Excessively Presumptive Cosmologists

By -
In any field of science, there has to be some degree of presumption. Scientists have to presume the uniformity of nature and its laws (although secularists refuse to admit that God, who created everything, upholds the universe by his power). When getting further into evolution-related fields, more presumptions are made based on naturalistic presuppositions. This is clearly seen in cosmology — which is not even science, but a philosophy.
Credit: NASA / ESA (modified)
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Cosmic owlhoots Krauss and Scherrer wrote a paper that may not have been entirely serious, saying that cosmologists in the future may not have the necessary information to make the correct conclusions about the universe that today's scientists have made. What, nobody keeps or refers to records? The authors got the bit in their teeth and galloped off with the presumption that they are correct in the first place in the here and now. (Reminds me of the tinhorns who sequenced the human genome years ago, did it sloppily, then asserted that the DNA they didn't find a use for in their current, limited knowledge was "junk". Then they were proved way, way wrong.) Further pursuits and assertions reveal that the Big Bang assumptions of the authors have a seriously flawed epistemology (study of knowledge). Scientists today need a passel of humility, as their arrogance is getting in the way of doing useful science.
Lawrence Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer surprised the cosmology world in 2007 when they published an essay titled “The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology.” The paper showed that, assuming the truth of the current big bang model, in the far future (hundreds of billions of years from now) many evidences for the big bang itself will be gone, preventing future cosmologists from even being able to detect evidence for it.

In these papers, it is noted that, assuming the big bang model is true, at some point in the future, galaxies will be far enough away from each other as to not be seen. Within a galaxy, the operation of physics is relatively static. Therefore, at some point in the future, we will not be able to witness some of the more dynamic effects of expansion, which were critical in the development of big bang cosmology.
To read the rest, click on "What Krauss and Scherrer’s 'End of Cosmology' Scenario Means for the Epistemology of Modern-Day Cosmology". 

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more