The edge of space

steveb

Joined Jul 3, 2008
2,436
I guess this paper siting astronomers and astrophysicist that were peer-reviewed won't count either? http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf
If you cite real astronomers and astrophysicists, then it will count. When the citation comes from real scientific journals peer reviewed by other real scientists, then it will count even more. When you cite creationist theorists (i.e. views based on a particular brand of religion), you only reveal your ignorance about what a proper scientific citation is. A search of Barry Setterfield on GoogleScholar reveals that he has never published anything in a real scientific journal. There is this Journal of Theoretics nonsense and then web sites that anyone can make.

Barry Setterfield is a creationist and has the view that the universe is only about 6 thousand years old. Hmmm, interesting that that age corresponds to the creationist timeframe as interpreted from the Bible. What were you saying about religion before?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

Below is a link to a criticism of his work, based on real science. This paper is not published in a peer reviewed journal, but if you can can post garbage science that is not properly reviewed, then I can post real scientific arguments that are not reviewed. The problem I have is that scientists are not going to debate nonsense in scientific journals because that is not what they are for. As I've said, most science forums won't debate it either. They just ban creationism since it is non-science, and really religion in a (poor) disguise.

http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/cdecay_e2d1.pdf

The Journal of Theoretics is not a scientific journal and it is not recognized by any real scientists as being anything more than propaganda.

Shortbus, as time goes on here, it is looking more and more like you are trying to debate religion. I can't help but wonder if you are you a creationist yourself? Creationists keep trying to mix their religion into science. Religion and science are like oil and water. Each has it's uses, but they don't mix together very well.

Sad that we even need to talk about this, but if the forum wants to allow the subject matter in, then we are forced to either defend science or quit the forum on principle. I choose the former.
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
7,936
Though the man that published the paper may not be up to your standards the papers sited should have been. He compiled it from real scientific journals,by real scientists, if you had read it, which its obvious that you didn't.

You guys win! I'm now putting on my Nikes and drinking the Koolaid. I concede to your "scientific" minds. Your total ability to dominate a conversation is only eclipsed by your closed mindedness.

The only thing that I was hoping to get out of this was that what you guys tout as the whole end all be all can also be something else. Using just one set of rules when there are other explanations known and even as of yet unknown can not explain everything. Just admitting that what is known now is the best guess of the workings of the universe, is too much for "real scientists" I guess.



And I'm NOT a creationist.
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,164
At the risk of repeating myself, the big bang theory explains a lot more than everything else, and tries not to pick and choose facts to use and ignore.

I did a little research, the flat earth society is based on religious beliefs. Explains a lot.

warning - to post in the physics forum, you must be a scientist or play one on the web!
I think it would be more correct to say you must be aware of science, or be willing to listen with an open mind to evidence you may not have heard before.

Corollary, Be prepared to back up your personal beliefs with evidence from credible sources. The internet is full of pseudo magazines that have other agenda's besides science.

We have had a lot of people in the time I've been here with a personal agenda and beliefs, masquerading as science. I am not referring to anyone in this discussion, but it has happened other times. What this means is you have to pick your sources carefully, there are a lot of snake oil and con men out there.

Think about the folks arguing perpetual motion, if you start from a faulty premise you can prove anything, but nature doesn't care. Scientists try to figure out the rules of our universe, while some people try to fool other people. It is important to tell the two apart.
 

steveb

Joined Jul 3, 2008
2,436
Though the man that published the paper may not be up to your standards the papers sited should have been. He compiled it from real scientific journals,by real scientists, if you had read it, which its obvious that you didn't.
You have no logical standpoint here. The man is not the issue, but the ideas are the issue. I did read the reference and can find no reasonable logic in the ideas, other than it is a poor attempt to make existing data match his own personal interpretation of what the bible says the age of the universe is. You seem to be saying that all a person has to do to prove his own ideas is to refer to good scientific papers. The fact that what he published has nothing to do with a sensible interpretation of those papers seems to escape you.

I'll suggest that maybe it is you that did not read the rebuttal references that I provided.

Your total ability to dominate a conversation is only eclipsed by your closed mindedness.
Common sense always dominates a conversation when the other side is illogic. When scientists reject religious arguments and illogical conclusions they are not being closed minded, but are trying to do science. Open-mindedness is needed for examining new potential theories that have not been proven or disproven yet, not to allow nonsense in to confuse the issues. We are all interested in and willing to discuss new and useful ideas that might lead to better theories, descriptions and explanations.

The only thing that I was hoping to get out of this was that what you guys tout as the whole end all be all can also be something else. Using just one set of rules when there are other explanations known and even as of yet unknown can not explain everything. Just admitting that what is known now is the best guess of the workings of the universe, is too much for "real scientists" I guess.
I don't know of any scientist that thinks our current theories have all the answers. In fact, it's just the opposite. We know there are so many unresolved issues and know that a new major revolution in physics is needed to go to the next level. If that's the point you are trying to make, then you are preaching to the choir, hence referencing creationist propaganda is unnecessary and counterproductive.


And I'm NOT a creationist.
OK, you are not a creationist. You only quote their propaganda to make your points. I'll make a note of that for the future
 
Last edited:

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
On the topic of creation, isn't the big bang theory bordering on creationism?

Like everything was there, in a point, then "bang" it all popped out and suddenly the universe was created? It's a practically identical leap of faith believing that an entity created the universe or that a "bang" created the universe. It leaves the same unanswered philosophical questions; What was there before the creation? Why did it happen then and not sooner or later? Why is everything moving away from US (like we are still the centre of God's universe)?

Not so long ago clever people believed "all the evidence" agreed with the creation theory. Now people are more sophisticated and have better evidence, and are adopting what is really just a different creation theory. I think man has a need to believe in a beginning...
 

steveb

Joined Jul 3, 2008
2,436
On the topic of creation, isn't the big bang theory bordering on creationism?

Like everything was there, in a point, then "bang" it all popped out and suddenly the universe was created? It's a practically identical leap of faith believing that an entity created the universe or that a "bang" created the universe. It leaves the same unanswered philosophical questions; What was there before the creation? Why did it happen then and not sooner or later? Why is everything moving away from US (like we are still the centre of God's universe)?

Not so long ago clever people believed "all the evidence" agreed with the creation theory. Now people are more sophisticated and have better evidence, and are adopting what is really just a different creation theory. I think man has a need to believe in a beginning...
My own view on this is that (so far) science has not explained anything. It only describes the universe (as best it can). This is what science does, by it's very nature. Believing that science can explain creation in its true sense does take faith because it is believing that science can someday do something it has never done in the past.

Some people do believe that a true explanatory theory can someday be developed. It is, as yet, an unachieved goal, and even the proof that is possible has not been provided.

So, my view is that, the big band theory is bordering on creationism, but does not cross over that line as long as scientists act like scientists. As people, we are allowed to go further and use faith as a basis for beliefs, but this is something beyond the bounds of science.
 

MvGulik

Joined Nov 3, 2011
41
:confused:
[offtopic]
Don't think the scientific Big Bang theory has anything to do with creationism.
Its just a logical conclusion on following the path of a expanding universe back into the past. Its not saying anything about what might have been the trigger. Let alone if that trigger was a intentional act of some other intelligence.

And ... In my view its this last part that is the main classification if something is a creationist view/idea/etc. (intentionally act in favor of the ultimate creation and existent of the believer in question.)

... Clever and/or sophistication arguments are not only limited to one side and its also not saying anything about the quality or correctness of the arguments. ...
[/offtopic]
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,164
:confused:
[offtopic]
Don't think the scientific Big Bang theory has anything to do with creationism.
Its just a logical conclusion on following the path of a expanding universe back into the past. Its not saying anything about what might have been the trigger. Let alone if that trigger was a intentional act of some other intelligence.

And ... In my view its this last part that is the main classification if something is a creationist view/idea/etc. (intentionally act in favor of the ultimate creation and existent of the believer in question.)

... Clever and/or sophistication arguments are not only limited to one side and its also not saying anything about the quality or correctness of the arguments. ...
[/offtopic]
Yes and no. The Big Bang can also be expressed as "In the beginning, God said "Let there be light!". And there was light.

After that opinions and time lines diverge enormously. I always lean towards science myself.
 

MvGulik

Joined Nov 3, 2011
41
Not sure about your point.

There is of course no limit* in how a event as a Big Bang can be interpreted(general). And as event its very adoptable for the "Let there be light" idea (or other variations of it).

*As there is currently no data on what or how it was triggered.

... Guess I'm kinda allergic to the term creationism. ...
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
990
Yes and no. The Big Bang can also be expressed as "In the beginning, God said "Let there be light!". And there was light.

After that opinions and time lines diverge enormously. I always lean towards science myself.

Actually. the big 'G' did quite bit before he turned the lights on. If you try to draw an analogy the way things stand, it won't work right from the start.

...In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth....
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
990
-If you stand close to a rock band you hear all the frequencies equally. If you stand a mile away you only hear the bass frequencies. Red shift. ;)
Oooohhhhh! I just noticed this. No! Wrong! Really, really wrong! But you meant that, right? I'm sure you did, but have you ever really found someone that believed this?:eek:

Edit, further reading tells me that others set things right about this and the red sun fallacy. Whew!
Okay...sorry everyone.
 
Last edited:
Top