My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_Maksutov]

Add to that the Mormons advocating for the hollow earth and you have a culture that seems to be a prolific Petri dish of nonsense.

At one time various ideas were considered nonsense.

The earth rotates around the Sun.
Light has a finite speed.
Small fast particles do not follow Newton's Laws of motion.
Most of the Universe is made of stuff we can't see.
Atoms are not solid.

Your comment does not match the history of discovery.

Your comment does not address my comment.

[_Franktalk]

Your comment does not address my comment.

Pretty typical response from you. Whereas science fully admits that science has changed their beliefs in the past they refuse to admit that what they believe today will change. Thus they violate their own rules that any new experiment can overturn what they believe. This paradigm in which they live in stops them from even considering anything outside of their paradigm. This by definition is not science but a belief system.

How strange it is to see this behavior. Even in religion I see the exact same thing. When I point out that Christ said his work was finished before the cross religious people ignore his own words because they live in a paradigm as well. They refuse to accept or even talk about his words dealing with his work. The religious refuse to consider that the cross did not mean anything. They are so stuck in a paradigm that they resort to name calling and redirection as a defense. How interesting it is to see the exact same reaction from science types when I talk about how science will in the future overturn much that is believed today.

[_Maksutov]

Your comment does not address my comment.

Pretty typical response from you. Whereas science fully admits that science has changed their beliefs in the past they refuse to admit that what they believe today will change. Thus they violate their own rules that any new experiment can overturn what they believe. This paradigm in which they live in stops them from even considering anything outside of their paradigm. This by definition is not science but a belief system.

How strange it is to see this behavior. Even in religion I see the exact same thing. When I point out that Christ said his work was finished before the cross religious people ignore his own words because they live in a paradigm as well. They refuse to accept or even talk about his words dealing with his work. The religious refuse to consider that the cross did not mean anything. They are so stuck in a paradigm that they resort to name calling and redirection as a defense. How interesting it is to see the exact same reaction from science types when I talk about how science will in the future overturn much that is believed today.

It is a typical response of mine in that it is factual. Your response is typical of you in that it is not.

You think you have transcended both science and religion? No, you've just created strawmen of both that you can dismiss. That's where you'll remain until you actually try to learn about them, from the people who have studied them, who have been there ahead of you and thought of things you can't imagine. That's what we do, Frank, we pass knowledge from generation to generation because people are willing to have the humility to acknowledge that someone else has superior knowledge, can be their teacher, and so they can learn from them and preserve the precious gains of our civilization over the centuries. Or we can wallow in solipsism and subjectivity and refuse to learn, not bother to communicate, and produce endless fictions to entertain ourselves and disguise our inertia until the infrastructure maintained by scientists and other conventional authorities collapses. When I read people on the Web writing absurd and inane distortions about science it reminds me of the Eloi in the Time Machine, going about their blissful lives because someone else solved all their problems for them. Don't be an Eloi, Frank.

[_spotlight]

It seems that gaps in our current understanding of things allows for a very dynamic future with many possible explanations of things not known today.

OK

I see science tell me that there is such a thing as dark matter. They say it influences normal matter by gravity.

That's the reason it's existence was proposed. Indirect evidence is often used in science. Since then, we've verified that dark matter is there with further data. Gravitational lensing has verified it as well for example.

They also say it can't be seen.

Hence the name.

Science also states that normal matter can be entangled.

Just to be sure we are on the same page:

"Quantum entanglement means that multiple particles are linked together in a way such that the measurement of one particle's quantum state determines the possible quantum states of the other particles."
http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphys ... lement.htm

They also say that entangled matter has an undetected communication pathway.

They are saying that space is nonlocal, In other words no communication is necessary.

It is also stated that information is transferred from one particle to another faster than the speed of light.

(see previous)

Yet I also hear that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

The expansion of the universe is faster than the speed of light if you get far enough away. So no, you are incorrect.

Does it bother you that science makes exceptions to the rules?

Not when you understand what the rules are about and what their limitations are, no. Your "exceptions" are due to you not correctly comprehending those rules and what they represent in the first place.

It's like rejecting C-14 dating for land dwelling fauna because the rules change for water dwelling fauna. When you understand what is being used and how to arrive at the date then you also understand that water dwelling fauna are not an exception to the rules but a case to which the specific rules used to date the land dwellers do not apply.

Does it bother you that science has favorite ways to explain things it can't observe?

I was not aware that science explained things it can't observe. Dark matter is observed by gravitation. In juxtaposition, it does bother me that believers of various stripes have favorite ways of explaining things they can't observe.

Does it concern you that science settles on a theory of dark matter when there are numerous other explanations for the same effects?

Would these other explanations fit the totality of collected data to date?

So using the non observed dark matter we could be awash in dark matter particles right now and would not know it.

Hence the name. They don't interact with particles we know more about.

We could have dark matter devices or creatures walking among us.

You criticize science for accepting the existence of dark matter due to the discovery of evidence for its existence then turn right around and use it to fabricate something for which there is no evidence and wish to criticize me for not acknowledging it??

In fact the lack of our ability to observe these things does not disprove them at all. Since science fully admits dark matter is dark.

OK. But reality is constrained by what we have observed and to repeat myself we have observed split brain patients and we have formulated the laws for the behavior of electrons. This falsifies spirits controlling the bodies of fauna but not necessarily the existence of spirits that have no control over us or invisible pink unicorns for that matter.

So science picks and chooses what it wants to believe.

Incorrect. It does not believe or disbelieve anything beyond accepting the observed world. Science describes those things revealed through observation. Since beliefs are applied to things unobservable, believers pick and choose what they want to believe. Hence you and NightLion at loggerheads.

It is a belief system like any other on the planet.

Not it isn't. This is a conclusion reached by those with a belief inspired agenda falsified by current science. It requires a very strained argument, so strained in fact that most recognize it for the silly nonsense it is except those who have a belief driven agenda to hold on to.

And of course all cults have there own dress code.

note to self, Frank lacks a dress code.

I guess none of this bothers you.

Frank, I invite you to separate yourself from the rest of society and only accept that technology into your life you can come up with on your own initiative. You do not get to read the science of this "cult" nor use it in any manner. You have to come up with it all on your own. OK? Until then put a lid on it (If that is allowed in the celestial realm)

[_Franktalk]

Frank, I invite you to separate yourself from the rest of society and only accept that technology into your life you can come up with on your own initiative. You do not get to read the science of this "cult" nor use it in any manner. You have to come up with it all on your own. OK? Until then put a lid on it (If that is allowed in the celestial realm)

Wow, this must really bother you. I fail to see the connection between my opinion about science and paradigms and my use of devices made by man's knowledge. Do you really feel that all men must accept your belief system before they can use the devices made by science? Would you deny Newton the use of a TV because he was a devout Christian? You must realize this makes you look like a cult much more than anything I have said. Would you also deny food to people who believe that the rains come from God?

[_spotlight]

Add to that the Mormons advocating for the hollow earth and you have a culture that seems to be a prolific Petri dish of nonsense.

At one time various ideas were considered nonsense.

The earth rotates around the Sun.
Light has a finite speed.
Small fast particles do not follow Newton's Laws of motion.
Most of the Universe is made of stuff we can't see.
Atoms are not solid.

Your comment does not match the history of discovery.

At one time various ideas were considered nonsense...
therefore all nonsensical ideas are potentially valid. - Franktalk

Frank,
A hollow earth would not have any gravitational pull on the inside.
There would be no way to hold a star in its center for that reason.
A star cannot be made small enough to fit in the first place.
There is no place for the heat to escape, etc.

But hey, at one time it was thought to be nonsense that people could fly, but they did! Wow, I guess a hollow earth makes sense after all!!!!!!!!

[_spotlight]

But even though GR is currently the reigning model, Newton's laws are still accurate enough to describe bullet trajectories etc and that is my only point. It is a model of reality that has certain limitations and where it is useful and accurate enough will not change with the passage of time. A thousand years from now it will still be sufficient to describe the trajectories of bullets (if their are still bullets around then).

If the universe goes into the big crunch will the laws of GR still apply?

Will the Bible or Book of Mormon?

We have not combined GR with QM as yet. But we recognize that we need to in order to describe such an event. But finding a gap in our knowledge does not cast an aspersion in any way upon the knowledge we have gained. You trying to do so however does mitigate against the validity of whatever point it is you are trying to make.

[_spotlight]

I fail to see the connection between my opinion about science and paradigms and my use of devices made by man's knowledge.

Incredible. You fail to see the connection between arguing against GR while using GPS, a device whose ability to function depends upon GR?? When GR is replaced by whatever combines it with QM will GPS stop working? Then will GR have been overthrown by the next discovery??

Do you really feel that all men must accept your belief system before they can use the devices made by science? Would you deny Newton the use of a TV because he was a devout Christian? You must realize this makes you look like a cult much more than anything I have said. Would you also deny food to people who believe that the rains come from God?

How big is that bag of strawmen you carry around?

People like youself that fight against science by promoting whatever fantasy strikes their fancy are indeed a threat to society. Society can make wrong turns as a result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

But in your specific case, if you want to preach against science then you should be stuck with your own science and whatever technology you can fashion from it, yes. Is that too much to ask from you?

[_Franktalk]

At one time various ideas were considered nonsense...
therefore all nonsensical ideas are potentially valid. - Franktalk

Frank,
A hollow earth would not have any gravitational pull on the inside.
There would be no way to hold a star in its center for that reason.
A star cannot be made small enough to fit in the first place.
There is no place for the heat to escape, etc.

But hey, at one time it was thought to be nonsense that people could fly, but they did! Wow, I guess a hollow earth makes sense after all!!!!!!!!

I was pointing out that man has had nonsensical ideas as far back as we have recorded history. And many of those nonsensical ideas came from men of science. To jump to the conclusion that I support a hollow earth when I have not made any statements about that theory is a pretty shallow nonlogical overreach. Nice try.

[_spotlight]

At one time various ideas were considered nonsense...
therefore all nonsensical ideas are potentially valid. - Franktalk

Frank,
A hollow earth would not have any gravitational pull on the inside.
There would be no way to hold a star in its center for that reason.
A star cannot be made small enough to fit in the first place.
There is no place for the heat to escape, etc.

But hey, at one time it was thought to be nonsense that people could fly, but they did! Wow, I guess a hollow earth makes sense after all!!!!!!!!

I was pointing out that man has had nonsensical ideas as far back as we have recorded history. And many of those nonsensical ideas came from men of science. To jump to the conclusion that I support a hollow earth when I have not made any statements about that theory is a pretty shallow nonlogical overreach. Nice try.

It's enough that you just referred to it as a theory Frank.