Method for accepting science

[Nabobalis]

Why do you accept or reject this or that scientific theory?

To answer this point directly. Personally, I think that the people who work in these fields that I have no knowledge or little knowledge are trying just as hard as the people that work in my "field" are. They are trying the best they can with the equipment,funding and data that they have at the moment. As such, a general consensus on a topic is generally the default position I will go to.

 

[Michael]

To answer this point directly. Personally, I think that the people who work in these fields that I have no knowledge or little knowledge are trying just as hard as the people that work in my "field" are. They are trying the best they can with the equipment,funding and data that they have at the moment. As such, a general consensus on a topic is generally the default position I will go to.

Except on the topic of God, in which case your attitude seems to be 'experts be damned' and consensus be damned.

 

[RickG]

Did you mean "dissent"?

Oops! Yes, spelling corrected. Thanks.

 

[Nabobalis]

Actually the complaints and ideas about the CERN results started almost instantly. So far I haven't heard a peep out of the mainstream on ANY of the last four observations that falsified mainstream ideas about mass estimation techniques that have occurred over the past 4 years. Unlike particle physicists, astronomers pretty much outright ignore the falsifications of their theory in my experience.

It isn't news. That CERN result sparked the imagination of the public and many news outlets. The idea of a lack of dark matter in the local area is not so glamorous. If you take your news of progress in a field from the news, you'll miss alot. Coupled with the sheer number of particle physicists working in such a centralized area and field.

The models are just hopelessly flawed.

They might be, but still the best we have.

But that's the problem. The data all demonstrates (there have been one a year for four years running) that the mainstream STINKS when it comes to estimating the amount of mass in a galaxy. PERIOD. There have been NO changes to their models during the past four years, and I suspect they won't change much in their models as a result of this falsification either.

I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

Exactly what doesn't "work" about it?

Menu

One and two

It's fascinating to me how folks like you and Paradoxum can put SO MUCH FAITH in 'scientific' ideas that have actually been falsified IMO, yet treat the topic of God in a completely different way than you would treat any other topic. The fact of the matter is that the "experts" (the ones that study the topic of God religiously) on the topic of God all claim God exists, just as the "experts" of astronomy all claim "dark matter" exists. None of those astronomer experts can A) tell you where it comes from, or B) hand you some in a bottle. Why believe in 'dark matter" only because it's some kind of "consensus" position, yet reject God even though most humans accept the idea?

That seems rather hard to rationalize IMO.

Well, none of the scientific ideas have been falsified yet. The "experts" that work in astronomy have independent data showing both that the universe is accelerating and that there appears to be missing matter in galaxies.

While the evidence for god that comes from these god experts are based on personal experience, they claim different gods with differing views on what god wants in life. None of the evidence is independently verifiable and is not repeatable. Unlike using a telescope to measure the effects of dark matter or dark energy.

 

[Nabobalis]

Except on the topic of God, in which case your attitude seems to be 'experts be damned' and consensus be damned.

Well scientific topics have verifiable and independent evidence. Unlike the "evidence" (which there isn't any of) of god from these experts that don't agree on the same god, the same metaphysical principles nor how god wants humans to behave.

 

[Michael]

It isn't news. That CERN result sparked the imagination of the public and many news outlets. The idea of a lack of dark matter in the local area is not so glamorous.

You're right on both points. Still, I'm not talking about the PUBLIC reaction to the news, I'm talking about whether the mainstream has enough INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY to acknowledge that there is a major problem as we have observed for the last 4 years running. So far, NOTHING, not even a single percentage point budge from 4%. Nothing.

If you take your news of progress in a field from the news, you'll miss alot. Coupled with the sheer number of particle physicists working in such a centralized area and field.

The problem is that the "simplest" brands of SUSY theory have all but been eliminated in LHC experiments. Since there's no EVIDENCE that any exotic forms of matter exist, why point at the sky and claim "my invisible matter of choice" did it?

They might be, but still the best we have.

They are and they're not. Anthony Perratt did a series of galaxy simulations and recreations using standard plasma physics and electrical current.

Plasma cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMO PC theory is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the "dark" ages of mainstream theory today.

One and two

As seems to be typical of all mainstream references, not once is the work that I cited even mentioned, nor the solutions to those issues even been ACKNOWLEDGED as having been offered! Every single one of the objections to tired light theory that are listed on those two references is addressed by the work I just handed you.

arXiv.org Search

Not once is his work even noted on Wiki? What's up with that?

Well, none of the scientific ideas have been falsified yet. The "experts" that work in astronomy have independent data showing both that the universe is accelerating and that there appears to be missing matter in galaxies.

No. They have CODEPENDENT ideas and data that show that their original ideas don't match the data. Instead of changing the ideas to better match the data, they added METHAPHYSICAL gap filler!

While the evidence for god that comes from these god experts are based on personal experience, they claim different gods with differing views on what god wants in life.

Most religions teach love, peace, tolerance, etc. They often have more in common in terms of dogma than they are different.

None of the evidence is independently verifiable and is not repeatable.

Well, that is definitely false. I have been able to independently verify and repeat much of what Jesus suggested that I would be able to do, including experience the Holy Spirit within. They fact you haven't doesn't mean it's NEVER been done.

Unlike using a telescope to measure the effects of dark matter or dark energy.

What you have is a bunch of codependent good old boys that have TERRIBLE theoretical models of the universe. They REFUSE to accept the fact that their models stink, or think about changing them. They REFUSE to seriously consider alternatives involving plasma physics. Instead, whenever there is a falsification of their mass estimation techniques or alternatives to the redshift interpretation, they simply REFUSE TO EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THEM!

 

[Michael]

Well scientific topics have verifiable and independent evidence. Unlike the "evidence" (which there isn't any of) of god from these experts that don't agree on the same god, the same metaphysical principles nor how god wants humans to behave.

Do you even have any idea how many 'new and improved' brands of "inflation" have been created since Guth's original brand was CREATED IN GUTH's head and later falsified?

 

[RickG]

Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

Dark matter FAILED a very important prediction recently. Did you notice?

Wow! Huffington Post and a few references to space.com. Enough said.

 

[Davian]

Actually there are some observations that refute the existence of "dark matter" and there are none that actually support it:

Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

Your quoted article contradicts your claim of there being "none that actually support it", and explains why the idea of 'dark matter' was first proposed.

Any observation of 'missing mass' is simply a demonstration of the utter uselessness of present galaxy mass estimation techniques. As a matter of fact, those techniques and assumptions have been shown to be wrong over and over and over again:

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Monster Black Holes Are Most Massive Ever Discovered | Supermassive Black Holes | Biggest Black Holes in the Universe | Space.com

If so, then they adjust their theories and hypothesis as required.

Well, I would personally argue that everything that you see is an observation of God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

An unfalsifiable hypothesis is of little value.

Every self appointed priest and pastor I've met would say yes.

But what about the "experts" on the topic of God that study the topic scientifically?

They don't support it either.

So why do you keep using them as objections?

Just add up the numbers and look at the statistics.

That does not address my question: How would one begin an attempt to reach a scientific consensus on "God"? I would have you propose a testable definition of "God".

 

[Nabobalis]

Do you even have any idea how many 'new and improved' brands of "inflation" have been created since Guth's original brand was CREATED IN GUTH's head and later falsified?

All theoretical in nature and never stated to be true. You seem to assume that anything published is taken to be true and actually happening/happened.

 

[Jazer]

Cool story, bro.

This, in no way, answers the question I asked:If all one has to do to get "all the answers" is have a relationship with god, why then don't all the ones claiming this very relationship have all the answers?

I said God has all the answers. Getting the answers from God is not always easy. Moses use to go up to the mountain top and fast for 40 days. It is a process, we enter the world and we do not know anything. So we have to learn everything. We grow and we mature and continue to increase in wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

 

[Nabobalis]

You're right on both points. Still, I'm not talking about the PUBLIC reaction to the news, I'm talking about whether the mainstream has enough INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY to acknowledge that there is a major problem as we have observed for the last 4 years running. So far, NOTHING, not even a single percentage point budge from 4%. Nothing.

But you are talking about the public reaction. The public reaction to the news was large and physicists were asked to comment about it. You don't have the same reaction to this news and therefore the media hasn't gone wrong and asked as many astronomers as they can.

I'm sure the news was heard loud and clear in the astronomy departments.

The problem is that the "simplest" brands of SUSY theory have all but been eliminated in LHC experiments. Since there's no EVIDENCE that any exotic forms of matter exist, why point at the sky and claim "my invisible matter of choice" did it?

It doesn't have to be exotic, the matter has to be dark. Several SUSY theories predict the mass of the Higgs boson, when/if it is found we shall see. But to expect SUSY to be confirmed/falsified when the LHC is not at full power nor has taken enough data to show the Higgs boson is premature.

They are and they're not. Anthony Perratt did a series of galaxy simulations and recreations using standard plasma physics and electrical current.

Plasma cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMO PC theory is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the "dark" ages of mainstream theory today.

Read the last paragraph of that article.

As seems to be typical of all mainstream references, not once is the work that I cited even mentioned, nor the solutions to those issues even been ACKNOWLEDGED as having been offered! Every single one of the objections to tired light theory that are listed on those two references is addressed by the work I just handed you.

arXiv.org Search

Not once is his work even noted on Wiki? What's up with that?

None of it published (i.e peer reviewed for consistency).

No. They have CODEPENDENT ideas and data that show that their original ideas don't match the data. Instead of changing the ideas to better match the data, they added METHAPHYSICAL gap filler!

The data came first and the the ideas. Simple ideas that either gravity is wrong or there is "missing" matter. Nothing metaphysical about it.

Most religions teach love, peace, tolerance, etc. They often have more in common in terms of dogma than they are different.

Hardly, most regions have a terrible history when it comes to peace, love and tolerance. Even now, denying gay people the right to get married is not what I'd call love nor tolerance.

Well, that is definitely false. I have been able to independently verify and repeat much of what Jesus suggested that I would be able to do, including experience the Holy Spirit within. They fact you haven't doesn't mean it's NEVER been done.

That is the point, it is dependent on you. It is a personal experience. That can't be verified by me. Let alone that you have experienced the holy spirit, it could be another spirit, many even the devil.

What you have is a bunch of codependent good old boys that have TERRIBLE theoretical models of the universe. They REFUSE to accept the fact that their models stink, or think about changing them. They REFUSE to seriously consider alternatives involving plasma physics. Instead, whenever there is a falsification of their mass estimation techniques or alternatives to the redshift interpretation, they simply REFUSE TO EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THEM!

That is your interpretation from the outside. I doubt very much that it is even like that in actual astronomy/cosmology groups around the world.

 

[Paradoxum]

They simply "agreed" to it. When did "inflation" ever show up in a lab?

As with dark matter, I think inflation is the most likely thing that happened, but I will change my mind if it is disproven. I'm sure Stars don't fit in labs either, but we have knowledge of them.

They technically only have about 4% of it "figured out" by the way.

I knew that they were saying it was some small number like that.

That was helpful. Thanks. Would you say the same thing about the topic of God? In other words are you "more or less agnostic", yet "lean towards" God as the 'most likely theory' we have so far to explain how we got here? If not, why not.

If you had asked me that half a year ago I might have said yes. It seems I have almost lost the fight to keep my faith though. Not nearly as dramatic as I once imagined it might happen. I do wish there was a God. What caused the Big Bang... I don't know.

FYI, from my 'skeptical' perspective, the negative results is just another example of the uselessness of mainstream theory at actually 'predicting' future results. We "should have" found a lot of "dark matter". We didn't. Our models are "messed up". We need to fix them.

IMO the term "dark matter' is simply "gap filler" to save an otherwise falsified theory related to galaxy mass estimation techniques.

You say this as if scientists think dark matter has been proven just as much as relativity. I would be surprised if that was the case. I don't find it strange at all that we know nothing about the thing we know nothing about (dark matter).

They're as stubborn as any theist on the planet when it comes to clinging to their metaphysical dogma in the face of falsifying evidence to the contrary.

I'm still not sure why you think you are the position to assess such a thing. I mean, whether any particular theory is legitimate or not.

What could disprove "dark matter" or God for that matter?

Nothing can really disprove God. I don't know what could disprove dark matter. Philosophy, rather than science, has been my reading for the last few years, so my science knowledge has dropped off a bit.

Some theories like tired light theories have been ASSUMED to be wrong without any evidence to support that claim.

Well according to the all wise Wikipedia there are reasons for rejecting tired light theory.

It's simply one human "interpretation" of the redshift and galaxy rotation observations. There are other theories like tired light theories that require no faith in UNSEEN (in the lab) sky entities of any sort.

Menu

From the standpoint of empirical physics, what exactly "looks better' about BB Theory?

To answer this properly I would need to understand both properly. I don't so I can't.

I just showed you one valid scientific falsification of the PREDICTIONS made by standard theory. If that doesn't give you reason to think it's "wrong", what might?

Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC

There are two more recent falsifications of mainstream theory when it comes them "accurately" predicting the amount of ordinary mass in a galaxy. The notion that the mainstream simply UNDERESTIMATED the amount of ordinary mass in a galaxy is consistent with those last findings too.

Well it seems they got it wrong, found new evidence and so changed their theory, to which I say, isn't that interesting and that's great. When they change their views I change theirs. I see no need to try to get ahead of them and probably be wrong anyway.

How much evidence to the contrary will it take for you to give up your faith in BB theory as the 'best' alternative?

Show me that the consensus is something different or prove to me that my method for accepting science is wrong. The problem is that if you try to bring evidence the Big Bang I am more likely to be skeptical of you or the source than the theory.

FYI, I spent almost 9 years of my youth as a self professed atheist. I understand the "unconvinced' aspect of your dilemma quite well.

Perhaps one day I will return. I'm not sure how likely that is though.

In SOME instances, I would agree with you, particularly TANGIBLE PRODUCT producing branches of science. Big pictures sciences, particularly astronomy however are still groping around in the 'dark' ages at the moment IMO.

I see little reason to only accept the former just because it is easy to see.

In terms of pure science, God either exists or not. There is a "correct" scientific answer. Theology is ultimately "irrelevant" in terms of addressing that answer "scientifically".

You don't think God can be proven scientifically do you?

Really?

Hezekiah's Tunnel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I haven't been there and would only know what it was if a historian told me and I accepted it.

My attitude as a parent was typically if they don't NEED it, they don't take it. They've both survived into adulthood just fine, but school required some vaccines. One acne drug that I would NOT let my kids take was later pulled from the market due to damage it caused in the digestive system. It's been a good rule.

Perhaps that is good, perhaps not. Individual cases aren't good evidence. Acne isn't exactly cancer of course.

Every book has that potential. Is a book on astronomy today any more 'trustworthy" somehow in your mind?

Yes, because I have reason to trust the scientific method.

One doesn't need to be a "genius", nor be particularly well educated to have a relationship with God and experience of God. Most people who believe in BB theory are totally ignorant of the basics too frankly.

That's probably all true. I don't disagree.

I just demonstrated to you that it doesn't always work out so "wonderfully".

It doesn't always, but we do have modern technology.

What is the "scientific method" in your opinion, and how does that lead us to "inflation"?

I don't know how it gets us to inflation. Its hardly a pressing matter. I am more concerned about things that affect peoples lives. The vaccination question is legitimate and when science comes in contact with morality.

Really? They didn't even know of 'dark energy" until 20 years or so ago when they "made it up".

Things have to be made up at some point. Time was constant through the universe until silly Einstein came along.

I appreciate your explanation of your opinions. They've helped me to better understand your position, not that I agree with it mind you.

I've always been a big fan of "science". In fact I would say that it was "science" that finally eliminated any sense of "strong" atheism and brought me back to theism eventually.

I would ask how, but our posts are already growing massively long.

Science however is filled with "flawed humans" that suffer from some of the same "group think" pitfalls of any group.

But mainstream theories of today used to be unpopular, but managed to pull through. If you are right then you will be proven right and accepted.

I trust a LOT of people, starting with Jesus based on the effect his teachings have had on my life over the past 50+ years. I trust the folks that designed and built my computer and my car. I trust my wife. I trust people who've earned my respect and my trust. I don't trust ALL areas of science or all religious dogma to provide me with "truth", but for the most part I trust scientists just like you. I don't have a one size fit's all approach to whom I trust, but the common denominator seems to be that my trust is typically EARNED.

I meant more to do with science

You keep coming up with all alternative theories, and I wonder why you feel them to be more trustworthy.

 

[Michael]

But you are talking about the public reaction. The public reaction to the news was large and physicists were asked to comment about it. You don't have the same reaction to this news and therefore the media hasn't gone wrong and asked as many astronomers as they can.

I'm sure the news was heard loud and clear in the astronomy departments.

Every astronomy oriented website discussion I've seen on the topic ends with Nereid or one the other henchmen/women slamming the individual critical to the "exotic" DM solution, blaming the individuals "lack of education" as the problem, etc. It's the same old tired "protect the dogma at all cost" nonsense I've seen time and time again over the past 7 years. Not one single percentage point change in "dark matter". They literally can't find or agree they've found even 1 more percent of the mass/energy of the universe in 7 whole years!

It doesn't have to be exotic, the matter has to be dark.

Even that is actually a "bogus" requirement. It simply has to be "dark" to our present galaxy estimation models, or in other words, it's time to throw out our galaxy mass estimation models that are clearly FLAWED BEYOND REPAIR!

Several SUSY theories predict the mass of the Higgs boson, when/if it is found we shall see. But to expect SUSY to be confirmed/falsified when the LHC is not at full power nor has taken enough data to show the Higgs boson is premature.

Oh, but I don't expect that. I'm quite sure that the "dark SUSY matter of the gaps" arguments will continue.

Read the last paragraph of that article.

What was your point?

None of it published (i.e peer reviewed for consistency).

You mean none of it will ever see the light of publishing day because the mainstream would NEVER publish work that explicitly refutes their claims about tired light concepts, and promotes a static universe in any way.

The data came first and the the ideas. Simple ideas that either gravity is wrong or there is "missing" matter. Nothing metaphysical about it.

Of course there is. There's that whole claim about it NOT being "normal/baryonic" matter, and that CLAIM that it's METAPHYSICAL (never been seen on Earth) in nature! They literally claim that it's NOT normal matter! It's now an "exotic matter of the gaps" argument.

Hardly, most regions have a terrible history when it comes to peace, love and tolerance. Even now, denying gay people the right to get married is not what I'd call love nor tolerance.

Do you have any idea how many times I've been "virtually executed" at a mainstream astronomy website? Astronomers have no love of their enemies, nor any tolerance for dissent, I assure you. Bad Astronomy even puts on real live witch hunts where the heretic is actually put on public trial and burned and the virtual stake! [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], talk about DARK AGE MENTALITY!

That is the point, it is dependent on you. It is a personal experience. That can't be verified by me. Let alone that you have experienced the holy spirit, it could be another spirit, many even the devil.

Actually, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would testify on his behalf and it does in my experience. That's one way you could verify it from a reliable source if you wanted to, not that you want to mind you.

It's evidently a "personal experience" (involving math) that allows an astronomer to claim that "the dark matter sky entity of the gaps did it" and there's no way to recreate their claim UNLESS I start with EVERY SINGLE ASSUMPTION that they do.

That is your interpretation from the outside. I doubt very much that it is even like that in actual astronomy/cosmology groups around the world.

Go take a look at the recent discussion on that lack of of "dark matter" over at BAUT on their "mainstream" forum. You'll find the ever vigilant Nereid CHASTISING PEOPLE for their "doubt" of the party line dogma. Nothing new. Same old tired "protect the dogma at all cost" mentality.

Like I said, this is just the MOST RECENT falsification of mainstream galaxy mass estimation models in the last four years, and in all that time not a single percentage of normal baryonic matter has been "accounted for" in all that time. It's just more of the same denial based nonsense IMO.

 

[Michael]

As with dark matter, I think inflation is the most likely thing that happened, but I will change my mind if it is disproven.

I find it so quaint that you're so "trusting" when it comes to handwaves from astronomers about dark sky entities and (now dead) inflation genies created by one man's overactive imagination, yet you're "unsure" about God. Wow. Talk about blind faith. I"m not sure my personal "faith" in science or religion was ever that "strong and pure".

I hope you realize that Alan Guth started the "inflation" religion by himself, without any scientific precedent whatsoever. His dead sky god is forever beyond the scope of "empirical physics" because it's A) now dead and gone by design, and B) Guth's original inflation theory was in fact falsified.

The problem is that the inflation DOGMA, outlives any falsification process. It's now taken on a metaphysical life of it's own with more than a dozen "new and improved" metaphysical brands to choose from to fit ANY observation.

The term "dark matter" is actually mainstream lingo/code for "yes we know our models don't match observation, so "dark sky god did it". Their models are flawed and they are simply too arrogant and too proud to fix them.

I'm sure Stars don't fit in labs either, but we have knowledge of them.

We don't have much "knowledge" about them, just "theories" about them that change over time.

I knew that they were saying it was some small number like that.

It's quite "pitiful" IMO. I hesitate to even call it a real "theory" actually since it only actually "explains" 4% of the universe. How is that even a "good" theory?

If you had asked me that half a year ago I might have said yes. It seems I have almost lost the fight to keep my faith though.

It sounds to me like you put you "faith" in some misconceptions, much like you're doing with inflation right now.

Not nearly as dramatic as I once imagined it might happen.

For me at least the journey from "Bad dogma theist" to "atheist" was gradual but steady, as was the conversion from atheism back to theism, and eventually to a form of "Christianity" that was quite unlike the one I was handed by my church. It was more of a "slow but steady learning process" at each step along the journey, at least for me.

I do wish there was a God.

You happen to be in luck.

What caused the Big Bang... I don't know.

I was hoping by now you might actually realize that it's possible that no "bang" ever occurred at all, but alas you're not quite an "agnostic" on that topic I see.

You say this as if scientists think dark matter has been proven just as much as relativity.

That is because they constantly attempt to use a kludged and butchered version of GR to support their claims. The version of GR that they use today is the version that Einstein referred to as his 'greatest blunder', and he didn't do the stuff they do with it.

I would be surprised if that was the case. I don't find it strange at all that we know nothing about the thing we know nothing about (dark matter).

But you expect all humans to agree on the topic of God?

I'm still not sure why you think you are the position to assess such a thing. I mean, whether any particular theory is legitimate or not.

I was 9 when we landed men on the moon, and astronomy has been my passion since then. I've got more than 30 years of efforts under my belt and I've spent the last 7 years debating astronomers in cyberspace over these issues. I know the ins and out of the issues and the personalities in cyberspace as well.

Nothing can really disprove God. I don't know what could disprove dark matter.

Ah, but if it's not falsifiable is it actually a form of "science"?

Philosophy, rather than science, has been my reading for the last few years, so my science knowledge has dropped off a bit.

Dark matter is mostly a philosophical argument based upon the premise that their models are all "correct and perfect" and without blemish. If you don't buy their dogma about how wonderful their galaxy mass estimation techniques work, the dark matter argument falls COMPLETELY apart.

Inflation was definitely a "philosophical" argument since it's A) never existed since humans have existed even if Guth was right, a B) Guth had no scientific precedent for even dreaming up the idea in the first place.

Dark energy is certainly a philosophical argument because like all the other dark/invisible stuff of mainstream theory, it fails miserably to show up in any lab on Earth.

You're actually doing fine by studying philosophy. It applies to lots of topics.

Well according to the all wise Wikipedia there are reasons for rejecting tired light theory.

Ya, but all of those "reasons" were addressed by those papers I cited.

To answer this properly I would need to understand both properly. I don't so I can't.

That isn't really unusual. What is unusual is that in one case you go AGAINST the consensus (not a theist), whereas in the other case you "assume the masses are right". There is no "scientific method" that demonstrates that "dark energy" is anything other than an Epic sized example of metaphysical gap filler designed specifically to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

I'm going to have to break my response up into a few posts so I'll stop here for the time being.

 

[Michael]

Well it seems they got it wrong, found new evidence and so changed their theory, to which I say, isn't that interesting and that's great.

Unfortunately it's not that simple and your rosy view of how science operates is a bit naive. The problem with your "isn't science so wonderful because it changes" concept is that it never actually CHANGED based on new data, and they never fixed any of the problems in their mass estimation techniques!

WMAP- Content of the Universe

WMAP determined that the universe is flat, from which it follows that the mean energy density in the universe is equal to the critical density (within a 1% margin of error). This is equivalent to a mass density of 9.9 x 10-30 g/cm3, which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter. Of this total density, we now know the breakdown to be:

• 4.6% Atoms. More than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory! The actual density of atoms is equivalent to roughly 1 proton per 4 cubic meters.
• 23% Cold Dark Matter. Dark matter is likely to be composed of one or more species of sub-atomic particles that interact very weakly with ordinary matter. Particle physicists have many plausible candidates for the dark matter, and new particle accelerator experiments are likely to bring new insight in the coming years.
• 72% Dark Energy.

FYI, those numbers have been relatively static since "dark energy" was kludged into the theory about 20 years ago. Not one single observation since that time has made a single dent in the "Dark matter of the gaps" dogma I'm afraid. Even though they now KNOW that they grossly underestimate the number of small stars in a galaxy and grossly underestimated the amount of mass in large stars too, they haven't budged even one single percent from 4.6 percent normal matter since the dark energy debacle of the 90's.

When they change their views I change theirs.

Birkeland lived and DIED waiting for the mainstream to figure out aurora even AFTER he built working models. It took the mainstream another 50 years to figure out he was right. I'll be dead before the mainstream changes their views.

I see no need to try to get ahead of them and probably be wrong anyway.

But you do see getting ahead of Jesus somehow?

Show me that the consensus is something different or prove to me that my method for accepting science is wrong. The problem is that if you try to bring evidence the Big Bang I am more likely to be skeptical of you or the source than the theory.

I think you just proved my point. Your faith in "science" is "absolute", whereas your faith in experts related to the topic of God, such as Jesus is non existent. I really don't see any empirical difference between "dark energy" and magic in terms of how they show up in the lab. What makes an astronomer "credible" when they claim "dark energy did it", and what makes Jesus less credible than your average astronomer in your book?

Perhaps one day I will return. I'm not sure how likely that is though.

I wouldn't have guessed any of the major changes in my life too far in advance, so good luck with guessing the future.

You don't think God can be proven scientifically do you?

Actually, just the opposite:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

I believe that God is empirically physical, very real, very tangible, and very capable of being "proven" scientifically. Nothing is actually "proven" by science however, only evidence can be presented to support or refute an idea.

I haven't been there and would only know what it was if a historian told me and I accepted it.

True, but you could physically go there if you wanted to and physically touch those walls, etc. You can't touch "dark matter" or "dark energy".

Perhaps that is good, perhaps not. Individual cases aren't good evidence. Acne isn't exactly cancer of course.

I'd tend to treat a cancer. Acne not so much.

Yes, because I have reason to trust the scientific method.

Actually you don't even apply the "method" as you call it correctly, or at least not PERSONALLY. You just ASSUME that others apply some "special method" that gets you personally closer to truth, when in fact they are all humans, prone to human error, just like you and me.

It doesn't always, but we do have modern technology.

Unfortunately that modern technology tends to erode current mainstream scientific theories about our universe, not that the mainstream is paying attention to such falsifications.

I don't know how it gets us to inflation. Its hardly a pressing matter. I am more concerned about things that affect peoples lives. The vaccination question is legitimate and when science comes in contact with morality.

Okey Dokey.

Things have to be made up at some point. Time was constant through the universe until silly Einstein came along.

I can personally experience gravity, and even 'test" the time aspects of his ideas. I can't even find any astronomer on the planet that can tell me where to get a gram of dark matter to play with in a lab.

But mainstream theories of today used to be unpopular, but managed to pull through. If you are right then you will be proven right and accepted.

Theories do change over time, and I do believe that PC/EU theory will in fact "pull through" as you put it.

You keep coming up with all alternative theories, and I wonder why you feel them to be more trustworthy.

I've studied the "mainstream" theories. They are literally only 4.6 percent physics, and the rest is "black magic" in terms of empirical physics. Plasma physics is just plain empirical physics. It's not mucked up with creation dogma, or "sky entities" that have no empirical effect on Earth. It's a "clean" brand of physics without the metaphysical dogma package that comes with mainstream belief. That's the attraction from my perspective.

 

[Radagast]

I wouldn't say that it is true because many people believe it, but I do think it is reasonable to accept the findings of those that follow the scientific method.

Unless you have reasonable confidence that they did follow the scientific method, isn't that just blind faith?

 

[Radagast]

I did not say religion gives us all the answers. I said God gives us all the answers. We need to have a relationship with God. This means we need to be born again and become a new creation in Christ. We put off the old and put on the new.

All very true. But "born again" people who want to know about electrons are still going to need to do science.

 

[Michael]

Unless you have reasonable confidence that they did follow the scientific method, isn't that just blind faith?

I think you managed to hit the actual nail on the head, whereas I've been hitting all around it.

 

[Nabobalis]

Unless you have reasonable confidence that they did follow the scientific method, isn't that just blind faith?

Very rarely do they not follow the scientific method. All fields have to follow it, some maybe more than others. But if we took that view to everything, you'd never go to a doctor or a dentist.