Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[luchitociencia]

His post about the history of Einstein was the most hilarious 3rd grade term paper I have seen in a long time.

Oh, that is nothing.

If you want I can tell you about how Einstein was fired from the Manhattan project after he returned documents with formulas which weren't more than brutalities to the square. That was funny.

Right away he tried working for the Navy making projects doing conventional bombs. Again, his project was found a great fantasy and he was out returning back kicking empty cans on the streets again.

Finally got a job as a "consultant", but his "masters" (Einstein was the puppet) got smarted at this time. They moved him to Princeton. So, from Washington DC an agent was to travel to Princeton providing material to be solved and/or reviewed by him. But in reality poor Albert never did the job, The other scientists over that University, were the ones reviewing the material and told Einstein what to answer. They were careful to keep maintaining the idea that their deluded guy was a genius.

In reality Einstein was just a poor retarded man with the mind of a child. He described himself with the same words I just have described him.

When we talk about Nobel Prize, even the one he won because his photoelectric. Look, the one who reviewed and tested it, he said that yes, the results of the formulas were corroborated with the results of the tests, BUT that the procedure of the formulas was not only confused but contradictory, still the result was satisfactory.

Today, find online the "original" photoelectric documents.. Those are copies, and when you review those, they are ordered and no confusion or contradiction is found, because those are not the originals but those have been EDITED.

There were some comments in the past, of scientists who had the opportunity to check copies of the originals, and they agreed with the opinion given in 1921, that the papers of Einstein weren't a great thing.

The correlation of events indicate that after the validation of Relativity and the disapproval of it by the rest of the scientific community, here is when England pushed the giving of a Nobel Prize for him, to settled him as a strong scientists with lots of credit.

Photoelectric and Relativity were asked for the Nobel Prize and it took two years for being considered for review. The Swedish definitively rejected relativity as science, while the photoelectric was hard to win the prize because the confused procedure shown in the papers. The givers of the Nobel Prize practically were forced to choose one of them.

The members of the Academy knew about the fraud of Eddington and they also knew Eddington was behind of the giving of Nobel Prize for Einstein.

These two (Eddington and Einstein) coupled together to make relativity a success. This is also noticed at his time to talk when he received the Nobel Prize, he never mentioned a single word of photoelectric but he talked a lot solely about relativity. Of course he had the choice and right to do so. But the later words of a member of the same Academy saying that relativity was not science but poor philosophy, that ended the first part of the story of such a relativistic fantasy.

It is all written in historical records by many sources, from the letter firing Einstein out of the Manhattan Project up to his last days.

In reality, knowing about all that mess is really funny.

More funny is seeing you defending a good for nothing theory, but such is your will, so... enjoy it.

 

[james bond]

I and many others don't consider creationism a science. Yes, knowledge of the universe was based on religion before the 1850's but that was before the dawn of understanding thermodynamics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity, quantitative astronomy and cosmology. Or as you just called it "secular or atheist science" That reference immediately tells me that you are closed minded.

Haha. Who's close minded? You got James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and the schmucks who foisted Evolution upon the masses. And what do I say? Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

Thermodynamics - Rudolf Clausiusin, Lutheran
Electromagnetism - James Clerk Maxwell, Christian
Quantum Mechanics - Max Planck, Christian
Relativity - Albert Einstein, pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza
Astronomy - Nicholas Copernicus, Catholic
Cosmology - Aristotle, prime mover

I'm not sure what kind of books you read because you could not list your metaphysics books, but you've missed out on our greatest scientists.

Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com

Science starts with an open mind, tries a hypothesis, that may explain a certain area; and tries to verify the hypothesis with perhaps new experiments. If the hypothesis fails, then new hypotheses come into play. If the hypothesis succeeds then almost obsessive efforts are made by the science community to test it for failure in every way possible. The way I see it is that creationists never try to prove failure; only non-creationists take on that task, and it's an uphill battle of proven science against the closed minded creationist.

You are preaching to the choir, but are wrong about closed minded creationist. We have to discover what secular or atheist scientists are talking about such as the big bang and so on. We also have to develop our own science like baraminology which is not accepted by most US universities today due to systematic prejudice.

Give me a few examples of creationists never try to prove failure. Why would someone want to prove failure? Or atheist scientists taking on the risk?

I think you are greatly mistaken about proven science. There are no proofs in science, for one; it's best theory. Proofs are in mathematics. You got it backwards. Atheists are usually wrong. It's an uphill battle for creation scientists because they cannot participate in peer reviews nor get their papers published in science journals. We have creation scientists today -- Creation Scientists.

Like I said, it does not appear you went to college as your views of the world are narrow.

Creation science is an antithesis to science. It starts with an unwavering premise that the Bible is fundamental truth and not a metaphor. I'm sorry if you think I'm denigrating you when I think creation science and the Bible are tightly linked. I'm not. When you continuously reference "atheist science" it is easy to see that you don't have respect for the countless experiments that lead to modern science. Creationists want to replace "atheist science" with unobserved ideas that the speed of light was different a few thousand years ago, that time flowed non-uniformly, that virtually all the thousands of radiological dating past 50,000 years is flawed.

It's God's or the creator's word. He was the only witness, so that's why it's true. We do not take it just upon faith like Evolution. It's backed up by the scientific method and not just circumstantial evidence like evolution and evolutionary thinking.

Thus, it's the Bible theory. It explains Genesis (origins), Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel, and the second coming of Jesus as the science parts which I know you haven't read. I started reading in 2012 after I learned evolution here -- evolution.berkeley.edu. The other books are mostly the religious parts.

I don't discuss my educational background which is more than you think. However, outside a classroom have you read 35 of Shakespeare's plays? Dozens of poems of T.S Elliot? Robert Frost? Have you read Pierre di Chardin? Bertrand Russel? Have you danced the Tango in competitions? Written over a hundred multipart scores? Formed 2 bands? Composed music? Read books on other religions? This nerd has. My weakness is international history and geography you can disparage me on that if you want.

If you received a degree, then you are rather narrow minded in your views. My ex-wife has read much of Shakespeare. I've read some and have attended plays and the Shakespeare festival yearly, but English literature isn't one of my interests. Yes, I've read all of those authors you listed. I can tango, but am not a competitive dancer. I'm an accomplished runner, skier, bowler, semi-pro baseball player, tennis player, and have conquered land, sea, and air. Music is not my strong suit. I sing choir in my church. That's about it. I've read some on other religions and participate in another religious website where I learn from others.

Yes, you were mocking both me and modern science. But it goes nowhere. You can only be hurt by someone you respect. I never heard anyone say God is part of science. If you say God is the truth, you are going to have to explain how that has an effect on modern physics. If you want to label God as the primordial force behind the unknown origin of the universe. Fine. It's a succinct label. But if you want to say that God micromanages the events and people on earth, that is way out of the realm of physics. So there are many facets to what someone means by the word, God.

I was only mocking you for continuing to insult creation science. That is the real science. You believe in "faith-based" atheist or fake evolution science. If you actually had real science behind evolution, then you would convince me easily. I could figure it out. For example, abiogenesis does not happen. Multiverses do not just pop up from singularity or wormholes. Big bang theory is full of holes. I hate to say it, but your radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions. If you knew what the ratio of parent-daughter isotopes were at the beginning of your time chronology, then I would believe you. Remember, I said God said he would keep the age of the Earth and universe to himself? Science will never be able to know the exact age. All we can do is find evidence to back up our dating method. God created a mature Earth and universe. Thus, we did not start from age zero. Only Jesus was born as a baby. That's why I say if you knew what the ratio of isotopes were back , then you'd have something. The other evidence I presented was the names of the radiometric time periods is based on location and not time. Creation scientists say that fossils just provide information of the location where the creature died, not time. I also mentioned bent rock formations which is based on laws of chemistry as part of laws of nature. One doesn't get that by pressure over millions of years. The rocks would break. I have much more evidence to back up a young Earth than just radiocarbon dating. We've established that all you have is radiometric dating (which is wrong and based on wrong assumptions; GIGO).

If you're good at physics, then we can discuss the big bang, cosmic expansion, or any of the topics you brought up above and I showed creation scientists mostly founded it.

 

[james bond]

Much the same way a tribal medicine man makes you see 'real' rainbows
during the enlightenment ceremony. Nothing to do with the magic powder he made you snort.

Angelo, give up now. You sound like someone incapable of science or religion. You didn't contribute anything to the climate change discussion.

You see an old Earth of billions of years. Find something that is that old and show us.

 

[james bond]

His post about the history of Einstein was the most hilarious 3rd grade term paper I have seen in a long time.

Oh, that is nothing.

If you want I can tell you about how Einstein was fired from the Manhattan project after he returned documents with formulas which weren't more than brutalities to the square. That was funny.

Right away he tried working for the Navy making projects doing conventional bombs. Again, his project was found a great fantasy and he was out returning back kicking empty cans on the streets again.

Finally got a job as a "consultant", but his "masters" (Einstein was the puppet) got smarted at this time. They moved him to Princeton. So, from Washington DC an agent was to travel to Princeton providing material to be solved and/or reviewed by him. But in reality poor Albert never did the job, The other scientists over that University, were the ones reviewing the material and told Einstein what to answer. They were careful to keep maintaining the idea that their deluded guy was a genius.

In reality Einstein was just a poor retarded man with the mind of a child. He described himself with the same words I just have described him.

When we talk about Nobel Prize, even the one he won because his photoelectric. Look, the one who reviewed and tested it, he said that yes, the results of the formulas were corroborated with the results of the tests, BUT that the procedure of the formulas was not only confused but contradictory, still the result was satisfactory.

Today, find online the "original" photoelectric documents.. Those are copies, and when you review those, they are ordered and no confusion or contradiction is found, because those are not the originals but those have been EDITED.

There were some comments in the past, of scientists who had the opportunity to check copies of the originals, and they agreed with the opinion given in 1921, that the papers of Einstein weren't a great thing.

The correlation of events indicate that after the validation of Relativity and the disapproval of it by the rest of the scientific community, here is when England pushed the giving of a Nobel Prize for him, to settled him as a strong scientists with lots of credit.

Photoelectric and Relativity were asked for the Nobel Prize and it took two years for being considered for review. The Swedish definitively rejected relativity as science, while the photoelectric was hard to win the prize because the confused procedure shown in the papers. The givers of the Nobel Prize practically were forced to choose one of them.

The members of the Academy knew about the fraud of Eddington and they also knew Eddington was behind of the giving of Nobel Prize for Einstein.

These two (Eddington and Einstein) coupled together to make relativity a success. This is also noticed at his time to talk when he received the Nobel Prize, he never mentioned a single word of photoelectric but he talked a lot solely about relativity. Of course he had the choice and right to do so. But the later words of a member of the same Academy saying that relativity was not science but poor philosophy, that ended the first part of the story of such a relativistic fantasy.

It is all written in historical records by many sources, from the letter firing Einstein out of the Manhattan Project up to his last days.

In reality, knowing about all that mess is really funny.

More funny is seeing you defending a good for nothing theory, but such is your will, so... enjoy it.

It's true -- The Manhattan Project | AMNH.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

His post about the history of Einstein was the most hilarious 3rd grade term paper I have seen in a long time.

Oh, that is nothing.

If you want I can tell you about how Einstein was fired from the Manhattan project after he returned documents with formulas which weren't more than brutalities to the square. That was funny.

Right away he tried working for the Navy making projects doing conventional bombs. Again, his project was found a great fantasy and he was out returning back kicking empty cans on the streets again.

Finally got a job as a "consultant", but his "masters" (Einstein was the puppet) got smarted at this time. They moved him to Princeton. So, from Washington DC an agent was to travel to Princeton providing material to be solved and/or reviewed by him. But in reality poor Albert never did the job, The other scientists over that University, were the ones reviewing the material and told Einstein what to answer. They were careful to keep maintaining the idea that their deluded guy was a genius.

In reality Einstein was just a poor retarded man with the mind of a child. He described himself with the same words I just have described him.

When we talk about Nobel Prize, even the one he won because his photoelectric. Look, the one who reviewed and tested it, he said that yes, the results of the formulas were corroborated with the results of the tests, BUT that the procedure of the formulas was not only confused but contradictory, still the result was satisfactory.

Today, find online the "original" photoelectric documents.. Those are copies, and when you review those, they are ordered and no confusion or contradiction is found, because those are not the originals but those have been EDITED.

There were some comments in the past, of scientists who had the opportunity to check copies of the originals, and they agreed with the opinion given in 1921, that the papers of Einstein weren't a great thing.

The correlation of events indicate that after the validation of Relativity and the disapproval of it by the rest of the scientific community, here is when England pushed the giving of a Nobel Prize for him, to settled him as a strong scientists with lots of credit.

Photoelectric and Relativity were asked for the Nobel Prize and it took two years for being considered for review. The Swedish definitively rejected relativity as science, while the photoelectric was hard to win the prize because the confused procedure shown in the papers. The givers of the Nobel Prize practically were forced to choose one of them.

The members of the Academy knew about the fraud of Eddington and they also knew Eddington was behind of the giving of Nobel Prize for Einstein.

These two (Eddington and Einstein) coupled together to make relativity a success. This is also noticed at his time to talk when he received the Nobel Prize, he never mentioned a single word of photoelectric but he talked a lot solely about relativity. Of course he had the choice and right to do so. But the later words of a member of the same Academy saying that relativity was not science but poor philosophy, that ended the first part of the story of such a relativistic fantasy.

It is all written in historical records by many sources, from the letter firing Einstein out of the Manhattan Project up to his last days.

In reality, knowing about all that mess is really funny.

More funny is seeing you defending a good for nothing theory, but such is your will, so... enjoy it.

To all:

What do you guys think this foreign troll has against Einstein?

 

[luchitociencia]

It's true -- The Manhattan Project | AMNH.

It's a little more complicated than that.

Reviewing documents, and doing the same than reading president Trump's conversation transcript, the letter of poor Albert started this way:

"Sir, Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation..."

In reality poor Albert ignored from the beginning about the works by Germans with uranium. The same, he ignored or refused to accept the results of the tests made by Bohr.

There are documents saying poor Albert signed not one but three letters, (One to Belgium), however the letter sent to Roosevelt was not written by Einstein but only signed by him. That letter was wrote by Szilard.

In those times poor Albert was famous. So this was the reason why Szilard used him. As written by same Szilard:

"As I remember, Einstein dictated a letter in German which Teller took down and I used this German text as a guide in preparing two drafts of a letter to the President, a shorter one and a longer one, and left it up to Einstein to choose which he liked best..." Einstein signed BOTH. So, it was then Szilard's choice which one to be sent to the president.

It was war time and the US was in neutrality still stand situation, reaching the president thru regular channels was almost impossible. The intermediary was Sachs, the one between the president and the scientists. As Sachs himself said about those moments where the letters will pass thru only if the sender was a known person like poor Albert. Otherwise, using another person might not fulfill the proper delivery.

"Our system is such of national public figures... I thought there was no point in transmitting material which would be passed on to someone lower down".

Poor Albert was skeptical about nuclear reaction. He was even against that possibility in 1939.

There is a book by Robert Youngson "Scientific Blunders" where on the back of the book, at the top, he wrote Einsteins words: "There is not the slightest indication that energy will ever been obtained from the atom". Albert Einstein.

Face it, that dude wasn't the genius you have been told he was.

And about of why he was kicked out from the Manhattan Project, the reason was his incompetence of giving the proper solutions to theoretical problems with radioactive isotopes. He was given his first assignment for the project and he failed miserably.

There is also plenty documentation about it.

Of course, if they still are in existence online, then they should be found after thousands of pages made to praise poor Albert. As I said before... the brainwashing campaign in progress.

 

[the other mike]

Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets

Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?

People are good at ignoring evidence and and making up their own, and as you can see from some of the elementary school-level posts on this thread, you can't force-feed knowledge.

 

[luchitociencia]

To all:

What do you guys think this foreign troll has against Einstein?

"foreign troll"

You are hot holding the US flag in this discussion, but you are hiding yourself behind the flag of ignorance.

Science has nothing to do with feelings, religious beliefs, nationalities, sexual orientation, etc.

If you want to discuss science, then first learn some and discuss... otherwise just listen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To all:

What do you guys think this foreign troll has against Einstein?

"foreign troll"

You are hot holding the US flag in this discussion, but you are hiding yourself behind the flag of ignorance.

Science has nothing to do with feelings, religious beliefs, nationalities, sexual orientation, etc.

If you want to discuss science, then first learn some and discuss... otherwise just listen.

Youre not discussing science, troll. You are vomiting a desperate and factually incorrect idiot's manifesto on Einstein. You are religious nutsack who is trying to derail science threads. Period.

 

[Vastator]

Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets

Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?

People are good at ignoring evidence and and making up their own, and as you can see from some of the elementary school-level posts on this thread, you can't force-feed knowledge.

So true. You gotta want it...

 

[luchitociencia]

Youre not discussing science, troll. You are vomiting a desperate and factually incorrect idiot's manifesto on Einstein. You are religious nutsack who is trying to derail science threads. Period.

Not only him.

Several of the recent giving of Nobel Prizes have been granted to people who really don't deserve it. Poor Albert is just one of those who didn't deserve it.

And this is not only in Science but also in other aspects.

I had a deep discussion once about verifying the data obtained from that observation of those planets in other solar systems.

The method used indeed is valid to a certain point, the detection of a body -even when it can't be seen by optical means- is also without doubt.Something is there, something that moves at regular rate, etc.

In this part, the success of the detection of those other planets does deserve a prize.

 

[the other mike]

Youre not discussing science, troll. You are vomiting a desperate and factually incorrect idiot's manifesto on Einstein. You are religious nutsack who is trying to derail science threads. Period.

Not only him.

Several of the recent giving of Nobel Prizes have been granted to people who really don't deserve it. Poor Albert is just one of those who didn't deserve it.

And this is not only in Science but also in other aspects.

I had a deep discussion once about verifying the data obtained from that observation of those planets in other solar systems.

The method used indeed is valid to a certain point, the detection of a body -even when it can't be seen by optical means- is also without doubt.Something is there, something that moves at regular rate, etc.

In this part, the success of the detection of those other planets does deserve a prize.

On top of everything that has been proven to be factual, all it takes to know there is life on other planets beyond our tiny solar system is common sense and a little imagination.

Sure it would be nice to find evidence, but our sun is just one of billions in the Milky Way galaxy which is only one of billions of other galaxies. C'mon. Even if there is some supernatural-creator or 'God', surely we're not the best he could do, or did we merely forget to read the divine instruction manual..?

 

[Wuwei]

To all:

What do you guys think this foreign troll has against Einstein?

Einstein was not respected by some of the elders at the time of his special theory. He was too young and unconventional and had too much hubris, etc. That hurt him to the extent that pressure that the Nobel committee compromised: he would get the second Nobel only for the much lesser important Photoelectric effect.

There was a very right wing science conspiracy organization with a journal that vilified Einstein. They gave me a copy of their journal in the 1980's at an airport. One article said that Einstein stole his ideas from Bernhard Riemann. I have no idea why the grudge. I wrote a letter to the editor which they published with a comment vilifying me.

I have a first edition (1988) of Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time". There was an appendix which was somewhat negative concerning Isaac Newton, Einstein and Galileo. Hawkings said that Einstein's "efforts toward peace ... won him few friends" Hawkings also said Einstein was an "outspoken supporter of Zionism." ...
"... when a book was published entitled '100 Authors Against Einstein', he retorted, 'If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"

I have no idea why Hawking felt he had to write unflattering bios on those three. I saw a later edition of his book at a friends house and those appendices had been removed.

So it seems that some people still have a negative attitude that lingers today. I think your foreign troll is living in the past.
.

 

[james bond]

I have a first edition (1988) of Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time". There was an appendix which was somewhat negative concerning Isaac Newton, Einstein and Galileo. Hawkings said that Einstein's "efforts toward peace ... won him few friends" Hawkings also said Einstein was an "outspoken supporter of Zionism." ...
"... when a book was published entitled '100 Authors Against Einstein', he retorted, 'If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"

I have no idea why Hawking felt he had to write unflattering bios on those three. I saw a later edition of his book at a friends house and those appendices had been removed.

So it seems that some people still have a negative attitude that lingers today. I think your foreign troll is living in the past.
.

Hawking was a farking atheist and atheists are usually wrong .

 

[the other mike]

Hawking was a farking atheist and atheists are usually wrong .

Coming from someone who thinks the Flintstones was a documentary series.

 

[james bond]

Einstein was racist and probably would be secular humanist, i.e. communist, today.

"Was Albert Einstein racist? In pondering the disobliging remarks he made about Chinese and Japanese people in the private diaries he kept about his travels to east Asia in 1922-3, just published by Princeton University Press, it’s not a particularly helpful question.

Einstein's travel diaries reveal 'shocking' xenophobia
Read more
On the one hand, there’s the view that even this famously humane and broadminded scientist was inevitably a man of his time. Accordingly, we can’t expect him, despite his visceral dislike of nazism, to rise above a prevailing culture in which the open expression of prejudice was routine. We might look on it now with dismay, but to label it racism is to indulge a presentism that achieves nothing except making us feel superior. Besides, says the editor of the diaries, Ze’ev Rosenkranz, here we’re seeing the physicist and inventor of the theories of relativity “off guard”, writing things never meant for publication.

On the other hand, it’s rightly said that not everyone in Einstein’s time would have called the Chinese people “filthy and obtuse” or voiced fears that they would “supplant all other races”. Not everyone in the 1920s still adhered to the crude, pseudo-Darwinian ranking of races that led Einstein to suspect the Japanese might be “naturally” intellectually inferior.

Since both of these points of view are true, they don’t help us much to deal with this tarnish on Einstein’s humanitarian image. Perhaps it is better to ask where that image comes from.

Einstein's views seem rightly repugnant by today’s standards. But it’s curious why that should bother us so much

We should first recognize that Einstein barely saw China at all: he only stopped briefly in Shanghai and Hong Kong. And his diaries are a mixture of appreciation – “One has to love and admire this country”, he said of Japan – along with bewilderment and stock stereotypes. It’s the familiar response of a European alienated by cultural, linguistic and emotional difference. That he buys into the common belief of his times in a “national character” is neither surprising nor especially deplorable – but from there it’s only a small step to accepting a hierarchy of races. Einstein clearly did so, though Rosenkranz doubts it amounted to anything like a full-blown and coherent racist ideology.

All the same, such views seem rightly repugnant by today’s standards, and it’s a shame that Einstein – a progressive, tolerant internationalist – wasn’t able to transcend them. But it’s curious that this should bother us so much.

It’s not as if Einstein was previously deemed a paragon. It’s no secret that his treatment of his first wife, Mileva Marić, bordered on the monstrous after their love soured (although I don’t mean, as some have argued, that he stole her ideas). The list of conditions Einstein drew up in 1914 if they were to continue to live together is comically appalling: she was in effect to be his maid and housekeeper but “neither to expect intimacy from me nor to reproach me in any way” and to “desist immediately from addressing me if I request it”. There’s no reason to read this as an expression of generalised misogyny, but neither can we pretend it doesn’t reflect very badly on Einstein’s respect for women."

Einstein was a genius of physics. But he wasn’t a saint | Philip Ball

 

[james bond]

Hawking was a farking atheist and atheists are usually wrong .

Coming from someone who thinks the Flintstones was a documentary series.

Nobody said that. It's all in your delusional state Angelo. Comic books and cartoons make more sense than you do .

Did you read Hawking's A Brief History of Time?

Perhaps someone who has can explain. Parts of it do not make sense. What is imaginary time? Also, what is singularity and how can the state exist when it violates the laws of physics? Most of it sounds like hypothetical bullshit. Hawking does not recognize nor understand the origin of the universe.

Here is a sample for those who did not read his book -- ...

I looked for several minutes. The original Big Bongo theory paper is gone and it has been replaced with his final theory. It's just as well -- Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang.

 

[Wuwei]

Haha. Who's close minded? You got James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and the schmucks who foisted Evolution upon the masses. And what do I say? Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

Thermodynamics - Rudolf Clausiusin, Lutheran
Electromagnetism - James Clerk Maxwell, Christian
Quantum Mechanics - Max Planck, Christian
Relativity - Albert Einstein, pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza
Astronomy - Nicholas Copernicus, Catholic
Cosmology - Aristotle, prime mover

I'm not sure what kind of books you read because you could not list your metaphysics books, but you've missed out on our greatest scientists.

Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com

I don't understand your point. Of course some scientists were and are Christian. They come from many religions.

Your link gives some creationists. The first 12 with pictures all died before Darwin's book. Rutherford introduced radiological dating even later. Hubble found the receding galaxies indicated a time in the billions of years,even much later, so obviously creationism was in vogue with those 12 men that lived and died before Rutherford, and Hubble showed the universe was old. Their biblical knowledge of a Genesis earth was replaced by science that followed much later..

Give me a few examples of creationists never try to prove failure. Why would someone want to prove failure? Or atheist scientists taking on the risk?

How can I give you examples of something I claimed did not happen.

I think you are greatly mistaken about proven science. There are no proofs in science, for one; it's best theory. Proofs are in mathematics.

You, my friend, are preaching to the choir. By proven science I mean the hard sciences where the math and experimental results agree within the error margins.

If you received a degree, then you are rather narrow minded in your views.

Sports. Your exwife's Shakespeare?. No English literature? How about foreign literature? Foreign language? And you think I'm narrow minded? I don't understand why you are dwelling on that.

I was only mocking you for continuing to insult creation science. That is the real science. You believe in "faith-based" atheist or fake evolution science. If you actually had real science behind evolution, then you would convince me easily. I could figure it out. For example, abiogenesis does not happen. Multiverses do not just pop up from singularity or wormholes. Big bang theory is full of holes. I hate to say it, but your radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions. If you knew what the ratio of parent-daughter isotopes were at the beginning of your time chronology, then I would believe you.

I'm not interested speculating on big bang, singularities, wormholes, and evolution right now and with you. They are digressions. Step 1 is to show hard physics demands the universe and earth are very old. It's for you to show with hard physics it is young.

If you're good at physics, then we can discuss the big bang, cosmic expansion, or any of the topics you brought up above and I showed creation scientists mostly founded it.

Isotopic ratios have been measured experimentally and agree with theory. Why do you say radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions.

If you're good at physics, then we can discuss the big bang, cosmic expansion, or any of the topics you brought up above and I showed creation scientists mostly founded it.

I don't understand why you think the religion is important. The science that was done by anyone should stand by itself.

This is why I think creationism is not science.
First. Creationists do not try to falsify each other's ponderings. Science experiments and theory must be verified by outside parties who are generally inclined to try to find fault in it. For example when cold fusion was claimed to be found, many outside groups tried to duplicate the experiment rigorously and got negative results. Falsifying that was important because it was, well, false.

The introduction to many science journal articles refer to a second group and say their own results are superior or invalidate the other group. Being wary is what keeps science honest.

Secondly, many important concepts in physics are really sloppily treated by creationists.

Your video by Jason Lisle covers reasons he thinks that galaxies are very young here:
Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

These are his points:

1. Perhaps god is using an "anisotropic time zone." Similar to earth time zones. So it's not really an issue.
   He should give a mathematical model of what he thinks the anisotropy is and how it shows the furthest galaxies are not old. He does not, and he is a phD in astrophysics!
2. Perhaps time flows more slowly in distant galaxies.
   He should posit a formula of time as a function of distance and compare it to Hubbles graphic plots of time versus distance. Is his graph linear? Is it logarithmic? Does it agree with experiment? He does not do anything in that detail, and he is a phD in astrophysics!
3. Could be supernatural.
   He doesn't expand on that. What factors are in play and how are they changed? He does not consider that, and he is a phD in astrophysics!
4. The cosmic microwave background is so uniform.
   What does he propose a nonuniformity should be, and how does that relate to galactic distance. He does not do that, and he is a phD in astrophysics!
5. It's not a problem for an infinite God.
   That is not science. That is religion.

Dr. Lisle does not do what a scientist should do.

Creationists like to change the speed of light. However light speed appears in other constants in physics, such as the fine structure constant. If the speed changed, that constant would change and totally disrupt the strength of the EM force between charged particles. Distant stars would be totally disrupted. You get big unintended consequences if you fool around with mother nature like that

Creationists are full of what-if ideas, but never follow them through in the way a scientist would and science demands. So creationism is not science.
.

 

[james bond]

I don't understand your point. Of course some scientists were and are Christian. They come from many religions.

Your link gives some creationists. The first 12 with pictures all died before Darwin's book. Rutherford introduced radiological dating even later. Hubble found the receding galaxies indicated a time in the billions of years,even much later, so obviously creationism was in vogue with those 12 men that lived and died before Rutherford, and Hubble showed the universe was old. Their biblical knowledge of a Genesis earth was replaced by science that followed much later..

Oy vey. My point is you don't get it or can't figure it out correctly.

Actually, it was creation scientists practice real science while evolutionists (whose camp you are in but seem to not admit) usually are wrong and practice historical science with all its circumstantial evidence. How many times do I have to say science backs up the Bible and creation? Don't you think I check it out along with the other creation scientists? Faith in God is one thing, but you have to have scientific method and/or evidence to back up your science theses claims. Does it matter who came up with the thesis first? If you're not on either side, then you should be able to gather the information and make a decision.

Now, you've slyly got back into the dating. Like I said several times now, we aren't going to get anywhere with dating. That's for when you are interested in a wife haha. Did you find anything else to show the Earth is old? Science will not discover it by dating. That knowledge is out there. However, it is interesting that one side thinks its thousands of years old, i.e. recorded history, while the other thinks it's billions of years old (mostly not recorded).

I'll get back to your other points when I can.

 

[Wuwei]

Oy vey. My point is you don't get it or can't figure it out correctly.

Actually, it was creation scientists practice real science while evolutionists (whose camp you are in but seem to not admit) usually are wrong and practice historical science with all its circumstantial evidence. How many times do I have to say science backs up the Bible and creation? Don't you think I check it out along with the other creation scientists? Faith in God is one thing, but you have to have scientific method and/or evidence to back up your science theses claims. Does it matter who came up with the thesis first? If you're not on either side, then you should be able to gather the information and make a decision.

I do get what you say, but I simply don't believe it. Decades ago I took a literature class where two topics were the Bible as literature, and Greek Mythology. The instructor said that circa 1000 years BC scholars did not have the language sophisticated enough to articulate what they were thinking, and written words were not available to the masses. So the more academic ideas were expressed as stories and metaphor and handed down verbally. It wasn't until 400 BC that more enlightened scholars (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle { I got an A+ for an essay on Socrates}) were able to express their ideas more clearly and not metaphorically.

One interesting aspect that was covered is that Greek mythology also has an "Adam" (forgot his name) and "Eve" (Pandora). Eve was enlightened with the apple, and Pandora with the infamous box. There was also a flood with different details. Seems like a cross connection of ideas

The early chapters of the Bible as metaphor is slightly inaccurate according to current science, but just fine otherwise. In the opening of Geneses the word "day" is just a period of time, etc. I'm sure you know how non-evangelicals think.

Now, you've slyly got back into the dating. Like I said several times now, we aren't going to get anywhere with dating. That's for when you are interested in a wife haha. Did you find anything else to show the Earth is old? Science will not discover it by dating. That knowledge is out there. However, it is interesting that one side thinks its thousands of years old, i.e. recorded history, while the other thinks it's billions of years old (mostly not recorded).

Slyly back do dating? We never left that extremely important topic.
As far as radiological dating, you are going to have to show me explicitly what creationists have other than vague sentences like contamination. How is it contaminated? For virtually all dating that has ever been done? New physics proposed? If so, what?
.