Gap Theory

[Johnv]

Well, I can't help but notice you seem to be very biased against Creationism and ID.

You have no basis in this thread to make that conclusion.

 

[Winman]

You have no basis in this thread to make that conclusion.

I don't? How many times have you said ID is not science? This is the same argument evolutionists make. The claim is that creationism and ID are not scientific because any intervention by the supernatural is not testable by the rules of science.

This is a clever little ploy that is very successful. But this is a relatively new view in science. In the past this rule did not exist and many scientists of the past considered supernatural causes.

Pure science is a search for truth. If the truth is that the universe was created by a supernatural Creator, then the supernatural should be considered as a cause.

Here is a good article showing why the supernatural should be considered in true science and does not violate it.

http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/corey.html

 

[Johnv]

I don't? How many times have you said ID is not science?

That's an objective fact. Stating an objective fact does not make one pro- or anti- anything. Science by definition adheres to the scientific method. ID does not attempt to adhere to the scientific method, and therefore is not science by definition.

This is the same argument evolutionists make.

That doesn't make the statement less correct.

 

[Winman]

That's an objective fact. Stating an objective fact does not make one pro- or anti- anything. Science by definition adheres to the scientific method. ID does not attempt to adhere to the scientific method, and therefore is not science by definition.

That doesn't make the statement less correct.

Science has been redefined in the last 150 years. Science now has come to be redefined as only accepting natural explanations. This was not the case in the past. So now, those who do not accept the possibility of a supernatural creator can claim (falsely) that any theory or explanation that does not rely solely on natural explanations is not science.

And you are parroting this. The problem with this is, if indeed the universe was created by a supernatural God (which it was), then you will never arrive at the truth.

Science will often argue that allowing for supernatural explanations will harm science. People will say "God did it" and not persue natural explanations. But this is utterly false, the belief in the supernatural has never stopped men from seeking natural explanations. In fact, the belief in a supernatual God is the foundation of science. It argues that the universe is governed by laws, and therefore can be tested. If there were no laws, then observation and testing would be meaningless.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Science has been redefined in the last 150 years. Science now has come to be redefined as only accepting natural explanations. This was not the case in the past. So now, those who do not accept the possibility of a supernatural creator can claim (falsely) that any theory or explanation that does not rely solely on natural explanations is not science.

And you are parroting this. The problem with this is, if indeed the universe was created by a supernatural God (which it was), then you will never arrive at the truth.

Science will often argue that allowing for supernatural explanations will harm science. People will say "God did it" and not persue natural explanations. But this is utterly false, the belief in the supernatural has never stopped men from seeking natural explanations. In fact, the belief in a supernatual God is the foundation of science. It argues that the universe is governed by laws, and therefore can be tested. If there were no laws, then observation and testing would be meaningless.

The fact is science works with what is decernable by testing. The rest is speculation. It doesn't those things don't exist or aren't probable. It keeps silent about things which it can't derterminable. The scriptures say that "what can be known of God has been made evident in the things that are visible. Both his existance and Nature." The fact is the atheistic scientist may believe in the big bang but is confused about the catalist or what was before. The atheist cannot disprove God. Yet God's existance is such that we can't currently deffinitively "proove" his existance with our current state of understanding. That is not to say at some point we will be able to. Yet I think we should be honest with what we do find in nature and not be dismissive as we often are because we believe it doesn't line up with our view of what scripture has said.

 

[Winman]

The fact is science works with what is decernable by testing.

Exactly. But testing is only valid and meaningful if the universe is governed by laws. Scientists of the past believed in a supernatural God who governed the universe by laws. They simply set out to discover and understand these laws. Do natural laws exist by chance?

So, the argument that there may be a God is valid and should not be excluded from the scientific method.

 

[Johnv]

Exactly. But testing is only valid and meaningful if the universe is governed by laws.

By your own defition, then, ID does not qualify as science because it cannot be tested against the laws of the universe.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Exactly. But testing is only valid and meaningful if the universe is governed by laws. Scientists of the past believed in a supernatural God who governed the universe by laws. They simply set out to discover and understand these laws. Do natural laws exist by chance?

So, the argument that there may be a God is valid and should not be excluded from the scientific method.

Not enough data. Currently the scientist can no confirm nor deny the existance of God.

 

[Winman]

Many theories that are considered science (because they exclude the supernatural) are not testable.

The word supernatural has for some become synonymous with divine. It should not be. Any phenomenon that is can not be explained as the outworking of natural laws is, by definition, super (or beyond) natural. Physicists have a fancy term for situations in which our current laws break down - a singularity. Examples in the mainstream scientific model include the state prior to the Big Bang and the scenario in the middle of a Black Hole. These are situations that are beyond our natural laws. Indeed, the Big Bang is supposed to have produced our natural laws. But how is a singularity different from a miracle? It really isn’t very different. Neither are repeatable or observable and so they fail Ruse’s criteria above. But I believe we can conduct tests to determine the reasonableness of these scenarios. Science puts the emphasis on testability, and does not rule out the supernatural. When approached the right way the supernatural can sometimes be testable science. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is an example. (See Remine, Walter, 1993, The Biotic Message, St. Paul Science, St. Paul, MN, pp. 49-53.)

So "natural" scientists are hypocritical. They have many theories which cannot be observed and are not testable but call them true science only because they argue a natural origin.

How do you feel about that?

 

[Johnv]

Many theories that are considered science (because they exclude the supernatural) are not testable.

That's where you're wrong. Your misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, testing in science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and ascertain how things work, based on that evidence. Further evidence can be tested against the original hyptheses, and will tend to either support, revise, or refute the original ascertation. Unless we come up with a designer-o-meter, ID is untestable.

 

[Winman]

Totally false. Science has many theories which cannot be tested. For instance the Big Bang. Science theorizes that the entire universe was condensed into a tiny singularity. This cannot be observed, and it cannot be tested. But they are left to speculate where this original singularity came from. It is pure speculation, nothing else, it cannot be observed or tested and never will be. Yet it is taught in classrooms everyday as true science.

 

[Johnv]

Science has many theories which cannot be tested. For instance the Big Bang. Science theorizes that the entire universe was condensed into a tiny singularity. This cannot be observed, and it cannot be tested.

Again, your misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments.

But they are left to speculate where this original singularity came from.

That's where your wrong. The question of where the singulary came from is not a question in the big bang theory. You're adding that to the theory in an attempt to refute it. It's like refuting gravity because you can't explain where gravity comes from.

 

[Winman]

Again, your misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments.

That's where your wrong. The question of where the singulary came from is not a question in the big bang theory. You're adding that to the theory in an attempt to refute it. It's like refuting gravity because you can't explain where gravity comes from.

It was you that insisted ID was not scientific because it could not be tested.

By your own defition, then, ID does not qualify as science because it cannot be tested against the laws of the universe.

You seem to have one set of rules for secular theories of origins and another for ID or Creationism.

Oh, I know, the Evos will say that they never ask where the singularity came from. That doesn't make the question go away. But they know if they do not exclude this question, then their theories are proven to be religious or faith based just as Creationism and ID.

Now, I call that intellectual dishonesty.

Here are just a few comments which this molecular biologist makes in the article on the subject of the complexity of DNA and human code. We have called this scientist 'MB' (for 'molecular biologist'):

Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Caylor: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

MB: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times:
One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself.
Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.”

Caylor: “I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

MB: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.”

Caylor: “What elephant?”

MB: “Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!”

 

[Johnv]

It was you that insisted ID was not scientific because it could not be tested.

That remains a fact. ID cannot be tested.

You seem to have one set of rules for secular theories of origins and another for ID or Creationism.

Now you're just making stuff up. Aside from the fact that I haven't mentioned creationism at all, I haven't come up with any testability argument different for one field than another. What I have been noting, however, is that there's an obvious misunderstanding on your part of what constitutes testability.

Oh, I know, the Evos will say that they never ask where the singularity came from. That doesn't make the question go away.

It's a nonsequitor. You're in effect saying that the theory of gravity should be tossed because it doesn't answer the question of who created gravity or where gravity came from.

Now, I call that intellectual dishonesty.

It's more a case of ignornace on your part, which leads you to accuse anyone who calls out your ignorance of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Winman]

That remains a fact. ID cannot be tested.

Many secular theories cannot be tested, dark matter for instance. There is not one iota of scientific evidence for it, it has never been observed or measured. It exists only in mathematical formulas. But numbers can be made to say anything. Like the old saying:

"Numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers"

 

[Johnv]

Many secular theories cannot be tested, dark matter for instance.

That's actually not true. Testing for dark matter can be done by measing gravitational effects on visible matter and comparing it to areas where matter cannot be seen but display a gravitational effect measurable in the same manner as visible matter (it's much more complex than that, but that's the very basic idea).

It exists only in mathematical formulas. But numbers can be made to say anything. Like the old saying: "Numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers"

Now you're just displaying your ignorance.

 

[Winman]

So, I'm ignorant. Tell me John, what is it that you believe? I have been very forthcoming in saying I am a six-day Creationist. I believe God created the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them in six literal 24 hour days.

What do you believe?

And as far as dark matter, many disagree with you. Here is one such article.

In the Dark on Matter
Fabulous Matter and Energy

Since there is no experimental or observable evidence that dark matter exists, is it just a prop for the beleaguered big bang theory? This highly speculative construct is now combined with one just as fabulous--dark energy--to shore up current cosmological dogma.

In the 1930s, astronomers Fritz Zwicky and Sinclair Smith were puzzled by the motions they observed within the Virgo and Coma galactic clusters. Everything seemed to be moving too fast to be held in place by gravity. So they conjectured that something they could not see was exerting a gravitational effect on these clusters. But most astronomers were only marginally impressed.

In the 1970s, however, astronomers began to examine the rotational motions of spiral galaxies such as our own Milky Way. The rotational speeds of the stars that make up spiral galaxies are far too great, they said: At such speeds the constituent stars should be flying apart. So astronomers, accustomed to thinking only in terms of gravity, calculated how much additional matter was required—and where—to fit the observations. The idea of invisible material or “dark matter” soon became essential if the observed motions were to make sense gravitationally. Today astronomers say there is far more dark matter than visible matter acting on galactic structure.

In the years that followed the questions only deepened, as the proposed “answers” grew more complex and bizarre and theorists speculated about MACHOs—“ Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects”—and a presumed counterpart called WIMPs—“Weakly Interacting Massive Particles”. Then the theorists began to distinguish between “cold” dark matter and “hot” dark matter, supplemented by “warm” dark matter and “baryonic” dark matter.

From the beginning it has been a game accessible only to mathematicians. But today, suspicions abound that the theoretical excursions have no actual connection to anything occurring in nature. As The Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe puts it, "there is no experimental or observable evidence that dark matter exists. It's a theory to make the big bang work".

Advocates of the Electric Universe point out that astronomers can maintain the “credibility” of this game only by insisting that electromagnetism has no appreciable role in the organization of cosmic structure. “And it isn’t as if the evidence for galactic magnetic fields and therefore electricity is lacking!” laughs Wallace Thornhill, who has devoted much of his life to exploring the role of electricity in space.

What is the nature of “missing matter”, and does it even exist in truth? It is interesting to note that astronomers cannot answer the first question, but do not doubt the answer to the second. We see the contradiction ratified daily in the popular scientific media. A story at the Universe Today website begins, “Dark matter is a mystery. Astronomers know it's there because they can measure the effect of its gravity on stars and galaxies, but they can't see it”. Perhaps the author does not realize that the confidence he exudes rests entirely on the astronomers’ conjectures. Their equations “work” only in an abstract world, and only because the mathematicians have systematically excluded electricity.

The diagram at the top of the page shows the universal confusion between matter and mass. (It's a pity both words begin with "m", say the electrical theorists; otherwise mathematicians might not have gotten away with this sleight of hand). Everyone recognizes the equation relating energy and mass (E = mc2), but no one knows what gives matter its apparent mass. One of the foundational principles of physics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Matter cannot be converted into energy or vice versa. In other words, energy and matter are not equivalent and cannot be lumped together as in the above diagram.

The truth is that we have no real idea of the relationship between matter, mass, and gravity. It is our ignorance of this relationship that has permitted the big bang theory to flourish and has created the “problem” of missing mass. Dark matter was invented to rescue a gravity-driven universe and to make the big bang work, even if the theory requires “creation from nothing" and must violate, in its first principles, every fundamental law of physics.

Is there an alternative? Yes, plasma cosmologists are waiting in the wings for working scientists to tire of the theorists’ mathematical escapades, and to think first of the things we actually know. Grant the role of electricity on a galactic scale, and the case for dark matter evaporates. Plasma physicists have successfully demonstrated the formation and dynamics of the classic spiral shape (spiral galaxy) in laboratory electrical discharges. And observations of magnetic fields in spiral galaxies match the laboratory forms, which are known to be scaleable over more than 14 orders of magnitude. The magnetic fields trace the electric currents flowing along the spiral arms of galaxies. Electromagnetic forces alone can thus produce the classic structure and rotation of ubiquitous, magnificent galactic formations. No dark matter required!

So much for real science.

 

[Johnv]

So, I'm ignorant. Tell me John, what is it that you believe?

So now we step into McCarthyism, wanting to know if I've ever been a member of the communist party. I've said before I'm a huge promonent of Intelligent Design. That fact doesn't make it science. In reference to the OP, I stated that the Gap Theory is not scripturally supportable.

And for the record, I have no problem with a 6 day creation. Again, however, science doesn't support it. I don't need science to validate my personal religious beliefs.

And as far as dark matter, many disagree with you...

That's what the scientific method is for.

 

[Winman]

So now we step into McCarthyism, wanting to know if I've ever been a member of the communist party. I've said before I'm a huge promonent of Intelligent Design. That fact doesn't make it science. In reference to the OP, I stated that the Gap Theory is not scripturally supportable.

How is asking what you believe McCarthyism? One of the purposes of this forum is so people can discuss their personal beliefs. What? Do you think I have the power to blacklist you? I am all for freedom and speech and ideas. I may not agree with you, but I believe you have the right to your own opinions.

And I'll tell you, from your answers you do not come across as a supporter of ID whatsoever. It is just as scientific as secular or evolutionist science. What I showed by that article is that there is a great deal of speculation and conjecture used in secular science. But then they turn around and dismiss ID and Creationism for the same thing.

You may not be able to accept that, but that is the truth.

 

[Johnv]

How is asking what you believe McCarthyism?

It's pigeonholing, and a bit of a strawman, implying that a person's comments are invalid unless s/he adheres to a specific set of beliefs. Since I've been dealing with matters of objective fact, my personal beliefs aren't relevant.

And I'll tell you, from your answers you do not come across as a supporter of ID whatsoever.

So let me get this straight. Unless I espouse the notion that Intelligent Design is science, I'm not a supporter of it?

It is just as scientific as secular or evolutionist science.

I haven't mentioned evolution at all, I'v ebeen referring strictly to ID. But now you're just dancing and backpeddling. Your past posts imply that it is your belief that ID is testable, then you say evolution isn't science, then you say that testability isn't a requirement for something to be science, and now you're going to do the "evolution isn't testable" dance.

But then they turn around and dismiss ID and Creationism for the same thing.

ID and creationism are dismissed because they fail the scientific method. There are a lot of scietific theories that I don't particularly agree with (in fact, I'm hugely debating string theory and temporal mechanics with some buddies of mine), but the fact that I don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't pass the scienteific method.

You may not be able to accept that, but that is the truth.

I think ID is fantastic, but it is not science. You may not be able to accept that, but that is the truth.