lets apply CSI to a real world situation


Richard Smol wrote:
spintronic wrote:
Richard Smol wrote:
spintronic schreef:

Gary Bohn wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1147925484.290242.274090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Gary Bohn

Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.

You obviously havent heard of things like "MOND" or "renormalisation"
techniques in QM.

What about those.

RS

Creationists arent the only ones desperately & emotionally trying to
pull rabbits out of the proverbial hat. Both these theories are based
on nothing more than trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. With
absolutely no "scientific rational" explanation for their existance,
apart from the fact that they helps fit the numbers a little bit
better.

I think "MOND" should technically stand for "modified newtonian
gravity".!

But i guess "MONG" was a bit of an obvious pun that its creator
couldn't live with, so he went with "modifdied newtonian dynamics".

Other "irrational" theories include dark matter, doesnt it seem a bit
strange that 90% of our universe should be made up of a substance that
"isn't" found in our entire solar system. Or any of the thousands of
particle smashing experiments carried out each year.

MOND is not generally accepted anyway since it doesn't offer the right
predictions, so the point is moot. Dark matter is to be believed to
largely consist of not yet discovered particles that also exist within
out solar system. At least there is evidence that it exists because one
can observe its gravitational effects. That is more than the evidence
creatonists have for their claims: abolutely nothing.

the gravitational effects are the reason dark matter was proposed in
the first place, so i wouldnt call that evidence. rather, the results
from WMAP would constitute evidence for dark matter.


Thats like saying, hydrogen makes up 99% of the inter stella medium.
But it doesnt exist on earth!

Whoever said that it doesn't exist on earth? Of course it exists here
as well, but wo don't yet know what it is made of.

And your claims about renormalization simply show your ignorance about
the subject.

RS

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Definition Challenge
    ... "Reasonably consistent" is defined by fit to the evidence. ... war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, ... No airplanes land. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: lets apply CSI to a real world situation
    ... Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, ... techniques in QM. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Properly Understanding the Rocks
    ... of our planet from its initial creation to the present time." ... Ussher's chronology which was based on internal evidence from the Bible ... The World Wide Flood    2348 BC ... hypotheses are derived from and made to fit ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hades - or Eden?
    ... > evidence at the moment so I accept it as such. ... of obviously mad theories that fit the observed evidence; ... whether you endorse, and try to act on the basis of, some notion; ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: The universe looks designed to me
    ... Actually it would be a point in favor of the formulation of the theory: ... it would show the theory was able to be modified to fit the evidence. ... modifies the theory to fit evidence, the other modifies evidence to fit ...
    (talk.origins)