Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[Speedwell]

You mean creation ex nihilo or out of nothing? I have never viewed God as creating things out of nothing. I have always conceived of him as using power to produce effects or his holy sprit to create things.

Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Job 34:14-15 "If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.

Psalm 104:30
You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the ground.

Isaiah 40:26 (NIV)
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

Genesis 1:2 (NKJV)

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters


“And the angel answered and said to [Mary], ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35).

Well, if you don't believe in creation ex nihilo (an unusual belief for a Creationist, in my experience--check with your Pastor) and you reject the creation ex materia implied by a steady-state universe, the remaining alternative is creation ex deo, in which God creates the universe from His own substance.

 

[Radrook]

Ah, well, I wasn't hoping they would succeed. Sounds dangerous in my opinion to be messing with that sort of thing, they aren't exactly known to be predictable.

I read that when they first tested the Atomic Bomb in the USA they were not 100% certain that Earth's entire atmosphere would catch fire but they detonated it anyway.

 

[Radrook]

There have been many threads and countless posts debating Electric Universe hypothesis.Here is a peer review that refutes the claims of EU.

Enjoy the reading: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 2

What does an electric universe have to do with creationism?

 

[Loudmouth]

I read that when they first tested the Atomic Bomb in the USA they were not 100% certain that Earth's entire atmosphere would catch fire but they detonated it anyway.

I heard that Mikey from the Life cereal commercials died when he consumed a combination of Pepsi and Pop Rocks. People hear a lot of things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does an electric universe have to do with creationism?

Some creationists cannot deal with the age of the universe and this was one of the ways that they tried, and failed, to attack the idea.

 

[Radrook]

I heard that Mikey from the Life cereal commercials died when he consumed a combination of Pepsi and Pop Rocks. People hear a lot of things.

Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei.[note 1]
Manhattan Project - Wikipedia

Later calculations showed that his idea was wrong and so when they actually tested the bomb that worry had officially been put to rest. So I was wrong in my previous statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei.[note 1]
Manhattan Project - Wikipedia

Nice find. Of course Bethe was right (who calculated the odds and realized that it could not happen) and Teller was wrong. Starting a fusion reaction is very difficult. And though the math is correct this reaction:

"14 7N + 14 7N → 24 12Mg + 4 2He (alpha particle) + 17.7 MeV" could not happen in our atmosphere. The much easier route from hydrogen to helium won't happen, and this is orders of magnitude more difficult to cause.

That is why scientists rely on peer review. It is easy to make a mistake, and sometimes it is very helpful to have some peers point out one's errors.

 

[bhsmte]

Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei.[note 1]
Manhattan Project - Wikipedia

What, no video?

 

[Radrook]

What, no video?

Good idea! Will try to find one on that. Thanx!

 

[bhsmte]

Good idea! Will try to find one on that. Thanx!

Cool, knock yourself out.

 

[Michael]

I find the title of this thread rather ironic since big bang theory was written by a Catholic Priest. The only two so called "explanations" of our universe that require faster than light speed expansion are YEC and LCDM theory, and both are assumed to be "creation" events where all matter came from.

In short, we will never be free of creationism in astronomy while LCDM theory remains "popular".

 

[RealityCheck01]

15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?
22 November 2016 Michael: Quote the description of any current ("plasma" or otherwise) going through the point X in Somov 4.4.2.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I find the title of this thread rather ironic since big bang theory was written by a Catholic Priest.

That is right - Georges Lemaître used his brain to show that General Relativity allowed a universe to expand and supplied evidence that it was expanding. Sadly in an obscure journal so it was not until after Hubble's work that it became widely known.

Only ignorant people think that the Big Bang involves the creation of the universe. The Big Bang starts with an existing universe.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Isn't it amazing how logical atheists can be with cause and effect arguments until such arguments involve a creator..

You seem to be ignorant about what the topic of this thread is (not atheists!), what you replied to and even atheism is, Radrook. Atheism is the stance that gods do not exist and so there are no creators.

This is the post you relied to

True but it is a fact that black holes have been discovered as predicted and that galaxies harbour at their core supermassive black holes. In fact we know they are there from the orbits of stars around the black holes or when they are in the process of feeding.

You may not see the air but you can see its effects.

Don't even try to convince me that black holes do not exist and that Galaxies are held together by electricity because that is not accepted by the mainstream and so long as it stays that way I will dismiss EU.

mzungu overstated the black hole position slightly. We have strong evidence that black holes exist which makes it a scientific consensus rather than a fact.

mzungu vastly understated what why we dismiss EU. Rational people dismiss EU because most of it is ignorant fantasies. I have written about the Thunderbolts EU proponents who are Velikovskyian cranks on another forum.
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Both admit that the universe had a beginning.

That is wrong. The Big Bang starts with an existing universe. There are astronomers supporting models of cyclic universes with no beginning.

 

[RealityCheck01]

What does an electric universe have to do with creationism?

YEC specifically and electric universe use some of the same logical fallacies and denial of well established physics.
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 2

This is the second of five posts devoted to providing a more professional peer-review of the "Special Issue" of the Bentham Open Astronomy Journal (BOAJ) devoted to Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe (PC/EU). While BOAJ claims to be a peer-reviewed journal, we'll see in the upcoming posts that the quality of the peer-review process for this issue was very questionable. Each of the articles exposed in these reviews exhibit many fundamental errors in physics (especially electromagnetism) and astronomy. Many of the unchallenged mistakes are at levels which could be identified by an undergraduate physics student or possibly even a competent EE undergraduate.

The blog really should be renamed "Crank Astronomy" to match the expansion main site:

This site is the blogging component for my main site Crank Astronomy (formerly "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy"). It will provide a more interactive component for discussion of the main site content. I will also use this blog to comment on work in progress for the main site, news events, and other pseudoscience-related issues.

 

[Michael]

15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?
22 November 2016 Michael: Quote the description of any current ("plasma" or otherwise) going through the point X in Somov 4.4.2.

Are you ever going to produce a math formula that shows that you and Clinger can produce a greater than zero amount of "reconnection' in your pure vacuum? Somov *included* charged particle *current*, and the *movement* of those currents in his model. He *included* the transfer of field energy into particle acceleration. You excluded it, and therefore you are incapable of expressing any amount of 'magnetic reconnection". We both know it.

Where's your math homework assignment that I gave you two *years* ago? Where's you non-zero *rate* of reconnection formula RC?

 

[Michael]

Rational people dismiss EU because most of it is ignorant fantasies.

Ignorant fantasies don't work in the lab RC. You're just personally ignorant of the real physics involved as you have demonstrated repeatedly for the past decade now. How come you won't just sit down and read an actual MHD textbook RC? Do you typically argue all topics from a place of pure ignorance?

I have written about the Thunderbolts EU proponents who are Velikovskyian cranks on another forum.

You smear by association. I don't believe in any of Velikovsky's ideas and I post to TB regularly. You cheat by constantly deviating from the topic and attacking the individual(s) with terms like "crank", "crackpot", yada, yada, yada. You're a bully, and you use hater tactics. Proud of yourself?

10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

More pure personal attack about ideas you clearly do not understand in the first place. When I asked you whether Thornhill and/or Scott predicted "zero" neutrinos from their solar model as Koberlein erroneously claimed, you didn't (and probably won't) admit that Koberlein's claim was absolutely false, so neither of you even understand their solar model in the first place. In fact you seem to intentionally *misrepresent* their claims. Why? Could it be due to the fact that you don't properly understand their model or MDH theory, so the ignorance, lies and delusions are really yours?

 

[Michael]

YEC specifically and electric universe use some of the same logical fallacies and denial of well established physics.

Boloney. The fact that an EU/PC model works in the lab is due to the fact that it is based upon well established forms of empirical physics.

The fact you can't replicate if that much of his work over a whole sphere with "magnetic reconnection" shows that your claims are based upon pure pseudoscience, just as Alfven claimed.

Unlike LCDM mythology, EU/PC theory doesn't require any type of "creation of matter" event to have ever occurred. Spacetime may simply be infinite and eternal for all I know.

It's therefore totally unethical to associate EU/PC theory with creationism in any way. Then again, you and Bridgman don't seem to care about ethics in debate.

 

[Michael]

That is right - Georges Lemaître used his brain to show that General Relativity allowed a universe to expand and supplied evidence that it was expanding.

No. Lemaitre abused GR theory to make claims about "space expansion", and even Einstein wasn't pleased. It took convincing, and even then he wasn't particularly happy about it.

Lemaitre didn't supply any physical evidence to support anything. Hubble only provided "evidence" that photons lose momentum over time and distance. He didn't provide any physical evidence that space does magical expansion tricks.

Only ignorant people think that the Big Bang involves the creation of the universe. The Big Bang starts with an existing universe.

Only ignorant people have to resort to ad homs in every post as you do RC. LCDM does however require a "creation of all matter" (as we know it) event. It requires a time where no stable atoms existed. In that atomically real sense it's still a "creation (of all forms of matter) event".