)

In fact Gentry did publish in Nature and Science, what the OP doesn't realize Gentry made no references to creationism let alone supporting it.
If he did his work wouldn't have seen the light of day in either journal.

Nature did write up a piece on Gentry suing arXiv.

Ousted creationist sues over website - Nature

www.nature.com

 

[Astrid]

In fact Gentry did publish in Nature and Science, what the OP doesn't realize Gentry made no references to creationism let alone supporting it.
If he did his work wouldn't have seen the light of day in either journal.

Nature did write up a piece on Gentry suing arXiv.

Ousted creationist sues over website - Nature

www.nature.com

Why wouldnt it see the light of day

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why wouldnt it see the light of day

Because those are science journals, and admitting that your work is based on creationist assumptions is admitting that it isn't scientific.

 

[Astrid]

Because those are science journals, and admitting that your work is based on creationist assumptions is admitting that it isn't scientific.

Needed for clarity, for lo, some
Believe it's the work of the
WWCOSSTSTTOG

 

[Hans Blaster]

Needed for clarity, for lo, some
Believe it's the work of the
WWCOSSTSTTOG

IDKWYATA.

 

[Astrid]

IDKWYATA.

World wide conspiracy of satanic scientists to
suppress the word of god

 

[Hans Blaster]

World wide conspiracy of satanic scientists to
suppress the word of god

Do you believe such a thing exists?

 

[Astrid]

Do you believe such a thing exists?

Many a Believer thinks so

 

[dlamberth]

Do you believe such a thing exists?

Good question. I honestly don't know how world wide spread that kind of thinking is, but I've ran into it with my own extended family. And if anyone has spent any amount of time here in this form you have seen that trajectory even here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Many a Believer thinks so

Then we must be careful not to encourage such ideas. For example, I don't even believe in Satan, which sort of makes it hard to be in a satanic conspiracy.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Good question. I honestly don't know how world wide spread that kind of thinking is, but I've ran into it with my own extended family. And if anyone has spend any amount of time here in this form you have seen that trajectory even here.

What I've seen is an unmistakable tendency for people to see things that aren't there. For some unknown reason, people have evolved to be irrational. Maybe it's a means for society to avoid danger by having some members who are hypersensitive to it. In any case I don't think that society is meant to be perfectly homogeneous and harmonious. It's meant to have outliers, however discordant they may be, because a social group needs some members who are vigilant and cautious, while at the same time having members who are recklessly exuberant. They balance each other out, which on the one hand allows society to grow and adapt, while on the other hand keeps it from taking undue risks.

Alas there is no worldwide satanic conspiracy. But there is one inside a lot of people's heads.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to try to recognize when your subconscious mind is misleading you. Not because you're stupid, or irrational, but because that's just part of your nature. It's who you are. But you're also an intelligent being, so hopefully you can figure these things out. There are no monsters out there in the shadows, or satanic conspiracies trying to destroy humanity. It's just us doing what we've evolved to do, be social creatures.

Have a little faith, trust in whatever you need to trust in, and know that all is as it should be.

 

[AV1611VET]

Alas there is no worldwide satanic conspiracy. But there is one inside a lot of people's heads.

In your opinion, how should psychiatrists score a person who sees Christian symbols on a Rorschach test?

 

[Neutral Observer]

In your opinion, how should psychiatrists score a person who sees Christian symbols on a Rorschach test?

Sorry, I'm not educated enough, familiar enough, or foolish enough to have an opinion on the matter.

 

[Astrid]

Then we must be careful not to encourage such ideas. For example, I don't even believe in Satan, which sort of makes it hard to be in a satanic conspiracy.

Yeah... parody is too easy to
take seriously

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, I'm not educated enough, familiar enough, or foolish enough to have an opinion on the matter.

So then you would agree on principle with those who are educated enough, familiar enough, or foolish enough to score them as: "abnormal"?