Galaxy Rotation Problem and YEC

[ActuallyThinking]

You mean Ultra Violet? They found it already.

I guess I should have expected a TD to sidestep the point I was making.

Like I said, read the threads, see what TEs actually believe about how God is active in his universe providing our daily bread and forming us in our mother's womb, look at you fellow creationists like Juvenison who cannot handle that concept, and think God only pops in for the occasional miracle and otherwise leaves the universe to get along by itself.

You believe that God gives you daily bread and forms you in your mother's womb? How? Hasn't science figured out how those things happen? Maybe you can explain to me in detail how the TDs here think God actually participates in reality.

 

[gluadys]

You believe that God gives you daily bread and forms you in your mother's womb? How? Hasn't science figured out how those things happen? Maybe you can explain to me in detail how the TDs here think God actually participates in reality.

Yes, science has figured out how those things happen. Does that make any difference to God's participating in these realities?

 

[Assyrian]

I'm confused. I never said galaxies were unstable, or even appear unstable.

You think they could not survive for millions of years, that if they were around that long they would have flown apart. That is unstable.

The scientists seem to be the ones saying that without modified gravitation or dark matter, they would have fallen apart by now.

Actually that is a Creationist argument and they assume there isn't anything holding the galaxies together.

In a few years of observance we would not be able to detect any sort of instability in them. This is all based on assumptions of the laws of physic + billions year old universe. Remove billions of years old universe and there suddenly isn't a problem. But the religious doctrine of an old universe demands science to ignore what it knows and make up completely unprovable theories.

You call it a religious doctrine but the age of the galaxies is what the evidence tells us. Proposing dark matter was not based on the age of the galaxies, it was based on their rotation. It sounds like you are hiding behind the very lack of evidence you accuse the scientists of. You assume the galaxies are unstable and flying apart, and that we haven't seen the evidence because we haven't observed them long enough. At least science is looking for the dark matter. In the mean time we live in a universe with multiple billions of galaxies all busy rotating away, with no hint of any instability except where we see collisions or black hole tearing them apart. Yet oddly, we see evidence for those kinds of changes, but none for galaxies flying apart.

Its no different from a God of the gaps argument. With the super colider, they are really hoping to find a graviton (I think thats what its called), but also admit that if they don't find it, they will still believe their string theories. Lack of evidence and ability to test is just as pervasive in main stream science as they claim it is in creationism.

Lack of evidence and the ability to test it is always going to be there at the edges of science where we are pushing our knowledge to its very limits. The problem creationists have is they are trying to argue against science that has already been well established and confirmed from multiple directions. All creationists can come up with in the face of established are argument based on lack of evidence.

It is the Higgs Boson they are looking for there. If they search through all the possible energies and don't find it, you will find scientists will stop thinking it might exist. Not sure why string theory should be abandoned if it does not exist, we have only just begun to track down the different particles and they are pretty difficult to find. String theory will be abandoned if a better explanation comes along for all the particles we know about as well as the one we will discover in the future.

The universe is our biggest lab for studying physics, it seems silly to spend money on particle accelerators but ignore evidence of possible exotic matter we see with our telescopes. What makes you think we won't be able to find important applications for new discoveries and understandings of the fundamental nature of matter and the universe? Hospitals are already using the anti matter version of electrons, positrons, in PET scanners. And we are just beginning to discover what matter is made of.

indeed. Science has made some amazing achievements for the medical world. At the same time, these experiments have no value apart from trying to detect something that has no relevance to our immediate world anyway. They exist to satisfy a theory that is relevant to celestial movement.

You say 'indeed', but what I said answers your point. You simply do not know what benefit new discoveries will have. Ignorance benefits no one.

 

[ActuallyThinking]

Yes, science has figured out how those things happen. Does that make any difference to God's participating in these realities?

How does He participate?

 

[Assyrian]

Do you think the insulting title TD helps you argument?

I guess I should have expected a TD to sidestep the point I was making.

It wasn't much of a point. Why do you think your invisible purple energy isn't getting funding while the search for dark matter does? Some evilutionist conspiracy? Or the fact the the search for dark matter has come out of detailed observations of the doppler shifts of opposite side of galactic discs, calculations of the rotation of each galaxy, the mass necessary to produce that rotation, highlighting a discrepancy with estimates of mass of the mass of visible stars, the mass of dust and hydrogen detected by absorption spectra, estimates of dust and hydrogen hidden from view and stars obscured by dust. On the other hand you just made your invisible purple energy up. Perhaps if you tried less hard to despise the science you do not understand and put more effort into understanding what science is about.

Meh. Ultra Violet was the appropriate answer.

You believe that God gives you daily bread and forms you i your mother's womb? How? Hasn't science figured out how those things happen? Maybe you can explain to me in detail how the TDs here think God actually participates in reality.

It should be no different from creationists, though as we have seen you never can tell. Do you see a contradiction between God forming you in the womb and what science tells you about human reproductive biology? Does the science of botany, agricultural technology, the food and retail industries mean you can't pray to God for your daily bread?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

You think they could not survive for millions of years, that if they were around that long they would have flown apart. That is unstable.

Its only unstable in an old universe model. If I don't eat, I am at risk of starving, but I don't constantly need to be eating to remain "stable". The galaxies can easily last thousands of years without blowing apart.

Actually that is a Creationist argument and they assume there isn't anything holding the galaxies together.

Dark matter was a result of scientists confusion as to how the galaxies were staying together. In the words of the scientists themselves, the galaxies should have fallen apart. Therefore, in order for the universe to be in the state its in now, AND be billions of years old, dark matter had to be made up. This is not a "creationist" argument at all. That is how dark matter came about in the minds of scientists.

You call it a religious doctrine but the age of the galaxies is what the evidence tells us. Proposing dark matter was not based on the age of the galaxies, it was based on their rotation. It sounds like you are hiding behind the very lack of evidence you accuse the scientists of. You assume the galaxies are unstable and flying apart, and that we haven't seen the evidence because we haven't observed them long enough. At least science is looking for the dark matter. In the mean time we live in a universe with multiple billions of galaxies all busy rotating away, with no hint of any instability except where we see collisions or black hole tearing them apart. Yet oddly, we see evidence for those kinds of changes, but none for galaxies flying apart.

Perhaps you shouldn't over read into what people say. I have no idea why you think I believe galaxies are flying apart. They should have flown apart under an old universe model, but under a young universe, there is no problem.

Maybe you should look into why scientists came up with dark matter.


Let me expand on the ball example I gave.

Pretend God created a new universe that was just a hill, a ball, and 2 people. When created, the ball is already halfway down the hill in motion toward the people standing at the bottom. God says to the people, "I created that ball halfway up the hill." but one of the people says, "Well if we apply the laws of physics to it, we can see that the ball actually came from the top of the hill. The speed it was going and the direction it was coming from indicates that it wasn't made halfway up the hill, but actually it came from the top of the hill. Sorry God."

Now the second person says, "Well wait a second. If we run tests on the ball, we see that it only has enough dirt on it to have come from halfway down. Since we know the rate the ball would pick up dirt, it can't have come from the top. God must have been right when he said he made it only halfway down."

First person replies, "There must be an invisible dark barrier that kept the ball from picking up dirt."

Lack of evidence and the ability to test it is always going to be there at the edges of science where we are pushing our knowledge to its very limits. The problem creationists have is they are trying to argue against science that has already been well established and confirmed from multiple directions. All creationists can come up with in the face of established are argument based on lack of evidence.

I think you just broke my irony meter.

It is the Higgs Boson they are looking for there. If they search through all the possible energies and don't find it, you will find scientists will stop thinking it might exist. Not sure why string theory should be abandoned if it does not exist, we have only just begun to track down the different particles and they are pretty difficult to find. String theory will be abandoned if a better explanation comes along for all the particles we know about as well as the one we will discover in the future.
.

So until a better theory comes along, we should all hold to these theories on faith. You believe the best explanation is convoluted, unfalsifiable hypothesis on dark matter and bouncing membranes. I believe the best explanation is God and what he has revealed to us in the scriptures. One of these sides is static, the other constantly changing because its never quite right.

 

[ActuallyThinking]

It wasn't much of a point. Why do you think your invisible purple energy isn't getting funding while the search for dark matter does? Some evilutionist conspiracy?

Not a conspiracy as much as a delusion.

It should be no different from creationists, though as we have seen you never can tell. Do you see a contradiction between God forming you in the womb and what science tells you about human reproductive biology? Does the science of botany, agricultural technology, the food and retail industries mean you can't pray to God for your daily bread?

In other words, you can't tell me how God participates in reality?

 

[Cute Tink]

.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

.

 

[Assyrian]

Not a conspiracy as much as a delusion.

A delusion because they only imagine there is a question about the mass of galaxies, or a delusion because they don't see the importance of your invisible purple energy?

In other words, you can't tell me how God participates in reality?

Of course not. I don't know how he performs miracles either. This is God we are talking about. The question is whether he does work through natural processes. I believe he does. That is how it has been understood throughout church history too. Which brings me back to my question for you, do you see a contradiction between what we know from science of human reproductive biology and God forming you in the womb?

 

[solarwave]

examples:

Without dark matter, galaxies would fall apart within one rotation, yet in thousands of years they wouldn't even get close to one rotation. There just isn't time for them to fall apart.

It was assumed under the big bang model, that matter further away would be slowing down in its expansion, yet its not; it is moving at the same speed. No problem if God simply made the universe as is with things in motion.

Are we looking for answers that don't exist in science? If we believe God made the universe, why couldn't it already have been in motion? If God created a ball that was already rolling down a hill, the scientific method would come to the conclusion that the ball came from the top of the hill, yet be confused as to why it didn't have enough "wear" on its surface, creating dark wear to solve the problem, when really, it was just made already in motion.

So because 'super intelligent' scientists currently don't know something it mean it wont ever be known? In the same way when Newtonian laws didn't apply to all things we just assumed God directly controled physics rather than having a man called Einstein come up with Relativity?

Science is always finding things which its current theories don't explain, and then it improves its theories using new data and understandings.

Also the universe DOES look old.... very very old, it is creations who are going against the evidence of age more than anyone else.

How does He participate?

God holds all things in existance at all times. I believe God can do miracles and can influence the world.

 

[Mallon]

Theistic darwinism science rules!!! We may believe in God, but we don't actually use Him to explain anything we observe.

I think the new term to use may be DD (Deistic Darwinist)

Evolutionary creationism isn't a science. It's a theology of a science.

(BTW, the only deism I see being espoused here is from YECs who can't fathom God working through natural processes, and who instead espouse god-of-the-gaps theology. All evolutionary creationists here have expressed their faith that God sustains all natural processes at all times. You seem to think that the only time God is at work is when He's performing miracles.)

 

[AnswersInHovind]

AnswersInHovind, perhaps you should look for answers in posts, as multiple times, Assyrian has answered your position that Dark Matter was merely made up for convenience.





Clearly your position, as stated in this topic, is based on a refusal to read and understand and nothing more.

If I presented you with a sealed box clearly made of thin cardboard and told you it was empty, but it had substantial weight, would the thought occur to you that there must be something in the box, or would you simply believe me because you cannot see what is in the box?

 

[gluadys]

How does He participate?

The same way He did before science figured it out and nobody questioned that God brought rain and kept planets in orbit and made seeds grow and babies develop.

Do you think God stopped doing these things just because scientists learned how to describe what is happening?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

The same way He did before science figured it out and nobody questioned that God brought rain and kept planets in orbit and made seeds grow and babies develop.

Do you think God stopped doing these things just because scientists learned how to describe what is happening?

I think the point she was trying to make is that the TE view seems to make God unecessary to explain anything that occurs in our world. If everything has a natural explanation, where is the supernatural? It turns into Anthony Flew's death by 1000 qualifications.

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revelatory article 'Gods'.[1] Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they, set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H.G. Wells's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not he seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

 

[iambeeman]

My understanding is (and it's been a while since I heard this) that dark matter is completely unnecessary if space itself is rotating, no fudge factors such as dark matter needed.

I'll try and find more info or a link as time allows, our baby is almost here so time is in short supply!

 

[Bushido216]

How does He participate?

How does God participate in the making of a cheese sandwich?

 

[shernren]

I think the point she was trying to make is that the TE view seems to make God unecessary to explain anything that occurs in our world. If everything has a natural explanation, where is the supernatural?

I don't see why the kind of supernaturalism that YEC/ID proposes would go very far in helping me have a Christian understanding of God. My post on another thread sums up my feelings perfectly:

=========

I've always wondered what it would be like to live in the ID world - in the world where genetic variants drop from heaven. Imagine if, starting from Christmas last year, every horse on earth gave birth to a baby unicorn instead of a normal horse foal. That would be very supernatural. It would be completely inexplicable to science. Evolution would immediately be discarded by all but the most ardent of biologists.

And Christians wouldn't be one bit more secure in their faith.

The example I gave isn't really so far-fetched. That, on some level, is what ID proponents have to believe. One day, after a mummy lobe-finned fish and a daddy lobe-finned fish had fish sex, God genetically-engineered their little lobe-finned fish eggs and took out the lobe-fin genes and put in land-leg genes and voila! the first amphibians. Evolution couldn't possibly have done such a thing, good Christian boys and girls, so only God could have done it, and you now have one more thing to thank God for as your daddy tucks you into bed tonight. (And lest the YECs laugh, the only real difference in the YEC version of the story is that the lobe-finned fish couple don't even get to have sex and the whole shebang is over in a few seconds instead of a few million years.)

Really? Is that an apologetic argument for Christianity? That lobe-finned fish magically gave birth to amphibians, or that a bacterium without a flagellum suddenly found itself swarmed by flagellated neighbors poofed into existence? I might as well believe that my faith in God and my confidence in the Bible would be strengthened if after Easter this year every piglet was born with little wings. Sure, it would be supernatural. It would also be utterly meaningless to me.

My faith in God is strengthened when I observe how the beauty of creation contrasts so powerfully with the depravity of the human heart. I see how no system of thought founded on human ideas can go very far without curving in on itself and becoming just a circular argument, without hope or chance of ever aspiring to absolute truth. I see how sometimes the saints' sufferings are swiftly avenged, and how at other times that same suffering, when prolonged, purifies their character to incredible godliness. And I see God working in the book of Esther through natural circumstances surrounding entirely natural people, giving me the hope that, though I am just as boring and natural as the next person, still God may use me in a way that will affect the shape of the world at its final judgment.

My God is a magnificent God who has woven the tapestries of history and biology, who has used subtle processes over billions of years to create a species which carries His image and is capable of considering itself. (What other species has sequenced its own genome?) Against that, am I really supposed to be impressed by the ID portrayal of God as a genetic magician who pulls irreducibly-complex structures out of a black hat and throws them onto the table of biology willy-nilly?

 

[Sophophile]

My faith in God is strengthened when I observe how the beauty of creation contrasts so powerfully with the depravity of the human heart. I see how no system of thought founded on human ideas can go very far without curving in on itself and becoming just a circular argument, without hope or chance of ever aspiring to absolute truth. I see how sometimes the saints' sufferings are swiftly avenged, and how at other times that same suffering, when prolonged, purifies their character to incredible godliness. And I see God working in the book of Esther through natural circumstances surrounding entirely natural people, giving me the hope that, though I am just as boring and natural as the next person, still God may use me in a way that will affect the shape of the world at its final judgment.

My God is a magnificent God who has woven the tapestries of history and biology, who has used subtle processes over billions of years to create a species which carries His image and is capable of considering itself. (What other species has sequenced its own genome?) Against that, am I really supposed to be impressed by the ID portrayal of God as a genetic magician who pulls irreducibly-complex structures out of a black hat and throws them onto the table of biology willy-nilly?

QFT

S.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't see why the kind of supernaturalism that YEC/ID proposes would go very far in helping me have a Christian understanding of God. My post on another thread sums up my feelings perfectly:

You should clearly separate two things: 1. God's creation of everything; 2. God's personal guidance to you (and everyone else).

God's "support" to all natural process is entirely different from God's creation. Just like the word says, one is to support, one is to create. You do not mix the two.