What evidence do those supposedly knowledgeable people have to present?
Science is based on repeatable observations that anyone can verify with the proper equipment and training.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is also immature and silly to act as if your ignorance of God is just as good as the knowledge of people who spent a lifetime on that field.
Actually, you are supporting my previous claim -- A lot of the scientific claims made in these forums are based on trust/faith in the words of men, just as our religious claims are based on trust/faith in the words of God.
Science is based on repeatable observations that anyone can verify with the proper equipment and training.
Christianity is based on repeatable observations that anyone can verify with the proper equipment and training.Science is based on repeatable observations that anyone can verify with the proper equipment and training.
What evidence do those supposedly knowledgeable people have to present?
Science is based on repeatable observations that anyone can verify with the proper equipment and training.
Everything we already know had to be interpreted in order to arrive at a conclusion. That is how the human mind works.
The Big Bang is still an open question for many scientists:
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
And yet, somehow, some interpretations are seen as more valid than others, to the point where we can trust these interpretations enough to lock people up based on them. This is anti-scientific sophistry at best.
This letter is fairly typical of letters that deny a broadly-accepted scientific theory, in that it is written and signed by cranks and full of errors. Martymer81, a physics professor, notes numerous significant errors therein, and Sean Carroll did a more comprehensive job of shredding both the letter and its signatories. Such open letters, petitions, and the like are commonly the tools of "mavericks" who have attempted and failed to promote their own theories in the scientific literature. Calling "conspiracy" is a whole lot easier than actually presenting convincing evidence for your hypothesis, particularly when your hypothesis is bunk and you're awful at physics or science in general (as the signatories of this letter clearly are).
Until those same people are later found to be innocent and released based on a new interpretation of the evidence or based on the interpretation of new evidence.And yet, somehow, some interpretations are seen as more valid than others, to the point where we can trust these interpretations enough to lock people up based on them.
Sorry, zardak, but any one who can count can see that statement is false.The universe is only 6000 years old.
Why persist with a fantasy that inelastic scattering can produce cosmological redshift when you do not cite the scientific literature where scientists state that inelastic scattering can produce cosmological redshift, Michael?Why just Compton scattering?
So let us make that statement a lie, Michael:No you won't:
Why persist with a fantasy that inelastic scattering can produce cosmological redshift when you do not cite the scientific literature where scientists state that inelastic scattering can produce cosmological redshift, Michael?
So let us make that statement a lie, Michael:
Which has nothing to so with actual science, Doveaman - basically a joke about a person's knowledge of the subject.Einstein once said you don't really know what you are talking about until you can explain it to your grandmother.
These points make the statement that I will not look at the flaws in Lerner et al papera lie, Michael:..rant that has nothing to do with what I posted...
This letter is fairly typical of letters that deny a broadly-accepted scientific theory, in that it is written and signed by cranks and full of errors.
Really? How about acoustic peaks in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background?
While the observations on small and intermediate angular scales agree extremely well with the model predictions, the fluctuations detected on large angular scales on the sky – between 90 and six degrees – are about 10 per cent weaker than the best fit of the standard model to Planck data. At angular scales larger than six degrees, there is one data point that falls well outside the range of allowed models. These anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background pattern might challenge the very foundations of cosmology, suggesting that some aspects of the standard model of cosmology may need a rethink.
And the polarization signal, and its spectrum?
And the baryon density as deduced from light-element abundances agreeing with that deduced from the CMB?
The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
Hubble's Law.
CMB existence.
- CMB temperature.
CMB perfect black body spectrum alone shows that the universe used to be in a hot dense state.
CMB power spectrum.
While the observations on small and intermediate angular scales agree extremely well with the model predictions, the fluctuations detected on large angular scales on the sky – between 90 and six degrees – are about 10 per cent weaker than the best fit of the standard model to Planck data. At angular scales larger than six degrees, there is one data point that falls well outside the range of allowed models. These anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background pattern might challenge the very foundations of cosmology, suggesting that some aspects of the standard model of cosmology may need a rethink.
- Lyman-alpha forest (increasing neutral H with distance shows galaxies did not always exist).
- Tolman surface brightness test (ignoring the obscure Lerner paper
).
The lack of any detection of infinitely or even > 13.8 billion year old objects is more evidence against an eternal, static universe than for an expanding universe.
Sean Carroll said:Actually, there is a field of physics in which energy is not conserved: it’s called general relativity. In an expanding universe, as we have known for many decades, the total energy is not conserved.
These points make the statement that I will not look at the flaws in Lerner et al papera lie, Michael:
Your complaints aren't "flaws" RC, they are your own personal opinion about which *third party* materials that you personally *want them* to have included. That's not an error RC, that's your own problem. That's not a valid scientific objection! Go ahead and cite yourself all you like, but that's not an actual scientific flaw RC, it's your own pet peeve!
Who cares what *someone else* did RC? Do you understand the concept of a real scientific debate and what a real scientific error might be?
Psst: You're supposed to be *specific* in your objection and pick out the *specific* paragraph, the sentence and/or the math formula where the error occurred. Get it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?