Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am accepting the failures, every last one of them. I am also accepting those vast halos of plasma right where “the concept” is supposed to be.

Just how much mass do they need of weakly interacting particles gravitationally in their imaginary halo? Say about the same amount in those vast plasma halos that interact mainly electromagnetically and only weakly gravitationally?

The only terminal flaw that exists is ignoring those vast plasma halos of twice the mass of the galaxy itself that exists right where their Fairie Dust was supposed to exist.....

And hence null result after null result, because they are seeing it yet ignoring it for their cash cow....

Nope, the plasma advocates have less than nothing. They wave their hands and shout "Plasma" and that is all. In the world of science they are ignorant nobodies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

id predict it too since human and chimp are about 98% similar, so its unlikely that they have lost entire chromosome\s. are you saying that id is science now?

id predicts nothing at all.

It's ad hoc rationalizing nonsense.
There is literally no data at all that couldn't be fit into a creationist model. Because all it is, is assertions. Why does this look like such and such? "because that's how the designer made it"

No matter how the data looks like.
No matter if humans have a fused chromosome or not. No matter if it has telomeres in the middle or not.

There is literally NO DATA AT ALL that you couldn't fit into a creationistic model that basically assumes right out the gates that there is this being that "can do anything".

ANYTHING.

So whatever you find, no matter what it is, you'll always have your (intellectually dishonest) monster premise to fallback on: "god can do anything". Ow sorry, I forgot...: "the designer can do anything".

It's beyond ridiculous, to go ahead and claim that ID "predicts" a fused chromosome in humans. Utterly, utterly ridiculous and ultimately dishonest.



There's TONS of data that if it would be encounter, would NOT be able to fit into the evolutionary model. Because the process that is explained in the model is precise. There are things that the model cannot do or accomplish. Like a mammal with feathers, using the same DNA sequences as birds use for feathers. That could not be fit into the evolutionary model. Finding such a thing would completely and utterly refute that model.

But the "designer" in YOUR model, is not only assumed to exist without evidence, as a PREMISE even of ID.... no no, it's also believed to be all-powerfull and one that "can do anything".


Mammels with bird feather-making genes? No problem.
Chickens with inactive dna to make teeth? No problem.
Humans sharing more ERV's with ducks then with chimps? No problem.
Humans with fused chromosomes? No problem.
ANYTING AT ALL? No problem.

Whatever data you encounter, your "designer" can do anything.

This is why your model is nonsense.
It is guilty of half the logical fallacies known to mankind. At least.




EDIT: i got a little carried away in the ranting there it seems.... sorry 'bout that

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, the plasma advocates have less than nothing. They wave their hands and shout "Plasma" and that is all. In the world of science they are ignorant nobodies.

And what do you do. Wave your hands and shout "Dark Matter" and fail in every single experiment. While every single plasma experiment backs up their theories..... We have more than you, we got a universe 99.9% plasma that you use the wrong theory for and so keep needing to add 95% Fairie Dust to a theory you already know is 99.8% correct without it.

Why do you not believe in the accuracy of your own theory and what it is trying to tell you????? Why do you keep dismissing that very accuracy by mocking it and adding 95% Fairie Dust to it to make it work outside the solar system???? Why not just accept the facts that GR only applies to solids, liquids and non-ionized gasses, .1% of the universe (planetary systems) and get back to real science.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what do you do. Wave your hands and shout "Dark Matter" and fail in every single experiment. While every single plasma experiment backs up their theories..... We have more than you, we got a universe 99.9% plasma that you use the wrong theory for and so keep needing to add 95% Fairie Dust to a theory you already know is 99.8% correct without it.

Why do you not believe in the accuracy of your own theory and what it is trying to tell you????? Why do you keep dismissing that very accuracy by mocking it and adding 95% Fairie Dust to it to make it work outside the solar system???? Why not just accept the facts that GR only applies to solids, liquids and non-ionized gasses, .1% of the universe (planetary systems) and get back to real science.....

Please, don't make false claims about others. By the way, YouTube videos are not evidence. They can be used as instructional aids, but that is all. To even be able to teach something you need a testable hypothesis first, then you need actual peer reviewed research where people test those ideas. That is what is lacking from the Electric Universe crowd. Your ideas fall into the category of "not even wrong".

By the way, there are no "theories" of the Electric Universe. Please try not to misuse terminology.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please, don't make false claims about others. By the way, YouTube videos are not evidence. They can be used as instructional aids, but that is all. To even be able to teach something you need a testable hypothesis first, then you need actual peer reviewed research where people test those ideas. That is what is lacking from the Electric Universe crowd. Your ideas fall into the category of "not even wrong".

By the way, there are no "theories" of the Electric Universe. Please try not to misuse terminology.

Please, you have been provided with those peer reviewed and testable hypothesis long ago. You just ignore them.

Galaxy formation - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Any other strawmen you wish to present?????

 

[xianghua]

There is literally NO DATA AT ALL that you couldn't fit into a creationistic model

why not? if we will see a mouse becoming a dog- it will falsify the creation model. if god himself will say that he have mede all creatures by evolution- the special creation model will be false too and so on. so its not true.

There are things that the model cannot do or accomplish. Like a mammal with feathers, using the same DNA sequences as birds use for feathers. That could not be fit into the evolutionary model.

so according to evolution it will be impossible for human to have genes for feathers?

 

[RDKirk]

The Big Bang isn't a pillar of modern naturalistic science. It was first posited by a Catholic priest.

And was immediately opposed by what was then "modern naturalistic science."

 

[DogmaHunter]

why not?

I just told you in the post you are responding to.
Because your god, sorry "designer", can do anything.

if we will see a mouse becoming a dog- it will falsify the creation model

I doubt it.
You'ld just call it a miracle.

if god himself will say that he have mede all creatures by evolution- the special creation model will be false too and so on.

/facepalm

so according to evolution it will be impossible for human to have genes for feathers?

More exactly, for humans to actually have feathers that are build in the same way as it happens in birds.

The underlying genes that are used in feather building are much older then feathers themselves, and are thus present in plenty a species that don't even have feathers.
These genes have different functions in these species. Humans being just one of them.

But let's not allow that to distract from the actual issue here.

That issue being, that there is no data that can't be incorporated into the model of a "can do anything miracle worker".

 

[DogmaHunter]

And was immediately opposed by what was then "modern naturalistic science."

And subsequently accepted when the data and testing were shown to support the model of a cosmologist/physicist, who also happened to be a priest, but who off course did his scientific work under the umbrella of "physicists" and not of "priest".


He's also the guy that wrote a letter to the pope at the time, who tried to (ab)use the physicist/priest's work to make a point about the bible, asking him to please stop using his scientific work to try and score religious points because it has nothing to do with it.



(i feel compelled to mention these facts whenever LeMaitre comes up in this fashion)

 

[lesliedellow]

Guess - A hypothesis.

Theory - An evidenced hypothesis.

Fact - An extremely well evidenced hypothesis.

 

[xianghua]

More exactly, for humans to actually have feathers that are build in the same way as it happens in birds.

what is the problem? if feathers evolved once it can evolve twice. no problem for evolution. see why evolution itself is "anything is possible"?

That issue being, that there is no data that can't be incorporated into the model of a "can do anything miracle worker".

i just gave you one: if the designer himself will admit that he used evolution to create all creatures- special creation will be false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please, you have been provided with those peer reviewed and testable hypothesis long ago. You just ignore them.

Galaxy formation - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Any other strawmen you wish to present?????

So you do not understand what a strawman argument is. You claimed there was a theory. You posted a poor link that claims some peer reviewed paper was written on the topic. That means at best you have a paper or two. That is not a theory. At best he may have a hypothesis.

You need to learn what a scientific theory is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you do not understand what a strawman argument is. You claimed there was a theory. You posted a poor link that claims some peer reviewed paper was written on the topic. That means at best you have a paper or two. That is not a theory. At best he may have a hypothesis.

You need to learn what a scientific theory is.

Ahhhh, so 1000 papers about Dark Matter makes a theory???? Even when it has failed every single solitary test????????

So Einstein's lone paper was not a theory?

Darwin's lone postulation was not a theory?

I notice you sure have a tendency to vacillate a lot.

And how many times must it be pointed out that argument ad populum is fallacious???

All it takes is one paper to make a theory..... especially when everything has been corroborated by not only visual, but laboratory evidence....

So we can scrap all your galactic formation theories, planetary formation theories, etc, since they were falsified long ago.... Not that you would ever accept all their models being wrong as falsifying..... That's the way it is with Fairie Dust. 80+ years of null results and they are still unwilling to let that brightly glittering cash cow go...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

id predicts nothing at all.

It's ad hoc rationalizing nonsense.
There is literally no data at all that couldn't be fit into a creationist model. Because all it is, is assertions. Why does this look like such and such? "because that's how the designer made it"

No matter how the data looks like.
No matter if humans have a fused chromosome or not. No matter if it has telomeres in the middle or not.

There is literally NO DATA AT ALL that you couldn't fit into a creationistic model that basically assumes right out the gates that there is this being that "can do anything".

ANYTHING.

So whatever you find, no matter what it is, you'll always have your (intellectually dishonest) monster premise to fallback on: "god can do anything". Ow sorry, I forgot...: "the designer can do anything".

It's beyond ridiculous, to go ahead and claim that ID "predicts" a fused chromosome in humans. Utterly, utterly ridiculous and ultimately dishonest.



There's TONS of data that if it would be encounter, would NOT be able to fit into the evolutionary model. Because the process that is explained in the model is precise. There are things that the model cannot do or accomplish. Like a mammal with feathers, using the same DNA sequences as birds use for feathers. That could not be fit into the evolutionary model. Finding such a thing would completely and utterly refute that model.

But the "designer" in YOUR model, is not only assumed to exist without evidence, as a PREMISE even of ID.... no no, it's also believed to be all-powerfull and one that "can do anything".


Mammels with bird feather-making genes? No problem.
Chickens with inactive dna to make teeth? No problem.
Humans sharing more ERV's with ducks then with chimps? No problem.
Humans with fused chromosomes? No problem.
ANYTING AT ALL? No problem.

Whatever data you encounter, your "designer" can do anything.

This is why your model is nonsense.
It is guilty of half the logical fallacies known to mankind. At least.




EDIT: i got a little carried away in the ranting there it seems.... sorry 'bout that

Feel better now?

Now put evolution in place of creation and you have a valid argument twice over.....

Predict nothing? We predict evidence of design, the thing everyone in the world on both sides of this argument are laboring so hard trying to explain.....

I mean you don't believe they are wasting your time thinking they can write laws about randomness, do you????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahhhh, so 1000 papers about Dark Matter makes a theory???? Even when it has failed every single solitary test????????

So Einstein's lone paper was not a theory?

Darwin's lone postulation was not a theory?

I notice you sure have a tendency to vacillate a lot.

And how many times must it be pointed out that argument ad populum is fallacious???

All it takes is one paper to make a theory..... especially when everything has been corroborated by not only visual, but laboratory evidence....

So we can scrap all your galactic formation theories, planetary formation theories, etc, since they were falsified long ago.... Not that you would ever accept all their models being wrong as falsifying..... That's the way it is with Fairie Dust. 80+ years of null results and they are still unwilling to let that brightly glittering cash cow go...

A thousand papers? From real journals? I doubt it. Just because a paper mentions plasma does not mean it supports your claims.

And no, mere papers do not a theory make. There are thousands of papers on abiogenesis, but that concept is still in the hypothetical stage. A theory needs to explain observed events. It needs to be testable, one has to be able to make predictions based upon it.

Einstein's concepts have been tested and retested countless times and been confirmed time after time. So has Darwin's work. That is why and how they became theories. Darwin's work has been improved upon over the years. It takes much much more than one mere paper. All you have is literally "fairy dust". You really need to quit projecting your flaws upon others.

And too bad that you do not understand the concept of evidence. You can't support your claims when you do not understand this concept.

 

[DogmaHunter]

what is the problem? if feathers evolved once it can evolve twice. no problem for evolution. see why evolution itself is "anything is possible"?

Only someone utterly ignorant of evolution would say that.

i just gave you one: if the designer himself will admit that he used evolution to create all creatures- special creation will be false.

So much for basing your creation model on evidence then, I guess.

So your "evidence" of creation is not actual data, it's whatever (you believe) god (oeps, "designer") said.

And not just any designer, no no... an all powerfull one that can do anything.

Thanks for making my point for me, I guess.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A thousand papers? From real journals? I doubt it. Just because a paper mentions plasma does not mean it supports your claims.

And no, mere papers do not a theory make. There are thousands of papers on abiogenesis, but that concept is still in the hypothetical stage. A theory needs to explain observed events. It needs to be testable, one has to be able to make predictions based upon it.

Einstein's concepts have been tested and retested countless times and been confirmed time after time. So has Darwin's work. That is why and how they became theories. Darwin's work has been improved upon over the years. It takes much much more than one mere paper. All you have is literally "fairy dust". You really need to quit projecting your flaws upon others.

And too bad that you do not understand the concept of evidence. You can't support your claims when you do not understand this concept.

That’s just it, Dark Matter was never predicted by any theory. It was a ad-hoc repair device to fudge Newton’s Laws of gravitation and GR to fit observation.

It was a placeholder until the real cause was found. But you keep ignoring those plasma halos.

So strike on the predicted.

Strike on the testing.

Strike on the absurdity of magic particles while ignoring an entire universe of real particles.

While every single prediction made by plasma cosmology has panned out to date.....

Oh, you forgot to mention that, didn’t you....

 

[xianghua]

Only someone utterly ignorant of evolution would say that.

so you dont believe in "convergent evolution" then? wow. thats new for me.

So much for basing your creation model on evidence then, I guess.

if so you agree that the creation model can be falsified and therefore its scientifiic . thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s just it, Dark Matter was never predicted by any theory. It was a ad-hoc repair device to fudge Newton’s Laws of gravitation and GR to fit observation.

It was a placeholder until the real cause was found. But you keep ignoring those plasma halos.

So strike on the predicted.

Strike on the testing.

Strike on the absurdity of magic particles while ignoring an entire universe of real particles.

While every single prediction made by plasma cosmology has panned out to date.....

Oh, you forgot to mention that, didn’t you....

Nnope, wrong again. Just like in evoulution, you cannot refute that which you do not understand. Drop the strawman and try to find out what you are arguing against.

 

[Mountainmike]

The problem is of course. @Justatruthseeker was exactly right

Dark Matter is the name for a repair to a model, pending "explanation" - which for want of doubt is not explanation at all, it actually means "repairing the broken model" with somethign that fits all observations.

When the model is finally repaired, is just as likely that the repair will come by repairing the mass matter axiomatic relationship' or the underlying cosmology equations as it will to repairing the quantity of matter. ( the dark matter conjecture)

Not least because no evidence has been found that "mass" can be attributed to any new axiomatic species of non interacting particle existing in empty space to fix the problem. It is all just conjecture like abiogenesis is just conjecture.

And before you begin an unscientific rant.

Relativity was just such a change to the model that did not add more matter. It added mass to the matter. It redefined the axiomatic mass matter relationship , so things have more mass when faster -( in addition to rewriting the rest of cosmology because the model didnt work)
Its just a model. It is not even unique. Dont confuse it with the universe, an alltogether stranger beast.

It is BECAUSE we understand the state of cosmology Justatruthseeker and I say what we do.

Start thinking of science as a voice recognition package. As a model of speech. It never becomes the speaker. Or the listener. It has only the limited vocabulary you put into it.
If all you put in is four words, it will think you said one of them, or conclude its discriminator just cannot tell between. It cannot answer word "God" unless you put it in the package - nothing to do with whether God is real or not. So if "God" is not one of its four words, it will never say it in answer to any question!

So when science "explains" something it is just the same : it is answering your question "what is this" by saying..gravity ...or electric field ...or electron . Because those are all you put in. It can only answer in terms of the axiomatic species you put in. If "God" is not put in the model, it will never say "God" as an answer - so in that sense deny God exists - regardless of whether He exists!

Trouble is , sometimes it makes a pigs ear. The equations work with some observations better than others. . You ask how heavy is "this" . And for far off galazy rotation It answers in mass, FAR more or less than other phenomena say. It comes to different conclusions In short its sums dont add up. you call the difference "dark matter" but all it is is an error.

Sooner or later you have to mess with the model, to make it all add up. Then it will "explain" ( with a non explanation in philosophical terms) by telling you what you already know because you put the error correction in! Dont confuse that with the universe. It is what it is. Even when the equations of a bad model dont add up. The universe does what it is seen to do. Or not sometimes. So the model will get fixed, and it is just as possible mass/matter will re revisited, or the cosmological equations, as it is, that mass will be added with or without new axiomatic species of field or particle.. Just like relativity did.

Just like our voice recognition package.You mess with it, add a few words, mess with the recognition. And abracadabra it now has five words it can discrimanate instead of four. And it will say "God" but only if you put "God" it in. Nothing to do with Gods existence whether it says "God" or not.. It never becomes the speaker, just by recognising all the words. It is just a model of language!
Science will never become the univere. It too is just a model - it will ony give out what you put in, so is not an explanation at all.

Trouble is they dont teach schools philosophy of science.

High time they did, so others like Subjunction get a grounding in what science can and cannot tell them. Which is why people confuse a concept in a model "dark matter" with reality.

Nnope, wrong again. Just like in evoulution, you cannot refute that which you do not understand. Drop the strawman and try to find out what you are arguing against.