Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

[teenquestionss]

For science lovers out there, here's my essay over a controversial topic I chose to write for my senior English class.  I apologize for the formatting and the bold text; this forum had problem taking the original.  I've covered some compelling points that discredit the humanistic creationism.  Let me know what you think.

 

I attempted to write it in a passive tone that would not scare away unbelievers.  Just to let you know, I am Christian.

 

 

 

"Professing Themselves to be Wise, They Became Fools": Flaws in Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

 

                   The most pressing and controversial topic of all are the questions concerning where we came from and how we got here.  One side insists that we came from a being or deity, while another advocates evolution and the Big Bang theory.  Throughout history we have assigned various deities to our existence; however, it wasn’t until roughly two centuries ago that it was even questioned. Many scientists claim that the belief of a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.  Although, there are many problems with the second argument, including: corruption of the publicized scientific community, the inability to explain the fundamental living blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories of modern science, and finally, the complexity of biological systems that science is unable to explain.

 

                 First of all, it must be made clear that the modern scientific community is corrupt.  Donald Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter.  More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.”  He points out astrophysics is not “science” because it is unable to collect empirical data:  the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical world, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by the scientists in charge.  Since they cannot test their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists.  Their diluted theories are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic”, which allow no refuting speculation to be made known to the people.  This of course sets the standard for other magazines and online articles who endorse it as well.  Therefore, it is naïve to definitively believe in the publicized scientific views because they are untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field with the same humanistic belief system. 

 

              One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life.  For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides.  After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain (and is a large topic in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To help explain how inorganic molecules could be converted to organic naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes.  He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were believed to be consistent with early earth’s environment.  The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now suggested that the variables are not consistent with the modern-day model of early earth.  Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and other needed chemicals reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet).  At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed.  No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day. 

 

             This is just one example of how our knowledge of science has actually hurt preexisting evolutionary theories.  It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today.  In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on.  What does this say about present day theories? What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today?  Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw?  It’s not likely. 

 

                With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution.  Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices!  Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information.  A rising explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.”  It entails our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes.  They reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance.  They have discovered multiple physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover).  For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross).  In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unleashed yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).”  This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-so this is old news as well.

       Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating:

 

“Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.”

 

It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started.  As they discover more and more, they have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories.  To hold such a theory, which is certainly immeasurable (because it is out of this universe), requires an equal amount of faith as theism because there is no way to build up on it, or even prove.  Are we just supposed to blindly believe this?  If they believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose?  It’s doubtful this will be the final consensus, though it truly unmasks their uncertainty and their capability to pull their evidence from unobservable data. 

(Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today.  Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.)

 

             If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken to you, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination.  Charles Darwin is the father of and also the most notable figure in evolutionary science today, known for his book, The Origin of Species.  Michael Behe, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and well-known author, challenges Darwin’s writing, which states, “'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  Darwin wrote his book in 1859, so he did not know all of these advances in science today (e.g. genes and DNA – fundamental aspects of his theory that would completely change his conclusions).  Behe damages the authenticity of his book because he directly refutes his statement above by the concept of  “Irreducible Complexity.”  He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."  This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe).  The significance of this concept is that evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years.  No amount of time is sufficient for these systems to evolve because even if one starts to add on bits and pieces in order to perform a task, there are hundreds of other parts that are essential to keep it alive.  In theory, even if an infinite number of these biological wonders started, they would die because they are always missing one leg on the stool.  As of now, evolutionists cannot explain these phenomena.  In fact, the essential building blocks that make up these complex processes are still an enigma, with the Miller-Urey experiment as just one example.

 

 

 

 

            It is crucial to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power.  It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both.  The scientists behind the theories are constantly seeking answers that we simply cannot understand.  It is a faulty pursuit that insists that we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future.  Unless you cangenuinely believe that all of the scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it.  The possibility that a higher power created the universe, which accepts that we do not know all of the answers with our limited intellect, is the more rational alternative.  Given this, the real question should ask where we came from, not how we got here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Behe, Michael J. "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference: Behe, Michael." C.S. Lewis Society. Cambridge University, 1994.  Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Behe, Michael. “Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum.” Digital image. Evolution News, 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Davidson, Michael W. "Molecular Expressions Cell Biology: Animal Cell Structure - Cilia and Flagella." Cilia and Flagella. N.p., 13 Dec. 2004. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Lunz, Stephen. "Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened." IFLScience. 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Peet, John. "The Miller-Urey Experiment." Truth in Science, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Ross, Hugh. Dr. Bang Refined by Fire. Pasadena: NavPress, 1998. Print.

Scientist. "10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked." Famous Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

“Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning.” ScienceDaily. N.p., 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Scott, Donald E. The Electric Sky Book. Introduction. Mikamor Publishing. Portland: Mikamor, 2006. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Wolchover, Natalie. "New Physics Complications Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis."  Quanta Magazine, 1 June 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

[Enoch2021]

 

For science lovers out there, here's my essay over a controversial topic I chose to write for my senior English class.  I apologize for the formatting and the bold text; this forum had problem taking the original.  I've covered some compelling points that discredit the humanistic creationism.  Let me know what you think.

 

I attempted to write it in a passive tone that would not scare away unbelievers.  Just to let you know, I am Christian.

 

 

 

"Professing Themselves to be Wise, They Became Fools": Flaws in Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

 

                   The most pressing and controversial topic of all are the questions concerning where we came from and how we got here.  One side insists that we came from a being or deity, while another advocates evolution and the Big Bang theory.  Throughout history we have assigned various deities to our existence; however, it wasn’t until roughly two centuries ago that it was even questioned. Many scientists claim that the belief of a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.  Although, there are many problems with the second argument, including: corruption of the publicized scientific community, the inability to explain the fundamental living blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories of modern science, and finally, the complexity of biological systems that science is unable to explain.

 

                 First of all, it must be made clear that the modern scientific community is corrupt.  Donald Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter.  More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.”  He points out astrophysics is not “science” because it is unable to collect empirical data:  the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical world, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by the scientists in charge.  Since they cannot test their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists.  Their diluted theories are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic”, which allow no refuting speculation to be made known to the people.  This of course sets the standard for other magazines and online articles who endorse it as well.  Therefore, it is naïve to definitively believe in the publicized scientific views because they are untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field with the same humanistic belief system. 

 

              One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life.  For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides.  After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain (and is a large topic in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To help explain how inorganic molecules could be converted to organic naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes.  He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were believed to be consistent with early earth’s environment.  The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now suggested that the variables are not consistent with the modern-day model of early earth.  Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and other needed chemicals reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet).  At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed.  No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day. 

 

             This is just one example of how our knowledge of science has actually hurt preexisting evolutionary theories.  It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today.  In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on.  What does this say about present day theories? What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today?  Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw?  It’s not likely. 

 

                With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution.  Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices!  Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information.  A rising explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.”  It entails our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes.  They reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance.  They have discovered multiple physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover).  For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross).  In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unleashed yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).”  This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-so this is old news as well.

       Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating:

 

“Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.”

 

It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started.  As they discover more and more, they have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories.  To hold such a theory, which is certainly immeasurable (because it is out of this universe), requires an equal amount of faith as theism because there is no way to build up on it, or even prove.  Are we just supposed to blindly believe this?  If they believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose?  It’s doubtful this will be the final consensus, though it truly unmasks their uncertainty and their capability to pull their evidence from unobservable data. 

(Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today.  Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.)

 

             If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken to you, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination.  Charles Darwin is the father of and also the most notable figure in evolutionary science today, known for his book, The Origin of Species.  Michael Behe, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and well-known author, challenges Darwin’s writing, which states, “'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  Darwin wrote his book in 1859, so he did not know all of these advances in science today (e.g. genes and DNA – fundamental aspects of his theory that would completely change his conclusions).  Behe damages the authenticity of his book because he directly refutes his statement above by the concept of  “Irreducible Complexity.”  He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."  This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe).  The significance of this concept is that evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years.  No amount of time is sufficient for these systems to evolve because even if one starts to add on bits and pieces in order to perform a task, there are hundreds of other parts that are essential to keep it alive.  In theory, even if an infinite number of these biological wonders started, they would die because they are always missing one leg on the stool.  As of now, evolutionists cannot explain these phenomena.  In fact, the essential building blocks that make up these complex processes are still an enigma, with the Miller-Urey experiment as just one example.

 

 

 

 

            It is crucial to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power.  It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both.  The scientists behind the theories are constantly seeking answers that we simply cannot understand.  It is a faulty pursuit that insists that we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future.  Unless you cangenuinely believe that all of the scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it.  The possibility that a higher power created the universe, which accepts that we do not know all of the answers with our limited intellect, is the more rational alternative.  Given this, the real question should ask where we came from, not how we got here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Behe, Michael J. "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference: Behe, Michael." C.S. Lewis Society. Cambridge University, 1994.  Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Behe, Michael. “Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum.” Digital image. Evolution News, 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Davidson, Michael W. "Molecular Expressions Cell Biology: Animal Cell Structure - Cilia and Flagella." Cilia and Flagella. N.p., 13 Dec. 2004. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Lunz, Stephen. "Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened." IFLScience. 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Peet, John. "The Miller-Urey Experiment." Truth in Science, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Ross, Hugh. Dr. Bang Refined by Fire. Pasadena: NavPress, 1998. Print.

Scientist. "10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked." Famous Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

“Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning.” ScienceDaily. N.p., 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Scott, Donald E. The Electric Sky Book. Introduction. Mikamor Publishing. Portland: Mikamor, 2006. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

Wolchover, Natalie. "New Physics Complications Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis."  Quanta Magazine, 1 June 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

 

 

 

 

Very well done.  I wish I had a Planck Length of your knowledge when I was in High School.

 

 

Just a Note...the "Theories" that you were referencing aren't actual "Scientific Theories"...they're not even Valid Hypotheses:

 

Science:--- "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". {Emphasis Mine}

http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis

 

It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

 

How in the WORLD can they have a Valid TESTABLE Scientific Hypothesis of an UnObserved Past Non-Repeating Event without a Time Machine, Pray Tell? What's their Independent Variable(s) without a Time Machine.....Their Imagination?

 

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

 

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

 

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

So we can say: Science is in the business of ascertaining CAUSATION of OBSERVED PHENOMENA through Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING. 

 

So....

 

Science: Method---- The Scientific Method.

Fairytales ("Just So" Stories):  Method--- Imagination.

 

Using the "Stamp on the Forehead" Criterion above, which category do these fall...

 

evolution, big bangs, multiverses, dark matter/dark energy, billions of years ????

 

They're not even "VALID" Hypotheses for cryin out loud!!  And you thought they were Science cause "they" told you so.... from diapers, Right? Welcome to Shang Ra La where dreams and fairytales can be true.

 

What we have here is a Massive Equivocation (Fallacy) with the Term "Science".

 

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/

 

 

hope it helps

[teenquestionss]

I totally agree with you. There are so many fallacies with this field of science that couldn't even be explained in a book.  You're right, it's not a theory, and is not even a justified hypothesis, although it is technically.  

This writing serves only to sprout curiosity for an unbeliever or to strengthen faith; it is not proof.  That would be ridiculous.  My point is, atheists really need to research what they are investing their lives in, which in my opinion is not the case a lot of the time.  Sure, "ignorance is bliss" when it condones sin without repercussions, but what is a life to eternity...?  What is sin to holiness? 

It appears humans' pursuit to achieve "God" knowledge in this age is a comparable to the Tower of Babel story - an indication of the End Times.  The self-ascension of man will not persist for much longer.

[Tristen]

Hi TQ,

 

I think the goal should be objective rather than “passive”. To that end I would change quite a bit. I should point out that I’m not familiar with the required standards of “senior English” (I assume it’s a standard that someone from the US would be more familiar) – so I may be being overly strict in my suggestions.

 

 

TITLE:

I would first remove the scriptural quote implying that advocates of the secular model are “fools”. This is bound to make them immediately defensive. I would also replace “flaws” with weaknesses. Maybe something like; ‘Examining the inherent weaknesses of secular historical models’

 

 

PARAGRAPH 1:

Is the origins issue really “The most pressing and controversial topic of all”? You might rather say that it is highly controversial, zealously disputed, or a current source of controversy/dispute/debate/argument in the community etc.

 

You should introduce the sides before describing them in the second sentence. E.g. ‘The most avid disagreement occurs between advocates of Biblical creation and secular evolution’

 

“Many scientists claim that the belief of a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.”

- I’m not sure the standard for “senior English”. In scientific writing, every claim should be referenced. I’m sure you could find a reference from Dawkins or deGrassy Tyson or Hawkins (and many others) to support this claim.

 

I would replace “second” with ‘secular’, “Although” with ‘However’, “corruption of the publicized scientific community” with ‘questions over scientific legitimacy’, “humans’ tendency to change and/or omit” with ‘the inherent malleability/flexibility and subjectivity of’, “the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories of modern science” with ‘the uncritical adherence to secular models’ and “the complexity of biological systems” with ‘the origins of biological complexity’

 

PARAGRAPH 2:

I don’t think your argument supports the wholesale corruption of the “scientific community”. Your argument is about scientific legitimacy, not corruption. For example, ‘Scientific confidence requires current access to supporting observations of the natural world (Find a reference). According to Scott (2006), disciplines such as astrophysics should not be considered “science” because of the inability to directly support their claims with empirical data. Therefore, the conclusions are not validated by observations of the physical world, but rather with theories that are themselves reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by the investigating researchers.  Since they cannot test their theories empirically, having concluded 14 billion years of unobserved history post-factum, confidence in these theories stands largely upon unverified agreement between like-minded scientists – rather than any legitimate appeal to the scientific method’

 

 

Have you already submitted this paper for marking?  I’m happy to go through the rest if you need an edit.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Tristen

[alphaparticle]

Unfortunately headlines about science are often misleading. That cosmologists are questioning whether the Big Bang happened really is not true when we think about the Big Bang in simple terms about an event that occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago, in which all the stuff that makes up the observable universe was very very close to each other, and that there was then expansion. That outline of events is regarded as a fact based on a handful of well established observational facts including the cosmic background radiation, which is mapped all the time to finer resolution and was specifically predicted before it was observed, the redshifting of the superclusters of galaxies suggesting a mutual moving away from each other at  velocities proportional to distance, big bang nucleosynthesis, that is, the basic big bang theory provides a prediction as to the relative abundances of elements that we observe in the universe.

 

That being said, what *is* questioned is the specific model that is true. For instance, you may have heard of the recent BICEP findings which at first seemed to confirm a special model of the big bang called the inflationary model. Upon scrutiny though it was discovered that the signals they were seeing could have been from dust. Now there is not that direct confirmation of that particular theory. Also, there is a lot of debate about singularities. Singularities are predicted to exist by the theory of General Relativity. However General Relativity and quantum mechanics have not been successfully merged on the whole, and  there is the thought that when that happens we will see that there are not singularities, technically speaking. In that case the old view of the Big Bang as happening from a singularity is incorrect, but the general picture I painted above is still true.

 

Much of this confusion is partly the fault of the scientists in question who allow for these headlines to make it all seem more exciting. Partly it is due to media who doesn't' understand the topic and so doesn't know how to report it correctly. The impression that it leaves with the public though (the big bang might be false?) is mistaken. These are technical and somewhat subtle debates in the scientific community, these are not overturning of entire paradigms.

[teenquestionss]

Hi TQ,

 

I think the goal should be objective rather than “passive”. To that end I would change quite a bit. I should point out that I’m not familiar with the required standards of “senior English” (I assume it’s a standard that someone from the US would be more familiar) – so I may be being overly strict in my suggestions.

 

 

TITLE:

I would first remove the scriptural quote implying that advocates of the secular model are “fools”. This is bound to make them immediately defensive. I would also replace “flaws” with weaknesses. Maybe something like; ‘Examining the inherent weaknesses of secular historical models’

 

 

PARAGRAPH 1:

Is the origins issue really “The most pressing and controversial topic of all”? You might rather say that it is highly controversial, zealously disputed, or a current source of controversy/dispute/debate/argument in the community etc.

 

You should introduce the sides before describing them in the second sentence. E.g. ‘The most avid disagreement occurs between advocates of Biblical creation and secular evolution’

 

“Many scientists claim that the belief of a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.”

- I’m not sure the standard for “senior English”. In scientific writing, every claim should be referenced. I’m sure you could find a reference from Dawkins or deGrassy Tyson or Hawkins (and many others) to support this claim.

 

I would replace “second” with ‘secular’, “Although” with ‘However’, “corruption of the publicized scientific community” with ‘questions over scientific legitimacy’, “humans’ tendency to change and/or omit” with ‘the inherent malleability/flexibility and subjectivity of’, “the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories of modern science” with ‘the uncritical adherence to secular models’ and “the complexity of biological systems” with ‘the origins of biological complexity’

 

PARAGRAPH 2:

I don’t think your argument supports the wholesale corruption of the “scientific community”. Your argument is about scientific legitimacy, not corruption. For example, ‘Scientific confidence requires current access to supporting observations of the natural world (Find a reference). According to Scott (2006), disciplines such as astrophysics should not be considered “science” because of the inability to directly support their claims with empirical data. Therefore, the conclusions are not validated by observations of the physical world, but rather with theories that are themselves reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by the investigating researchers.  Since they cannot test their theories empirically, having concluded 14 billion years of unobserved history post-factum, confidence in these theories stands largely upon unverified agreement between like-minded scientists – rather than any legitimate appeal to the scientific method’

 

 

Have you already submitted this paper for marking?  I’m happy to go through the rest if you need an edit.

 

I agree with everything you said. Now I realize how bad my writing is lol. Your corrections make a lot of sense. How old are you now? I feel stupid..

[Tristen]

 

 

I agree with everything you said. Now I realize how bad my writing is lol. Your corrections make a lot of sense. How old are you now? I feel stupid..

 

 

Hey TQ,

 

There is no reason to “feel stupid”. Critical writing is a skill that improves with education and practice. I have four years of formal theological education and approaching 5 years of formal scientific education – and I am still learning critical writing skills. Please don’t be discouraged by my suggestions. My goal is to encourage your improvement through imparting things I have learned along the way.

[Bonky]

TITLE:

I would first remove the scriptural quote implying that advocates of the secular model are “fools”. This is bound to make them immediately defensive. I would also replace “flaws” with weaknesses. Maybe something like; ‘Examining the inherent weaknesses of secular historical models’

Just thought I'd add something here. I make note of why this person should not refer to atheists (despite scriptural support) as fools. You suggest that it could make them immediately defensive...well ANYONE would be or at least should be. It's no way to talk to someone...THAT's the reason to not start off this way, it's about how we treat each other. I'm sorry the Bible seems to have led people astray this way.

Calling someone a fool because they don't reach the same conclusion you do [especially about something controversial] is not the sign of intelligence, it's the sign of immaturity.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Bonky

[Guest]

Calling someone a fool because they don't reach the same conclusion you do....

 

[especially about something controversial]....

 

is not the sign of intelligence....

 

it's the sign of immaturity....

 

 

Beloved There Is Only One

 

Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts:

and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him;

and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Isaiah 55:6-7

 

Who Is Mature Enough

 

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

so are my ways higher than your ways,

and my thoughts than

your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9

 

To Label The Fool

 

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy:

there is none that doeth good,

no, not one. Psalms 14:1-3

 

A Fool

 

For the Jews require a sign,

and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men;

and the weakness of God is stronger

than men. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24

[Enoch2021]

Unfortunately headlines about science are often misleading. That cosmologists are questioning whether the Big Bang happened really is not true when we think about the Big Bang in simple terms about an event that occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago, in which all the stuff that makes up the observable universe was very very close to each other, and that there was then expansion. That outline of events is regarded as a fact based on a handful of well established observational facts including the cosmic background radiation, which is mapped all the time to finer resolution and was specifically predicted before it was observed, the redshifting of the superclusters of galaxies suggesting a mutual moving away from each other at  velocities proportional to distance, big bang nucleosynthesis, that is, the basic big bang theory provides a prediction as to the relative abundances of elements that we observe in the universe.

 

That being said, what *is* questioned is the specific model that is true. For instance, you may have heard of the recent BICEP findings which at first seemed to confirm a special model of the big bang called the inflationary model. Upon scrutiny though it was discovered that the signals they were seeing could have been from dust. Now there is not that direct confirmation of that particular theory. Also, there is a lot of debate about singularities. Singularities are predicted to exist by the theory of General Relativity. However General Relativity and quantum mechanics have not been successfully merged on the whole, and  there is the thought that when that happens we will see that there are not singularities, technically speaking. In that case the old view of the Big Bang as happening from a singularity is incorrect, but the general picture I painted above is still true.

 

Much of this confusion is partly the fault of the scientists in question who allow for these headlines to make it all seem more exciting. Partly it is due to media who doesn't' understand the topic and so doesn't know how to report it correctly. The impression that it leaves with the public though (the big bang might be false?) is mistaken. These are technical and somewhat subtle debates in the scientific community, these are not overturning of entire paradigms.

 

 

 

 

 

==================================================================================================================

 

 

That cosmologists are questioning whether the Big Bang happened really is not true when we think about the Big Bang in simple terms about an event that occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago

 

 

Begging The Question (Fallacy) x 2 ---- big bang, 13.7 billion years ago.

 

Cosmology isn't "science"....

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

 

 

well established observational facts including the cosmic background radiation

 

 

This is a tear jerkin belly laugher, Full De-Bunking here, 

 

 

 

the cosmic background radiation, which is mapped all the time to finer resolution and was specifically predicted before it was observed

 

 

It wasn't, it's a fairytale (See Directly Above) and was POST-dicted (ad hoc Fallacy), here: 

 

 

the redshifting of the superclusters

 

 

Full De-Bunking of Red Shift, here:  

 

 

 

the basic big bang theory provides a prediction as to the relative abundances of elements that we observe in the universe

 

 

It's the Opposite, including these...

 

Examples of the Evidence: From rsr.org/big-bang, Bob will use these astronomy observations:

 

- Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies

- An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB prediction

- Observations show that spiral galaxies are missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions

- Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist

- A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth

- Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos

- A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars that the failed search has implied simply never existed

- Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity

- Solar system formation theory wrong too

- It is "philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center

- Amassing evidence suggests the universe has a center

- Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart

- The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected

- Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes

- Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies

- Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies

- Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved

- The mythical CMB prediction and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions that were never made

- Fine tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists doubting the big bang.

http://kgov.com/physicist-john-hartnett-evaluates-the-evidence-against-the-big-bang

 

Each discussed and sourced, here:  http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang

 

 

 

Singularities are predicted to exist by the theory of General Relativity.

 

 

'Singularities" are conjured from fairytales as was/is General Relativity.

 

This Falsifies general relativity IN TOTO: (I have 5 others, just ask)....

 

Einstein states the Time is affected by Gravity, Right?  That is to say, the closer you are to Earth...time will slow down due to Gravity or Time can be Dilated.

Define Time?  Draw a Picture of Time? Point in the Direction of Time?

Time =  a relation between 2 motions.  It's a "Conceptual" relationship...Please show how you can "Dilate" a conceptual relationship? Can you "dilate" between Freedom and Love? It's a Massive Logical Fallacy: Reification.

Lets conduct a Thought Experiment:

According to General Relativity, Time will move slower the the closer and you are to Earth or a Body due to Gravity.  Ok, Lets use Gravitational Clocks... Two Sand Filled Hour Glasses, which function by GRAVITY; apples to apples, as it were.  We'll keep one and set it on the ground @ the base of Mount Everest then take the other to the top.  We then turn them over @ the same "Time"....which one drains faster?

Lets try it again....we move the "Clock" from the top of Mount Everest and take it into Space between the Moon and the Earth...then turn each over again.  Which drains faster? For the person who is turning that "Clock" over in Space....time has stopped!  Because there's no Sand entering the bulb.  Which "Clock" is moving slower?

Define FALSIFIED...?

Define Rubber Ruler? .... then Compare and Contrast that Measure with a Titanium Ruler then reconcile each into One coherent and objective explanation.

They're extrapolating from an erroneous/arbitrary "convention".... conflating 2 different issues: it's one thing for Mickey's Hands/Cesium Atomic "Clocks" to run fast/slow but quite another to then extrapolate from that observation that "TIME" has been affected due to Gravity.

 

A Football Field is 100 Yards long.... is the Football Field Yardsticks?

I want somebody to explain to me, in the context Einstonian Gravity: when I go to the grocery store and buy some apples and place them on a scale, does the curvature of spacetime around the spring, connected to plate and display, interact with the spacetime curvature of the Apples?  Go ahead.....?

 

Can you post ONE solution to any of Einstein's Field Equations for 2 or more masses?  I thought you had to have @ least 2 masses for gravity?  

 

Can you tell us HOW/WHY Einstein's matheMAGICS "Don't" describe a completely Empty Universe....?

 

 

However General Relativity and quantum mechanics have not been successfully merged on the whole, and  there is the thought that when that happens we will see that there are not singularities, technically speaking. In that case the old view of the Big Bang as happening from a singularity is incorrect, but the general picture I painted above is still true.

 

 

 

They'll never merge because Quantum Mechanics is actual "Science" and general relativity is a fairytale, it was conjured from MatheMAGICS....

 

Richard Hamming (Applied Mathematician, Creator of Computer Science)...

 

"In recent years it was Einstein who most loudly proclaimed the simplicity of the laws of physics, who used mathematics so exclusively as to be popularly known as a mathematician. When examining his special theory of relativity paper [9. G. Holton Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Kepler to Einstein, Harvard University Press, 1973.] one has the feeling that one is dealing with a scholastic philosopher's approach. He knew in advance what the theory should look like and he explored the theories with mathematical tools, not actual experiments. He was so confident of the rightness of the relativity theories that, when experiments were done to check them, he was not much interested in the outcomes, saying that they had to come out that way or else the experiments were wrong. And many people believe that the two relativity theories rest more on philosophical grounds than on actual experiments." {Emphasis Mine}

Hamming, R.W., The American Mathematical Monthly Volume 87; Number 2, February 1980.

 

 

Einstein thought Quantum Mechanics was Guff and set out to De-Bunk it.....then HE was "De-Bunked" :

 

Einstein proposed a thought experiment to debunk QM: A. Einstein, B. Podolosky, N. Rosen

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

 

 

 

Much of this confusion is partly the fault of the scientists

 

 

100% is from "Just So" Storytellers masquerading as "scientists".... but are NOT.

 

 

Partly it is due to media who doesn't' understand the topic and so doesn't know how to report it correctly.

 

 

Well "the media" is satan's right hand man: 

 

Ben Bradlee; Editor Washington Post, 1989......

 

"To hell with the news! I’m no longer interested in news. I’m interested in causes. We don’t print the truth. We don’t pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. It’s up to the public to decide what’s true."

Bradlee, B., 1989. Reported by Brooks, D., The Wall Street Journal, 10 October 1989.

 

 

These are technical and somewhat subtle debates in the scientific community, these are not overturning of entire paradigms.

 

 

They're conjured fairytale "Just So" Stories discussed by pseudo-scientists.

 

 

hope it helps