The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

It also has :

• The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy
• Big Bang and Cosmology
• Dates and Dating
• Faith and Belief
• Geology and the Great Flood
• Coffee House

So as you can see there's all sorts of stuff here not related directly to evolution. I don't know but I would guess it comes down to what Percy (who owns/runs the site) thinks is appropriate/wanted.I have read the site you linked to (the links to following pages all worked fine for me, so I don't know why it wouldn't for Charles et al). Oddly enough I first came across some of the ideas on it a week or so ago - indirectly from this site. Schrafinator, who is one of the regulars here, commented she had been banned from a creationist site so I went to look at it. They had a quote from Hannes Alfven in support of their Biblical Literalism so I looked it up to see if they were quote mining (they were).Anyway, back to the electric universe theory. I have to be honest and say cosmology isn't something that interests me all that much beyond the level that all science does, so I'm not all that knowledgable about current theories on star lifecycles etc. On the other hand my degree was in Electrical and Electrical Engineering so I was able to follow the ideas presented on your link.Some of the stuff on there seems interesting but other parts are either wrong, routine creationist rubbish or just plain barmy. The section "Dinosaurs Are Impossible in Today's Gravity" on this page is a hoot. Ted Holden has posted on this board in the past under the name Redwolf, and we had a whole thread on his dinosaurs and reduced gravity theory.One thing that made me chuckle was that they deride mainstream astronomy for blindly accepting unproven theories and then interpreting everything they see in terms of those theories, but then introduce the idea of inherent redshift which as far as I can tell is completely made up and then proceed to interpret a bunch of photographs as proving the theory.So in summary I retain an open mind on whether electrical effects have a significant effect in cosmolgy, but that site does itself no favours with some of the stuff it is including.

---

Confused ? You will be...

To everyone:The question Hanno2 poses in this thread is that if scientists could be wrong about cosmology, then couldn't they be just as wrong about evolution. To forward this point, Hanno2 introduces the electric/plasma theory of cosmology as an alternative to mainstream cosmological views, asserting that the theory is so compelling that it clearly invalidates most currently accepted cosmological models. The electric/plasma theory of cosmology is the topic of this thread, not evolution.To Hanno2: EvC Forum is a science site covering all topics relevant to the Creation/Evolution debate. It is not an evolution site. The primary claim of Creationism is that it is as scientifically valid as evolution, and this site is intended to explore this claim. Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

The goal of EvC Forum is to provide a site for constructive debate between Creationists and evolutionists through effective moderation. The Forum Guidelines provide the foundation for most moderation decisions.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

To add to what you have said Admin (and reinforce an earlier comment of mine). We are currently unable to fully assess the website as due to bad code only the first page (and a link to a university page on the basics of science) are available for viewing.

quote:

---

I'd like to direct your attension to another website : holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE – A sound cosmology for the 21st century This website also has comments on new discoveries with puzzles cosmologists. Ofcause, the scientists who accept the electric universe model is not supprised by these phenomena. In fact, they EXPECT it.

---

So lets have a look at what some people EXPECT, shall we?Holoscience.com has an interesting page on Titan, which of course has been much in the news lately. Citing New Scientist, Holoscience says:

quote:

---

Comment: The idea that Titan may have a considerable amount of low density liquids or ices came originally from calculations of its density. However, estimates of the composition of celestial bodies assume that we understand the real nature of gravity. We obviously don’t. So there is no reason to assume that the gravitational constant, ‘G,’ is the same for all bodies in the universe, particularly when it is the most elusive ‘constant’ to measure on Earth. So we cannot be confident about the calculated ratio of rock to ices on Titan. But the presence of methane in Titan’s atmosphere seemed to require an ocean of liquid hydrocarbons as a reservoir that could provide a source of that gas lasting for the conventional age of the solar system. However, the radar image of Titan fits more closely (as we shall see) with some of those returned by the Magellan Orbiter from dry and rocky Venus. The methane puzzle has not been solved.

---

In fact there are good reasons for thinking the gravitaional constant G is the same for all bodies. Thats why its called a CONSTANT. This raises serious doubts as to the writers competence.But setting that aside, lets see what is being argued here: that the calculations used to predict liquid methane on Titan are invalid. This is related to the general claims about the electric universe. This is all pasrt of an argument aimed at showing that the present geological models are mistaken.That was wwritten in Nov 2004. Now Cassini/Hygens, and what did we find? Liquid methane, as predicted by standard models.See here: ESA - Cassini-HuygensNote how the author of holoscience gleefully predicts that becuase some radr scans showed no liquids, we would be looking at a ocompletely dry planetoid with no methane oceans. It's all very clearly wrong.You keep banging on about people just "believeing" things without questions. If we really did that, nobody would have bothered sending a probe to Titan in the first place. We went becuase doing so would confirm or refute our theories, and either of those is a good result.It will be interesting to see whether holoscience has the honesty to admit it was wrong.

I can access every page - it must have been fixed since you and Ned tried.Some of the later pages are a hoot (citing Redwolf and his theory of reduced gravity explaining why dinosaurs were big and alternate planetary alignments that make Velikovsky seem restrained).

---

Confused ? You will be...

I've taken another look - the problem is (and I suspect that this may be the same for Ned).... I'm too advanced.While you people are stuck in the last century with internet explorer,some of us have moved to the 21st with browsers such as firefox.So if you want to access the links use internet explorer (the shame....).

Yeah, it can get pretty crazy here sometimes. Usually, the more controversial the post, the more responses it garners. Anyway, I appreciate you responding to my post. Unfortunately, we can't go too far afield into evolutionary theory on this thread else we risk the wrath of the Almighty Admin. I'd be happy to go into more detail on another thread. However, for the sake of clarity, I'd like to very briefly address the points you raised. As others have been quick to point out, this isn't an accurate statement. Evolution is based on the observation that critters in the past are different but related to critters that live today. In addition, in short-generation organisms, we can actually observe these changes happening. AFAIK, the discussion about whether there is or isn't a creator doesn't enter into it. No, it doesn't. Abiogenesis is the theory that various chemical interactions are sufficient in and of themeselves to produce self-replicating molecules as the precursors to life. You're partially correct that "simple chemical molecules" don't spontaneously combine into single celled organisms - there's a whopping number of intermediate steps that need to occur to get from chemistry to biology. Although there are some very indicative experiments that have been undertaken showing how biologically significant macromolecules can form under plausible pre-biotic conditions, no one has created "life" in a test tube as yet. However, as a number of other posters have pointed out, abiogenesis is an idea arising from organic chemistry that has nothing to do with what happens once life arrives - the purview of evolutionary theory. Actually, I've found it's very hard to make a layman belive in abiogenesis. I'm not sure I "believe" in it myself, although I think based on many of the experiments I've read about that it is highly plausible. Indeed, you're correct that no biologist would be able to explain exactly how this is possible, since no one (to date) knows how it actually ocurred. On the other hand, as I mentioned there are a number of what appear to be potentially fruitful lines of investigation being undertaken to specifically demonstrate the idea. Remains to be seen whether they are ever successful. However, once again, you're dealing with chemistry not biology. Remember: evolution is a biological theory about how life changes over time, leading to an explanation for the current diversity of life. Not how it arose in the first place. Mostly right: abiogenesis is a hypothesis (or rather, a number of competing and sometimes mutually exclusive hypotheses). However, evolution is much more well-supported. In truth, we don't (if by "we" you mean biologists), at least as concerns abiogenesis. I certainly support declaring evolution (life has a history and descent with modification) a "fact". I would not support declaring the theory of evolution itself (i.e., exactly how it all worked itself out to date) as a fact - nor would most biologists I'm familiar with.As to your cosmology questions inre dark matter, etc: not my area. I can't even intelligently discuss the current ideas about dark matter in relation to their strength as hypotheses. As I've mentioned to others here in the past, my idea of "doing science" is to spend the day playing frisbee on a tropical beach while studying Olive Ridley nesting behavior. I have physics-phobia, so cosmology is right out. Sorry.To be continued in another, more appropriate thread.

Hey this is a first !Being too lazy to get off my arse and install a decent product to replace the Mickey$oft version actually worked to my advantage

---

Confused ? You will be...

Okay, that's your big issue it seems.Fortunately, that's wrong. There is nothing in the TOE that says anything about whether or not a creator exists. In fact, many of us including myself believe firmly in a creator. Almost every Christian sect supports both the TOE and the findings from cosmology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I do not necesarily agree with EVERYTHING that website states. For instance, I do agree that the ancients witnessed an unpresedented cosmic event, but I do not believe their interpretation of the ancient texts are necesarily correct (their pre-catastrophy solar system model) I didn't read the part on Dinosaur formation either, as that is not my interest right now.I do think that they need to be taken seriously when it comes to planetary formation (As the current model is flawed), and galactic formation. Since the outer stars all orbit the galaxy at the same speed, gravity can not be responsible for this. Also, when you concider the "two specs of dust four miles away" metaphor, it becomes very difficult to believe that gravity, and gravity alone, holds the entire thing together. I believe in the electrical theory of galaxies. I also believe the theory of electrical scaring. I believe that electric forces play a great role in stabilizing orbits, because the changes of gravity creatings such perfect orbits on its own is quite remote. Aspecially when you concider how common planets are. I do believe that the Z-pinch effect may very well play a great role in condensing matter in the universe.Gas giants. Gas disperce in a vacuum, gravity is not a likely force to have create gas giants. The z-pinch effect opens a new possibility.As for black holes. Sure mathematically, they're possible. So is the Ideal Gas we learned about in school. Ofcause, while mathematically correct, we know that the Ideal gas do not exist. So, that brings me to the next question: do we really know how matter will react to such forces? Can matter really be compressed to the point of becomming a black hole? I think the empasis in cosmology is moving too close to mathematics, and too far away from observation. Unless a mathematical model has actually been observed, it remains a hypothesis.There are some very interesting claims these people are making. My problem is with the reaction of the cosmologist establishment. The logical reation would be : "Hey, these guys may be on to something. Lets include electricity and plasma sciences to cosmology and see how it can improve our modals."Instead, I read :
"When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicistss have conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes. When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S. "What are they affraid of? Being wrong? Instead of investigating the new data that might revolusionize our idea of the universe, the theory is shut down, like the church's reaction to Gallileo.

This message is off-topic. Please ignore. --AdminThen comes the disturbing question: How do we know that the same kind of "scientific bullying" isn't happening among Evolusionists as well?I take my very first example: The so called incremental evolusion theory. The idea that a species stays the same for millions of years, and then, all of a sudden, something evolves that is completely new. Look, the theory of gradual evolution is convincing (If it was not for the fossel records) but even the most gullible person will find this difficult to swallow. How did vertibrates develop from non vertibrates? How did fish suddenly become amphibians? Where are the transitional forms? And that goes for every form. What about all the "ape men"? What evidince is there to prove that these sceletons are nothing more than extinct monkeys that has nothing to do with man, or normal "modern" people with deformaties? Did we ever witness a species (macro, since bacteria can interbreed with different species) develop something totally new? Do we actually have THEORIES explaining these processes, or are they all hypothesis? I mean, now that we've established the possibillity of a Creator, if this Creator created single celled organisms, what is stopping Him from forming macro life as well? --just a thought.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-26-2005 11:47 AMThis message has been edited by Admin, 01-26-2005 12:00 AM

quote:

---

Instead, I read :
"When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicistss have conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes. When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S. "

---

Well yes that is what you read. But given the clear bias of the author how do you know that it is accurate and that it does not leave out important facts ?I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how the author could quote Wheeler as claiming that it is highly unlikely that a naked singularity could form and then say that Wheeler should be derided for having claimed to have found one. Without the slightest evidence that Wheeler ever claimed to have made such a discovery. It seems pretty clear that the attack on Wheeler is inaccurate (and we can tell that it is incomplete since it never even mentions Wheeler's reasons for claiming that naked singularities could not form at all).There's a clear double standard when your attacks on the people here would be far better applied to the authors of the websites you are promoting.

This message is off-topic. Please ignore. --Admin As a matter of fact, we have - a population of a unicellular blue-green algae evolved multicellularity:

quote:

---

Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

​

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

​

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

---

Nothing, but if he's content to develop new species through a process that looks identical to evolution, shouldn't we humor him and discuss it in the same way?This message has been edited by Admin, 01-26-2005 12:01 AM

"What are they afraid of?" is a good question. Perhaps they're afraid they won't have a good speech prepared when they accept the Nobel Prize. Why strike off in new directions and become famous when you can support the current views and remain anonymous? Why explore exciting new possibilities when you can stick with the mundane?In other words, I don't believe that astronmers see their jobs as just maintaining the status quo and not rocking the boat. Like most fields within science there is much competition for grant money, and proposals that don't seek to expand our knowledge will lose out to those that do.Without more information I'm not prepared to conclude that Halton Arp has been unfairly stigmatized and ostracized. The website you linked to is long on accusations and short on evidence. I don't place a lot of faith in Internet appeals claiming unfair treatment. If Halton Arp has published his findings in the technical literature and others have not been able to replicate his findings or agree with his conclusions, then that's just the way science works.From the little I've read it appears that Arp claims that statistical analysis of the occurence rate of visually adjacent galaxies with different red shifts occur too often to be due to chance, and that therefore the galaxies must actually be adjacent and red shift as an indicator of distance is wrong. The photographs at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm don't really say anything to me on the issue, and if Arp has published these photos in the technical literature then I assume astronomers and cosmologists examining them did not believe they supported Arp's conclusions.--Percy

"As a matter of fact, we have - a population of a unicellular blue-green algae evolved multicellularity:"On this website (evcforum), one scientist explained to me that only macro life can only reproduce with its own species.So, concerning tihs UNICELLULAR algae, can it repreduce across the species barrier? If that is the case, this doesn't really prove anything, since the unicellular algae could've changed by breeding with another species.Anyway. I asked for macro examples. Say, a snake developing a completely new sence. Or a creature developing new lims. The only transitional forms I've ever seen is of species loosing body parts: like the snake. Never gaining something that was never there. And suppose a animal does develop something new. Wouldn't that new thing just dissapear as it reproduce with the old form.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-26-2005 12:41 AM