Does science actually admit "design"?

[Halbhh]

astronomers still try to sledgehammer gravity as the dominating force. Of course they require all that Fairie Dust to make their calculations pan out, they are using the wrong physics to start with.

You may be interested in:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-cosmic-magnetic-fields-astonishing.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-magnetic-bridge-nearest-galactic-neighbours.html#nRlv

A better picture of astronomers/astrophysicists than always trying to fit things in the wrong way is more like a variety of individuals/investigators groping in the dark, trying to discover more and knowing only limited information that is sure, not well understood often, but eagerly groping in the dark, eager to find and learn more. Plenty of bumbling, and not always understanding what we see, but gradually learning more in fits and starts, and with plenty of wrong hypotheses along with way. A kind of best-effort. Hindsight is always easy, but that groping forward in the dark less easy.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Stick around. Justatruthseeker is telling a stinking porky at saying that only people who support evolution (be they Christian or atheist) are guilty of goading. Last year there were some incredibly nasty individuals, of all stripes, who were incredibly rude and horrible on this forum.

Well, I love when a site cleans up ad-hominem attackers, that's for sure.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey, I've never turned anyone in for anything like that. EVER. But that warning I read when I first came here was just so odd, it really stuck. I've never seen it's equivalent anywhere in any forum, and I've been doing this now for over 20 years, but I'm hijacking this thread....

Most of the time its ignored, unless you get really carried away.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You may be interested in:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-cosmic-magnetic-fields-astonishing.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-magnetic-bridge-nearest-galactic-neighbours.html#nRlv

A better picture of astronomers than always trying to fit things in the wrong way is more like a variety of individuals/investigators groping in the dark, trying to discover more and knowing only limited information that is sure, not well understood often, but eagerly groping in the dark, eager to find and learn more. Plenty of bumbling, and not always understanding what we see, but gradually learning more in fits and starts, and with plenty of wrong hypotheses along with way. A kind of best-effort. Hindsight is always easy, but that groping forward in the dark less easy.

Yah, but anyone that understand science understands what causes magnetic fields. But in astronomy those magnetic fields are magical and need no electric forces.

Magnetic field - Wikipedia

"A magnetic field is a force field that is created by moving electric charges (electric currents) and magnetic dipoles, and exerts a force on other nearby moving charges and magnetic dipoles."

But they constantly think they can leave out the electro from electromagnetism and come up with the correct answers. Their magnetic fields are magic in astronomy, and bear no resemblance to reality.

So, if there is a magnetic field, then there is also a?????

They are missing half the force in their equations, and wonder why they need all that Fairie Dust.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, I love when a site cleans up ad-hominem attackers, that's for sure.

Indeed. Although some people do need to learn what an ad-hominem is (not directing this at your of course, just a general statement about some people who shall go unnamed on this website).

 

[Mr Darcy]

Yah, but anyone that understand science understands what causes magnetic fields. But in astronomy those magnetic fields are magical and need no electric forces.

Magnetic field - Wikipedia

"A magnetic field is a force field that is created by moving electric charges (electric currents) and magnetic dipoles, and exerts a force on other nearby moving charges and magnetic dipoles."

But they constantly think they can leave out the electro from electromagnetism and come up with the correct answers. Their magnetic fields are magic in astronomy, and bear no resemblance to reality.

So, if there is a magnetic field, then there is also a?????

They are missing half the force in their equations, and wonder why they need all that Fairie Dust.

I believe we are surrounded by electromagnetism in the same way fish are surrounded by water. If a star a light year away is visible, it means the "light" from the star exists in every single point between the star and your eye.

Space is stuffed full. It's not really empty at all.

 

[Halbhh]

Yah, but anyone that understand science understands what causes magnetic fields. But in astronomy those magnetic fields are magical and need no electric forces.

Magnetic field - Wikipedia

"A magnetic field is a force field that is created by moving electric charges (electric currents) and magnetic dipoles, and exerts a force on other nearby moving charges and magnetic dipoles."

But they constantly think they can leave out the electro from electromagnetism and come up with the correct answers. Their magnetic fields are magic in astronomy, and bear no resemblance to reality.

So, if there is a magnetic field, then there is also a?????

They are missing half the force in their equations, and wonder why they need all that Fairie Dust.

'Fairie Dust' suggests too much, imo. When we attribute motives to others, strangers, we almost always get it wrong. That's part of what Christ is telling you and me, us in Matthew 7:3-5, John 7:24 -- and this is just about judging actions (not mental attitudes even). We cannot go further and know what is in someone else's mind, their real motives. So, we have to remember not to ascribe motives to others.

If you only mean they have to include magnetic fields in their models of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and see what happens in their models when electromagnetism is included, I think this is a very good idea! I wonder if some might already be working on that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I believe we are surrounded by electromagnetism in the same way fish are surrounded by water. If a star a light year away is visible, it means the "light" from the star exists in every single point between the star and your eye.

Space is stuffed full. It's not really empty at all.

Of course it is, by charged particles as well. Charged particles dominated by electromagnetic forces, not gravitational. That's why they require so much Fairie Dust is because they ignore the electromagnetic forces and divorce the electro from the other half of the magnetic equation.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Indeed. Although some people do need to learn what an ad-hominem is (not directing this at your of course, just a general statement about some people who shall go unnamed on this website).

For me, If person A quotes an article from source "x", and person B's argument is that source "x" is stupid or weak, etc. It is textbook ad-hominem, with one exception: Source "x" is known to be a useless site for real information (e.g. a tabloid). And CNN, FOX, Wattsupwiththat, Skeptical Science, Heritage center, New York Post NYT, etc are not tabloids.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When we attribute motives to others, strangers, we almost always get it wrong!

That's part of what Christ is telling you and me, us in Matthew 7:3-5, John 7:24 -- and this is just about judging actions (not mental attitudes even). We cannot go further and know what is in someone else's mind, their real motives. So, we have to remember not to ascribe motives to others.

If you only mean they have to include magnetic fields in their models of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and see what happens in their models when electromagnetism is included, I think this is a very good idea! I wonder if some might already be working on that.

Without the electric force half, no amount of including magnetic fields will matter.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Of course it is, by charged particles as well. Charged particles dominated by electromagnetic forces, not gravitational. That's why they require so much Fairie Dust is because they ignore the electromagnetic forces and divorce the electro from the other half of the magnetic equation.

I also read an article about twenty years ago that really got my mind spinning because I first thought it was satire, but then found out it was surprisingly sound, and they were quite serious: The article was my first exposure to the theory that gravity PUSHES, rather than pulls.

Sounds stupid because it goes against everything I was taught in school. But that is not a valid criteria.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For me, If person A quotes an article from source "x", and person B's argument is that source "x" is stupid or weak, etc. It is textbook ad-hominem, with one exception: Source "x" is known to be a useless site for real information (e.g. a tabloid). And CNN, FOX, Wattsupwiththat, Skeptical Science, Heritage center, New York Post NYT, etc are not tabloids.

Actually an ad-hominem attack is one directed at the person making the post, not any sources, etc. Calling the person making the post stupid for example is a prime example of an ad-hominem attack. it is one directed at at the person making the post, while ignoring the subject of the post itself.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Now just saying the source is stupid, without providing backing, would be considered such since they are associated with the argument.

But a source that is considered valid may not really be valid. For hundreds of years Ptolemy was considered a valid scientific source, and used in many arguments back then to back their side.

Majority agreement is another fallacious argument.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For me, If person A quotes an article from source "x", and person B's argument is that source "x" is stupid or weak, etc. It is textbook ad-hominem, with one exception: Source "x" is known to be a useless site for real information (e.g. a tabloid). And CNN, FOX, Wattsupwiththat, Skeptical Science, Heritage center, New York Post NYT, etc are not tabloids.

That's not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem is when you attack THE PERSON. Attacking the source when it's not a site that gives real information isn't an ad-hominem.
Person A saying that Person B is stupid because they used source x is an ad-hominem.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What do we really understand? We dont even know what magnetic field or electric fields are. We just know how to calculate their effects on things. We dont really know what gravity is, and we surely dont understand the atomic structure yet or what things are really made of. But one day we will, and then all excuses will be removed. Romans 1:20

Uhu, uhu

 

[Mr Darcy]

Actually an ad-hominem attack is one directed at the person making the post, not any sources, etc. Calling the person making the post stupid for example is a prime example of an ad-hominem attack. it is one directed at at the person making the post, while ignoring the subject of the post itself.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

I agree that it doesn't apply to the article if some information in it is being used by the poster to make the argument, but if the article is making the argument as well, an attack on the article for reasons other than the content of the article is, in fact an ad hominem attack on the source of the article - the "man" who put it together. Though it is not an ad-hominem attack on the poster that linked to it.
The question becomes not whether or not it is ad-hominem, but who the ad-hominem attack is against.

 

[Halbhh]

Without the electric force half, no amount of including magnetic fields will matter.

Sure, if there is a significant gathered charge, that would matter a lot! Of course, usually a charge out there will also be in motion. It's a good idea to try to gauge and include electromagnetic forces in astrophysics just anytime and anywhere, and yes, many old ideas did not. But that's par for the course, groping in the dark. btw, did you notice that the order of magnitude for the Cepheid distances has not changed? Also, did you notice already that for instance we can observe the apparent angular width of the Andromeda Galaxy, for instance, and then compare that apparent width to other Galaxies with Cepheids and type 1A supernovae to get at least yet another fuzzy sort of order of magnitude confirmation? See, these distance estimates are not just one technique alone without any others, but the comparisons of different techniques against each other, to get verifications. Consider the unknown in Cepheids, at least within typical uncertainties like the normal +/- 30% (and more) often mentioned for such. Plus or minus 30% or 40% -- that's inside an order of magnitude. See the implication? These stars really are distances on the order of millions of light years away, such as inside Andromeda for example. So if you say how far away is Andromeda with total certainty? Then I'd answer "well, total certainty??? (which to me means 100% instead of 99%)...For that, I can only say clearly one heck of a lot further away than just 100,000 light years. I feel certain of that at least. And with reasonable (fuzzy) likelihood, it looks in various ways near to that rough order of magnitude like 2.5 million light years. Why??? The stepping stone starting with Parallax.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you didn't study it. You just quickly read it. That's not studying.

You mean I didn't probe it for it's evolutionary development. Actually anatomy books don't go into evolution very much. They mainly describe how the body works. The elegance of it all makes evolution unlikely, considering what must occur for it to happen at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean I didn't probe it for it's evolutionary development. Actually anatomy books don't go into evolution very much. They mainly describe how the body works. The elegance of it all makes evolution unlikely, considering what must occur for it to happen at all.

But you just read a book with an a priori assumption. That's not studying!

 

[Speedwell]

"Speedwell hates Jesus" is an insult, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because the logic is faulty and he hates Jesus" is a criticism followed by an insult, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because he hates Jesus" is an ad hominem.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you didn't study it. You just quickly read it. That's not studying.

A "quick study" gets it pretty quickly.