Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[EnemyPartyII]

1. 1976, The Viking Mars landers detect chemical signatures indicative of life
2. 1977, The unexplained extraterrestrial "Wow!" signal is detected by an Ohio State University radio telescope
3. 1996, Martian "fossils" are discovered in meteorite ALH80041 from Antarctica
4. 2001, A more rigorous estimate of the "Drake equation" suggests that our galaxy may contain hundreds of thousands of life-bearing planets
5. 2001, The red tinge of Jupiter's moon Europa proposed to be due to frozen bits of bacteria, which also helps explain the mysterious infrared signal it gives off
6. 2002, Russian scientists argue that a mysterious radiation-proof microbe may have evolved on Mars
7. 2002, Chemical hints of life are found in old data from Venus probes and landers. Could microbes exist in Venusian clouds?
8. 2003, Sulphur traces on Jupiter's moon Europa may be the waste products of underground bacterial colonies
9. 2004, Methane in the Martian atmosphere hints at microbial metabolism
10. 2004, A mysterious radio signal is received by the SETI project on three occasions - from the same region of space

Top 10: Controversial pieces of evidence for extraterrestrial life - space - 04 September 2006 - New Scientist

10 is more than "nada.zip.zilch."

 

[Nostromo]

So all you need to show is that raw chemicals understand timing

I'm guessing that if that could be done, you'd present that as an argument for a designer imbuing the chemicals with such wondrous attributes, no?

And a watch had a designer

But a watchmaker doesn't change the chemicals so that they understand time. He works with what is already there and rearranges it to make best use of its innate properties.

He could just as well have used the example of a rock falling from a cliff and accelerating at the same rate as anything else that falls toward earth. Time is still an essential component of that, but noone would say that the rocks 'understand' time.

It came from a designer and has no ability to adapt beyond it's intended design.

Why don't you just come out and say that chemical reactions are a myth?

Frogs, when stressed, may reproduce without mating. But it's a function already in the frog. Mutations couldn't have come up with that ability.

Mutations have given us people whose muscles don't atrophy, who are born with both sets of genitalia, the mentally retarded and the super intelligent, people with blue skin, drug resistant bacteria, two headed snakes, four legged ducks and so on. How can you say with any conviction that such a thing is impossible?

 

[Ellinas]

I'm of the opinion that testability is not necessary for a hypothesis to be scientific. Otherwise, science is blind to explanations that, while untestable, could very well be true.

After all, maybe God did do it. For science to work at its best, it needs to acknowledge that possibility. It may not be able to do anything with it, but still.

There are many ways one can test a hypothesis and it does not always have to be direct! One can use mathematics or indirect information or another accepted theory that nullifies the hypothesis in question; eg: I do not need to prove God does not exist if I can show that it took billions of years for the formation of our solar system alone. Once I prove that then we have proven that the universe was not created in 6 days (all the way up to humans). Thus we can conclude that God could not have created the universe in 6 days therefore such a God cannot exist! What we have done is not try to prove the untestable but to refute the untestable with prevailing data that proves that there is no room for a certain hypothesis.

 

[Ellinas]

What a perfect observation!

And a watch had a designer, and a watch functions for its designed lifetime, and at first it may have timed races, then later been just a timepiece.

If there is a designer then it is the fundamental laws of physics, for they govern how things interact; everything from atoms to nerve endings. Everything has to abide by the laws or they cannot exist.
Humans used to think lightning was a spear of the Gods. That was due to ignorance. Today we know what it is simply because some people decided to take the path of erudition rather than the dark path of superstition.

 

[Meshach]

If there is a designer then it is the fundamental laws of physics, for they govern how things interact; everything from atoms to nerve endings. Everything has to abide by the laws or they cannot exist.
Humans used to think lightning was a spear of the Gods. That was due to ignorance. Today we know what it is simply because some people decided to take the path of erudition rather than the dark path of superstition.

Psalm 135:7
He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm guessing that if that could be done, you'd present that as an argument for a designer imbuing the chemicals with such wondrous attributes, no?

Yes. Deoxyribonucleic acid for example.

 

[Nostromo]

What exactly is it you're saying, besides the fact that you'd trumpet any state of affairs as evidence of the existence of God?

 

[Skaloop]

Yes. Deoxyribonucleic acid for example.

And what exactly are the "wondrous attributes" of DNA?

 

[theFijian]

This is nothing more than mealy-mouthed, equivocating nonsense. I do not hold the same kind of beliefs religious believers do.

Bleat about it all you want, but yes you do. Prove that physical empirical proof is the only way to know the truth about reality. You do have objective evidence for that belief don't you?

Religious believers, including you, believe that things such as your God and Satan are real—that they actually exist—without a shred of sound, objective evidence to support those beliefs. I do not.

You just hold different beliefs that don't have any evidence.

I think your God, Satan, angels, heaven and hell are purely imaginary. Many religious believers think they will have eternal life. I do not. I think that is a fanciful hope driven by a fear of death.

Where's your Prove it.

Of course I won’t accept personal testimony as evidence that something such as your God exists and I even said as much in that post to which you linked.

Uhh, but didn't you just say that you'd accept non-empirical evidence?

I keep asking you to show me non-empirical evidence that is sound, objective evidence, but you keep evading that request. Personal testimony is not objective and is unlikely to be free from error, fallacy or misapprehension as well.

Shall we shut down the justice system while we're at it?

Really? So you don’t believe that your God created man in its image;

Yes

you think the Bible is wrong about that?

No

You don’t believe that your God does things like answer prayers?

I do.

If you think your God answers prayers then you think “God did it”.

I do, but as I said, that wouldn't be a scientific would it, since that's what the OP is actually talking about.

 

[Doveaman]

I'm not disagreeing with the current understanding of our universe.

Well, try not to sound that way.

I did not realize that those images you provided was showing connected objects that are billions of light years apart. Could you provide a link?

I never said they were. Weather they were billions or hundreds of light years apart makes no difference to the Consensus. They are not supposed to be connected. That’s the point.That is why they are considered “anomalous”.

You said you are not disagreeing with them, but your quote:

“I just explained it. Now it is no longer anomalous...”

To the consensus it is “anomalous”.

Flying apart explains the difference in redshift. It could be the "elasticity" of the dark matter structure that allows the visible matter of the galaxies to remain connected for a while.

You speak of dark matter as if you’ve seen it done something before. What?

Dark matter has not been verified to do anything. God did it.

The evidence for dark energy is the fact that the universe is speeding up in its expansion.

And the evidence for expansion is the fact the red-shift is misinterpreted, which is what our debate is about. So I don’t consider expansion a “fact”. It’s a flaw in understanding.

The assumption was that eventually the collective gravity of the universe would start to slow expansion or even reverse it.

And they were WRONG. That should be a sign.

"Dark energy" is an explanation as to why the universe is acting in a manner that contradicts our understanding of gravity.

Dark energy is an AD HOC explanation to cover up a FAILED prediction, and to cover up the fact that there is a CONTRADICTION in the theory.

I agree that dark energy is a hypothetical, yet it is still the best explanation as to why.

I think that is what Consensus Cosmology amounts to these days, a mere explanation. No evidence.

I propose God did it, and not dark energy, unless you can show me some dark energy as confirmation.

You mean that illustration that was created using "mathemagic"?

It was mathematics based on real physics, and backed up by physics:

“That there can be no objection, the computer simulations have been backed up by experiments in the highest energy density laboratory electrical discharges—the Z-pinch machine. The experiments verify each stage in development of the PIC simulations. This important work demonstrates that the beautiful spiral structure of galaxies is a natural form of plasma instability in a universe energized by electrical power.” - Electric Galaxies



Does dark energy and dark matter have such backed up support?

The question I would think would need to be answered is why are galaxies flying apart in such a manner?

There is nothing “flying apart in such a manner”. That is a flawed interpretation of red-shift among the Consensus.

Dark energy is just the best explanation at the moment. Once we find out what it is, I hope the name will be changed.

You don’t know what it is, but yet you consider it to be causing the universe to expand?! Amazing!

I know who God is. And I say God did it.

Again, could you provide a link that says the "anomalous" objects are billions of light years apart?

It doesn’t matter if they are billions or tens. They are not supposed to be connected, or even near each other.

So how would plasma cosmology explain Einsteins theory of general relativity and the fact we can observe gravitational lensing?

There is nothing factual about that. This is just another flawed explanation based on a flawed interpretation of red-shift. Einstein was a brilliant mathematician, but he wasn’t the most brilliant when it came to cosmology.

Whenever an observation that contradicts the Big Bang theory or Red-Shift theory appears in the sky, instead of looking upon it as a possible sign that the theory might be flawed, they simply make up an ad hoc explanation to fit the flawed theory.

Einstein was a great guy, but he wasn’t the smartest. Even Einstein himself knew that:

“To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein.

As was discussed before, these are four baby quasars being “shot out” or ejected from their parent galaxy (center). The high red-shift of the quasars is indicative of their “youth”, not distance. So there is no need for gravity to bend light to create an illusion. There is no illusion here. It’s all real.

Consensus Cosmology is in the habit of taking illusions and making them real, and taking real and making them illusions so that the Big Bang Frankenstein monster may live on.

If this cosmic plasma existed, could you propose a way we could observe it? What would we have to look for.

I still cannot see how this disproves the Big Bang.

It disproves the Big Bang by demonstrating that high red-shift objects are indeed in very close proximity to lower red-shift objects, contrary to Big Bang theory.

This contradicts the idea on which the Big Bang theory is based. This is why the observations are being considered “anomalous” in Big Bang cosmology. The observations are real, but they do not fit the Big Bang model, they contradict the model, and actually falsified the model, so Big Bang cosmologists simply overlook them, or deny them so that the Big Bang monster may live on.

In Consensus Cosmology, the term “anomalous” usually mean “Yes, the observation contradicts the theory, but we reject the observation in favor of the theory”.

This is done despite the fact that the observation can be scientifically explained by others, but not by Big Bang cosmologists.

Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[5] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[6][7][8]

Another example of denial.

De Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.

This explains why objects of two different redshifts are seen to be connected. One is the baby quasar (higher redshift), and the other is the parent galaxy (lower redshift). The baby quasar was "shot out" or ejected from the core of the parent galaxy.

I have no problem with that.

But Consensus Cosmology does.

In Consensus Cosmology, the baby quasar has no right being next to its lower red-shift parent, far less connected. That’s against Big Bang beliefs because it contradicts the peer-review bible.

If the observations do not fit the belief, reject the observations in favor of the belief, it would seem.

And they call me a Creationist.

So you believe it is the electrostatic force that holds galaxies together? If so, what predictions could you make as to what we would find if this were true?

"Electrostatic force" does not hold galaxies together. So it does not predict anything.

"Electromagnetic force" holds the galaxies together.

The “solar wind” is a current flow. Stars produce current flows. And they themselves are electrically powered externally, as is evidenced by the observation of the corona being millions of degrees hotter that the surface, and the surface being hotter than the even deeper sunspots that are closest to the core --- top down heat.

If the sun’s heat was generated from a nuclear fusion core, then the temperatures generated should be the reverse of what I just explained --- bottom up heat.

The universe is electrically active. There are currents flowing out there, and electromagnetic fields are the result. You cannot have a sustained magnetic field in space unless there be a sustained current flow.

Follow the field and you will find the flow. There is nothing 'static' here.

Arp's hypothesis that quasars are local and contain large intrinsic redshifts has never gained any significant support in the astronomy research community. Arp's work is based on a limited number of specific quasar-galaxy associations. Most astronomers believe these associations are simply the result of chance and point to the hundreds of thousands of quasars documented in more recent redshift surveys. These surveys show quasars to be distributed randomly over the sky, rather than associated with radio galaxies[citation needed]. Furthermore, there is now a detailed model of quasars as the ultraluminous cores of active galactic nuclei, effectively the centers of Seyfert galaxies. This model is consistent with the results of more sensitive observations which have been able to resolve host galaxies around quasars with the same redshift as the quasar. The consistency of the standard quasar model with the assumption that all quasars are at cosmological distances leads most astronomers to apply an Ockham's razor conclusion that intrinsic redshifts do not exist.

Wiki is not a reliable source for refuting Arp’s work, or any work for that matter - “Citation needed”.

So what evidence would we find of this?

It is found in the lab work done by Plasma Physicists and Electrical Engineers that produce results which resembles and confirms that which we observe in space.



The question also is, what evidence would we find of dark matter and dark energy apart from hypothetical assumptions?

When is the lab work done? Where is it being done? Has it ever been done?

So electromagnetism causes galaxies to appear to have more gravity than the really have?

NO.

You seem hooked on gravity just like the Consensus.

It is the electromagnetic force that does the work that Big Bang proponents claim gravity is doing.

From a galactic point of view, gravity is so minuscule to compare to the electromagnetism that it is not even noticeable. We notice it from down here, but not from way up there.

Is it electromagnetism that keeps us on the earth?

Yes, through gravity --- Electric gravity.

Is it electromagnetism that causes gravitational lensing?

No, Einstein’s mathemagic causes that.

 

[3sigma]

Prove that physical empirical proof is the only way to know the truth about reality. You do have objective evidence for that belief don't you?

I told you I don’t believe empirical proof is the only way we can know the truth about reality. Why do you keep saying I hold that belief? There may be non-empirical, sound, objective evidence out there that can be used to verify the existence of something, but I can’t think of any at the moment. Again, can you show me any? I would be interested to learn of it.

You just hold different beliefs that don't have any evidence.

Such as? What beliefs do I hold that don’t have any evidence supporting them? If you can show me a belief I hold that even has no sound, objective evidence supporting it then I will relinquish that belief promptly. You claim religious believers and I are alike in our beliefs, so would you do the same? Would you relinquish a belief for which there is zero sound, objective evidence? It seems not. It appears religious believers’ emotions override their reason when acquiring and maintaining their beliefs so attempting to reason with them is a waste of time.

I think your God, Satan, angels, heaven and hell are purely imaginary. Many religious believers think they will have eternal life. I do not. I think that is a fanciful hope driven by a fear of death.

Where's your Prove it.

I’m guessing you tried to write, “Where’s your proof” or “Prove it”, but somehow mangled them together.

When I say I think those things are imaginary or a fanciful hope, it means I don’t believe they exist because there is zero sound, objective evidence to show they do. As proof, I present zero sound, objective evidence of their existence. Can you show me I am wrong not to believe they exist by presenting some sound, objective evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt they do exist?

Uhh, but didn't you just say that you'd accept non-empirical evidence?

No, I said I’d accept, non-empirical, sound, objective evidence. Why do you keep omitting those two words? Are you eager or willing to accept unsound, subjective evidence that your God is real? I guess you are.

I keep asking you to show me non-empirical evidence that is sound, objective evidence, but you keep evading that request. Personal testimony is not objective and is unlikely to be free from error, fallacy or misapprehension as well.

Shall we shut down the justice system while we're at it?

First, I see you are continuing to evade my request for examples of non-empirical, sound, objective evidence. Well, can you show me any?

Second, the justice system, while imperfect, is the most effective method we have at the moment for removing criminals from society so to abolish it would be foolish. However, personal testimony is often unreliable. People make unwarranted assumptions, they interpret events, they make mistakes and they lie. You just can’t trust what some people tell you. The majority of wrongful convictions we know of occur when the justice system relies too heavily on personal testimony. It was objective evidence that eventually overturned those wrongful convictions.

Q: Really? So you don’t believe that your God created man in its image;
A: Yes
Q: you think the Bible is wrong about that?
A: No

Your answers are ambiguous and appear contradictory. You seem to be saying you don’t believe your God created man in its image, yet you don’t think the Bible is wrong in saying it did. Which is it? I’m guessing you are trying to say you do believe your God created man in its image and you don’t believe the Bible was wrong about that. If so then it would appear you are, in effect, a creationist.

I do, but as I said, that wouldn't be a scientific would it, since that's what the OP is actually talking about.

The answer “God did it” isn’t just not a scientific explanation; it isn’t an explanation at all. It is an admission of ignorance. As I said way back on page 4, saying “Goddidit” is a condensed way of saying, “I don’t know how it happened, but I’m uncomfortable with not knowing so I’m going to assume an explanation that reinforces my comforting religious beliefs and I’m unwilling or unable to investigate the matter any further.”

 

[Nostromo]

Prove that physical empirical proof is the only way to know the truth about reality.

Proving that there are no other ways to know about reality is to prove a universal negative which is impossible. What needs to be done in that case is to refute the universal negative by providing evidence of an alternative, i.e. giving evidence that there is another way to know the truth about reality.

I think your God, Satan, angels, heaven and hell are purely imaginary.

Where's your Prove it.

You are the one claiming that such things are true, the burden of proof is on you. If there is no tangible evidence for something it's perfectly reasonable to assume it isn't true until proven otherwise.

It is found in the lab work done by Plasma Physicists and Electrical Engineers that produce results which resembles and confirms that which we observe in space.

Holy s**t, the lab work done by Plasma Physicists and Electrical Engineers produces results which resemble and confirm spiderwebs are caused by the Z-pinch machine.

 

[Doveaman]

Holy s**t, the lab work done by Plasma Physicists and Electrical Engineers produces results which resemble and confirm spiderwebs are caused by the Z-pinch machine.

Nature is always found to be the best explanation, not dark, invisible, undetected stuff. - Occam's Razor.

 

[Nostromo]

You mean like when Tesla burned himself with the previously invisible undetected X-rays?

Things are invisible and undetected until they're detected.

 

[Doveaman]

You mean like when Tesla burned himself with the previously invisible undetected X-rays?

Has this dark, invisible, undetected stuff ever burn anyone?

Things are invisible and undetected until they're detected.

Then inform me when you've detected something. Last time I checked they were still digging.

 

[SkyWriting]

...Mutations have given us people whose muscles don't atrophy, who are born with both sets of genitalia, the mentally retarded and the super intelligent, people with blue skin, drug resistant bacteria, two headed snakes, four legged ducks and so on. How can you say with any conviction that such a thing is impossible?

I don't say mutations are impossible.
For one, your correct argument is that we are nothing without mutations. That all we are and all abilities and functions that we currently have is die to mutations.
To which I respond, incorrect. All we are is a finished product. Planned to be just what we currently are. All the mutations you mentioned usually lead to death or are part of a disease process. Except for the "super intelligent" idea from Flowers for Algernon.He dies at the end of the book. You'll need to set me strait about what mutations keep our muscles from atrophy. I don't know that one.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't say mutations are impossible.

I don't either.

We may have mutations, compliments of the Fall, but we aren't mutations, per se.

I find the idea that, in the beginning, we started out as heterotrophs, then went through about 50 quadrillion copying-errors and came out mutants made in the image of God, anathema.

 

[Ellinas]

I don't either.

We may have mutations, compliments of the Fall, but we aren't mutations, per se.

I find the idea that, in the beginning, we started out as heterotrophs, then went through about 50 quadrillion copying-errors and came out mutants made in the image of God, anathema.

I find your ideas ludicrous but I still read them and occasionally admire your subtle humour. You seem to be a decent fellow and what I find to be anathema are the people who will stoop to nothing in order to enforce their beliefs on others.

Now as for ToE goes; you may need to do more reading and it may, just may help you understand it more and perhaps you may come to accept that "All things wise and wonderfull, all creatures great or small".

 

[EnemyPartyII]

1. 1976, The Viking Mars landers detect chemical signatures indicative of life
2. 1977, The unexplained extraterrestrial "Wow!" signal is detected by an Ohio State University radio telescope
3. 1996, Martian "fossils" are discovered in meteorite ALH80041 from Antarctica
4. 2001, A more rigorous estimate of the "Drake equation" suggests that our galaxy may contain hundreds of thousands of life-bearing planets
5. 2001, The red tinge of Jupiter's moon Europa proposed to be due to frozen bits of bacteria, which also helps explain the mysterious infrared signal it gives off
6. 2002, Russian scientists argue that a mysterious radiation-proof microbe may have evolved on Mars
7. 2002, Chemical hints of life are found in old data from Venus probes and landers. Could microbes exist in Venusian clouds?
8. 2003, Sulphur traces on Jupiter's moon Europa may be the waste products of underground bacterial colonies
9. 2004, Methane in the Martian atmosphere hints at microbial metabolism
10. 2004, A mysterious radio signal is received by the SETI project on three occasions - from the same region of space

Top 10: Controversial pieces of evidence for extraterrestrial life - space - 04 September 2006 - New Scientist
​

10 is more than "nada.zip.zilch."

Aw come on, this was a great post!

 

[Nostromo]

I don't say mutations are impossible.

That wasn't what I meant. With the vast range of novel mutations that occur, how can you say that mutation X is or isn't possible?