The God-Did-It Theory (was ... 10th Planet)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>
<br />I submit this link:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Nobody here is going to click on a foreign link and get spammed or worse, or even build up someone's hit count. Protocol here is to state whatever is relevant to the discussions here, and use the link (if needed) as a citation to credit your sources, while not requiring people to go there to address the point.

I expect that, if there is a rational argument that creationism is anything more than a belief system, you will generate some lively debate by stating it in clear, plain language, as has happened before on this Message Board when the subject of origins comes up. But I seriously doubt that such an argument exists.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That’s what happens when people are afraid of opposition to their belief system.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You seem not to have grasped the difference between a belief system and a product of scientific methodology. The essence of it is this. Beliefs can be anything, even something impossible, and are frequently contradictory to the beliefs of others. Products of scientific methodology arise almost exclusively from external, objective reality through experiment, observation, data collection, and testing. A properly designed protocol ensures that the beliefs of the experimenter cannot influence the outcome of the testing. So beliefs play no role in the conclusions.

Of course, science is filled with beliefs too, simple because people are human and can't help being biased. But all such beliefs are eventually tested by objective protocols and either converted to scientific hypotheses or weeded out. -|Tom|-

If science has the ability to weed out false ideas why is astrophysics still growing and going strong. If you need to believe in dense matter, blackholes, expanding space and other such unprovable ideas just to get past asph101 how can weeding be done? If you have to confess fusion power rules and believe in the rules of the game just to get a low paying job in the field how do you get anyone to do the weeding?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />how do you get anyone to do the weeding?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's why organizations such as Meta Research exist -- as a chack and balance on the deviations from science for purely political and financial reasons that have occurred in astronomy of late. -|Tom|-

I don't really know if we are on the same page but it seems to me this has been going on for 75 years now and is getting more and more goofy these days. They are now kicking around the idea constants need to be dismissed in order to comprehend the BB in the early days 12bya or so. I would say a constant was the same way back as it is now. The whole field is a sham in need of a revolution.

Hey any One Got the NEW CERN DATA
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
MARX

I have not, but from time to time I hear they are looking for some sort of "God Particle".

Did they find a candidate? (FYI, in an infinite universe there will always be a NextSmallerParticle, so a God particle cannot exist. Hmmm. Unless your theology allows for a hierarchy of gods.)

LB