Good idea, me too. I just tend to think that if gravity accelerates massive objects then even if you cannot find the gravity, but if you still see the objects accelerating then there must be gravity somewhere or some other ‘thing’ which gives the same effect.Ever since I first heard about dark matter I have been utterly confused by it. I can understand why it must exist, but the best trys at detecting it, even indirectly or obliquely, have failed. That leaves the best physicists stumped and perplexed and so you can imagine how a guy that had enough trouble with High School geometry must feel. But, then again there are physicists that are working on new models that don’t need dark matter to work. So I guess I’ll just sit back and see how this plays out.
ChadS
My rejection is logical and scientific. I have said several times in my previous posts: other scientists disagree with the BBt, they give logical and scientific reasons for that. I believe in their reasons over the ones given by the BBt proponents.This comment supports my original suspicion that your rejection of Big Bang is not based on sound scientific and logical reasons. That is, your comparison of Big Bang with Von Daniken reveals that you are not a good judge of either one.
Prieldedi, can you remind me of who these other scientists are, and what their qualifications are to speak on the matter of the Big Bang theory?My rejection is logical and scientific. I have said several times in my previous posts: other scientists disagree with the BBt, they give logical and scientific reasons for that. I believe in their reasons over the ones given by the BBt proponents.
I don’t recall having seen your list either. Can you give me the post # where you listed yours?Prieldedi, can you remind me of who these other scientists are, and what their qualifications are to speak on the matter of the Big Bang theory?
The Big Bang nowhere states that there was ever a point when there was no matter because the bang occurred from a reaction in a a very dense small clutter of matter. I believe God created that dense ball of matter and guided or forced it until the big bang occurred.I disagree. We cannot equate the Big Bang with Creation itself as mentioned in Genesis. Pope Pius XII, in his enthusiasm for the Big Bang theory originally tended to equate the Big Bang with Creation. However, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, the originator of the theory advised Pope Pius XII that it is a mistake to think of the Big Bang as Creation. The Pope agreed.
To equate the Big Bang with Creation is tantamount to saying science can prove creatio ex nihilo. Creation is beyond the scope and competence of the natural sciences. Science can address the initial singularity but it can say nothing more, that is, science cannot say anything about what was “prior” to the initial singularity because there was nothing, or rather nothing to speak of, and science does not investigate nothingness. In other words science cannot prove that the Big Bang was Creation itself, because Creation is creatio ex nihilo and science does not treat of the ultimate origin of created things.
It’s a fine distinction being drawn, yet it is a critical one, one that is easily misunderstood. The Big Bang is very suggestive of Creation because it shows that matter has not always existed. The Big Bang theory did not appeal to a number of atheistic scientists who want to believe the universe always existed. Consequently, they are now spinning off useless theories about multi-verses or parallel universes, and matter constantly popping into existence out of nothing. And its absurd that these alternative theories can pass for theoretical physics when they are not science at all.
My point about "when we actually get there still stands. It may not even be in the temperature range they think it is in now. Just like Venus. Just like Mars. (Except oh so much farther away, and subject to even more error.It is good not to read too much into that title or any initial reports of any discovery. The title basically claims that the similarity that is being drawn is based on COROT 9 b’s relatively moderate temperatures. Nothing more. When you read the temperature range estimates, which are highly provisional, you see that COROT 9 b is not much like Earth at all. But the title is catchy. However, the popular media may significantly hype the discovery just as they do with their tiresome hype about the “missing link”. Uncritical readers fall for it every time.
If you haven’t read Privileged Planet, I strongly recommend it. It goes into the moon connection, as well as a few dozen others which relate to life on Earth.One thing about Earth that I don’t see being given much discussion is the uniqueness of our moon relative to Earth. There are several reasons why Earth’s moon has made it possible for life to develop on Earth. Without the particular effects the moon has on the Earth there would be no scientists to explore exoplanets. For instance, if our moon was just one third smaller than it is there would be no astronomers to look at it.
The unique factors with our Earth-moon system relates to the possibility of finding a planet capable of supporting life. I think such a planet would at least need a planet-moon ratio similar to Earth’s. That factor greatly reduces the chances of finding life-bearing planets.
You are something else. You constantly prance around saying that folks are ignorant because they don’t believe the latest and greatest scientific knowledge du-jour. Then you turn around and say “But scientific knowledge is provisional and we expect it to change.” And you see no contradiction. Earth to Alice, come in Alice…Learn what? That scientific knowledge is provisional? That’s been accepted by science for the last 500 years, at least.
When did I express an equivalence between scientific knowledge and truth?You need to learn that Scientific Knowledge is not the same as Truth. It may not even be converging on Truth.
Here’s a start. Any of these societies will have hundreds of members who accept Big Bang Cosmolgoy:I don’t recall having seen your list either. Can you give me the post # where you listed yours?
* The American Association for the Advancement of Science is the world's largest general scientific society. The AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals.
* American Association of University Professors
o "deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."[4]
o Regarding Academic Freedom bills: "Such efforts run counter to the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution and are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the meaning of academic freedom."[5][6]
* American Astronomical Society
o 2005 letter sent to President George W. Bush by society President, Dr. Robert P. Kirshner: "'Intelligent design' isn’t even part of science – it is a religious idea that doesn’t have a place in the science curriculum."[7]
o 2005 statement on the Teaching of Evolution: ""Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers. Since "Intelligent Design" is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation’s primary and secondary schools."[8]
* American Chemical Society The ACS includes 159,000 chemists and chemical engineers. "urges... State and local education authorities to support high-quality science standards and curricula that affirm evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation for the origin and diversity of species."[9]
* American Geophysical Union The AGU represents over 43,000 Earth and space scientists. "Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory." [10]
* American Institute of Physics has a Governing Board policy statement supporting evolution and opposing creationism.[11]
* American Psychological Association The Science Directorate and the APA Council of Representatives issued a Resolution Rejecting Intelligent Design As Scientific And Reaffirming Support For Evolutionary Theory.[12]
* American Society of Agronomy The ASA represents over 10,000 members. "Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united on this matter."[13]
* American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology The ASBMB is a scientific and educational society representing 12,000 biochemists and molecular biologists. ""Intelligent design" is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. ..."intelligent design" might be appropriate to teach in a religion or philosophy class, but the concept has no place in a science classroom and should not be taught there."[14]
* Botanical Society of America "The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes."[15]
* Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology The Federation represents 22 professional societies and 84,000 scientists, and its statement FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs was adopted by the FASEB Board of Directors.[16]
* National Association of Biology Teachers "Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. ... Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke metaphysical, non-naturalistic or supernatural mechanisms, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the scope of science and therefore are not part of a valid science curriculum." - Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors, 1995. Revised 1997, 2000, May 2004, and 2008. Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution,1998; The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1998. [17]
* The National Science Teachers Association NSTA is a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators. "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."[18]
* United States National Academy of SciencesAgreed. I made no statement that contradicts.The Big Bang nowhere states that there was ever a point when there was no matter because the bang occurred from a reaction in a a very dense small clutter of matter.
Certainly. I would not deny that.I believe God created that dense ball of matter and guided or forced it until the big bang occurred.
[/QUOTE]My point about "when we actually get there still stands. It may not even be in the temperature range they think it is in now. Just like Venus. Just like Mars. (Except oh so much farther away, and subject to even more error.
Awesome! I will definitely put that title on my reading list.I fully agree.
You asked me: “can you remind me of who these other scientists are, and what their qualifications are to speak on the matter of the Big Bang theory?”Here’s a start. Any of these societies will have hundreds of members who accept Big Bang Cosmolgoy:
- American Association of University Professors
“deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an “intelligent-design hypothesis” to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.”[4]
Regarding Academic Freedom bills: “Such efforts run counter to the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution and are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the meaning of academic freedom.”[5][6]- American Psychological Association The Science Directorate and the APA Council of Representatives issued a Resolution Rejecting Intelligent Design As Scientific And Reaffirming Support For Evolutionary Theory.[12]
- American Society of Agronomy The ASA represents over 10,000 members. “Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united on this matter.”[13]
- American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology The ASBMB is a scientific and educational society representing 12,000 biochemists and molecular biologists. ““Intelligent design” is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. …“intelligent design” might be appropriate to teach in a religion or philosophy class, but the concept has no place in a science classroom and should not be taught there.”[14]
- Botanical Society of America “The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes.”[15]
- Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology The Federation represents 22 professional societies and 84,000 scientists, and its statement FASEB Opposes Using Science Classes to Teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs was adopted by the FASEB Board of Directors.[16]
- National Association of Biology Teachers “Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. … Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke metaphysical, non-naturalistic or supernatural mechanisms, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the scope of science and therefore are not part of a valid science curriculum.” - Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors, 1995. Revised 1997, 2000, May 2004, and 2008. Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution,1998; The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1998. [17]
I am not sure why you capitalized “Scientific Knowledge” and “Truth” but to assert that “scientific knowledge may not even be converging on truth” is a fairly sweeping statement, one which includes all of the sciences, and thus it reflects an unhealthy degree of skepticism about the achievements of the human mind.You need to learn that Scientific Knowledge is not the same as Truth. It may not even be converging on Truth.
Your phrase “mystery of Creation of the Universe” capitalizes “Creation”, which makes your post ambiguous. By “Creation” do you mean God’s act of Creation* ex nihilo*. If so, science does not study the theological doctrine of Creation *ex nihilo. *So, it is not a matter at all of “academic freedom” if Creation is not taught or discussed in the science department.By reading some of the quotes you wrote reminds me of police states (like Germany in the 1930s), where freedom of thought is oppressed in the name of advancement of human excellence. They say they defend “academic freedom”, yet they want to ban any other explanation to the mystery of the Creation of the Universe and life on Earth. Why deny other ideas in the center where ideas flow, the university? In religious matters, the Church has not proposed the ban of other religions, yet your “enlightened scientists” want to impose one thought regarding this issue. Thought control. This is bad, too bad. God forbids they gain control of the military…
It is because of observed evidence that these things have been proposed. If they don’t really exist, whatever they are, then our universes’ current behaviour does not make any sense. Tell me Jim, does your car accelerate with no engine. Whatever the engine happens to turn out to be, or whatever dark matter happens to turn out to be, its effect [acceleration] seems to exist.…Also, from what I am able to discern, no evidence of these hypothetical beings have been observed…
Again, thanks!
The Big Bang theory is based on the following observed phenomena:This is a repeat post of # 177.
From what I am able to discern, the Big Bang Theories have three hypothetical beings or entities.
First, the dark energy field
Second, non-baryonic (dark matter)
Third, the inflation field
Also, from what I am able to discern, no evidence of these hypothetical beings have been observed.
I am an astronomy enthusiast, have studied it for a while and have taken some college courses.Also, if these questions are addressed, it would be helpful if one addresses whether they have actually done the physical or theoretical research.
I am hoping for information, not fights, disagreements, or agreements.
It is what I do not know that will give me light.
Again, thanks!