• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

Status
Not open for further replies.

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
14,883
7,331
31
Wales
✟420,490.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Hey, I think we're getting somewhere? At least you admit there are factors in scientific equations that can't be accounted for! (That's progress!)

"Theories are observations and explanations of facts"....... Yes, observations and explanations of facts taking into account the acknowledgement that there's information we don't know! And this is why they are called theories; because of the acknowledgement that unknown factors exist.

So when there's information about the facts that is not known; the best one can say is that they are presenting an idea as to why they believe this set of data operates the way that it does. That is speculation.

Now some former speculations; given more data have proven to be correct. "Guesses" aren't automatically bad. To our current knowledge; the double helix of the structure of DNA is an accurate representation of how DNA is structured. That is "the big picture" that we can see. Although it's not the whole picture because there is a lot about DNA that we still don't understand.

Now here is where you apparently miss the point that I'm making. Some hypothesis (which are the foundation of theories) are quite well informed "guesses". Yet they are still guesses because they are incomplete formulations of why this person believes this set of data behaves the way it does. My AP biology teacher in high school explained a theory as "an educated guess".

And the fact that you "do not understand" what I've explained to you, in simple terms, several times now; shows that you are willfully ignorant of the fundamental definition of "theory".

And you're doing nothing to show that I am wrong in saying that theories are explanations of facts and observations, not just assumptions and guesses as you repeatedly and only claim. And if your AP biology teacher said that a scientific theory was an 'educated guess', then he/she should not have been a teacher.

That's all you are doing: just saying, not showing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,406
1,352
54
Western NY
Visit site
✟155,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
@Hans Blaster asked you about spectrum of methane.
A spectrum is a chemical fingerprint not an equation.

Here is an extreme example where I have used an amateur sized telescope and a diffraction grating to identify the hydrogen spectrum in a quasar around 2.5 billion years away,
The spectral lines have been redshifted due to expansion of the universe.
In this case one does use a formula λ₁ = λ₂/(1+0.158) to convert the hydrogen spectrum in the quasar's frame of reference λ₂ into the laboratory frame λ₁ using the measured redshift z = 0.158.
The calculated values for λ₁ correspond to measuring the spectrum of hydrogen in the laboratory.
This why we know the chemical composition of objects that are billions of light years away.
The spectrum of methane has nothing to do with the fundamental question of what is the definition of a theory.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,406
1,352
54
Western NY
Visit site
✟155,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
And you're doing nothing to show that I am wrong in saying that theories are explanations of facts and observations, not just assumptions and guesses as you repeatedly and only claim. And if your AP biology teacher said that a scientific theory was an 'educated guess', then he/she should not have been a teacher.

That's all you are doing: just saying, not showing.
Well, since you can't seem to understand what the basic definition of a theory is; I can't help you.
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Site Supporter
May 19, 2018
11,738
12,457
Neath, Wales, UK
✟1,189,754.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
He's right, you know. After all, if a lightning bolt hit a gob of snot lying in a mud puddle four billion years ago and caused it to evolve into a giraffe, there's every possibility that you, as a Corgi, could evolve into a cow. Or an iguana. Or maybe a wombat, we're not clear on it all just yet---there's gaps. Punctuated equilibrium, yanno. ^_^

As long as i dont become a Human!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Wolseley
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
14,883
7,331
31
Wales
✟420,490.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Well, since you can't seem to understand what the basic definition of a theory is; I can't help you.
And the winner for most ironically blind statement on this website is...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,595
7,111
✟328,786.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Until a theory is proven falsifiable or non-falsifiable; it's still an opinion of what person X thinks a particular group of data means. If it's proven non-falsifiable; than it's considered a "fact".

Some "consistent groupings of data" are still considered "theories" because though we can prove them in one environment (example flight on earth) we can't prove that is consistent across all environments (Thus the exploration of alternate power sources to be used in space such as "solar sails".) So this is why "flight" in some contexts is still considered "theory" even though it can be replicated on earth.

Part of (for example) "flight theory" is based on the assumption that certain aspects of physics are consistent across all environments. But that may not be the case. Thus to say "I think this is why this set of data does this thing in this environment."; is still an "opinion". Someone else will say "I think this set of data does this thing in this environment for (a different reason)." (The example of flight again. There are certain things that can fly; we can observe they can fly, but we can't explain how they can fly because they don't fit our current understanding of aerodynamics. Thus there is "opinion X" on flight theory and "opinion Y" on flight theory.)

Both are still opinions; because there contains unknown factors in the question. That's why they are called "theories".

Absolutely none of that is correct.

All Theories (capital T denoting scientific theory) are falsifiable. It is integral to the process. A scientific theory is not an opinion, it's an explanation that encompassed all of the facts and is not contradicted by any of them

There's no such thing as "flight theory", at least in the sciences. There's are a bunch of theories in physics that explain the mechanics of flight - aerodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, etc. Flight theory, as it's taught in flight schools, is a bunch of physics equations mostly fluid dynamics. I'm not a pilot, but I do work in aviation and I have gone through a very abbreviated flight training.

Can you name an object that we don't have a working explanation for the mechanism of its flight?

We don't assume that "certain aspects of physics are consistent across all environments". What we assume is that natural laws (i.e. the nature of reality) are uniform, unless shown to be otherwise. To the best of our ability to determine, the rest of the observable universe operates under the same basic laws that our local spacetime does. The known constants of the universe appear to be the same in Boise, Idaho and on K2-2016-BLG-0005Lb, an exoplanet more than 17,000 light years away.

Generally speaking, our classical understandings of physics break down at certain points - the very small, the very fast, the very heavy. But, most of the stuff we observe in the rest of the universe operates on the same principles as the stuff we have at home.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,712
4,649
✟344,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The spectrum of methane has nothing to do with the fundamental question of what is the definition of a theory.
Your attempts at deflection are not very convincing.
This is what @Hans Blaster said.
Hans Blaster said:
And based on what principles would the roto-vibrational spectrum of methane be different in an even lower density vacuum than the laboratory?
This was your response.
The Righterzpen said:
Based on the principal that there are factors in this equation that you don't know and have no way of knowing. Despite the fact that you don't want to admit that you don't know!
Evidently you don't know much about science by confusing empirical data with an equation.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,406
1,352
54
Western NY
Visit site
✟155,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Absolutely none of that is correct.

All Theories (capital T denoting scientific theory) are falsifiable. It is integral to the process. A scientific theory is not an opinion, it's an explanation that encompassed all of the facts and is not contradicted by any of them

There's no such thing as "flight theory", at least in the sciences. There's are a bunch of theories in physics that explain the mechanics of flight - aerodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, etc. Flight theory, as it's taught in flight schools, is a bunch of physics equations mostly fluid dynamics. I'm not a pilot, but I do work in aviation and I have gone through a very abbreviated flight training.

Can you name an object that we don't have a working explanation for the mechanism of its flight?

We don't assume that "certain aspects of physics are consistent across all environments". What we assume is that natural laws (i.e. the nature of reality) are uniform, unless shown to be otherwise. To the best of our ability to determine, the rest of the observable universe operates under the same basic laws that our local spacetime does. The known constants of the universe appear to be the same in Boise, Idaho and on K2-2016-BLG-0005Lb, an exoplanet more than 17,000 light years away.

Generally speaking, our classical understandings of physics break down at certain points - the very small, the very fast, the very heavy. But, most of the stuff we observe in the rest of the universe operates on the same principles as the stuff we have at home.
So what you are basically saying is that all theories are falsifiable and nothing is provable.

(shrug) - OK, if you insist.

Thank you for sharing.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,406
1,352
54
Western NY
Visit site
✟155,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,254
16,061
55
USA
✟403,939.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Based on the principal that there are factors in this equation that you don't know and have no way of knowing. Despite the fact that you don't want to admit that you don't know!
OK, then compute the potential surface for the the ground state of the methane molecule and compute the vibrational states. Just because *you* don't know how such things are done does not mean that other don't. I don't think you even have the slightest clue how to properly question such knowledge.

If you are going off of data the cheating neighbor gave you; that doesn't automatically make the data more valid. Again, you don't know if the information they are telling you is accurate. And you don't want to admit that there are most likely factors in the equation that you can't account for.
Again, what do you know about quantum mechanics and what makes you think you are remotely qualified to appropriately question these things, let alone the people who do them?
It aint slander when it's true. There clearly are institutions that fudge data on account of an agenda. That's what the whole Covid narrative was built around. I don't appreciate being lied to either! But at least I'm willing to admit that I know this happens. There are honest researchers out there; but there are also ones who fudge data to meet an agenda. And often times the fudged data is to meet the agenda of the people funding the research.

Look at cigarettes for example; who funded all the "health research" that said cigarettes didn't cause cancer? (The tobacco industry!)

Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome!
Suppose *every* claim about deception in science you claim is true (and I don't think it is for a single minute), what does that have to do with the quality and trustworthiness of the research on comets, Venus, etc. that started this conversation? Who are you blaming? Big Comet? The Spectroscopy Cartel?
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,406
1,352
54
Western NY
Visit site
✟155,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
OK, then compute the potential surface for the the ground state of the methane molecule and compute the vibrational states. Just because *you* don't know how such things are done does not mean that other don't. I don't think you even have the slightest clue how to properly question such knowledge.


Again, what do you know about quantum mechanics and what makes you think you are remotely qualified to appropriately question these things, let alone the people who do them?

Suppose *every* claim about deception in science you claim is true (and I don't think it is for a single minute), what does that have to do with the quality and trustworthiness of the research on comets, Venus, etc. that started this conversation? Who are you blaming? Big Comet? The Spectroscopy Cartel?
I have a..... theory on this too.......

:lost:

:tearsofjoy:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,406
1,352
54
Western NY
Visit site
✟155,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You're lost? Yes, I can see that.
Oh yes, come follow me down the rabbit hole (seeing how you seem quite apt at diverting to rabbit holes; as opposed to actually addressing the question at hand).

But that's OK. I have a theory for that too.

:burglar:

:amen:
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,254
16,061
55
USA
✟403,939.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh yes, come follow me down the rabbit hole (seeing how you seem quite apt at diverting to rabbit holes; as opposed to actually addressing the question at hand).

But that's OK. I have a theory for that too.

:burglar:

:amen:

I haven't seen any serious science questions from you on this thread. All I keep seeing is "how do you know that" because you seem incapable of accepting some people actually have the appropriate skills to make the measurements the report making and painting science as some sort of fundamentally deceptive practice. I don't appreciate being accused like that.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,406
1,352
54
Western NY
Visit site
✟155,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I haven't seen any serious science questions from you on this thread. All I keep seeing is "how do you know that" because you seem incapable of accepting some people actually have the appropriate skills to make the measurements the report making and painting science as some sort of fundamentally deceptive practice. I don't appreciate being accused like that.
I've posed several statements to you:

1. The unknowns in a set of data is why something is called a theory. If it were 100% known, it would not be called a "theory". Theories are human hypothesis as to why the creator of the theory, believes this data set behaves the way that it does. Thus a theory is an opinion and there are different theories on the same data sets, because different theorists have different opinions of why they think the data behaves the way that it does.

You refuse to acknowledge this is the case. Instead you try to divert the conversation by pointing to things observable on earth and assuming those observations are consistent across all environments. Yet you can't prove that's true either. Which gets back to the fact that there's information in the data sets that you don't have access to. (I.E. all theories contain elements of the unknown.) This is why they are called theories.

2. You can't admit that you don't know. And because you can't deal with the element of the unknown; you jump up and down pointing to data sets observable on earth; asking me to prove those data sets wrong. Yet those data sets are irrelevant to the subject of what is a theory.

AND this whole thread is about different theories of Noah's flood.
Of which you insist that only what you believe is the correct theory; of which you can't prove that either.

3. Neither you nor I know, or can prove with absolute certainty that even those data sets that are stated to have consistency are 100% accurate.

4. You don't want to hear where "scientists" driven by agendas have fudged the data. Most often they fudge data because the people funding that study want these "scientists" to produce a certain data set that's favorable to the company's agenda. (I.E how many drug "research studies" do pharmaceutical companies fund; where the unfavorable data is nixed from the study; for the sole intent purpose that the company can put the drug on the market! And the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA rotate CEO's and board members because... when your members sit on their boards; guess who's drugs get approved! Drugs they charge insurance companies thousands and millions of dollars for!)

Show me the incentive; I'll show you the outcome!

5. There's corruption in the system but you don't want to acknowledge that. (Well, why not? - I have a theory on that too!)

6. And of course because corruption is so very prevalent in these areas of "science" over here; makes people leery of the prevalence of corruption as a whole. Which is a reasonable skepticism to raise.

But you don't "appreciate" being accused of that!

Yet you are so willing to accuse people who disagree with you of the same thing simply because they have different theories that you don't like.

You asked me who the scientists were who were advocating taking a second look at the comet theory related to Venus. I don't know who they are; but they came from Harvard (you can see this in the article that I posted).

Yet the only thing you could respond with was that you were sure Venus was not a comet. If you'd bothered to read the article though; I don't even think the Harvard people were saying that Venus was a comet. They were theorizing that Venus got to where it is in our solar system because of a comet. The theory of Venus having been a comet is a different theory. Of which I've never said that I knew Venus was a comet or wasn't a comet. I've only said that Venus having been a comet is another theory. It's another theory because in the ancient literature of multiple civilizations around the world; Venus is called a comet. Just as multiple civilizations around the world have a "global flood story". The other most prevalent story in global ancient literature from the Old Testament is Job.

Which brought up the subject that just because people on earth witness a phenomena in the sky that they label as a comet; doesn't mean what they saw meets the 21st century definition of a comet. (That current definition being an object composed of dust and ice.)

But apparently you can't take in all that data and just let it be what it is.

And my theory on your reaction is that you attack theories you disagree with simply because you can't admit that you don't actually know. There's unknowns in the data that you can't account for. And you don't want to admit that because you know that as soon as you do; I'm going to say "Then you can't prove opposing theories are wrong."

And Yes, when you practice science like that; (the inability to admit that there's factors in the data that you don't know and can't account for) that is fundamentally deceptive!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,595
7,111
✟328,786.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So what you are basically saying is that all theories are falsifiable and nothing is provable.

So's Law - Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

Yes, all theories in the sciences are falsifiable. The ability to determine if something is correct/incorrect) is a concept that underpins the sciences.

That doesn't mean that nothing is provable. Not in the slightest.

Proof is a concept for mathematics and whisky, and scientific theories are always tentatively held and subject to revision or overturning.

However, in colloquial terms scientific theories are "proven". What that means is that a scientific theory has been tested so extensively that if it was shown to be false, we'd basically need to re-write our understanding of a segment of reality to accommodate that.

If cell theory were overturned tomorrow, we'd need a totally new explanation for the observed structure of living things. If evolutionary theory were overturned tomorrow, we'd need a new explanation for the observed history and diversity of life.

The only thing that replaces an existing scientific theory is another explanation that survives testing (falsifiability) and has equal (or better) predictive power.

General relativity improved on Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and ended up superseding it as our explanation for gravity. Newton's laws broke at certain scales, but remain valid and useful in most frames of reference. If a better theory for gravity than general relativity comes along (say, one that manages to encompass our observations of gravity at the quantum scale) then it will replace it. However, the laws of general relativity will (likely) remain valid and useful.

Same thing with continental drift/plate tectonics. The idea that the continents moved about on plates overturned a number of other theories, as it provided much better explanation of the observed facts. Ideas like the cooling/contracting earth, geosyncines and isostasy were dropped, but some of the laws underpinning those models were retained (or modified) and accommodated by plate tectonics.


Scientific theories are, very loosely, explanations that are good enough for the moment to encompass all the facts we have available to us. If new facts come about, then the scientific theory could be overturned and replaced with something that better explains the new facts.

This is a feature, not a bug.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,254
16,061
55
USA
✟403,939.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've posed several statements to you:

1. The unknowns in a set of data is why something is called a theory. If it were 100% known, it would not be called a "theory". Theories are human hypothesis as to why the creator of the theory, believes this data set behaves the way that it does. Thus a theory is an opinion and there are different theories on the same data sets, because different theorists have different opinions of why they think the data behaves the way that it does.

You refuse to acknowledge this is the case. Instead you try to divert the conversation by pointing to things observable on earth and assuming those observations are consistent across all environments. Yet you can't prove that's true either. Which gets back to the fact that there's information in the data sets that you don't have access to. (I.E. all theories contain elements of the unknown.) This is why they are called theories.
No. That's not why they are called theories. You've been told in this thread already. No need to repeat it here.
2. You can't admit that you don't know. And because you can't deal with the element of the unknown; you jump up and down pointing to data sets observable on earth; asking me to prove those data sets wrong. Yet those data sets are irrelevant to the subject of what is a theory.
We were talking about the Venus is a comet nonsense. (And it is nonsense.) It has nothing to do with my "admissions".
AND this whole thread is about different theories of Noah's flood.
Of which you insist that only what you believe is the correct theory; of which you can't prove that either.
There are no theories of Noah's flood. That is a theological concept, not a scientific one.
3. Neither you nor I know, or can prove with absolute certainty that even those data sets that are stated to have consistency are 100% accurate.
All real scientific measurements come with error bars. Did you not know that?
4. You don't want to hear where "scientists" driven by agendas have fudged the data. Most often they fudge data because the people funding that study want these "scientists" to produce a certain data set that's favorable to the company's agenda. (I.E how many drug "research studies" do pharmaceutical companies fund; where the unfavorable data is nixed from the study; for the sole intent purpose that the company can put the drug on the market! And the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA rotate CEO's and board members because... when your members sit on their boards; guess who's drugs get approved! Drugs they charge insurance companies thousands and millions of dollars for!)

Show me the incentive; I'll show you the outcome!
Again even if the entire scientific apparatus surrounding the pharma industry is thoroughly corrupt, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE MEASUREMENTS OF VENUS AND COMETS, NOR WITH THE GEOLOGY OF FLOODS.

5. There's corruption in the system but you don't want to acknowledge that. (Well, why not? - I have a theory on that too!)
Not an actual theory because that's not what a scientific theory is, but if you'd like to defame me let's see how that turns out.
6. And of course because corruption is so very prevalent in these areas of "science" over here; makes people leery of the prevalence of corruption as a whole. Which is a reasonable skepticism to raise.

You've overstated the corruption where it is found and smeared the rest of us.

But you don't "appreciate" being accused of that!
Who would, would you?
Yet you are so willing to accuse people who disagree with you (they have different theories that you don't like) of the same thing.
Not theories. Not science.
You asked me who the scientists were who were advocating taking a second look at the comet theory related to Venus. I don't know who they are; but they came from Harvard (you can see this in the article that I posted).
What article. And Harvard? So what? Ideas matter not "prestige" institutions.
Yet the only thing you could respond with was that you were sure Venus was not a comet. If you'd bothered to read the article though; I don't even think the Harvard people were saying that Venus was a comet.
Well you were.
They were theorizing that Venus got to where it is in our solar system because of a comet. The theory of Venus having been a comet is a different theory.
Not a theory.
Of which I've never said that I knew Venus was a comet or wasn't a comet. I've only said that Venus having been a comet is another theory. It's another theory because in ancient literature; Venus is called a comet.
Junk speculations are not theories, nor worth considering.
Which brought up the subject that just because people on earth witness a phenomena in the sky that they label as a comet; doesn't mean what they saw meets the 21st century definition of a comet. (That current definition being an object composed of dust and ice.)

Ancient people had bad ideas about what things were. There is no reason to care what they thought if they are completely off base.

But apparently you can't take in all that data and just let it be what it is.
old books aren't "data".
And my theory on your reaction is that you attack theories you disagree with simply because you can't admit that you don't actually know.
Know what Venus is? I know what Venus is. I attack garbage.
There's unknowns in the data that you can't account for. And you don't want to admit that because you know that as soon as you do; I'm going to say "Then you can't prove opposing theories are wrong."
It's a really poor argument.
And Yes, when you practice science like that; that is fundamentally deceptive!
You know nothing of the practice of science.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,406
1,352
54
Western NY
Visit site
✟155,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
No. That's not why they are called theories. You've been told in this thread already. No need to repeat it here.

We were talking about the Venus is a comet nonsense. (And it is nonsense.) It has nothing to do with my "admissions".

There are no theories of Noah's flood. That is a theological concept, not a scientific one.

All real scientific measurements come with error bars. Did you not know that?

Again even if the entire scientific apparatus surrounding the pharma industry is thoroughly corrupt, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE MEASUREMENTS OF VENUS AND COMETS, NOR WITH THE GEOLOGY OF FLOODS.


Not an actual theory because that's not what a scientific theory is, but if you'd like to defame me let's see how that turns out.


You've overstated the corruption where it is found and smeared the rest of us.


Who would, would you?

Not theories. Not science.

What article. And Harvard? So what? Ideas matter not "prestige" institutions.

Well you were.

Not a theory.

Junk speculations are not theories, nor worth considering.


Ancient people had bad ideas about what things were. There is no reason to care what they thought if they are completely off base.


old books aren't "data".

Know what Venus is? I know what Venus is. I attack garbage.

It's a really poor argument.

You know nothing of the practice of science.
Can you admit that there's things you don't know?
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,406
1,352
54
Western NY
Visit site
✟155,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
So's Law - Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

Yes, all theories in the sciences are falsifiable. The ability to determine if something is correct/incorrect) is a concept that underpins the sciences.

That doesn't mean that nothing is provable. Not in the slightest.

Proof is a concept for mathematics and whisky, and scientific theories are always tentatively held and subject to revision or overturning.

However, in colloquial terms scientific theories are "proven". What that means is that a scientific theory has been tested so extensively that if it was shown to be false, we'd basically need to re-write our understanding of a segment of reality to accommodate that.

If cell theory were overturned tomorrow, we'd need a totally new explanation for the observed structure of living things. If evolutionary theory were overturned tomorrow, we'd need a new explanation for the observed history and diversity of life.

The only thing that replaces an existing scientific theory is another explanation that survives testing (falsifiability) and has equal (or better) predictive power.

General relativity improved on Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and ended up superseding it as our explanation for gravity. Newton's laws broke at certain scales, but remain valid and useful in most frames of reference. If a better theory for gravity than general relativity comes along (say, one that manages to encompass our observations of gravity at the quantum scale) then it will replace it. However, the laws of general relativity will (likely) remain valid and useful.

Same thing with continental drift/plate tectonics. The idea that the continents moved about on plates overturned a number of other theories, as it provided much better explanation of the observed facts. Ideas like the cooling/contracting earth, geosyncines and isostasy were dropped, but some of the laws underpinning those models were retained (or modified) and accommodated by plate tectonics.


Scientific theories are, very loosely, explanations that are good enough for the moment to encompass all the facts we have available to us. If new facts come about, then the scientific theory could be overturned and replaced with something that better explains the new facts.

This is a feature, not a bug.
Can you admit there are things you don't know?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,254
16,061
55
USA
✟403,939.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Venus comet THEORY:


How wrong is this? Very very wrong.


In his Worlds in Collision (New York: Macmillan, 1950), Immanuel Velikovsky argued that Venus emerged as a red-hot comet from Jupiter and passed Earth every 52 years, causing the Bronze Age catastrophes, before settling into its current orbit

Velikovsky, SMH. We're not off to a good start now are we.

But over the years, new findings have changed the picture. Here are eight new reasons to accept a Revised Venus Theory,

Let's see how they do.

1. The Revised Venus Theory’s new explanation that Venus was pulled from the outer solar system by Jupiter’s gravity, heated up from tidal friction, and gained a cometary tail seems far more persuasive than the notion that it fissioned off of Jupiter itself.

At least a mild bit of improvement over Velikovsky. The "fissioned from Jupiter" notion was utter nonsense and physically impossible.

Tidal friction requires a close, strong interaction with another body. Do they propose tidal friction during the pulling from the outer solar system. The tidal tail seems irrelevant as it would have faded away after the "heating" was finished.

2. We now have two newly interpreted, powerfully descriptive myths: ...

Why should we put any weight into myths? The Solar System is way older than human civilization, and shows no evidence of recent major disturbance.

But now that the interpretation is available, any intelligent ten-year old, as well as any scientific critic of Velikovsky, can understand it.
And the author of this blog entry goes with a "muh critics are dumb" argument. How classy.

3. There is a simple explanation of the slow retrograde (but swiftly changing to prograde) rotation of Venus, an outstanding anomaly of planetary science: it is the result of tidal locking to Jupiter. This is also a fitting explanation of the superrotation of Venus’ atmosphere.

There is no evidence of tidal locking with Jupiter (and the impact of Jupiter on Venus would be very small). I did find a 5:1 ratio between the rotation of Venus and its closest approaches with... Earth. Make of that what you will.

(Even if Venus emerged from Jupiter or was dragged into the inner Solar System by Jupiter, there would be no reason for a resonance to develop with a distant planet. A closer one would be far more likely because of the relative strength of the interaction.)

4. Jupiter’s gravitational pull stretched Venus into an ovoid, as depicted in ancient iconography. This in turn opens our eyes to many instances of ancient Venus-related ovals, as in the above image of Egypt’s Venus goddess Sekhmet (obviously, not every oval referred to Venus; we must consider the context).
If Venus is close enough to Jupiter to stretch it out into an ovoid, it would be with in the Roche lobe of a Jupiter-Venus interaction, practically touching Jupiter. To see Venus with the naked eye as any kind of shape it would have to be quite close to the Earth. Jupiter and Earth are quite far apart. This observation (of a Jupiter stretched Venus visible to the naked eye) IS NOT POSSIBLE.

5. Many new instances of iconography, Venus sites, and effigies fill out the framework of the Venus theory; and telling linguistic matches add to the picture.
So what. Images about Venus in artifacts. People knew about the wanderer in the sky and had stories about it. Big deal.

6. We now have a better date (shortly before 2500 BC) for the first approach of Venus, one that matches evidence from Egypt (the Great Sphinx, Hathor with ovoid Venus in her horns alongside Menkaure) and the great reconstruction of Stonehenge.

There more than one approach of Venus. LOLOLOLOLOL

7. We know the approximate dates of the four inversions of Earth during close approaches of Venus: 2200, 1628 (less certain), 1210, and 820 (least certain; an alternate date is 687 BC, but by this time Venus had been tamed by encounters with Mars that then sent Mars careening toward Earth in 687.). This permits us to interpret much better the epochs and events of the Bronze Age catastrophes.
Solar system billards. PFTT. How can anyone take any of this seriously. I mean...

8. We now have two new theories that stem from the Venus and Reversing Earth theories. The Outer Solar System Origin of the Terrestrial Planets (OSSO) generalizes the Venus theory, adding much corroborative evidence. OSSO explains the origin of the Pacific Basin as the result of the separation of Mars from Earth by Jupiter’s gravity upon the passage of the combined planet Terramars into the inner solar system. In turn, the Martian Theory of Mass Extinctions (MTME) links tidal destruction caused by planetary approaches with rapid inversion from the Theory of the Reversing Earth to help explain the devastation on Earth as well as the remarkable evidence of disruption on the surface of Mars. These theories provide mutual support and can be considered components of a general tidal theory of the terrestrial planets that outperforms existing ad hoc hypotheses, assumption-bound mathematical modeling, and in situ uniformitarianism. These theories also lend themselves to investigation and testing.

It gets dumber and dumber. Apparently this fool think he has a "theory" or two. Fantasy astronomy. Nothing more.

If they wish to retain credibility, critics who keep rejecting the Venus theory need to stop focusing on the inadequacies of the original theory of 1950 and instead try to argue against the new, much more robust Revised Venus Theory. We can wish them luck!
Dear Mr. Fantasy...

Oh, no. He's a man for all seasons, a master of all fields: Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Ancient History, Soviet History, Unsolved Crimes, Resolved Crimes. Remarkable!

Hey look, he's got a Ph.D. in history. Let's see what he can accomplish with that.
Kenneth J. Dillon has a Ph.D in history from Cornell University and has taught at several universities. He has served as a foreign service officer (two prizes for intelligence analysis) and as a medical device entrepreneur. Now he works as a scientific and historical researcher.
Science
Doin' science usin' his advanced historical techniques. Golly gee.
Dillon applies to discovery science qualitative techniques drawn from his experience as an historian and intelligence analyst​
Redblood cells that think!
. In the life sciences, he has developed a theory that the red blood cells, acting as a metacolony in real time, comprise the pre-neuronal intelligence of humankind’s distant ancestors and serve as the Conscious Awareness System.​
And receive magnetic messages (only 18-points required to "prove")
He has also formulated an 18-point proof that the red blood cells constitute the animal magnetoreceptor.​
Mental disorders cured!
In addition to suggesting remedies for respiratory and mental disorders,​
Obtaining nutrients by smearing them on your skin!
Dillon has devised a theory of transdermal micronutrition and written a​
Magic light therapy to cure infections disease.
book on biophotonic therapy, the leading phototherapeutic treatment of infectious diseases.​
gargling away the COVID.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, he has advocated gargling and halotherapy as adjuvant therapies.​
Planetary voodoo.
In planetary science, Dillon has interpreted the Metis myth to explain how Venus seemed to the ancients to emerge as a comet from Jupiter. He has also devised a theory of the terrestrial planets that furnishes fitting explanations of the origins of Mercury, Venus, and Mars; the slow retrograde rotation of Venus and its atmospheric super-rotation; and key features of Mars, Mercury, and the Moon. Dillon has identified a braking mechanism that overcomes the main objection to the Capture Theory of the origin of the Earth-Moon system. His explanation shows that the Giant Impact hypothesis is incorrect.​
Fixing velikovsky without tossing it out completely. Who knew it could be done.

Dillon’s findings resolve the controversy surrounding the Venus theory of Immanuel Velikovsky: Velikovsky made various pioneer’s mistakes, including arguing that Venus had fissioned off from Jupiter. But he was right about the central question of whether Venus had repeatedly approached Earth, while his theory of the reversing Earth was essentially correct.​
The Bronze age collapse
Dillon’s Revised Venus Theory fixes mistakes that kept Velikovsky from accessing an array of additional evidence that approaches of Venus caused the Bronze Age catastrophes.​
Saved a bathing baby!
Velikovsky’s critics threw the baby out with the bathwater.​
The origin of Earth!
In Earth science, Dillon has framed a novel theory of the origin of the Blue Planet.​
Geomagnetic anomalies!
He has also devised an explanation of the skewing of the geomagnetic field toward the North Pacific and of the related South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly.​
Plate tectonics repealed and replaced!
His interpretation of the origin of the Pacific Basin resolves nine anomalies and makes much better sense of its idiosyncratic geology (including the Ring of Fire, the real significance of the Andesite Line, and seismic anomalies down to 2700 km) than an invocation of plate tectonics. Dillon has also identified the nature of the event that scattered catalytic metals across Earth’s surface 4.47 billion years ago.​
All the mass extinctions explained!

Dillon’s Mars-approach theory of the cause of the five great mass extinctions of prehistory explains why they differed in extent, what made them so devastating, and one reason why there were many minor extinctions as well. In addition, he has contributed to the study of the four inversions of Earth in response to approaches of Venus during the Bronze Age, including by identifying their approximate dates and by finding evidence that fits the characteristics of a four-times inverting Earth.
A non-electrified velkovskyism. (Who knew it was possible to do without electricity?)
Velikovsky’s original theory, the Revised Venus Theory, and Dillon’s planetary theories explain pivotal episodes in the history of climate while correcting misinterpretations that undermine efforts to understand Climate Change.

Dillon’s main scientific contributions are: 1. Theory of the Red Blood Cells; 2. Theory of Transdermal Micronutrition; 3. The Revised Venus Theory; 4. The Outer Solar System Origin of the Terrestrial Planets; and 5. The Martian Theory of Mass Extinctions.
History
Trojan war
In ancient history, Dillon has formulated a theory of the Trojans, Etruscans, and Romans that explains how the Greeks won the Trojan War​
Latin linguistics
and why Latin has an Ugric grammar. Besides identifying Karahunj, Armenia and Taosi, China as Venus observatories,​
The great mysterious monuments
he has provided original explanations of Stonehenge, the Great Serpent Mound, the stele of Hammurabi, the Minoan Snake Goddess, the Phaistos disk, the Master Impression of Kydonia, the Antikythera Mechanism, the lioness goddess Sekhmet, the Great Sphinx, the anomalous orientation of the temple at Karnak, oval temples in Mesoamerica and Mesopotamia, and the stone ladders of Taidong. Dillon has found the origins of the names Ishtar/Astarte, Athena, Poseidon, Easter, and Dorian.​
Mysteries of Ancient Chinese history
He has also identified China’s original Yellow Emperor and interpreted the wonderful myth of Archer Yi, who shot down nine of ten suns.

Origins of Cuban Missile Crisis.
In modern history, Dillon has ascertained how Nikita Khrushchev was misled into undertaking his reckless Cuban missile adventure,​
The KGB shot JFK, MLK, and RFK (could they come out of retirement and deal with Jr?)
and he has contributed evidence and arguments to the increasingly strong KGB theory of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He has also devised a KGB Theory of American Assassinations that includes JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert F. Kennedy.
Anthrax mailings 2001 solvee!

Dillon has written a detailed theory of the 2001 anthrax mailings that shows that al Qaeda operative Abderraouf Jdey was the likely mailer of the anthrax letters as well as the shoebomber of American Airlines Flight #587, as senior U.S. officials became aware in 2004. In Dillon’s FOIA lawsuit, the judge ruled that FBI may withhold from public scrutiny the 16 pages on scientist Bruce Ivins in the Interim Major Case Summary of 2006. Ivins committed suicide after FBI Director Robert Mueller evidently caved in to pressure from Vice President Cheney to suppress information identifying Jdey as the mailer, to avoid reopening the investigations of the 9/11/2001 attacks and the crash of Flight #587.​

It's sooooo amazing!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.