Call for Submissions

driewerf said:

Please feel free to improve, correct or to add more information on the part above if necessary.

Click to expand...

The eclipse was in 1919, and those initial measurements were a little iffy, but that's more or less the story, and measurements that came soon afterwards were more definitive.

essentialsaltes said:

The eclipse was in 1919, and those initial measurements were a little iffy, but that's more or less the story, and measurements that came soon afterwards were more definitive.

Click to expand...

The results were good enough to provide the one of the first verifications of general relativity.
In this post the differential equation for the perihelion advance of Mercury's orbit from Schwarzschild's metric was found to be;



Since light travels on a null geodesic ds = 0, the first term on the right hand side of the equation vanishes and the equation reduces to;



A solution for this equation is;

u = sin ϕ/R + [(3MG)/c²R²](1 + 1/3cos 2ϕ)

where R and M are the radius and mass of of the Sun respectively.

For a light ray grazing the Sun;

When r is large, ϕ becomes small and sin ϕ ≈ ϕ, cos 2ϕ ≈ 1.
For the limit u → 0 (or r → ∞), ϕ → ϕ∞ where ϕ∞ = -2MG/c²R.

The total deflection is therefore 4MG/c²R.

Plugging in the values M, G, c and R gives the total deflection of 1.75” which agrees with Eddington’s result.

These days in order to obtain extreme high precision in astrometry the gravitational effects on light need to compensated for as was done during the Hipparcos mission.

essentialsaltes said:

No, what you said was "How one uses the scientific data is determined by what theory one deduces and one holds to and desires to prove."

I know there are 'scientists' at Answers in Genesis or other creationist organizations who have to sign statements of faith holding them to a creationist view. These people have more than just a desire to prove creation -- their jobs depend on having a predetermined outcome, regardless of the evidence. These are bad scientists.

Click to expand...

The same is true of evolutionists. The believe in their theory so deeply, and they so much despise God, that they will do whatever they reasonably can to undermine or discredit a creation account. Don't be so naive. Look in the mirror.

Hans Blaster said:

Yes people are naive and others are poorly informed. This is an od creationist trope about scientists bending data to fit preconceived notions. As others have responded more thoughtfully I will not, but to say that clearly you have no experience of how science actually works or you would not honestly say these things about "evolutionists".

Creationism isn't a science or a product of science it is a religious belief and in its more "sophisticated" forms it is a reaction *to* science. It is not based on scientific evidence at all.

Click to expand...

Evolution must be taken by faith because their is no proof for evolution, only circumstantial evidence that must be interpreted to fit the theory.

tas8831 said:

FALSE.
The ToE has EVIDENCE in its favor.

Creation does not.

Click to expand...

So you say. Sounds like clear bias to me. I have been involved in many numerous debates on the subject. You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.

setst777 said:

Evolution must be taken by faith because their is no proof for evolution, only circumstantial evidence that must be interpreted to fit the theory.

Click to expand...

Try again. This is not correct. There is tons of evidence for evolution. No need to stoop to "faith".

driewerf said:

Setst777,
You replied to a quite long post of mine in which I explained the difference between a fact and a theory while in your reply don’t mention anything of these or follow up on what was said. I consider this regrettable.

Click to expand...

A theory is one possible explanation out of many, given the facts that are available.

Hans Blaster said:

Try again. This is not correct. There is tons of evidence for evolution. No need to stoop to "faith".

Click to expand...

There is theory and then there is evidence.

Theories are based on the evidence we observe. The theories themselves are not the evidence; rather, various theories are proposed to make sense of the evidence we do have.

Evolution is one theory that attempts to understand the evidence. And there are many evolutionary theories.

Creation is a theory that attempts to understand the evidence.

setst777 said:

There is theory and then there is evidence.

Theories are based on the evidence we observe. The theories themselves are not the evidence; rather, various theories are proposed to make sense of the evidence we do have.

Evolution is one theory that attempts to understand the evidence. And there are many evolutionary theories.

Click to expand...

Doing pretty well so far...

setst777 said:

Creation is a theory that attempts to understand the evidence.

Click to expand...

ooh, sorry. That's a big miss. Creation is a theological dogma the predates modern science. There is a pseudoscience call "creation science" that tries (poorly) to jam science-like explanations into biblical passages and observations of Earth's geology and life forms. It is not science.

setst777 said:

A theory is one possible explanation out of many, given the facts that are available.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Excellent. And it confirm that what you wrote previously was wrong.
"Gravity is a fact because it can be observed today.

Evolution has not ever been observed anywhere, which is why evolution is not a scientific fact; and so, evolution is a theory."
When there are different competing theories scientists will look for data that will fit in one but not in another theory, so to distinguish between both.

setst777 said: ↑
There is theory and then there is evidence.

Theories are based on the evidence we observe. The theories themselves are not the evidence; rather, various theories are proposed to make sense of the evidence we do have.

Evolution is one theory that attempts to understand the evidence. And there are many evolutionary theories.

Hans Blaster said:

Doing pretty well so far...

Click to expand...

setst777 said: ↑
Creation is a theory that attempts to understand the evidence.

Hans Blaster said:

ooh, sorry. That's a big miss. Creation is a theological dogma the predates modern science. There is a pseudoscience call "creation science" that tries (poorly) to jam science-like explanations into biblical passages and observations of Earth's geology and life forms. It is not science.

Click to expand...

Creation is a Christian dogma, but it is also a theory.

Evolution is a dogma accepted by faith, that is also a theory.

There is no difference. Each of these theories tries to make sense of the evidence that is available. The evidence itself is not the theory. Labeling either one as a dogma does not change that fact.

setst777 said: ↑
A theory is one possible explanation out of many, given the facts that are available.

driewerf said:

Yes indeed. Excellent. And it confirm that what you wrote previously was wrong.

Click to expand...

setst777 said: ↑
"Gravity is a fact because it can be observed today.

Gravity is a fact because it can be scientifically observed in real time. Everyone is aware of gravity who lives on planet earth whether they choose to admit it or not. Why? Because we all experience and observe the results of gravity. That is a given reality.

setst777 said: ↑
Evolution has not ever been observed anywhere, which is why evolution is not a scientific fact; and so, evolution is a theory."

driewerf said:

When there are different competing theories scientists will look for data that will fit in one but not in another theory, so to distinguish between both.

Click to expand...

Theory is not a fact. A particular theory is one possible way to make sense of the facts we do know. Competing theories may be soundly based on facts, but they cannot all be right.

Both creation and evolution are theories. Neither is a fact; rather both theories are reasonable ways in which to make sense of the facts we do know.

driewerf said:

[emphasize is mine]
There is indeed no evidence of any design. Do you know of any physical evidence of design?
Please present it.

Click to expand...

Yes, everything. Every element, down to the atom, has an organized structure and design. In the case of living organisms, we have such vast organization and design, and all the parts of each creature work together and function to achieve life and survival for each creature.

Scientists still cannot fully understand how genes can cause the development of all the kinds of plant life and creatures that are on earth, and all their parts, with barely ever a mistake.

setst777 said: ↑
The fossil record over the face of the earth embedded in what is now mostly sedimentary rock, including the thousands of miles of oil reserves and coal beds with fossil embedded throughout, is clear evidence for a worldwide catastrophic flood.

tas8831 said:

If it were world-wide, would not such things not only be world-wide themselves, but ALL in contemporaneous strata?

Click to expand...

??? They are worldwide.

Sedimentary rock is worldwide.

Fossils embedded in what is now solid rock, and in coal beds, is worldwide.

Fossils are formed by rather quick burial in anaerobic conditions and silt, or volcanic ash. Such fossil formation is rather rare today, but yet, we encounter all these fossil remains embedded in rock, coal, and other mineralizations, over the entire world in what are now solid rock layers; so, the layers of rock were not always rock. The fossils existing in the layer of rock prove this to be true.


So the fossils tell us that the rock layers that now contain the fossils were not always rock; rather, most rock containing fossils used to be sediment that quickly covered a vast number of organic things, and so, formed various types of fossils within the rock layers. And this was worldwide.

Naturally the more simple life forms, are less mobile, and they sink when dead, would normally be covered by sediment first. Then aquatic life, which naturally survive in water, will be covered by sediment second. The less mobile a creature is, the more likely that creature will be covered in sediment sooner, while the more complex and mobile creatures will be able to escape the flood more readily, and will also float when dead, allowing them to escape being quickly buried in sediment until later, if at all.

So we have the fossil record, which is scientific data. The evolutionist use their theory to explain the evidence, as if the fossils prove evolution into higher life forms over many millions of years, as evidenced by the rock layer. However, the scientific evidence for the fossil record actually support creation and a young earth, because the sediment was at first soft quickly covering the creatures and plant life so fossils could be formed, other wise, how did all the fossils of creatures and plants become quickly embedded within the rock layers? Impossible unless the rock layers were once soft sediment that settled to the earth as the flood waters receded.

Many of the rock formations we now see today were, therefore, not formed from eroding solid rock over millions of years, but rather, softer sediment layers quickly eroded into the huge rock formations we see today, that have hardened over time. And this erosion was on a massive scale, because we know the earth went through environmental changes after the flood causing huge storms. The fossil record within the rock layers proves this to be the case.

We see these thousands of miles of coal beds and oil reserves throughout the world, on land, and in seas, and oceans. Oil is formed from algae, which has to be quickly covered by silt/sediment under anaerobic conditions under enormous pressure and heat to form oil. That is why they are called fossil fuels.

Rarely are conditions right to form actual oil in our recorded history. In the past, however, as the waters receded from the flood, huge and quite vast tracts of algae collected in recessions in the earth that are averaging around 6000 feet deep, some recesses being over 50,000 square miles. And then these huge tracts of algae were buried rather quickly in huge layers of sediment that later on solidified into sedimentary rock and sandstone.

Coal beds also are formed by quick burial of sediment over huge tracts of vegetation that accumulated in recesses in the earth that are, in some cases, over 70,000 square miles and over 3,000 feet in depth. The sediment must be deposited quickly to form the right pressure, heat, and anaerobic conditions for coal beds to form. Such conditions are very rare and localized today, but this happened all over the world during the flood, as it receded.

We also know that the earth went through huge environmental changes. For instance, ferns use to grow the size of trees.

So, the evidence shows me that not all things were constant as they are today; rather, far from it!

Therefore, you have scientific evidence, but creationists and evolutionists have what they feel are their own good reasons for showing that their own theories fit the scientific evidence. But, as you can see, Creationist have good reasons to show why the scientific evidence supports their theory, rather then evolution.

setst777 said:

The same is true of evolutionists. The believe in their theory so deeply, and they so much despise God, that they will do whatever they reasonably can to undermine or discredit a creation account. Don't be so naive. Look in the mirror.

Click to expand...

What do you say about Christians who accept evolution as a fact of science?

setst777 said:

Creation is a Christian dogma, but it is also a theory.

Evolution is a dogma accepted by faith, that is also a theory.

There is no difference. Each of these theories tries to make sense of the evidence that is available. The evidence itself is not the theory. Labeling either one as a dogma does not change that fact.

Click to expand...

What Do We Mean by “Theory” in Science?
A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

In a previous blog post, I talked about the definition of “fact” in a scientific context, and discussed how facts differ from hypotheses and theories. The latter two terms also are well worth looking at in more detail because they are used differently by scientists and the general public, which can cause confusion when scientists talk about their work.

In common parlance, theory is often used to refer to something that is rather speculative. Because of this, it sometimes takes on a negative tone (for example, when creationists refer to evolution as “just a theory”). This definition strongly contrasts with the definition of theory as it is used in science: a theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses. The term hypothesis is good to define in this discussion as well: a hypothesis is an idea that we can test with further scientific observations.

So, no, you're wrong.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

What do you say about Christians who accept evolution as a fact of science?

Click to expand...

I would say,

Firstly, they are incorrect, because Evolution is a theory. A theory is not a fact.

Secondly, I would say that they do not have the option to choose what they will believe from the Bible. If they can dismiss the Genesis account, then what else will they refuse to believe that comes from God?

setst777 said:

I would say,

Firstly, they are incorrect, because Evolution is a theory. A theory is not a fact.

Secondly, I would say that they do not have the option to choose what they will believe from the Bible. If they can dismiss the Genesis account, then what else will they refuse to believe that comes from God?

Click to expand...

Except that a scientific theory is a description of facts.

And secondly, in a very roundabout way, that is essentially the 'no true Scotsman' argument, that you don't see them as Christians.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

What Do We Mean by “Theory” in Science?
A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

In a previous blog post, I talked about the definition of “fact” in a scientific context, and discussed how facts differ from hypotheses and theories. The latter two terms also are well worth looking at in more detail because they are used differently by scientists and the general public, which can cause confusion when scientists talk about their work.

In common parlance, theory is often used to refer to something that is rather speculative. Because of this, it sometimes takes on a negative tone (for example, when creationists refer to evolution as “just a theory”). This definition strongly contrasts with the definition of theory as it is used in science: a theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses. The term hypothesis is good to define in this discussion as well: a hypothesis is an idea that we can test with further scientific observations.

So, no, you're wrong.

Click to expand...

A theory is never a fact no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

Creation is carefully founded upon science.
Evolution is carefully founded upon science.

However, no scientific evidence is available that proves that evolution or creation is anything more than an theory. Theories are never facts.

setst777 said:

A theory is never a fact no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

Creation is carefully founded upon science.
Evolution is carefully founded upon science.

However, no scientific evidence is available that proves that evolution or creation is anything more than an theory. Theories are never facts.

Click to expand...

Did you even read it?

A theory is a description of the facts: "A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses."

Creationism is not 'carefully founded upon science'. It's religious dogma.