Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the top scientists of his day stated that manned, heavier than air flight was impossible and he had the math to prove it. Einstein’s theory was challenged but no matter. The ‘revolution’ will occur when a group of very smart people find a way around the FTL problem.
 
That is the problem of our day. Strangers are encouraging regular folk to ignore their God-given natures and then do whatever. But the alternatives always cause problems. Always.
 
After three satellites tried to prove the earth is not in a special place.

“But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun - the plane of the earth around the sun - the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is (s)imply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.”

― Lawrence Krauss
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
The imagination is the link between the self who knows and the known.
Click to expand...
Is this a scientific statement, or a mythological one?
Aloysium said:
I suppose truth is when we don’t lie to ourselves and the seer, the seeing and the seen are one.
Click to expand...
Indeed, a difficult state to achieve, but a worthy goal for us all!
Aloysium said:
We lose our minds because we cannot tolerate the loss of love.
Click to expand...
The question is, how can we scientifically prove that love exists? And then, how can it be proven that we lose our minds because we cannot tolerate the loss of it?

My point is that there are major aspects of the human psyche that are very difficult to prove “scientifically”, and impossible with empiricism, and yet, they are major elements of human experience.
 
edwest said:
One of the top scientists of his day stated that manned, heavier than air flight was impossible and he had the math to prove it.
Click to expand...
You have to differentiate between a well-researched, reviewed, and confirmed theory like Relativity and one guy’s opinion, even if that one guy is a respected scientists. It is a very different thing.
 
What occurs when something moves at great speed through space is a blueshift in the radiation produced by things to which we are getting closer and a redshift in the frequency of those where the distance is increasing. That the CMB is hotter on one side and cooler on the other may represent our moving relative to a resting cosmic microwave background. It’s not necessarily true then that the earth is in a special place but that the orientaion of its plane of revolution around the sun is special, perpendicular to the movement of the solar system in space relative to a fixed universe, something like the fact that only one side of the moon presents itself to us. The final word on this is by no means in, so I’m not sure my understanding is valid. It is odd.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
Quote corrected.
Click to expand...
Does not solve the issue of the “axis of evil” AND the concentric galaxies. The universe is not Copernican as thought and taught. The earth is in a special place.
Click to expand...
As I said, that article that says the earth is a special place by looking at background radiation is rubbish.
 
guanophore said:
Is this a scientific statement, or a mythological one?
Click to expand...
Metaphysical, I’d say.
guanophore said:
The question is, how can we scientifically prove that love exists? And then, how can it be proven that we lose our minds because we cannot tolerate the loss of it?
My point is that there are major aspects of the human psyche that are very difficult to prove “scientifically”, and impossible with empiricism, and yet, they are major elements of human experience.
Click to expand...
Love would be a metaphysical concept, and also psychological if we are speaking of emotions and behaviour. The latter can be studied and measured quantifying certain behaviours and their frequency in addition to compiling self-reports about feelings and their intensity, to be analysed statistically. This rests on there existing a common human psychology, the collective unconscious perhaps, that enables us to more or less understand one another. I agree that empirically studying the psyche is difficult and that there is no proof to what we know through intuition. That’s a problem with Asperger’s where the person cannot pick up some emotional cues and may be very sensitive to others. It can be hard to figure out what is going on in spite of trying to draw on “empirical evidence” through facial expression and behaviour, what another person is feeling, especially if those feelings are not in one’s psychological repertoire.
 
buffalo said:
I knew I could get you back! 😀
Click to expand...
They can’t help themselves. When the shiny thing appears, they just gotta lurch at it.

Trust you practice catch and release.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This article does not say earth is special. That is the rubbish part that was added in the earlier rubbish article.
Click to expand...
This comment is rubbish.

While the article explains the issues at length, the last line of the summary provide an indication of where it is heading:
The systematical or contaminative errors in observation or in data analysis, which can be directly related to the motion of our local group of galaxies, can play an important role in explaining the anomalies.
Click to expand...
The data is seen as anomolous rather than indicative of the earth’s being physically located in special place within the cosmos.

None of these findings would contradict the view that the universe did in fact develop in relation to the earth, such that the heavens would proclaim the birth and death of Jesus Christ to those who searched and could read their Divine message, before that medium was corrupted by superstition.

Regardless, the earth, where the Word of God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ is the spiritual centre of creation, irrespective of whether or not it is the physical hub.
 
Last edited:
It is apparent that the redshift does not describe what many think it does. Halton Arp worked with Edwin Hubble who stated that the redshift could be something else. That now appears to be the case. I think looking at galaxies more like electrons orbiting a galactic/universal center is closer to the mark. Some objects have been recorded as moving faster than light, which, for now, is being described as not possible. So, if the redshift is not recording speed, what does it actually show?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Richca:
40.png
buffalo:
Creation is top down, not down up.
Click to expand...
Philosophically speaking, ‘No effect is greater than its cause’.
Click to expand...
Scientifically speaking, effects greater than their cause happen all the time.
Click to expand...
It is not possible that an effect can be greater than its cause. Every effect is like its cause in some way and an effect can only proceed from a cause according to the being and nature of the cause and what the cause itself possesses. Accordingly, for an effect to be greater than its cause implies that the effect got something from nothing.

Being that you state that ‘scientifically speaking, effects greater than their cause happen all the time’, I’m interested to know what effects are you referring to here? Can you give any concrete examples?
 
Last edited:
The ignorance hurts. Make it stop. Please, if you have any mercy. Make it stop…
 
Except….

A curious coincidence​

Except for the quadrupole and octupole, which are just a few degrees away from each other. This coincidence was first noted by NASA’s early WMAP mission, but many dismissed it as a statistical fluke that would surely go away with better measurements.

It didn’t go away with better measurements. And it gets worse.

It seems that the CMB is slightly cooler when viewed through the “top half” of our solar system, and slightly warmer on the opposite side. I’m not talking much; just a handful of microKelvin difference, but it’s measurable and definitely there. Plus, this peculiar relationship to our solar system is aligned with the quadrupole and octupole.

Around the axis​

That’s odd. It’s one thing for two of the multipoles to be aligned — maybe that’s just random coincidence — but it’s another for them to be associated with our solar system. Hence the nickname “Axis of Evil,”

 
Strange alignments

Soon after WMAP returned its first data, researchers began to see odd features of the CMB multipoles. For example, Max Tegmark and Angelica de Oliveira-Costa of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Andrew Hamilton from the University of Colorado looked at individual multipoles of CMB anisotropies at large scales.

Tegmark and de Oliveira-Costa found the warm and cool lobes of the octopole lie

in a single plane. Furthermore, the quadrupole lies nearly in the same plane. This could happen by chance only about 0.1 percent of the time.

Researchers have considered a variety of possibilities. One might be some kind of

imperfection in WMAP’s detector that introduces the patterns, but there’s no evidence for this. It is also possible that some as-yet-undiscovered signal — a huge cloud of dust in the solar system, for example — is masquerading as a cosmological CMB.

Another speculation is that a preferred direction of the CMB arose early in the universe and has persisted. In each case, the explanation either introduces more coincidences than it solves, or else is simply not consistent with our knowledge of the solar system or the universe’s structure.

Loading…

www-personal.umich.edu
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top