Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

SkyWriting · Jan 27, 2010

sandwiches said:
Background radiation

We all have specialties.
"DMR - The CMB was found to have intrinsic "anisotropy" for the first time, at a level of a part in 100,000."

This is 10 times smaller than COBE was designed to detect. What was supposed to be a map of the variations was presented to the duped public as a success. "The Sky Map" success was front page news. Followed later with interviews burried deep where researcher admitted it wasn't an actual map of the cosmos. It was a data plot of the information left over after they subtracted what they estimated was the noise level was from the detector.

Like my wife insists, they weren't wrong.
They just changed their mind.

sandwiches · Jan 27, 2010

SkyWriting said:
We all have specialties.
"DMR - The CMB was found to have intrinsic "anisotropy" for the first time, at a level of a part in 100,000."

This is 10 times smaller than COBE was designed to detect. What was supposed to be a map of the variations was presented to the duped public as a success. "The Sky Map" success was front page news. Followed later with interviews burried deep where researcher admitted it wasn't an actual map of the cosmos. It was a data plot of the information left over after they subtracted what they estimated was the noise level was from the detector.

Like my wife insists, they weren't wrong.
They just changed their mind.

This is all fantastic and you would surely dupe those who don't know much about the subject, but luckily, we didn't have to rely on COBE's measurements and we now have the much clearer picture from the WMAP.

Tell your wife, that, unfortunately, she is, indeed, wrong. Or maybe she just needs to change her mind.

I'm gonna play "Guess the rebuttal:" Shifting goal posts or declare a conspiracy. A little of both would probably be more likely, just to be safe.

MoonLancer · Jan 27, 2010

Why on Earth would Creationists request funding for and spend countless hours on research which intentionally leads nowhere? Who would waste their career on something that they knew was wrong, and who would put up the money to fund such a thing and why

as for the funding i bet it goes to fight their legal battles and help push their propaganda.

Research? what research? I have seen lots of wedge document work, but no research. at least ones not willing to take a risk and publish it in respected science journals.

Well they don't think they are wrong per-say but this phenomena is called Lying for Jesus. It doesn't matter if their research is bunk as long as it furthers their objectives which is to displace science in the minds of children and the ignorant.

3sigma · Jan 28, 2010

SkyWriting said:
Please.....do not appeal to your imaginary audience again.

Must you misunderstand everything? They arent my imaginary audience. I told you that I thought readers here were marvelling at your conversation rather than mine so it is hardly surprising that people missed my question. Heres a thought, though. Perhaps you could ask people whether they think you are being evasive and what they think of that behaviour. Care to put it to the test?

Of course, that was the only portion of my post to which you responded. Again you evaded the question, how does your God answer prayers? You claimed in a previous post that your God answers your prayers by controlling your mind. Exactly how does it do that? What is the actual physical mechanism it uses to control your mind?

Nostromo · Jan 28, 2010

Doveaman said:
Perhaps, but Christians are critical thinkers too.

Nonsense. (Regarding topics of a 'Goddidit' nature)

Doveaman said:
But our critical thinking is beyond an Atheist' capacity to comprehend.

Nonsense.

Doveaman said:
We understand the "mechanism" by which God works because of our critical thinking,

Nonsense.

Doveaman said:
and it is this critical thinking that enables us to say with certainty that God did it.

See above.

SkyWriting said:
On this topic, you are clearly referring to...I mean...It brings to my mind:

$74,000,000 mil
$548,200

So could you show me the part that says SETI are already aware that extraterrestrial life does not exist, and that they're just wasting their time on purpose?

SkyWriting · Jan 28, 2010

Nostromo said:
Nonsense. (Regarding topics of a 'Goddidit' nature)

Please explain what topics those are so we can check to see
if you are accurate or just pulling our leg.

Nostromo said:
Nonsense.Nonsense.See above.

So could you show me the part that says SETI are already aware that extraterrestrial life does not exist, and that they're just wasting their time on purpose?

Of course. They are VERY OPEN about that and FREELY admit it UP FRONT
that they wasted 20-40 million and 10 years of public (&private funding).

The first part details what success would have looked like.
The second part outlines what we will consider a failure.
The third part details the return on investment we can expect.
The forth describes the point public funding stops and why.
The fifth part explains that if we did find life, we wouldn't be able
to communicate with it in any way.
The sixth part details what little we could learn from finding evidence of life.
The last section concludes that they are wasting their time
and outlines the reasons.

They explain that fully here:

Please God, it's been 20 years.
Help us find something soon...

Exiledoomsayer · Jan 28, 2010

Wait i think i figured out what the stumbling block might be. doveaman simply doesnt know the meaning of critical thinking or how to apply it. just like creationists often dont know the meaning of evolution, abiogenesis, bigbang, theory, evidence, faith, ignorance, coherency and science for that matter.

Which seems to be a result of them being led astray by people that in their mind are trust worthy such as kent hovind. who in reality tells nothing but strawman and lies. but his audience takes for fact and then believe they are educated in whatever subject he mentioned.

Jnwaco · Jan 28, 2010

I don't see the big deal with the Big Bang. It just means that scientists' explanations for what caused it will be every bit as metaphysical as our belief in God. Multiverse theories and the like are not scientifically falsifiable, either, and are not without scientific criticism. IMHO, Genesis 1 is poetry-prose, written as such, as identifiable from the pattern structure of the passage. Psalm 19 says that the day and night declare God's handiwork and showeth knowledge, even though they don't speak. Everything science learns about our universe ultiamtely comes from God, and he encourages us to learn about it so that we're without excuse.

Cabal · Jan 28, 2010

Exiledoomsayer said:
Wait i think i figured out what the stumbling block might be. doveaman simply doesnt know the meaning of critical thinking or how to apply it. just like creationists often dont know the meaning of evolution, abiogenesis, bigbang, theory, evidence, faith, ignorance, coherency and science for that matter.

Which seems to be a result of them being led astray by people that in their mind are trust worthy such as kent hovind. who in reality tells nothing but strawman and lies. but his audience takes for fact and then believe they are educated in whatever subject he mentioned.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

AV1611VET · Jan 28, 2010

Exiledoomsayer said:
Wait i think i figured out what the stumbling block might be. doveaman simply doesnt know the meaning of critical thinking or how to apply it. just like creationists often dont know the meaning of evolution, abiogenesis, bigbang, theory, evidence, faith, ignorance, coherency and science for that matter.

Excuse me?

If anyone around here knows ignorance --- it's me.

I work hard to stay this ignorant.

I was forced to learn the alphabet and the multiplication table, and to this day I can't get them out of my head.

My dad even made me learn to divide fractions by the invert-and-multiply rule!

Cabal · Jan 28, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I was forced to learn the alphabet and the multiplication table, and to this day I can't get them out of my head.

Did you struggle to think of a recent example there AV?

SkyWriting · Jan 28, 2010

Nostromo said:
Don't talk rubbish. You have to live every day of your life trusting things written or said that aren't inspired by God.

I can't imagine what he would be referring to. (He must not have read it yet.)

SkyWriting · Jan 28, 2010

Jnwaco said:
I don't see the big deal with the Big Bang. It just means that scientists' explanations for what caused it will be every bit as metaphysical as our belief in God. Multiverse theories and the like are not scientifically falsifiable, either, and are not without scientific criticism. IMHO, Genesis 1 is poetry-prose, written as such, as identifiable from the pattern structure of the passage. Psalm 19 says that the day and night declare God's handiwork and showeth knowledge, even though they don't speak. Everything science learns about our universe ultimately comes from God, and he encourages us to learn about it so that we're without excuse.

A good summation of the situation. Except that Gen 1 isn't just poetry. Like the rest of scripture, it is Literal Truth. Based on facts, and written to inspire as well as inform.

(If you've read this....please skip over it, if you choose)

Glen Miller said about Paul:
"Paul is clearly a good example of faith, but to what extent is he a good example of a 'cordial but ruthless' critical/skeptical thinker?

Consider the following:"

* He originally was a strong skeptic of the faith, even going so far as putting Christians to death
* It would take something very convincing to 'convert' his worldview to become the outstanding Christian spokesperson, evangelist, and apologist that he became.
* He claims that it was an appearance of the risen Jesus Christ that overpowered him.
* His subsequent actions show him to be a man of critical examination all through his life.

A couple of incidents from his life to illustrate this:

* After his conversion, he immediately "baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ": (Acts 9.22)
* "He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews..." (Acts 9.29)
* He appeals to eye-witnesses often for his claims (Acts 13.31; I Cor 15)
* He appeals to seasonal patterns as evidence of God's character (Acts 14. 17)
* He appeals to concrete experiences even in theological debates (Acts 15.12)
* "he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead" (Acts 17.2-3)
* "While Paul was at Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him" (Act 17.16-18)
* His argument to them was based on 1) logic and 2) proof (Acts 17.29-31)
* "Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue..." (Acts 18.4)
* "Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God" (Act 19.8)
* He challenged the church leaders to 'be on your guard' about truth in the future (Acts 20.29-31)
* He appeals to his encounter with the risen Christ (Acts 22.6ff; 26.12))
* In court, he appeals to strict historical data (Acts 24)
* Before the authorities, he appealed to the openness of the data (Acts 26.26)
* He speaks of 'thinking with sober judgment', of 'being convinced in your own mind', of teachers who 'by smooth talk and flattery deceive the minds of naive people', of 'wanting you to be wise'.

"The list goes on and on...he consistently uses data, appeals to evidence, asks for proof, and answers requests for proof."

"Glen Miller then asks, "Does this sound like 'blind faith' or a faith that is concerned about truth?!" If you believe that 'faith' and 'reason' are at odds, I hope you have a big rock in your shoe by now."

Jnwaco · Jan 28, 2010

That would depend on how you define "literal truth". If you take it too literally, when Jesus says "be like a dove" you'd have to start laying eggs.

Doveaman · Jan 28, 2010

sandwiches said:
He just told you what evidence supports the Big Bang and right then, you claim that, if red shift is disproved, there would be no Big Bang? LOL

How do you explain "expansion" without red-shift, and how do you explain Big Bang without "expansion"?

Wow...
The evidence for the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang isn't just one thing, like you'd like to imagine. It's the consistency of observations and evidence including:
Abundance of Light elements,
Observable evolution of galaxies,
Universal homogeneity,
Age of stars,
Background radiation,
WMAP fluctuation data,
Time dilation in supernova brightness curves,
Thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect,
Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect,
And yes, even Red Shift

You can force a big foot into a tight smelly shoe. The big foot might fit the tight smelly shoe, but it certainly doesnt belong there.

All the evidence points to the Big Bang. If you can falsify Red Shift, publish your peer-reviewed paper.

Papers would be published, if only the Consensus would allow them.

This would completely change our current cosmology and you'd be hugely famous and renowned. You'd be able to get just about any grant you wanted.

Yeah, right.

Tunnel vision does more than magnify the elegance of the single idea (Big Bang). It also excludes considering other ideas. Alternative ideas are stymied by unquestioning faith in the only possible theory. For this reason, as history shows, most fundamental breakthroughs come from outsiders.

Nostromo · Jan 28, 2010

SkyWriting said:
Please explain what topics those are so we can check to see if you are accurate or just pulling our leg.

Mainly literal creationism, but that has a fairly large scope.

SkyWriting said:
Of course. They are VERY OPEN about that and FREELY admit it UP FRONT
that they wasted 20-40 million and 10 years of public (&private funding).

This is a good example of the very basic problem that we're experiencing.

You (or Doveaman, or whoever) claim that science is a crock, that scientists are concealing evidence of special creation and instead working on fake publications. When asked to provide evidence that such a conspiracy is actually occurring, you respond with:

"Well obviously they won't ADMIT it!"

There's no reason to think that such a conspiracy exists, and there's no evidence to suggest that it does.

To quote Doveaman quoting that holoscience page:

"Tunnel vision does more than magnify the elegance of the single idea. It also excludes considering other ideas. Alternative ideas are stymied by unquestioning faith in the “only possible” theory. For this reason, as history shows, most fundamental breakthroughs come from outsiders."

Absolutely right.

Exiledoomsayer · Jan 28, 2010

"I'm gonna play "Guess the rebuttal:" Shifting goal posts or declare a conspiracy. A little of both would probably be more likely, just to be safe."
1. there is no evidence without redshift! -- you can say what you want but it doesnt fit as well without redshift

2. the consensus is stiffling new ideas, tunnel vision

i guess thats the scientific methode. hypotesis, tested with a prediction. or in other words. he called it. It does not take away that any fundamental breakthroughs always came with evidence and they came about through the scientific process. if that has always works for fundamental breakthroughs in the past against a tunnelvisioned consensus eventually then why do we suddenly have to change the playing field because "god-did-it-with-electricity" didnt make it through round 1? as long as we're here id like to offer my own idea. "in reality time is moving backwards we just arent aware of it. our precieved start of the univserve is really the end. the reall start was by definition always there"
well that cant be disproven so it must be true, but big science is stiffling my ideas which are founded on the absolute obvious that we see all around us <note the not being specific>

Im sorry the 'game' just doesnt work that way. your welcome to your tinfoil hats and conspiricy theories. god knows the internet is the right place for it. incidently it wont matter cause some guy claims the world will end in 2 years anyways because spacegiants will drive their planet ship into our world and destroy it or something. <no really, people actually believe this. on the same evidence base as you. also being stiffled by science.>

Doveaman · Jan 28, 2010

Nostromo said:
Nonsense. (Regarding topics of a 'Goddidit' nature)

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

I understand how you feel, but that's okay.

What you call "nonsense" we call "foolishness".

"For since...the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe...

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom..."

And this is why

"the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are...[Atheists] - 1 Cor 1:21,25,18

Nostromo · Jan 28, 2010

I'm starting to think that Doveaman is AV's personal trollbot.

Ellinas · Jan 28, 2010

First it was Creationism. Then it was creation science. Then they came up with ID. Now they are trying to push the Electric Universe explanation. What all the above have in common is that they all totally failed to convince the scientific community. The reason is simple. Take cartoon physics for example; it entertains the mind but has absolutely no value in the real world! Science is not faith based and does not allow for make believe. Religion is faith based and cannot be mixed with science; thus it is no use debating this issue.

Now when oh when will coyote finally get that darn roadrunner

Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

The Librarian

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Well-Known Member

Brian Blessed can take a hike

The Librarian

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

Regular Member

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency