god created man

[lucaspa]

You haven’t seen it, you haven’t touch it, you haven’t experiment with it in a lab, you haven’t detected it in any form or fashion. What you observe are effects (rotation curves and redshift) but you have not establish an empirical link between those effects and your dark, metaphysical brands of matter and energy.

By detecting its effects, you have detected "it" in a form or fashion. This is the same as detecting atoms by changes changes in pressures of a gas as you change the volume and temperature.

"Dark matter" is the name given to the matter necessary to account for the motion of galaxies. "Dark energy" is the name given to the energy necessary to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe. They are not more specific than that.

Now, if you get to more specific hypotheses about either -- such as exotic neutrinos -- then you may complain about the lack of "empirical link". But not as it stands.

You cannot just claim that something did it without showing what did it or how it did it. This is nothing more than goddidit with new names.

1. "goddidit" always comes, however, with a claim about how God did it. That claim is always that God manufactured the item in its present form.

2. Dark matter is claimed to exert its effect by gravity. So that one has a "how".

3. Science often makes claims without showing a "what" or a "how". For instance, in 1962 Marshall Urist published a paper showing that implantation of demineralized bone matrix into the skeletal muscle of rabbits caused the formation of new bone at the site. No claim about "how". That still has some mysterious details. No claim about "what" other than the DBM. But that is no more informative than "dark matter" or "dark energy", is it? Was it a component of the DBM, the shape of the DBM? Something else.

Sorry, Doveman, science has always worked the way you now try to claim it can't.

But if you cannot empirically verify how he did it then it’s not science, it is faith.

First, the idea of "verification" went away with Positivism.
Second, we don't have to have a mechanism right now. Of course, in dark matter we do have a mechanism.

Goddidit was doing quite well for centuries until scientists came along and changed it to dark-matter/energydidit even though the results are the same.

There is a hidden mechanism there, isn't there? If there is not a hidden mechanism, then dark matter and dark energy are STILL "goddidit". The assumption you have is that anything in science means that God could not have done it. How do you make that assumption?

How do you even know it is gravity? You are just building one assumption upon another.

Because the motion can be explained by the presence of a mass working by standard gravity.

The fact that you cannot detect enough mass to produce the amounts of gravity needed should cause you to question your assumptions.

Why? Are there other reasons we don't detect the mass besides that it is not there? How do we detect mass at that distance? Well, 3 ways:
1. Motion of nearby objects. That's how we detect planets around distant stars.
2. Light emitted by the object. That is stars. Notice we can't detect those planets by light. Those planets are also "dark matter".
3. Occluding light emitted by objects behind the mass. This is how we detect the dust and gas in the Horsehead Nebula.

So, if the mass doesn't shine by its own light and doesn't block light emitted by other objects, then we can't detect it directly. All we have is the effect on nearby objects by gravity. Now, Michael in his thread has posted a recent article that more light from stars is blocked by dust and gas than previously thought. This may be part of the dark matter.

And we may indeed have some of the dark matter in a bank: dust.

 

[Naraoia]

We just like to see a clear distinction between science and the gods. Is that unreasonable?

Only if it self-contradictorily manifests in trying to insert gods into science.

 

[Hespera]

Only if it self-contradictorily manifests in trying to insert gods into science.

agreed

 

[Doveaman]

Only if it self-contradictorily manifests in trying to insert gods into science.

agreed

 

[lucaspa]

Only if it self-contradictorily manifests in trying to insert gods into science.

Now you are arbitrarily making a rule of what science can and can't consider. That's a violation of science.

"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation." Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126

The problem is not "inserting gods into science" itself, but how that is done. If it is done such that the proposal doesn't solve any problems and/or falsification of the proposals is denied, then that is not allowed.

Notice here that God was sneaked into science by the backdoor. God was not tested directly, but rather a material mechanism used by God was proposed -- the Flood -- and then the material mechanism was tested. Flood Geology was falsified, not God.

 

[lucaspa]

We just like to see a clear distinction between science and the gods. Is that unreasonable?

What you are doing is warping science to exclude theories you don't like. You do that by trying to equate the theory with "gods".

Michael doesn't like inflation, so he tries to alter science to exclude anything that can't be done in a lab.

You don't like dark energy and dark matter, so you are trying to alter science to exclude anything that doesn't have a clear mechanism.

This is unreasonable: change science arbitrarily to exclude ideas you don't like. And yes, people who arbitrarily say "science can't consider God" because they don't like belief in God are also trying to change science and being unreasonable.

 

[Hespera]

What you are doing is warping science to exclude theories you don't like. You do that by trying to equate the theory with "gods".

Michael doesn't like inflation, so he tries to alter science to exclude anything that can't be done in a lab.

You don't like dark energy and dark matter, so you are trying to alter science to exclude anything that doesn't have a clear mechanism.

This is unreasonable: change science arbitrarily to exclude ideas you don't like. And yes, people who arbitrarily say "science can't consider God" because they don't like belief in God are also trying to change science and being unreasonable.

What would be a way for science to consider god?

 

[lucaspa]

Goddidit was doing quite well for centuries until scientists came along and changed it to dark-matter/energydidit even though the results are the same.

This is what Christians are supposed to do. Christian belief is that God created a complete universe, not one where He had to fill in "gaps". If you think that God directly be responsible for the orbits of stars within a galaxy, or directly accelerating the expansion of spacetime, then you have a god that is a creature of the universe. This is unacceptable to Christians. There must be some material cause to act as a secondary cause of God.

Christianity says we must not use "goddidit" to fill in gaps. We must search for the material process.

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenoma in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe." Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

 

[Doveaman]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you give an example of how one would go about testing this?

If you cannot test it why should I believe it? Is it because scientists say so?

As I already said, more than a hundred years ago scientists were ignorant of nearly everything that had to do with dark matter/energy, do you think that scientific information is static over centuries?

Science is based on what is known to exist in nature. Dark matter/energy are not known. That there are unnatural forms of matter and energy not found in nature but is said to have an effect on nature relies on faith, not science.

They are more than just gap-fillers, they correlate incredibly well with observations and make predictions that pan out (a sign of a truly successful scientific theory/model). IOW, dark matter/energy (I know you're clumping them together, but they really are separate ideas and must be addressed separately) are testable and they've passed the test. That is called science, it's too bad you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the basics of science, it is a fascinating subject IMHO.

How can a failed prediction make a prediction? You predicted that rotation curves are caused by gravity. --> Failed. You predicted that the gravity is caused by dark matter. --> Failing. Show me the dark matter! Show me the mass responsible for this gravity!

What you are doing is just sprinkling a failed idea with mathemagic and creating a fictional model of the universe. You should take Einstein’s advice not to do that:

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” – Albert Einstein

Do you think that unless we can experiment on something in a lab it isn't science?

I think that unless you can establish and empirical link between cause and effect I have no reason to believe that the effect (rotation curves) is the result of your assumed cause (dark matter).

A little dark matter to experiment on in a lab will go a long way in helping to verify a cause. Since you have none and can find none I have no reason to believe in your assumed cause other than by faith.

Well no, scientists can tell that gravity is present through gravitational lensing (unless general relativity is also an unfounded assumption these days ), which is how (at least one way) scientists are able to map out the amount of gravity (as how objects are distorted is based on how strong the gravitational field is) and where when it comes to objects like the bullet cluster pic you've posted.

It seems like everything you observe in space in somehow associated with gravitydidit even though you cannot provide a single ounce of this dark matter stuff to verify that gravitydidit.

There is a lot of scientific support for the two, just because you are ignorant and/or don't want to know about it doesn't make it go away, it just cuts you off from reality.

What you have are effects without a verifiable cause. If your assumed cause has not been verified then it has nothing to do with reality. Just because you say it is so doesn’t make it so. You need to empirically verify it is so. That’s how science works.

I suppose gravitational lensing is also a scientific conspiracy to keep people like me in the dark, and that's why scientists teach these things in university.

There are other scientific explanations for what is assumed to be gravitational lensing.The universe is composed of more than 99% plasma and plasma distorts. Dust can also distort background light and even block it out completely, as seen here. Also, intrinsic redshift and tired-light redshift are alternatives to Doppler redshift.

And what plasma explains (and what MOND explains) is very limited to the point that it is actually a much worse explanation than dark matter.

This assumes dark matter is an explanation. It isn’t. It’s an ad-hoc gap-filler designed to fit where there is no explanation, but you guys like to act as if it's a real explanation.

Occam's razor states that when all things are equal we should go with the explanation that utilizes the least assumptions, however the explanations are no where near equal

But your "explanation" is only an ad-hoc gap-filler designed to fit where there is no explanation, therefore you have no real explanation. You are now trying to find an explanation deep underground.

therefore Occam's razor is incorrectly invoked here.

Your assumption is that an unnatural form of matter drives galaxies, an unnecessary assumption. You are assuming what is unnatural without fully exploring what is natural.

There is nothing unnatural about EM fields driving galaxies made of plasma. This has even been demonstrated on a smaller scale using simple electrical principles found in nature.

Any idea that can be demonstrated is far more convincing than an idea that is only assumed. Dark-matter is assumed but never demonstrated, therefore I have no reason to believe it exist other than faith that it does. Don’t just tell me you have money, show me the money.

 

[Doveaman]

By detecting its effects, you have detected "it" in a form or fashion. This is the same as detecting atoms by changes changes in pressures of a gas as you change the volume and temperature.

Dark matter is not the same as atoms, if it was you would have found it by now. Not a good analogy.

"Dark matter" is the name given to the matter necessary to account for the motion of galaxies.

Assuming gravity is the cause.

""Dark energy" is the name given to the energy necessary to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Assuming redshift is interpreted correctly.

"Dark matter is claimed to exert its effect by gravity. So that one has a "how".

Can you demonstrate the “how”, or do I have to take that on faith?

"3. Science often makes claims without showing a "what" or a "how". For instance, in 1962 Marshall Urist published a paper showing that implantation of demineralized bone matrix into the skeletal muscle of rabbits caused the formation of new bone at the site. No claim about "how". That still has some mysterious details. No claim about "what" other than the DBM. But that is no more informative than "dark matter" or "dark energy", is it? Was it a component of the DBM, the shape of the DBM? Something else.

Do you even have an ounce of dark matter to implement into anything or that anything can be implemented into to produce any kind of effect at all?

"Sorry, Doveman, science has always worked the way you now try to claim it can't.

That was another poor analogy. We know of bones and muscles. We can implement things into bones and muscles and get some kind of measurable result. But this dark matter stuff you speak of, what have you ever done with it?

"First, the idea of "verification" went away with Positivism.
Second, we don't have to have a mechanism right now. Of course, in dark matter we do have a mechanism.
There is a hidden mechanism there, isn't there? If there is not a hidden mechanism, then dark matter and dark energy are STILL "goddidit".

What hidden mechanism are you referring to?

"The assumption you have is that anything in science means that God could not have done it. How do you make that assumption?

That’s not my assumption. How do you make that assumption?

"Because the motion can be explained by the presence of a mass working by standard gravity.

An explanation is not facts. An explanation can just be speculation about the facts. You have no standard gravity unless you have standard mass. Show me the standard mass.

"Why? Are there other reasons we don't detect the mass besides that it is not there? How do we detect mass at that distance? Well, 3 ways:
1. Motion of nearby objects. That's how we detect planets around distant stars.

Planets exist. We live on one.

"2. Light emitted by the object. That is stars.

Stars exist. We rely on one.

"Notice we can't detect those planets by light. Those planets are also "dark matter".

If you get close enough to those planets you can detect them by light. You cannot even get close to dark matter to detect anything even though dark matter is supposed to be close to us.

"3. Occluding light emitted by objects behind the mass. This is how we detect the dust and gas in the Horsehead Nebula.

Dust and gas exist. We know that. But we know nothing of dark matter.

"So, if the mass doesn't shine by its own light and doesn't block light emitted by other objects, then we can't detect it directly.

All that you have described above can and do emit light as long as we are close enough, such as within our solar system, but this dark matter stuff does nothing at all, no matter how close you get. So all the above are just more bad analogies.

"All we have is the effect on nearby objects by gravity.

What gravity? Don’t you need mass to have gravity? Show me the mass, one single ounce.

"Now, Michael in his thread has posted a recent article that more light from stars is blocked by dust and gas than previously thought. This may be part of the dark matter.

You mean the stars and dust and gas that emit light if we get close enough to see it? How is that dark matter if dark matter does not emit light no matter how close you get?

And we may indeed have some of the dark matter in a bank: dust.

Actually, Michael’s articles falsify your claim of a universe that is 23% exotic matter since you grossly underestimated how much normal matter there is.

 

[Hespera]

Dark matter is not the same as atoms, if it was you would have found it by now. Not a good analogy.
Assuming gravity is the cause.
Assuming redshift is interpreted correctly.
Can you demonstrate the “how”, or do I have to take that on faith?
Do you even have an ounce of dark matter to implement into anything or that anything can be implemented into to produce any kind of effect at all?
That was another poor analogy. We know of bones and muscles. We can implement things into bones and muscles and get some kind of measurable result. But this dark matter stuff you speak of, what have you ever done with it?
What hidden mechanism are you referring to?
That’s not my assumption. How do you make that assumption?
An explanation is not facts. An explanation can just be speculation about the facts. You have no standard gravity unless you have standard mass. Show me the standard mass.
Planets exist. We live on one.
Stars exist. We rely on one.
If you get close enough to those planets you can detect them by light. You cannot even get close to dark matter to detect anything even though dark matter is supposed to be close to us.
Dust and gas exist. We know that. But we know nothing of dark matter.
All that you have described above can and do emit light as long as we are close enough, such as within our solar system, but this dark matter stuff does nothing at all, no matter how close you get. So all the above are just more bad analogies.
What gravity? Don’t you need mass to have gravity? Show me the mass, one single ounce.
You mean the stars and dust and gas that emit light if we get close enough to see it? How is that dark matter if dark matter does not emit light no matter how close you get?
Actually, Michael’s articles falsify your claim of a universe that is 23% exotic matter since you grossly underestimated how much normal matter there is.

honestly dove, cant you tell when you are totally outclassed?

 

[Doveaman]

This is what Christians are supposed to do. Christian belief is that God created a complete universe, not one where He had to fill in "gaps". If you think that God directly be responsible for the orbits of stars within a galaxy, or directly accelerating the expansion of spacetime, then you have a god that is a creature of the universe. This is unacceptable to Christians. There must be some material cause to act as a secondary cause of God.

So with what "material cause" does God act on you?

 

[Doveaman]

honestly dove, cant you tell when you are totally outclassed?

Yep.

 

[Upisoft]

Assuming gravity is the cause.

Indeed. Science is all about assumptions. Everything is an assumption. It is not news.

 

[Doveaman]

You don't like dark energy and dark matter, so you are trying to alter science to exclude anything that doesn't have a clear mechanism.

All I am doing is making sure that I'm not being brainwashed with nice sounding scientific talk.

Don't just tell me in nice sounding words that you have money, show me the money.

Show me the money, that's all I ask.

 

[Doveaman]

Indeed. Science is all about assumptions. Everything is an assumption. It is not news.

Okay. Then you are only an assumption. This is not news.

 

[Hespera]

Yep.

You are reporting a fact not in evidence.

 

[Upisoft]

Okay. Then you are only an assumption. This is not news.

Of course, I'm not in your head. Only the assumption of my existence is there.

 

[lucaspa]

Dark matter is not the same as atoms, if it was you would have found it by now. Not a good analogy.

The analogy is how we detect things: by their effects on other things.

And some of dark matter is atoms: gas and dust. It's just that astronomers don't think there is enough gas and dust to account for enough mass for the motion.

Assuming gravity is the cause.

You moved the goalposts. The initial claim was that no one had a mechanism. So I said that there was a proposed mechanism. Now you are wondering whether that is the correct mechanism.

Of course scientists are going to work with causes they know can potentially account for the phenomenon. If and when they have eliminated gravity, then they'll start looking for a different one.

This is very similar to the anomalous orbit of Uranus. Scientists could have started postulating all types of exotic causes, but first they looked at gravity because they knew gravity accounted for the orbital motion of other planets. Scientist postulated the existence of an as-yet-unobserved planet whose gravity was effecting Uranus. They then looked for the planet -- Neptune -- with telescopes. Notice that any candidate for dark matter also has to be detected independently.

Assuming redshift is interpreted correctly.

Numerous attempts have been made to explain redshift differently. All have been falsified. Unless and until you can provide data that redshift is not due to spatial expansion, we accept that it is.

However, the accelerated expansion is not based solely on redshift:
7. J Glanz, Exploding stars point to a universal repulsive force. Science 279:651-652, 30 Jan. 1998. New data indicates the cosmological constant is back.
7a. J Glanz, No backing off from the accelerating universe. Science 282: 1249-1250, Nov. 13, 1998. As the title says, 2 independent and competing groups continue to get data that agrees.

Can you demonstrate the “how”, or do I have to take that on faith?

The how of gravity? General Relativity did that.

Do you even have an ounce of dark matter to implement into anything or that anything can be implemented into to produce any kind of effect at all?

The last half of that sentence especially made no sense at all. I notice you are moving the goalposts again. The initial claim was that science must have all mechanisms in place. I showed that this claim was not valid. Now you changing the claim to ask if we have an ounce of dark matter. Since "dark matter" is simply matter that does not emit light, yes. Go out to your back yard and get a shovel full of dirt. That's dark matter. It does produce gravity because it has mass.

Remember what "dark matter" is: matter that does not shine by its own light. Earth is dark matter. "In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation"

That was another poor analogy. We know of bones and muscles.
But this dark matter stuff you speak of, what have you ever done with it?

It wasn't an analogy. It was a similarity and they are not supposed to be identical. The question is: what has it done? It's not what we did with the DBM, but rather what the DBM did inside the animal: induced the formation of new bone. Dark matter has " gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation". That's what it does.

What hidden mechanism are you referring to?

The hidden mechanism of "goddidit" is direct action by God.

That’s not my assumption.

Then why do you use "godidit" only if you think there is no scientific explanation?

An explanation is not facts. An explanation can just be speculation about the facts. You have no standard gravity unless you have standard mass. Show me the standard mass.

Not "speculation", inferrence. Are you speculating on a completely unknown force that is moving the stars? Why should we favor that speculation rather than the inferrence based upon similar situations where we have facts that mass causes motion due to gravity?

We have an extensive body of facts showing mass moving distant objects by gravity. So, we have the observation of objects moving like they are being affected by a mass, but can't see the mass. Now, what you want is for us not to infer an unseen mass (like we did with Uranus' orbit), but instead prefer a completely unwarranted speculation on a never-seen-before force. And you think dark matter is faith?

If you get close enough to those planets you can detect them by light. You cannot even get close to dark matter to detect anything even though dark matter is supposed to be close to us.

You can detect planets by reflected light because they are dense. You can't detect the solar wind by light even tho that is also very close to us, because it is diffuse. You need different instruments. So your argument breaks down.

Dust and gas exist. We know that. But we know nothing of dark matter.

We know that dust and gas qualify as dark matter. And some of the motion of the stars in galaxies can be accounted for by postulated amounts of dust and gas. Right now we infer that dark matter produces gravity, and therefore has mass. Nothing more is being claimed.

All that you have described above can and do emit light as long as we are close enough,

Planets reflect light, they don't emit it. And dust and gas do not even reflect light.

but this dark matter stuff does nothing at all, no matter how close you get.

How do you know dark matter does nothing at all? We are inferring dark matter from the motion of stars in galaxies millions of light years away. ALL of the candidates proposed for dark matter, even neutrinos, do something. Experiments are ongoing to detect what they do. So this statement is utterly false.

What gravity? Don’t you need mass to have gravity? Show me the mass, one single ounce.

The gravity inferred by the motion of the stars. Again, you want us to follow a speculation that has no prior basis?

You mean the stars and dust and gas that emit light if we get close enough to see it? How is that dark matter if dark matter does not emit light no matter how close you get?

You seem to have a weird definition of "dark matter". Also you think objects "emit light" when the reflect or absorb light. Now, some of the candidates proposed for dark matter, i.e. neutrinos, are never going to absorb, reflect, or emit light. They are simply too small for a photon to reflect from and they don't change energy levels to absorb or emit a photon. You do understand how light is reflected, absorbed, or emitted, don't you? Probably not.

Actually, Michael’s articles falsify your claim of a universe that is 23% exotic matter since you grossly underestimated how much normal matter there is.

"your" claim? It's not "my claim". It's the calculation based upon the facts. Call it "the" claim. Neither are they "Michael's articles". He didn't write them.

Yes, if that data holds up then the percentage of exotic matter is going to come down. Is this supposed to be a big deal?

 

[lucaspa]

All I am doing is making sure that I'm not being brainwashed with nice sounding scientific talk.

If there is any brainwashing, you seem to be brainwashing yourself by not listening to what is being said. You seem to be confusing some of the proposed candidates for dark matter with the concept of dark matter itself.

But I think it goes deeper than that. You said:
"Goddidit was doing quite well for centuries until scientists came along and changed it to dark-matter/energydidit even though the results are the same. In other words, what scientists are claiming is not new, they are just referring to it by other terms so as not to sound religious. But I’m not fooled."

Your concern seems to be that science is trying to remove God. But what you want -- preserve Goddidit by direct means -- is against the very God you are trying to defend.

Show me the money, that's all I ask.

No, you are asking for much more than that! Because when we show you the money, you reject it.