Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[SkyWriting]

If you're going to inject God into the science classroom, it has to be done under the guise of science. If you can't evidence his existence, it's not science. We're happy with that, but it's you guess who seem Hell-bent on usurping our kid's educations.

Science doesn't allow for matter to appear out of nothing, or complexity to manifest on it's own, so science is ruled out for origins of matter & life.

 

[Meshach]

Science doesn't allow for matter to appear out of nothing, or complexity to manifest on it's own, so science is ruled out for origins of matter & life.

It's not ruled out if they have faith.

 

[Ellinas]

Science doesn't allow for matter to appear out of nothing, or complexity to manifest on it's own, so science is ruled out for origins of matter & life.

Yes it does. Go read Quantum physics!

 

[Nostromo]

Because in Plasma Cosmology there is no such thing as "gravitational lensing".

Intrinsic red-shift falsified that idea.

Unlike theology, science requires you to provide evidence for your claims.

Could you explain to me why objects that are further away coincidentally have greater redshifts, and why the only blueshifted sources in the universe are very close to us, when one would expected a relatively even distribution otherwise?

My favourite find so far has to be from the AllExperts page on Plasma Cosmology:

"An origin in time for the universe is rejected due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I was referring to epistemological uncertainty, obviously, and not to someone who's merely a poor debater. Just pointing out that it's a bit odd to see people literally demand testable scientific proof when they admit that science can't prove it.

It's usually directed at those who claim to have it. We demand proof from Creationists because, by and large, they outright claim to have proven the existence of God. Is it so wrong to ask to see that proof?

Should there be?

It didn't come into effect until Genesis 2, and hasn't been violated since.

Even when God fed the animals aboard the Ark, the widow of Zarephath, and the 5000 with the picnic lunch (those would be ex materia, not ex nihilo).

How do you know God didn't create or destroy matter/energy after Gen 2? What would happen to your beliefs if scientists did observe that matter/energy could be created?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How do you know God didn't create or destroy matter/energy after Gen 2? What would happen to your beliefs if scientists did observe that matter/energy could be created?

*all runs together like one word, because I'm so tired of saying it to AV over and over* matter-energy-is-constantly-being-created-AV-we've-been-over-this-Hawking-radiation-and-Casimir-effect-prove-it-why-do-you-keep-asking-the-same-questions-over-and-over-again-do-you-hope-people-will-forget-you've-already-said-this-stuff-or-do-you-hope-by-the-time-you-recycle-it-the-forum-will-be-comprised-of-all-newbs?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know God didn't create or destroy matter/energy after Gen 2?

Technically I don't; but the Bible says God "rested" after the 6th day, and that is interpreted as God instituting the Law of Conservation --- thus no more creatio ex nihilo.

In addition, the Bible says that God saw everything that He had made and declared it "very good".

Six times He declares what He did as "good", then looks at everything and declares it "very good" (gestalt?).

In the end times, according to Peter, God is going to disperse-and-reassemble the atoms in existence, as opposed to annihilating-and-recreating; and this tells me that He must have the attitude that what He declares 'good' --- yea, 'very good' --- He does not plan to let anything cause Him to annihilate.

Thus no destroying matter/energy.

What would happen to your beliefs if scientists did observe that matter/energy could be created?

Nothing --- my beliefs are founded on the Word of God and cemented by faith.

Nothing man will ever do will shake my faith (I hope).

I assume only an omnipotent creator can create matter and energy from nothing; if it's done in a laboratory by a team of scientists, then I'll have to give credit to science for [an instance of] creatio ex nihilo.

No team of scientists, though, did what God did in Genesis 1, as scientists didn't exist then.

 

[AV1611VET]

*all runs together like one word, because I'm so tired of saying it to AV over and over* matter-energy-is-constantly-being-created-AV-we've-been-over-this-Hawking-radiation-and-Casimir-effect-prove-it-why-do-you-keep-asking-the-same-questions-over-and-over-again-do-you-hope-people-will-forget-you've-already-said-this-stuff-or-do-you-hope-by-the-time-you-recycle-it-the-forum-will-be-comprised-of-all-newbs?

Are you saying that the Law of Conservation is consistently being violated?

Would I be correct in assuming that what you mean is that matter is consistently being created when energy reaches MC[sup]2[/sup], and energy is being created when matter subordinates (if that's the right word) to energy when it goes less than MC[sup]2[/sup]?

 

[Nostromo]

Science doesn't allow for matter to appear out of nothing, or complexity to manifest on it's own, so science is ruled out for origins of matter & life.

I think what you mean to say is that non-deistic natural causes are ruled out. Science is the systematic gathering of knowledge.

That said, complexity does manifest on its own, though it'd be nice to have you elaborate on the definition of your terms here.

What should a scientist expect to see that would constitute "God did it"?

Since there are an infinite number of Gods one could imagine, any scenario is possible. I think the more important question here is "what would you expect to see that would constitute 'the God of the Bible did it'?", because then there's actually something you can compare things to.

Such things might be:
No fossils, there isn't enough time to create sedimentary rock according to the creation story.
No plate tectonics, this indicates that the Earth's features were created gradually over billions of years.
No old stars.

Of course, as AV is fond of mentioning, it could all have been made that way to give the impression of things that didn't happen. I'm not sure why the creation story doesn't mention that though. Presumably we're supposed to figure out that God is deceptive (from passages such as Gen 3:3).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Are you saying that the Law of Conservation is consistently being violated?

Would I be correct in assuming that what you mean is that matter is consistently being created when energy reaches MC[sup]2[/sup], and energy is being created when matter subordinates (if that's the right word) to energy when it goes less than MC[sup]2[/sup]?

No.

Energy AND matter is created constantly, throughout the universe, requiring no imput of energy.

The reason this does not violate the conservation principle is because matter and anti-matter and energy and anti energy are being created in equal ammounts, and they anihilate each other instantly. Under exceptional circumstances, something occurs to stop the anihilation take place, and we can observe the new matter and energy. Universal conservation of mass is maintained through processes we don't entirely understand, such as black hole evaporation. Heck, maybe its even God doing it... but that doesn't change the fact that energy and matter are still being created constantly.

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am quite certain I have explained Hawking radiation to you at least twice before, and I'm pretty sure I've at least mentioned the Casimir effect to you at least once.

 

[BananaSlug]

Because in Plasma Cosmology there is no such thing as "gravitational lensing".

Oh but there is...

How would plasma cosmology explain the lensing effects shown above?

Intrinsic red-shift falsified that idea.

Would you mind explaining how intrinsic redshift falsifies gravitational lensing? The two phenomena are not related.

If intrinsic red-shift exists (it does), then many objects that are said to be very far may very well be very near. And in fact many are, as Mr. Arp has shown.

Again, that has nothing to do with gravitational lensing. Just because one aspect of a theory may be false that does not falsify the entire theory. So, how would plasma cosmology explain the apparent effect of gravitational lensing?

 

[Doveaman]

Unlike theology, science requires you to provide evidence for your claims.

There is plenty of evidence, but unless it has “Peer-Reviewed” stamped on it by the Consensus, it is not accepted.

But I don’t think Plasma Cosmologists, who has the evidence, cares what the Consensus thinks. The Consensus can take a hike.

Could you explain to me why objects that are further away coincidentally have greater redshifts, and why the only blueshifted sources in the universe are very close to us, when one would expected a relatively even distribution otherwise?

Intrinsic red-shift does not exclude ‘distant red-shift’. It is the ‘distant red-shift’ proponents that exclude intrinsic red-shift, so for them all red-shift is “further away”, which is not the case, and also creates this problem:

If redshift is a measure of distance, as astronomers claim, this gives rise to a peculiar problem. When the galaxies outside our own are plotted, they all appear to point directly at the earth. Copernicus, of course, knew that the Earth was not the centre of everything, but the redshift-as-distance interpretation effectively takes us back to the dogma of the early church. The 'Fingers of God' problem, therefore, provides further proof that the doppler interpretation favoured by Big Bangers is wrong...

Hubble himself didn't agree that Red shifts were Doppler (see his book 'The Observational Approach to Cosmology'), but his warnings went unheeded. He pointed out several difficulties with this interpretation, not the least of which involved complex problems in relation to photons. Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with the necessary brightness correction, and also believed that a more simple -- and therefore preferable -- non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation. - Plasma Cosmology.net

My favourite find so far has to be from the AllExperts page on Plasma Cosmology:

"An origin in time for the universe is rejected due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism."

I think they are referring primarily to Big Bang theology.

When referring to the Universe, the Bible tells us Who did it. Plasma Cosmology tells us how He did it. I’m just unifying the two, as my signature shows.

 

[Doveaman]

Oh but there is...

How would plasma cosmology explain the lensing effects shown above?
Would you mind explaining how intrinsic redshift falsifies gravitational lensing? The two phenomena are not related.
Again, that has nothing to do with gravitational lensing. Just because one aspect of a theory may be false that does not falsify the entire theory. So, how would plasma cosmology explain the apparent effect of gravitational lensing?

Are you aware that unverified, hypothetical “dark matter” is required to explain those distortions. The observed mass is no where near enough to cause them.

You keep jumping the gun by providing unverified hypotheses as explanations for observations. Without the unverified dark matter, you have no explanation for the above observation.

Dark matter has not been verified, therefore it explains nothing, therefore "gravitational lensing", which require unverified dark matter, is not an explanation.

God did it with electricity.

 

[Nostromo]

My favourite find so far has to be from the AllExperts page on Plasma Cosmology:

"An origin in time for the universe is rejected due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism."

I think they are referring primarily to Big Bang theology.

Mmm... no, Big Bang Theory predicts an origin in time. It says there that Plasma Cosmology rejects that.

Well done, you've inadvertently backed a theory that is incompatible with your God.

 

[Jnwaco]

Actually, plasma cosmology isn't incompatible with God, per the plasma scientists.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is plenty of evidence, but unless it has “Peer-Reviewed” stamped on it by the Consensus, it is not accepted.

Naturally. Would you accept something as scientific if it hadn't been peer-reviewed?

But I don’t think Plasma Cosmologists, who has the evidence, cares what the Consensus thinks. The Consensus can take a hike.

Right on! Who cares what literally thousands of scientists say? So long as you can dismiss them all to maintain your pet hypothesis. God forbid you should actually concede defeat...

Intrinsic red-shift does not exclude ‘distant red-shift’. It is the ‘distant red-shift’ proponents that exclude intrinsic red-shift, so for them all red-shift is “further away”, which is not the case, and also creates this problem:

If redshift is a measure of distance, as astronomers claim, this gives rise to a peculiar problem. When the galaxies outside our own are plotted, they all appear to point directly at the earth. Copernicus, of course, knew that the Earth was not the centre of everything, but the redshift-as-distance interpretation effectively takes us back to the dogma of the early church. The 'Fingers of God' problem, therefore, provides further proof that the doppler interpretation favoured by Big Bangers is wrong...

Really? Fingers of God? You realise that's just an error introduced by galactic clusters, right? It's as inane as saying the particle horizon is centred on us, so therefore it doesn't exist.

 

[Jnwaco]

Thousands of scientists said Neanderthal Man was a direct ancestor of homo sapiens. That was overturned recently, but it was in textbooks for what, 50 years?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thousands of scientists said Neanderthal Man was a direct ancestor of homo sapiens. That was overturned recently, but it was in textbooks for what, 50 years?

First, it hasn't been overturned: scientists are divided on whether the Neanderthal is an extinct sub-species of human, or a separate species. Second, if it were to be overturned, the scientific consensus would move because of the evidence. Spouting claims of a conspiracy just because the Big Bad Scientists won't instantly drop everything and adopt your pet hypothesis is just pathetic.

 

[Nostromo]

Actually, plasma cosmology isn't incompatible with God, per the plasma scientists.

From plasmacosmology.net, previously quoted by Doveaman.

Religious Motivations
To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth devised to explain creation:

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing."

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."

The Plasma Universe is an extremely dynamic, quasi Steady-State Universe. It may seem strange to consider Galaxies lasting billions of years as mere transient phenomena, but this is how it is. Planets, Stars and Galaxies are born and die. The universe is cyclical!

According to the Plasma guys, we live in a steady state universe with no beginning, ergo it is incompatible with Christian theology.

 

[Jnwaco]

First, it hasn't been overturned: scientists are divided on whether the Neanderthal is an extinct sub-species of human, or a separate species. Second, if it were to be overturned, the scientific consensus would move because of the evidence. Spouting claims of a conspiracy just because the Big Bad Scientists won't instantly drop everything and adopt your pet hypothesis is just pathetic.

Appeal to ridicule arguments aren't particularly compelling.

Two German scientists have found genetic evidence supporting many scientists' long belief that modern man does not directly descend from Neanderthal man, said German press reports today. One of the two scientists, Bonn paleontologist Ralf W. Schmitz, told the German news agency DPA that the proof was obtained in a genetic analysis of a piece of the Neanderthal skeleton found in the Rhineland in 1856 and ...

The mitochondrial DNA of thousands of living humans already has been examined. The Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA examined to date is distinctly different from that of humans, Green says. No mitochondrial DNA sequences from Neanderthals have been encountered in modern humans.” This makes it less likely that there was some genetic interchange with Neandertals,” Green says. “No one’s mother was a Neandertal.”

Researchers Probe Links Between Modern Humans and Neanderthals