|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It seems that Humphreys has rebutted his own theory, as have other christian scientists. Sort of ... Humphreys certainly hasn't given up, although he's changed his claims noticably. See message 8 in this thread, especially the last link. See also Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show and these comments.
I would say that Humphrey's theory is untenable at best. Oh, yeah. At best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
The following quote is from Humphreys on AiG
(on quantized redshifts measured from earth). . . That would mean the galaxies tend to be grouped into (conceptual) spherical shells concentric around our home galaxy, the Milky Way. The shells turn out to be on the order of a million light years apart. The groups of redshifts would be distinct from each other only if our viewing location is less than a million light years from the centre. The odds for the Earth having such a unique position in the cosmos by accident are less than one in a trillion. Someone tell me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the observer in any galaxy be able to make the same statement with respect to redishift? My understanding is that the Hubble's law (direct relationship between distance and redshift) is true no matter which galaxy you are observing from. Earth and the Milky way are no more the center of the universe than any other planet in any other galaxy. Again, I am only going by what I have picked up at this site, so someone correct me if I am mistaken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You're right, but Humphreys is saying that you're wrong; Hubble redshift looks the same from all locations, but Humphreys is saying that Hubble redshift is wrong, and that the supposed quantized redshift would look different from different locations, and especially would look as it does from Earth only from a point near the supposed center of the Universe.
Quantized redshift is a theory mostly championed by Halton Arp. I don't think he ever claimed that it showed that the Earth was at the center of the Universe. Too bad for Humphreys that the idea of quantized redshifts fell apart years before he wrote that article. The final nail in the coffin is roughly contemporaneous with Humphreys' article; see No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
The irony that Meert doesn't understand is that on one hand he is saying that Creationists start with the conclusion that God Created all we see and conduct science from that viewpoint. It worked for Newton, Kepler et al.... On the other hand Meert is saying that it is OK to start and work under the conclusion that nature is all there is and science should be conducted accordingly. However that goes against what Meert said earlier about leading the evidence. I don't need science to tell me whether or not God exists and who that God is. However science can and does tell us about things that have been designed. IOW if life was designed (or Created) [ we know life exists, so either it was the result of purely natural processes or it wasn't] then it is an injustice not only to science but all of mankind to pidgeon-hole all research to one and only one conclusion. That is leading the evidence and goes against what Meert says real science should be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Where in Newton's laws or Keplers orbital models did they insert God? What part of their science relies on the existence of God? You are confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism, two different positions. The former denies the existence of God while the latter excludes the undetectable activity of God in the natural world.
quote: Nope, Meert and all of science work under the conclusion that natural phenomena have a natural mechanism. This in no way excludes the existence of a diety.
quote: It is an injustice to force a supernatural explanation into a gap in our knowledge concerning the natural world. Science is about objectively measuring nature, not subjectively and arbitrarily assigning design where it best fits a religious presupposition. Evolutionary mechanisms are the only observed mechanisms to cause changes within populations, no other mechanism has ever been observed. Why shouldn't science stay with what is observed, and ignore hypotheses about things which are unseen and untestable? If science were allowed to use theories that are untestable and use evidence which is not observed, where would we get? Newton and Kepler were able to understand this, and so should you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
LM:
Where in Newton's laws or Keplers orbital models did they insert God? What part of their science relies on the existence of God? John Paul:Actually all of their science relies on the existence of God as that is how they conducted science- under the understanding that all we observe is part of God's special creation. LM:Nope, Meert and all of science work under the conclusion that natural phenomena have a natural mechanism. John Paul:But that is wrong. That would be leading the evidence and therefore not objective. LM:This in no way excludes the existence of a diety. John Paul:Is the start of life a natural phenomenon? LM:It is an injustice to force a supernatural explanation into a gap in our knowledge concerning the natural world. John Paul:I never mentioned anything about anything supernatural. True the designer or Creator could be supernatural but that is irrelevant. Science can and does tell us how to detect design. That is all we need. LM:Science is about objectively measuring nature, not subjectively and arbitrarily assigning design where it best fits a religious presupposition. John Paul:That would leave the theory of evolution out of the reealm of science. How do archaeologists assign design? By careful research and study. LM:Why shouldn't science stay with what is observed, and ignore hypotheses about things which are unseen and untestable? John Paul:Seeing that the alleged evolution of cetaceans from land mammals was never observed and can't be objectively tested you are telling me that the ToE is indeed not science. Thanks but I already knew that. Newton & Kepler conducted their science understanding what they observed was part of God's special creation. They understood that and so should you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Actually your statement is false. Science simply and plainly seeks explanations based on the natural world. One is perfectly free to take those naturalistic explanations and place them in a supernatural philosophy, a theistic philosophy or an intelligent design philosophy. By studying the world in a naturalistic framework, the extension is made to all other philosophies to interpret the findings as they see fit. Rather than being exclusionary, the natural basis of science is inclusionary. I'm surprised that you (being a scientist and all) does not understand that. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
JP:But that is wrong. That would be leading the evidence and therefore not objective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JM: Actually your statement is false. John Paul:That is YOUR assertion. But again assertions are not evidence. JM:Science simply and plainly seeks explanations based on the natural world. John Paul:Is that your definition of science? Doesn't that definition seem just a little too limiting? It sure does to me. Naturalsitic framework? Sounds like another limiting factor. Why not just let the evidence lead us where it will? And if life didn't originate naturally (ie via purely natural processes) does that mean any researching life is not doing science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
JPoesn't that definition seem just a little too limiting? It sure does to me
JM: That's your assertion. I believe I showed that, far from being limiting, it is extremely liberating especially compared to philosophically dogmatic positions such as ID or ye-creationism. Heck even the ye-creationists understand the freedom granted them via naturalistic science. They argue all the time that the naturalistic explanation can be interpreted as evidence of creation. Once again, I am surprised that a scientist such as yourself doesn't grasp the freedoms afforded your philosophy via naturalism. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
If someone considers BOTH ideas that would mean that person is more open minded. IOW Creationists and IDists consider the natural and non-natural whereas Meert and his ilk only consider the natural (even if it doesn't exist). Anyone with common sense can see who operates under a limiting factor. Ya see Meert I have the freedom to consider alternatives. It is you who is pidgeon-holing knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Umm, that's exactly what I said. Science explains things using naturalistic explanations which can then be fit to your personal philosophy from Zen Buddhist to Wicca no limitations. It bears repeating:
quote: quote: JM: Yes, I've made that point as well. That freedom of philosophical interpretation arises because science is approached from a naturalistic perspective. Are you so dense that you can't tell when someone actually agrees with you?
quote: JM: LOL, how so? Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited Joe Meert, 05-04-2004] [This message has been edited Joe Meert, 05-04-2004] [This message has been edited Joe Meert, 05-04-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Wrong Meert. Scientists may try to explain things using naturalistic explanations. Science holds no such limitations. Huge difference. However not everything may have a naturalistic explanation. I know my computer didn't arise via purely natural processes and I know science can explain my computer.
As for agreeing with me I would say we don't agree on this. Are you that dense that you think we are agreeing? One more time- it is scientists, not science, who may try to explain a phenomenon with naturalistic explanations. And again if something does not have a naturalistic explanation what do these scientists do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Science simply and plainly seeks explanations based on the natural world. One is perfectly free to take those naturalistic explanations and place them in a supernatural philosophy, a theistic philosophy or an intelligent design philosophy. By studying the world in a naturalistic framework, the extension is made to all other philosophies to interpret the findings as they see fit. Rather than being exclusionary, the natural basis of science is inclusionary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
JM:
Science simply and plainly seeks explanations based on the natural world. John Paul:Scientists might do that but science does not care. JM:One is perfectly free to take those naturalistic explanations and place them in a supernatural philosophy, a theistic philosophy or an intelligent design philosophy. John Paul:And if a naturalistic explanation doesn't exist or has been refuted? What then? Can't you see that all you are doing is lip service? There isn't any naturalistic explanation for the origins of life. Why is un-scientific to look for an explanation elsewhere?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: There is no testable supernatural explanation for the origins of life either. It's not wrong to look elsewhere, or even bad to look elsewhere, it's simply not science. For all your bragging about being a scientist, you sure make some funny assertions. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024