My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[The Righterzpen]

You do need to understand the spectral properties of the various molecules and dust particles. You could build a lab to measure them, or (and this is the shocking part), you could trust the integrity of those who took the water spectrum in the lab and published them. This kind of hyper-pseudo skepticism isn't really useful.

"spectral properties of various molecules and dust particles" aren't proven to be the same in space as they are on earth; thus even if they are accurately giving you the data; that doesn't automatically mean that it's applicable in space as what they see from earth observation of space.

And Fauci, Covid, GOF and all the shenanigans that went on from Covid is absolutely relevant to the integrity of the scientists. If that doesn't give you pause to now be skeptical of what they tell you; then you are simply operating out of a belief system and not the actual evidence in front of you.

Are there honest scientists? (Yeah, at least as honest as humans are capable of being; for alas; we all do operate out of personal biases, belief systems and other factors (such as university funding that drives these "scientific outcomes".)

 

[AV1611VET]

It’s a matter of having a better philosophy.

I'd say that's an understatement.

Anything was better to them than Hinduism.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Anything was better to them than Hinduism.

Not exactly…

 

[The Righterzpen]

I've been at work so other's have beaten me to it, but a theory, when used in science and with reference to science, is an explanation of the facts.

A theory is an explanation of a set of facts based on a hypothesis as to what the individual who came up with the theory thinks that set of data means. And different individuals have different views of what they think that data means. All theories are working with a degree of unknown factors. And the unknown factors is why they are called theories.

So yes, theories are opinions on what a specific set of data means.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not exactly…

Yes, exactly.

Do you know why the Bhagavad Gita was written?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A theory is an explanation of a set of facts based on a hypothesis as to what the individual who came up with the theory thinks that set of data means. And different individuals have different views of what they think that data means. All theories are working with a degree of unknown factors. And the unknown factors is why they are called theories.

So yes, theories are opinions on what a specific set of data means.

Except that they aren't opinions. You just saying they are does not mean that they are.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Yes, exactly.

Do you know why the Bhagavad Gita was written?

You seem to be a fool

 

[Hans Blaster]

"spectral properties of various molecules and dust particles" aren't proven to be the same in space as they are on earth; thus even if they are accurately giving you the data; that doesn't automatically mean that it's applicable in space as what they see from earth observation of space.

And based on what principles would the roto-vibrational spectrum of methane be different in an even lower density vacuum than the laboratory?

And Fauci, Covid, GOF and all the shenanigans that went on from Covid is absolutely relevant to the integrity of the scientists. If that doesn't give you pause to now be skeptical of what they tell you; then you are simply operating out of a belief system and not the actual evidence in front of you.

Not relevant to comets, spectra, or floods. If you neighbor is a cheat, are you one too?

Are there honest scientists? (Yeah, at least as honest as humans are capable of being; for alas; we all do operate out of personal
biases, belief systems and other factors (such as university funding that drives these "scientific outcomes".)

Oh brother, that old slander. I don't appreciate it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to be a fool.

No doubt.

Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

 

[JohnEmmett]

No doubt.

The Bhagavad Gita was written to express the truth

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bhagavad Gita was written to express the truth

No, it was written as a work of fiction to get the Hindus-turned-Buddhists to come back to the fold.

And for the most part, it worked.

 

[JohnEmmett]

No, it was written as a work of fiction

…

 

[The Righterzpen]

Except that they aren't opinions. You just saying they are does not mean that they are.

If it aint a proven fact; it's an opinion. Doesn't matter how many rain dance steps you do around that piece of information. They are called theories for a reason!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If it aint a proven fact; it's an opinion. Doesn't matter how many rain dance steps you do around that piece of information. They are called theories for a reason!

Except that they aren't called theories for no reason. You are conflating the colloquial laymens understanding of theory with the actual scientific definition of theory. This has been shown to you time and time again, and you just keep ignoring it.

The only assumption present on this thread is the idea that you know a single thing that you're talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible is a work of fiction

Then why isn't It sold in the fiction section of a bookstore; or housed in the fiction section of the library?

 

[The Righterzpen]

And based on what principles would the roto-vibrational spectrum of methane be different in an even lower density vacuum than the laboratory?

Based on the principal that there are factors in this equation that you don't know and have no way of knowing. Despite the fact that you don't want to admit that you don't know!

Not relevant to comets, spectra, or floods. If you neighbor is a cheat, are you one too?

If you are going off of data the cheating neighbor gave you; that doesn't automatically make the data more valid. Again, you don't know if the information they are telling you is accurate. And you don't want to admit that there are most likely factors in the equation that you can't account for.

Oh brother, that old slander. I don't appreciate it.

It aint slander when it's true. There clearly are institutions that fudge data on account of an agenda. That's what the whole Covid narrative was built around. I don't appreciate being lied to either! But at least I'm willing to admit that I know this happens. There are honest researchers out there; but there are also ones who fudge data to meet an agenda. And often times the fudged data is to meet the agenda of the people funding the research.

Look at cigarettes for example; who funded all the "health research" that said cigarettes didn't cause cancer? (The tobacco industry!)

Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Except that they aren't called theories for no reason. You are conflating the colloquial laymens understanding of theory with the actual scientific definition of theory. This has been shown to you time and time again, and you just keep ignoring it.

The only assumption present on this thread is the idea that you know a single thing that you're talking about.

No actually, the real issue here is that you don't want to admit that there's factors in the scientific equations that you can't account for. And the fact that they can't be accounted for is why they are called theories.

The fact that you don't want to admit this; doesn't constitute a failure in my assertion of the definition of a theory. You just don't have the intellectually honesty to admit fundamentally I'm correct. Theories are guesses based on incomplete information.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No actually, the real issue here is that you don't want to admit that there's factors in the scientific equations that you can't account for. And the fact that they can't be accounted for is why they are called theories.

The fact that you don't want to admit this; doesn't constitute a failure in my assertion of the definition of a theory. You just don't have the intellectually honesty to admit fundamentally I'm correct. Theories are guesses based on incomplete information.

Of course there's factors in scientific equations that can't be accounted for. Any scientist worth their salt knows that.

But things that can't be accounted for is not the same as the "Oh, scientists just make stuff up! All theories are assumptions!" drivel that you're spouting. You are not fundamentally correct, you're not even correct.

Theories are not guesses. Theories are observations and explanations of facts. This has been explained to you in such simple terms enough times that for you to not understand this shows that you're just willfully ignorant of science.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Of course there's factors in scientific equations that can't be accounted for. Any scientist worth their salt knows that.

But things that can't be accounted for is not the same as the "Oh, scientists just make stuff up! All theories are assumptions!" drivel that you're spouting. You are not fundamentally correct, you're not even correct.

Theories are not guesses. Theories are observations and explanations of facts. This has been explained to you in such simple terms enough times that for you to not understand this shows that you're just willfully ignorant of science.

Hey, I think we're getting somewhere? At least you admit there are factors in scientific equations that can't be accounted for! (That's progress!)

"Theories are observations and explanations of facts"....... Yes, observations and explanations of facts taking into account the acknowledgement that there's information we don't know! And this is why they are called theories; because of the acknowledgement that unknown factors exist.

So when there's information about the facts that is not known; the best one can say is that they are presenting an idea as to why they believe this set of data operates the way that it does. That is speculation.

Now some former speculations; given more data have proven to be correct. "Guesses" aren't automatically bad. To our current knowledge; the double helix of the structure of DNA is an accurate representation of how DNA is structured. That is "the big picture" that we can see. Although it's not the whole picture because there is a lot about DNA that we still don't understand.

Now here is where you apparently miss the point that I'm making. Some hypothesis (which are the foundation of theories) are quite well informed "guesses". Yet they are still guesses because they are incomplete formulations of why this person believes this set of data behaves the way it does. My AP biology teacher in high school explained a theory as "an educated guess".

And the fact that you "do not understand" what I've explained to you, in simple terms, several times now; shows that you are willfully ignorant of the fundamental definition of "theory".

 

[sjastro]

Based on the principal that there are factors in this equation that you don't know and have no way of knowing. Despite the fact that you don't want to admit that you don't know!

@Hans Blaster asked you about spectrum of methane.
A spectrum is a chemical fingerprint not an equation.

​

Here is an extreme example where I have used an amateur sized telescope and a diffraction grating to identify the hydrogen spectrum in a quasar around 2.5 billion years away,

​

The spectral lines have been redshifted due to expansion of the universe.
In this case one does use a formula λ₁ = λ₂/(1+0.158) to convert the hydrogen spectrum in the quasar's frame of reference λ₂ into the laboratory frame λ₁ using the measured redshift z = 0.158.
The calculated values for λ₁ correspond to measuring the spectrum of hydrogen in the laboratory.
This why we know the chemical composition of objects that are billions of light years away.