Storybook Claims And Empirical Justification

Scientific explanations are thick, many times dry and sometimes unapproachable to most except specialists. Secular science as often point out here, go way beyond empirical justification. Here are some examples…


“Now scientists have used dark matter theory to predict the menagerie of galaxies found in the universe. Their new model reproduces 13 billion years’ worth of cosmic evolution, resulting in a surprisingly accurate tally of the different kinds of galaxies we see.”

This is a case where these scientists and media alike are taking advantage of the public attention on such matters. First of all, nobody has seen nor detected “dark matter” and yet we read they have such an “accurate” take on it. The hypothesis of dark matter was to fill in a void because gravity was not enough to explain many observations in space.  Nor has anyone seen a galaxy rotate once, let alone form and evolve.

Without empirical justification one can let their imagination fly all over the place and make claims of solving one of the mysteries of space. As far as accuracy, there are always multiple theories that can account for the same data. When “dark matter” is used to make the model’s prediction work, it casts doubt on the whole explanation. Models like these work great in Hollywood, but not in the real world!

Credit: Katy Brooks

In another article in science daily, supercomputers were used to run simulations using of course the “cold dark matter theory” and other speculations to make it work or at least mostly work…Funny how they refer to it as “cold” I had a person in here once arguing how warm it was…Anyway, the article continued…

“There’s been just one problem: the theory suggested most galaxies should have far more stars and dark matter at their cores than they actually do. The problem is most pronounced for dwarf galaxies, the most common galaxies in our own celestial neighborhood. Each contains less than 1 percent of the stars found in large galaxies such as the Milky Way.”

“Now an international research team, led by a University of Washington astronomer, reports Jan. 14 in Nature that it resolved the problem using millions of hours on supercomputers to run simulations of galaxy formation (1 million hours is more than 100 years). The simulations produced dwarf galaxies very much like those observed today by satellites and large telescopes around the world.”

The computer simulation was based on 75 percent unobserved reality. This unobserved reality of “cold dark matter” we are told “works amazing well.”  Amazing well? They don’t know what this fill in the void theory is let alone know how it works!


6 thoughts on “Storybook Claims And Empirical Justification

  1. Michael: “First of all, nobody has seen nor detected “dark matter” and yet we read they have such an “accurate” take on it. The hypothesis of dark matter was to fill in a void because gravity was not enough to explain many observations in space. ”

    Nobody has ever seen nor detected “gravity” and yet we read they have such an “accurate” take on it. The hypothesis of gravity was to fill in a void because Kepler’s crystal spheres were not enough to explain many observations in space.

    Have you seen gravity, Michael? Have you ever seen “energy”? Ergo, you believe they don’t exist.

    The problem of the neutrino illustrates the point. The law of conservation of energy down to the last decimal place was supported by thousands of observations and experiments. And yet…. Certain reactions of nuclear particles seemed to violate this law—by a very tiny amount, but within experimental error. Should physicists have thrown over the law?

    In 1930, Pauli proposed to save the law with a hypothetical, unobserved particle that Fermi named the “neutrino.”[1] For almost 25 years, no one could detect the neutrino—it could penetrate severall light-years of ordinary matter with no observable effect.[2] According to atomic “theory” a neutrino would initiate the reaction antineutrino + proton –> neutron + positron. In 1953, Reines built a massive detector for this reaction. Did he actually “observe” the neutrino? No. Did he even “see” the positron? No. The positron was inferred from its annihilation with an electron that produced two coincident 0.5Mev gamma rays traveling in opposite directions.[3] Because of large interference from cosmic rays, detecting this reaction took two years, and the detector had to be moved and expanded.

    So no one has ever seen a neutrino. No one has ever even observed one directly. We know they exist only by a result at the end of a multi-step process that was predicted from an amount of energy that they must carry away in a nuclear reaction that did not fit another theory in physics.[1]

    Yet, I’d bet dollars to deuterium that Michael believes in neutrinos, even with less evidence than for dark matter.

    Consistency is not a hallmark of creationists.

    [1[] Is this beginning to sound familiar?

    [2] Michael would have snickered up his sleeve at the just-so stories told by these deluded physicists.

    [3] They used many photomultiplier tubes. Micahel doesn’t even know what those are. He thinks you can “see” gamma rays with your eyeballs.

  2. Michael: “The computer simulation was based on 75 percent unobserved reality. This unobserved reality of “cold dark matter” we are told “works amazing well.” Amazing well? They don’t know what this fill in the void theory is let alone know how it works!”

    Michael has a low opinion of computer simulations. He apparently believes that they all contain the answer that the scientist is looking for, lurking somewhere in the program code.

    This seems to mean that Michael carries his umbrella even when the weather forecast for today predicts 0.00% chance of rain. After all, weather forecasting is nothing but a computer simulation from atmospheric conditions. So, if the weatherman wants, sunshine, he slyly inserts his desired outcome into the simulation, then runs it for a few hours into the future, and—voici! The answer comes out “0.00% chance of rain.”

    It should be quite obvious by now that Michael has not the foggiest idea what a computer simulation is, or how it works. How about another pop quiz, Michael? What are the two basic types of simulation?…. (I thought not.)

    But, again, consistency is not a virtue of creationists.

    Michael would have no problem with a mathematical equation such as F=Gm1m2/d to find the force of gravity between two bodies. We can turn this into a simulation merely by evaluating the equation at different points in time, using the results of the previous execution. In the gravitation case, this would give us a time picture of the trajectory of m1 and m2 as they interact according to the equation F=Gm1m2/d(t) for t=t1, t2, t3, …. Now, Michael would believe the equation, because—well, because it is mathematurgical, and would disbelieve the simulation, because it is, uh, not, sort of, well maybe just because.

    We say that an equation is accurate when the result of solving it with a known input produces a known output for a number of cases. We say that a simulation is accurate under exactly the same circumstances.

    Michael again puts his ignorance on public display.


    It is interesting—to me, at least—that many sciences are moving away from equation-based theories to simulation-based explanations, because the latter can incorporate location and time easily. Especially where the subject matter involves networks or other large collections of objects

    Complex-system theory, for example, is rapidly expanding the field of agent-based models, in which the simulation records the interactions of the components that obey a set of predefined rules. See, for example, Auyang, Foundations of Complex-System Theories in Economics, Evolutionary Biology, and Statistical Physics. This work was presaged by Stephen Wolfram in his book A New Kind of Science,where he proposed that all equation-based science be replaced by equivalent cellular automata—a kind of simulation, but under a different rubric.

    Wait. it might be interesting to Michael that one of his fellow young-earth creationists—who visited this blog not long ago—has written a paper using a type of computer simulation (a universal Turing machine) to demonstrate the impossibility of large-scale evolution. Another—of the ID persuasion—has written a peer-reviewed paper using simulations which he claims show that any evolutionary fitness search must incorporate intelligence.

    I guess they just programmed in the answers thay wanted, and turned the crank, right?

  3. Whoa, Michael. Whether dark matter exists or not has absolutely nothing to with creationism. Biblical creation could have occurred equally well with dark matter, or without it. Biblical creation could be absolutely, stunningly false with dark matter or without it.

    Have you ever heard the phrase “exercise in futility”? I thought not.


  4. Wrong, Soc. What if dark matter is the unseen Hand that guides the very galaxies in their courses. scientists think dark matter was responsible for the creation of galaxies. Does that sound familiar.

    Michael also argues against dark energy—the ineffable force that even atheist scientists say was probably involved in the creation of the universe.

    I think Michael is actually arguing against the existence of God here.

  5. Epson Downs: “I think Michael is actually arguing against the existence of God here.”

    Need we say it yet again?

    Consistency is not a strong point of creationism.

  6. Scince Daily: ‘The research was funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation, and was conducted using facilities of NASA’s Advanced Supercomputing Division, the University of Washington Computing Center, the Arctic Region Supercomputing Center in Alaska and the TeraGrid supercomputer coordinated through the Grid Infrastructure Group at the University of Chicago.”

    We are surprised that Michael has not squawked about public funds being squandered to investigate a theory that contradicts his beliefs.

    (Well, unless Upsson above is correct…..)

    ==Soc it to me

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s