Scientist 'Make Up' Evidence to suit their needs.

[Ninevite]

 

 

 

Links should be included but telling someone to "Google it" provides no insight into if the one telling you to "Google it" has any clue as to what they are taking about.

Give support and add links to support your words is the way to go

 

 

So be it.

 

I "googled it" for you.

 

http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/

 

 

I already googled it and read about him and his book. 

 

Let me ask you this, in what way does telling someone to Google something offer any insight into if the person has any knowledge at all about a subject?

 

Telling someone to google something without adding your own two thoughts and words is either a lazy way out or a sign that someone has no real clue what they are speaking of.

 

I have not seen enough from Neil to make up my mind which it is yet

 

 

Congrats on googling it. Most would simply choose to keep their head in the sand.

 

As for the question, I'd be delighted to answer that and I am very glad you asked.

 

Insight into whether or not a person has knowledge of what they are talking about is a distraction at best. One should not even have to provide you this insight and even when they do, it is still of little to no value. You should be fact checking them anyway for the sake of critical thinking. Telling someone to google something is encouraging them to stop being so lazy and look into things for themselves. I provide links when I think they are of value to the discussion and the point I am trying to make, however I expect others to make an effort to understand what the discussion is officially about.

 

I'm almost positive, based on his posts, that Neil is a geocentrist YEC, though I am not certain. However this fact, if it be one, would not mean that he has no nuggets of wisdom at all. It would simply mean his task is much larger than I originally thought. I think it is easy to prove the earth is young, but I am convinced that the earth rotates. Convincing me otherwise may be a fools errand.

[JDavis]

 

 

 

Congrats on googling it. Most would simply choose to keep their head in the sand.

 

As for the question, I'd be delighted to answer that and I am very glad you asked.

 

Insight into whether or not a person has knowledge of what they are talking about is a distraction at best. One should not even have to provide you this insight and even when they do, it is still of little to no value. You should be fact checking them anyway for the sake of critical thinking. Telling someone to google something is encouraging them to stop being so lazy and look into things for themselves. I provide links when I think they are of value to the discussion and the point I am trying to make, however I expect others to make an effort to understand what the discussion is officially about.

 

I'm almost positive, based on his posts, that Neil is a geocentrist YEC, though I am not certain. However this fact, if it be one, would not mean that he has no nuggets of wisdom at all. It would simply mean his task is much larger than I originally thought. I think it is easy to prove the earth is young, but I am convinced that the earth rotates. Convincing me otherwise may be a fools errand.

 

 I am not sure I could disagree more. 

 

I do not come here to have Google battles, I come here to have interactions with people and get their insights into what they believe and why.   I don't really care if someone can point me to Google, I can Google "unicorns are real" and come up with 100 sites that will "prove" that unicorns are real.

 

Honestly I want to know the people I am spending my time talking with have some idea of what they are talking about.  Take Gerald McGrew for example, him and I do not agree on much of anything, but he knows his stuff when it comes to evolution and why he believes it.  He can talk the talk as well as point people to Google.  I respect him for this.

 

Neil has come on here putting people down and making bold claims, I have as yet to see him actually support one of these claims outside of him telling people to Google certain phrase. I would like to hear in his own words for a change.

[Ninevite]

I understand what you are saying about having google battles, but at some point you have to ask yourself, is this person completely in the dark? And as you pointed out, I can provide you with several links to creationist websites that support my claims, but do you care? Would you even read them? Or would you blow it off that I get my info from a "unicorns are real" website? Any of those possiblities makes it easier for me to say, google it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I often get the feeling people ask for links just to waste my time.

 

Speaking of unicorns...

 

<<< Videos must be submitted in the proper forum for review by the Ministry Team. Please submit all videos in one of these forums: Videos >>>

Edited August 21, 2013 by GoldenEagle
<<< Videos must be submitted for review by the Ministry Team. Please see link. >>>

[alphaparticle]

 

  Gravity wins 

 

Gravity loses at all times. Hence not only the expansion, but even worse for you: an accelerated expansion.

 

Not to mention that, in the conditions of expansion, gravity shouldn’t exist in the first place (hence another strong argument for Creation, if one wants to keep gravity in play, and I personally don’t). Matter is ALWAYS dissipated by expansion, not gathered together to form anything (a planet, a star, whatever). In other words, cosmic evolution is disproved by the simple fact of expansion.

 

Regardless of this and that, no one has ever proved that there indeed is gravity in cosmic space. No one - ever. It is only claimed it is. That’s why I am cautious and therefore tend to resume what we call gravity to Earth. Especially since there are no gravitational waves. A fact that not only clearly shows that the universe is not gravitational, but also shows general relativity to be false (via the non-existence of space-time, or directly as a gravitational theory).

 

Furthermore, no one has ever proved that gravity (if exists) works at distance. It is only claimed it does. Therefore, any gravitational theory CANNOT be science.

 

 

 

 

     because there is no 'anti mass'      

 

No need. Expansion does the job.

 

 

 

 

   That is why cosmology is the study of General Relativity    

 

Wrong. Don’t mistake the formal cosmology for other cosmologies.

 

Regardless, cosmology is NOT “the study of General Relativity”. General relativity is only the technical describer of the formal cosmology (aka big bang).

 

And it’s wrong anyway – for example, because the universe doesn’t obey your cosmological principle.

 

 

 

 

   on large scales gravity is what matters in terms of gross geometry. 

 

On large scales gravity doesn’t work. Strange enough, on small scales doesn’t work either (see lunar orbit anomaly, for example).

 

Moreover, even in YOUR cosmology (big bang) the space is flat, so not sure what you meant above about geometry.

 

 

 

 

 If you think it's a lie that GPS uses relativsitic corrections you're just crazily and unfortunately mistaken. 

 

It would have been nice for you, instead of calling me crazy, to actually call for evidence. That would have been scientific, wouldn’t it?

 

 

 

 

  Of course relativity is being tested to the utmost, that is what physicists do- determine the limits of validity of theories. So what? So far it's passed every test with flying colors.  

 

What you’re talking about is only propaganda. I think I already suggested to you (or to another) to check out sources proving Einstein relativity tests wrong, not just those claiming it “passed every test with flying colors”. Having an exclusive point of view and excluding all the contrary either interpretations or evidence is certainly not scientific.

 

For example, MMX. Are you even aware of alternative explanations? How about a later one, Hafele-Keating. Claimed as proof for Einstein, have you even bothered to read what Essen said on that? You should have, since he’s the one who invented those atomic clocks. So if he said it the experiment didn’t work, then it didn’t work, no matter what YOU say – and all the other Einstein’s fans in the world, be them billions. And you should read Essen to find out WHY it didn’t work.

 

 

 

 

  Quantum mechanics *uses* special relativistic corrections.  

 

The old Dirac-Schroedinger game. Oh yes. Buddy, I didn’t say otherwise. What I said is that QM contradicts especially general relativity (hence the desperation in mainstream for a theory of everything). And there are also papers showing that special relativity fails too. For example this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4253

 

Even more, the paper shows the existence of ether, the non-existence of flat (special relativity) space-time (the curved, general relativistic, space-time doesn’t exist because the gravitational waves don’t exist), and also shows a way to experimentally distinguish between Lorentz theory and Einstein’s special relativity (which, according to mainstream, is impossible). Not only that, but the paper shows Lorentz theory to be true and special relativity to be false.

 

 

 

 

     You'll have to expand your last point.      

 

Each and every time you “date” a rock (geological evolution) or a fossil (biological evolution) in order to prove an old age and therefore evolution, you show chemical evolution as false. Because those radiometric things you use for dating are always DECAYING (they are not progressing in the periodic table, on the contrary).

 

Regardless the scale, what we see all the time is a decaying universe – just the opposite of an evolutionary universe.

 

 

Gravity is the dominant in determining local spacetime geometries, expansion notwithstanding. Yes, on teh scale of the entire universe the inflationary force matters. 'Flat' *is* a geometry.

 

Gravity 'works' and you can see that even in a Newtonian picture because it obeys a 1/r^2 law and there is no anti-mass to shield it like you get with electromagnetism. That is, one mass has to be *infinitely* far from another mass to not feel its gravitational attraction. The only other limiting factor comes in if you allow for relativity to be true and assert that the information is limited by the speed of light, and therefore only masses within each others light-cones can affect each other gravitationally.

 

Yes, there are attempts to demonstrate preferred directionality in spacetime, or the fundamental existence of a quantized spacetime. This lone entry aside other sensitive tests have failed to show any evidence of this. It may be that we will find something, great, but we have determined that special and general relativity is valid within a large scale. Relativistic mass-energy equivalence is extremely well established, not least because we have nuclear power. Relativistic corrections go into any cyclotron or accelerator we make. It permeates *everything* we do in physics. That our most fundamental theory of everything might come up with a more fundamental explanation, might show, for instance, that spacetime is really quantized, doesn't invalidate the realm of validity that we've established for these theories now.

 

Special relativity does not contradict QM, and by the way, the Schrodinger equation is not relavistically correct. The Dirac equation is, and even that is not the end of the story. Our most sophisticated form of QM in quantum field theory is relativistically correct. QM comes into conflict with *General Relativity* yes, in the limits in which we might want to apply both of of those theories. And yes, as I stated above, it might turn out fundamentally we have to turn to a new picture altogether. I'll tell you what, we are testing GR right now with our gravitational wave interferometers (LIGO). If they fail to detect gravitational waves in the next several years I will agree that GR could be in trouble.

 

Did you ever tell me how energy 'leaks away' out of the universe?

 

The last point doesn't make any sense to me, sorry. I have  no idea what you have in mind by chemical evolution or why you think that radioactive decay would violate it.

[neil_]

    I already googled it and read about him and his book.    

 

Tell me, how exactly reading ABOUT him, and reading ABOUT his book (and perhaps ABOUT his scientific papers), CAN enlighten you who’s right: Hatch or the mainstream?

 

 

   Telling someone to google something without adding your own two thoughts and words is either a lazy way out or a sign that someone has no real clue what they are speaking of.   

 

You know what, Jdavis? I’ve had it with you. I find that I was insulted quite enough by you (not only in this thread), so that’s it. Please stop addressing my posts, and I will stop addressing your posts. Thank you.

 

And by the way, the fact that you CANNOT allow for any critical view against mainstream clearly PROVES that it actually is NOT about the science. Had it been so, you would have jumped off your seat in enthusiasm in your life long journey of searching for knowledge. Instead, what do we see? That you call critics of the mainstream paradigms as uneducated, that (s)he doesn’t know what (s)he’s talking about, that (s)he’s lazy (instead of admitting that you are in fact the lazy one), etcetera. Because mainstream simply can’t be wrong - can it? Don’t answer, I already said I will ignore you. Bye.

[neil_]

  Fulfilling God's Word to them - that if they choose the path of self authority God will give them over to their own imaginations...  

 

Nice to meet you. And I entirely agree. So, extreme irony, a world full of evolutionists doesn’t prove evolution right - instead, it proves the Bible right !!

[neil_]

    I'm almost positive, based on his posts, that Neil is a geocentrist YEC, though I am not certain.   

 

You should be certain. Nice to meet you, by the way.

 

 

   I think it is easy to prove the earth is young, but I am convinced that the earth rotates. Convincing me otherwise may be a fools errand.     

 

Then I don’t want to be a fool. In other words: don’t worry, I won’t try convincing you otherwise. Your loss. But I am nevertheless curious: why exactly would I have to prove that the Earth doesn’t rotate, instead of you proving that it does rotate?

[neil_]

   Gravity is the dominant in determining local spacetime geometries,    

 

I thought I already showed there’s no such thing called spacetime. Your faith in man’s imagination is indeed strong…

 

And since you speak so much about gravity, why don’t you actually prove it. Let’s say anywhere beyond the solar system. Looking forward with much interest. To motivate you: there’s a Nobel prize waiting…

 

 

 

 

  expansion notwithstanding     

 

Why? Especially since the formal cosmology is built exactly on expansion. Even the concept of “big bang” loudly speaks of one thing, and one thing alone: expansion. So why to ignore exactly the most important thing of them all?

 

But your situation is not only ironical, it’s actually paradoxical. Let me show you a rule and then exemplify: with X you don’t have a universe (your universe, the formal universe, is shown wrong); without the same X, you again don’t have a universe (your cosmology is again shown wrong).

 

Examples: let’s start with expansion, since you chose to ignore it. With expansion you don’t have a universe (should have been decelerated); without expansion you again don’t have your universe (and not even the concept of “big bang”). Another example: with inflation you don’t have a universe (because it’s exactly inflation that’s responsible for some things that flagrantly violate the cosmological principle, for example the huge cosmic voids); without inflation you again don’t have a universe (without inflation, to the list of the problems of big bang, you have to add many others, including, since we already mentioned this, the flatness problem). Yet another example: without dark matter you don’t have a universe (certainly not a gravitational one); with dark matter you still don’t have a working universe (you are forced to postulate the existence of other universes to explain many things, including why gravity is the weakest force in this universe).

 

 

 

 

   Yes, on teh scale of the entire universe the inflationary force matters.    

 

What “inflationary force” could you be possibly talking about? And buddy, inflation ended long time ago - at the beginning, actually….

 

 

 

 

    Gravity 'works' and you can see that even in a Newtonian picture because it obeys a 1/r^2 law   

 

No, I don’t see it. And neither do you. Do you know why? Because, among other reasons, you had to fabricate five times more matter to make it work, that’s why.

 

And speaking of that, tell me, how exactly would Newton stand if you have multiply existing matter to have the same gravitation? And how would Einstein stand?

 

In other words: when you calculate orbits for example in our solar system, do you add the missing mass? If yes, then the equations are wrong. If not, why not? What is dark matter after all, a white rabbit to be pulled out only when it’s convenient? I mean, make up your mind once and for all, so that we all know what you’re speaking about: does dark matter exist? Yes or no. If it exists, then you should consider it AT ALL TIMES (meaning farewell to both Newton and Einstein). If it doesn’t, then stop claiming it does - and moreover explain those observations regarding the galaxies.

 

Meanwhile… well, it’s no:

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html

 

But being “no” brings you yet other problems, like for example the space would not be flat - which is contrary to observations… So whatever you do, you don’t have a working universe. Isn’t that interesting? This kind of thing happens, you know, when one chooses to follow his or her imagination, instead of dealing with the real universe…

 

And speaking of imagination, 95.1% of your universe is imaginary by definition. Do you know why?

 

 

 

 

   That is, one mass has to be *infinitely* far from another mass to not feel its gravitational attraction.    

 

Prove it. Really looking forward. Did I mention a Nobel prize?

 

 

 

 

  Yes, there are attempts to demonstrate preferred directionality in spacetime    

 

I think firstly they should establish the existence of spacetime, wouldn’t you agree?

 

 

 

 

  This lone entry aside other sensitive tests have failed to show any evidence of this.     

 

They have failed to show the existence of spacetime in the first place. So tell me, why are we talking about a non-existent “thing”?

 

 

 

 

   It may be that we will find something, great, but we have determined that special and general relativity is valid within a large scale.    

 

That’s strange, since others have determined their INvalidity on all scales…

 

 

 

 

   I'll tell you what, we are testing GR right now with our gravitational wave interferometers (LIGO).     

 

That’s what I’ve been talking so much (in regard to spacetime) and nobody listened…

 

 

 

 

    If they fail to detect gravitational waves in the next several years I will agree that GR could be in trouble.   

 

They ALREADY failed to detect them. That’s the point: why to keep a non-existent thing (spacetime) in play, if you have no proof for it?

 

 

 

 

    Did you ever tell me how energy 'leaks away' out of the universe?   

 

Why exactly would I even mention such an absurd thing? Buddy, it is you, not me, who’s forced to appeal to other universes to keep your theories in play (because THIS universe shows those theories to be wrong).

 

 

 

 

  The last point doesn't make any sense to me, sorry. I have  no idea what you have in mind by chemical evolution or why you think that radioactive decay would violate it.     

 

I’m sorry too, I don’t know what more to say to that point.

 

 

 

 

And an announcement: today is the last day I’m able to post here for a week or so.

Edited August 21, 2013 by GoldenEagle
<<< Not everyone is an evolutionist and we do not allow "goobye" posts. >>>

[neil_]

I forgot something:

 

  and by the way, the Schrodinger equation is not relavistically correct     

 

I don’t know how many times to tell this: I didn’t claim otherwise. Hence the word I used: game. If both Dirac and Schrodinger would say the same thing, what exactly COULD be the game?

[Ninevite]

 

    I'm almost positive, based on his posts, that Neil is a geocentrist YEC, though I am not certain.   

 

You should be certain. Nice to meet you, by the way.

 

 

 

 

   I think it is easy to prove the earth is young, but I am convinced that the earth rotates. Convincing me otherwise may be a fools errand.     

 

Then I don’t want to be a fool. In other words: don’t worry, I won’t try convincing you otherwise. Your loss. But I am nevertheless curious: why exactly would I have to prove that the Earth doesn’t rotate, instead of you proving that it does rotate?

 

 

As I agree with %80 percent of things you say, let's not be antagonistic toward one another, Neil. It is nice to meet you, too.

 

There are many YEC's here on this forum and I'm one of them. Having said that, you seem like a really smart guy and I will admit niavity when it comes to many aspects of science. I always maintain that I believe what I believe because I want to.

 

In my discussions with Gerald McGrew I had to inform him of this bias and he thanked me for it. He also does not seem to want to discuss evolution with me anymore as a result. I don't blame him. He is wasting his time if he is trying to convert me, though I will readily have a discussion on any topic.

 

I am convinced the earth rotates. If you would like to discuss this, I would be happy to. I find it interesting to say the least, but if your only desire is to convert, then you may be wasting your time. If you enjoy talking about it, by all means, please enlighten me.

 

I would love to here about a stationary planet. Just don't start out frusterated thinking it is a conversion thing...it is simply a fun discussion.

 

With that, I believe the earth rotates because that is what I was taught in school and I believe we went to the moon and I have been taught that a moon landing would have missed if calculated using the geocentric model.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Ninevite