Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Doveaman]

Surely the point is obvious: a so-called 'luminous bridge' can occur in a photograph despite the two objects being physically disconnected. The bridge in the bulb picture proves that such bridges are in no way indicative of a physical bridge actually existing: they are simply optical phenomena. Illusions. Phantasms.

Likewise, the 'bridge' between the galaxy and the quasar is not indicative of a real, physical bridge between the two objects: it is (or, at the very least, is most likely to be) an optical illusion. Despite your claims to the contrary, there is no reason to think that it is real, and every reason to think it is false (yes, redshift still counts, because your disproof has been rather elegantly blown out of the water).

It is amazing what you guys have to come up with to try to make sense of your own flawed interpretations, including the rubber sheet and steel ball.

 

[Doveaman]

If you read my post again, I was pointing out anomalies that Plasma cosmology cannot answer, thereby showing plasma cosmology is wrong.

Not that there is no explanation in Plasma Cosmology to your post, but even if there was none, a theory isn't proven wrong by it's inability to explain an observation. It is proven wrong when the explanation given for the theory has been scientifically demonstrated to be false, like red-shift = velocity/distance.

 

[Nostromo]

House lights just don't cut it.

Your next challenge is to place two light objects of different red-shifts one billion light years apart, with two additional light objects nearby, and produce the same results.

I don't see why, you haven't done that to show evidence of your hypothesis.

After that, you can experimentally demonstrate how a high red-shift quasar can appear in front of a lower red-shift dusty, opaque galaxy like this one

Galaxies are hardly opaque. We live in a spiral galaxy and we can see 'sideways' through the dusty arms of the Milky Way to the stars beyond. Gas and dust is also not uniformly distributed so there are thinner and thicker areas.

It could well be in the galaxy itself, and if it is, the truth will be discovered by cosmologists. Even if noone can possibly explain it that doesn't lend any credibility to creationism.

The Scientific Method would be helpful.

and don't lecture us about methodology, you haven't done a damned thing yourself but copy and paste. You didn't even know what red-shift was until a few days ago.

 

[Doveaman]

For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes.

Assumption.

Intermediate in "appearance" does not mean they are "actually" intermediate, they just appear that way.

It's like the similarity in appearance between a fleet of vehicles by the same designer. The parts may resemble each other, but they did not evolve from each other, despite the appearance of intermediacy.

It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

See above.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

I agree. But assumptions can be sometimes misinterpreted as facts.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility.

Does this mean evolution is neither a fact nor a theory?

Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

As long as they are not being biased, that's fine.

 

[Doveaman]

Galaxies are hardly opaque.

Except when they are very dusty.

It could well be in the galaxy itself, and if it is, the truth will be discovered by cosmologists. Even if noone can possibly explain it that doesn't lend any credibility to creationism.

But it does lend credibility to Plasma Cosmology, for they do explain the observations quite well – Intrinsic Redshift – which you guys continue to deny. Why?

and don't lecture us about methodology, you haven't done a damned thing yourself but copy and paste. You didn't even know what red-shift was until a few days ago.

I learn fast.

 

[Ellinas]

It is amazing what you guys have to come up with to try to make sense of your own flawed interpretations, including the rubber sheet and steel ball.

It sure beats believing in fairytales!

 

[Nostromo]

It's like the similarity in appearance between a fleet of vehicles by the same designer. The parts may resemble each other, but they did not evolve from each other, despite the appearance of intermediacy.

That's probably not the best analogy since they almost certainly did evolve from each other in the sense that most auto manufacturers develop a style and then modify it across different vehicles, and then they modify it again for the next generation. They don't start from scratch with each, that's why you can recognise a BMW or a Honda, and often pin it down to within a couple of years based on design trends even if you don't know the model.

Does this mean evolution is neither a fact nor a theory?

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a fact that life on Earth has changed over time, that much is clear from looking at fossils. It doesn't necessarily mean that common descent is true or natural selection, but evolution at it's most basic means 'change'.

That's where evolution the theory comes in to describe how this change occurred.

But it does lend credibility to Plasma Cosmology, for they do explain the observations quite well – Intrinsic Redshift – which you guys continue to deny. Why?

No it doesn't. If something is unexplained it is just that, unexplained. That doesn't lend any credibility to any theory.

I learn fast.

Dunning-Kruger again?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is amazing what you guys have to come up with to try to make sense of your own flawed interpretations, including the rubber sheet and steel ball.

*yawn*
Refute the argument or concede defeat. Your choice.

 

[Mike Elphick]

For everything written in the pages of the Bible that God did, there's a theory in science that says He couldn't have.

• Resurrected from the dead? Science says, "no".
• Parted the Red Sea? Science says, "no".
• Walked on water? Science says, "no".
• Born of a virgin? Science says, "no".
• Global flood? Science says, "no".
• Fed 5000 from a picnic basket? Science says, "no".
• Turned water ... (skip that one).
• Spoke to a fig tree and it withered? Science says, "no".
• Teleported a man from point A to point B? Science says, "no".

With science being in denial as much as it is, I say science is the one that should be investigated.

Science is not required to tell us these things are physically impossible. The collective human experience over many centuries tells us people are not born of virgins and water can't be turned into wine and nor can you walk on it. These sort of things were purported to have occurred precisely because they never happen.

 

[SkyWriting]

You may not demand it from us, but despite all the preponderance of evidence that contradicts your beliefs and the fact that science has a tremendously accurate and fruitful record, you continue to ignore and disbelieve it. Not coincidentally, you disbelieve it in only those parts that would cause your fundamentalist beliefs to come crashing down. You blame other of rationalization but your platitudes and empty words amount to nothing but logic acrobatics and rationalizing of your position backed by nothing but more words taken from a book because you know of nothing evident that could truly support your view and you know this. You know this and yet you continue arguing to try to convince us and I have feeling that, partly, to keep yourself convinced.

This would normally be considered a pure personal attack if I wasn't laughing so much while I was reading.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, that's a cop-out.

That depends on what game you're playing.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

I don't have a problem with the follow up research.
The point is that the mouthpieces tell you that the data fits well with the theory. They don't tell you how all the theories are proven wrong when the data comes in and new ones need to be invented.

Many people are duped into trusting Science at all costs for just that reason. Because are not skeptical enough. And I have no "conspiracy theories." Many people just don't like to rock the boat they're in. I do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't have a problem with the follow up research.
The point is that the mouthpieces tell you that the data fits well with the theory. They don't tell you how all the theories are proven wrong when the data comes in and new ones need to be invented.

Oh please. The transition from classical to quantum mechanics is the quintessential example of scientific progress. Scientists publish their data for all to see; if you think they're fudging the numbers, redo the experiment yourself! That's what scientists do: they check each others work, and if they discover a fraud, they publish it. You'll notice that it's always other scientists, not religious anti-science fundamentalists, who reveal science hoaxes.

Ever wonder why the world we live in is based on science? Because it works. Computers, transportation, sanitation, agriculture, all of it runs on the advances made by science. If it didn't work, if there was some mass conspiracy, then don't you think we'd notice that planes weren't taking off and fridges didn't keep things cold?

Oh, but wait, they do. Science works, science advances, science replaces the outdated with the new. You may close your eyes to progress, but the data is there for you to see. Nothing's hidden.

Many people are duped into trusting Science at all costs for just that reason. Because are not skeptical enough. And I have no "conspiracy theories." Many people just don't like to rock the boat they're in. I do.

You seem to be rocking the boat for the sake of rocking the boat. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

 

[SkyWriting]

NO I could not be more serious. I stand by my remark!

Allrightythen.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't know about you guys, but this looks like a chicken getting tazered.

(I'm practicing for my Ink Blot Test tomorrow. )

So if you see three different fossil/blots,
will you connect the blots with arrows
or see

three different fossils.

 

[BananaSlug]

Not that there is no explanation in Plasma Cosmology to your post, but even if there was none, a theory isn't proven wrong by it's inability to explain an observation. It is proven wrong when the explanation given for the theory has been scientifically demonstrated to be false, like red-shift = velocity/distance.

Your whole argument has been based around the fact that the "anomalous" redshift objects cannot be explained by the current cosmology!

You are claiming that Big Bang cosmology cannot account for anomalous redshift objects, thereby falsifying the theory.

I am claiming that Plasma cosmology cannot account for the blackbody spectrum witnessed by the COBE satellite (which was a prediction of BBC), thereby falsifying the cosmology.

In fact, the official explanation of the NASA image states,

"Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319

and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space. NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance."​

That seems like a perfectly fine explanation to me and even fits with the image that SithDoughnut posted.​

 

[Nostromo]

Many people are duped into trusting Science at all costs for just that reason. Because are not skeptical enough.

Most people here seem to think the word skeptical means "Just say no to science, kids". Science is essentially a framework for being skeptical, so saying that people are wrong to trust science and encouraging them to be more skeptical is practically a contradiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if you see three different fossil/blots,
will you connect the blots with arrows
or see

three different fossils.

You know?

That's really a good point you bring up here.

Those trained to view the universe by uniformitarian standards see these "ink blots" (i.e. fossils, geological layers, SN1987A, etc.) from one perspective; whereas those trained to view the universe by the Book, see it from another.

It's like the Grand Canyon; some see it as a marvelous geological phenomenon, whereas I see a horrible tear in God's perfect creation due to sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most people here seem to think the word skeptical means "Just say no to science, kids".

Can adults just say 'no' to science as well?

That is --- you know --- without be considered ... well ... "funny"?

 

[Nostromo]

Can adults just say 'no' to science as well?

AV, you can say whatever you like to anyone who'll listen.