Creationists going after the "atomic model"...

[aggle_rithm]

Check out

Design Vs. Chaos, A New Model of the Atom Based on Classical Science and a Biblical World View, 2000.

Also known as, "A New Model of the Atom Based on Yesterday's Science and The-Day-Before-Yesterday's Mythology."


On the bright side, this new theory will allow our children to blow through physics class in nothing flat!

 

[Crossbow]

So I guess the lesson is:

If science does not coincide with your religion,
Then invent a new science which does!

 

[hammegk]

Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

 

[Upchurch]

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

hammegk, dark matter is not a generally excepted theory.

Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

What religious attack on another belief system are you refering to?

 

[jj]

Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

(shakes head)...

You've misrepresented the proposed numbers, failed to point out that a range of numbers exists, ignored the fact that falsification is possible for at least some of the sensible theories, brought up the false notion that things must be "seen",and then called it all a belief system. Your argument appears willfully deceptive to me.

 

[hammegk]

hammegk, dark matter is not a generally excepted theory.

You mean the cosmologists are all wet? In my understanding, the 96% is "current consensus". Tez? Stimpy?

What religious attack on another belief system are you refering to?

"Duh" is unbecoming, UpC.



Question: Is jj's comment of sufficient substance to warrant taking him off my ignore list?

 

[hgc]

Question: Is jj's comment of sufficient substance to warrant taking him off my ignore list?

His comment is unseen by you. That means it doesn't exist.

 

[Khalid01]

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

Cosmology hasn't stated that the universe is in fact composed of 96% dark matter. What has been said however, is that for the universe to be closed, and therefore stop and close in on itself again, there would have to be an unimaginable plethora of dark matter, which can't be accounted for. However, if you did ask an Astronomer if there is any darkmatter present in the universe, they would say "yes". It is presently necessary to insert dark matter into our model of galaxies and the universe because otherwise galaxies could not hold together, that matter needs to be there, somewhere, and but we can't account for it yet. This is a logical conclusion stemming from the physics of spinning gravitational bodies. Isn't that right, Tez, Stimpy?

 

[Upchurch]

"Duh" is unbecoming, UpC.

Would you rather I assume what that you consider science a belief system or would you rather I stick to what you actually say, hammegk? If that is what you think, then have the balls to say it. I don't want to put words in your mouth for you.

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

Hmm, the basis for scientific belief systems is the ability tio make and replicate predictions, so what I have to ask is
Does the spining ring model have veriviable tests?

There is no matter there is only energy that fools us into calling it matter. Even worse is dark energy or the vacum energy.

 

[hammegk]

His comment is unseen by you. That means it doesn't exist.

Gee, hgc, I didn't realize you were that dumb. Of course I know jj said something. What I asked was would it be worthwhile reading it for any reason other than to see another irrelevant inanity & probably an ad hom if it was to me?

Would you rather I assume what that you consider science a belief system or would you rather I stick to what you actually say, hammegk? If that is what you think, then have the balls to say it. I don't want to put words in your mouth for you.

Uppie, you can take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut for all I care. (Although you may be right; posts to JREF now need to be at 2nd grade comprehension level. )

 

[BillHoyt]

Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

You rely, once again, on the "god of the gaps" fallacy. You also wish to impugn science's epistemological privilege by the sneering reference to it as a "belief system."

Cheers,

 

[hammegk]

You rely, once again, on the "god of the gaps" fallacy. You also wish to impugn science's epistemological privilege by the sneering reference to it as a "belief system."

Cheers,

Yeah, 99+% of reality is quite a gap. Why do you think filling that gap to the brim with scientific hubris is an epistemological privilege?

 

[AmateurScientist]

Yeah, 99+% of reality is quite a gap. Why do you think filling that gap to the brim with scientific hubris is an epistemological privilege?

Why are you so hostile to the scientific method and the best observations we can make from using it and existing technology?

Your hostility is really unbecoming and seriously detracts from any message you may or may not have.

Are you just an idealist like Ian? If so, then all of us can safely put you on ignore, as idealism is utterly empty and meaningless. A committed idealist really has nothing to contribute to a serious discussion about reality except to piss on everyone's cornflakes. Congratulations. I'm going to IHOP for breakfast and you're not invited (unless I've misread you again).

AS

 

[Brian the Snail]

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%,

So what's the other 3%

how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

hammegk, cosmology isn't the only science, you know.

Edited to add: And by the way, what has dark matter and cosmology got to do with the subject of the thread (i.e. an alternative atomic theory)

 

[Brian the Snail]

Very possibly. I recognize many of the schools as being creditable, but I'm not sure how one would go about tracking down these guys' credentials. Will schools give information about alumni over the phone?

You mean that little Joey Lucas' high school valedictorian might not be real

Seriously though, why does it matter? Surely the only point is not how many PhDs they have (believe me, PhDs are perfectly capable of junk science), but whether their theory has any merit or not.

And if you find any merit, let me know. Because I sure as hell can't find any...

 

[BillHoyt]

Yeah, 99+% of reality is quite a gap. Why do you think filling that gap to the brim with scientific hubris is an epistemological privilege?

Committing the same logical fallacy over and over again is a hallmark of militant ignorance, sir. There is no proper, non-tautological conclusion from "you don't know, therefore..." One wonders when that fact will sink in.

Cheers,

 

[Crossbow]

Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

Well hammegk, I was looking at your posts and I think that you have missed the most important point about science, and that is the thing is about science is that it is still the best tool we have for describing our universe. True, one day we may be able to find better tools, but so far none of these have been discovered.

Further, it is plainly clear that this "spinning-ring" model is clearly wrong. I see several things errors with it and to name just one, they claim that chaos theory is invalid. If that is the case, then that is fine with me, however they have not shown how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is in invalid which they should be able to do provided that there ideas are correct.

I hope this helps!

 

[Upchurch]

Uppie, you can take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut for all I care.

Okay. So, hammegk doesn't have the balls to explicitely state what he thinks. Since I'm forced to interpret his statements, the one above implies that the reason he has no balls whatsoever is because he knows his philisophical stance is extremely weak and can't stand up to scrutiny.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up, "hammie"

 

[Upchurch]

You mean that little Joey Lucas' high school valedictorian might not be real

[mode="Dr. Smith"]
Oh, the shame ....the shame of it all
[/mode]

Seriously though, why does it matter? Surely the only point is not how many PhDs they have (believe me, PhDs are perfectly capable of junk science), but whether their theory has any merit or not.

Excellent point, Brian. I'm still curious whether schools will hand out info on alum, but it really isn't pertenant.