Creationist Critics

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Robertus Maximus
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Creationist Critics

Unread post by Robertus Maximus » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:18 am

Mainstream astronomy finds a creationist ally, in a review of Don Scott’s book ‘The Electric Sky’.

See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -astronomy

601L1n9FR09
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by 601L1n9FR09 » Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:07 am

I am wondering how long Donald Scott's book is. I am not rich and maybe this is a cheap way to read The Electric Sky. This "critique" is big (though not necessarily substantial). My gut is saying Faulkner is entirely too intellectually invested in mainstream astronomy to overtly support plasma cosmology. In as much as I have not read the long winded article yet, I will state at this point that I find nothing inferior in the EU/PC cosmology model to mainstream and numerous points of superiority. Further, will state point blank that the EU/PC model is far more consistent with both scientific observation and scripture. I am fairly familiar with Danny Falkner and never felt comfortable with his take on things. I am a young earth creationist and side with Scott in this instance (and keep in mind I have not read Danny R. Faulkner's article yet). My intention is to read the article carefully and critique Faulkner's critique. I have the advantage of being intellectually debt free. I will not be ostracized by my community for crossing any lines. Faulkner spent a lot of time and money getting his credentials and position. I am just some guy I expect. There has been more than one attempt to discredit EU/PC by shrieking CREATIONISM !!! This forum has retained it's integrity, sticking to the facts. Little of modern astronomy is factual.
I am reasonably convinced that Faulkner is accepting certain theories to be fact. We all make such mistakes. To the EU/PC community: It is regrettable that science must suffer and that creationists among your ranks will be used against you by mainstream academia. If some one discovered the cure to cancer would the cure be thrown out because the researcher believed in God? Probably. I applaud you all for your tolerance, integrity and fearless devotion to truth. If you cannot find it in your heart to pray for me , at least with me luck.

Peace

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by Sparky » Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:05 am

by Danny R. Faulkner
[quote]his case is very weak, for he relies upon many misunderstandings of astronomy, and he presented much incorrect and misleading information. [/quote]

As does Faulkner, leaning on consensus misunderstanding of astronomy, which supplies us with incorrect and misleading conclusion. :roll:

Faulkner has a consensus agenda, which he pursues with obvious bias, focusing on points that may be weak or contentious arguments, which do not have the force to falsify the EU concept. He appears to be someone that would dismiss reasonable argument and empirical evidence out of hand.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

chrimony
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by chrimony » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:36 pm

601L1n9FR09 wrote:My intention is to read the article carefully and critique Faulkner's critique. I have the advantage of being intellectually debt free. I will not be ostracized by my community for crossing any lines. Faulkner spent a lot of time and money getting his credentials and position. I am just some guy I expect. There has been more than one attempt to discredit EU/PC by shrieking CREATIONISM !!! This forum has retained it's integrity, sticking to the facts. Little of modern astronomy is factual.
If you're so concerned with the facts, why the diatribe before actually reading the critique? Why not respond to things he did say, instead of things he might have said?

And an aside, your posts would be easier to read if you used standard paragraph formatting.

601L1n9FR09
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by 601L1n9FR09 » Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:19 pm

chrimony,
Sorry about the diatribe and unorthodox formatting.
As stated earlier, I intended to read and respond to Faulkner. I read slowly but managed to complete the article. I still intend to critique it, however doing so without making apologetic s for creationism is a tall order. I will be surprised if I ever complete the critique to my own satisfaction. For this and other reasons I no longer expect to post it on this forum.
There are members of this forum that entertain thoughts of replacing the current mainstream model with EU/PC concepts. Mainstream is resistant to change. Getting mainstream researchers to consider concepts which are inconsistent with consensus is difficult enough. Adding the academic albatross of creationism to the equation can turn that resistance to open hostility.
The arguments for the mainstream or consensus model are the same in any forum. I suspect being a creationist in his environment is generating a substantial amount of friction in Faulkner’s career, and adding plasma cosmology to his agenda isn’t very appealing to his sense of self preservation.
He has managed in general to discard many assumptions disguised as facts but not all of them. After carefully reading his objections to plasma cosmology I do not think I need to indicate them one by one for members of this forum who are more capable than I. I think Faulkner is a good guy and all, just a bit misinformed. He trusts his misinformation and if I had invested money time and effort in the system as he did I would likely find it hard to believe my sources were mistaken. His article is aimed at creationists. I have seen him speak on a number of occasions and the article is pretty much what I expected and predicted. It seems to me that Faulkner is not as clear on observation and interpretation as he thinks he is.
Responding to a post involving creationism is something I feel compelled to do. My reluctance to do so is strictly out of concern for those who feel creationism is a stigma they would rather avoid. In the final analysis, mainstream excludes creationism and PC for many of the same reasons and using many of the same tactics. A close examination of the motives might very well be in order and for the EU/PC community examining the tactics used against creationism over the last century and a half might be a good idea. That creationists are attracted to the EU/PC should come as no surprise. The fact that Faulkner is not attracted to it (especially after reading up on it) was a surprise. This forum has always been consistent in not endorsing or denying either side of the debate between creationism and evolutionism.
So, stating what I intended to do, without also stating my doubts of success was a mistake.
Allowing myself to weigh in on this topic again is probably another one.
I will resume my status as cheerleader/lurker now.

chrimony
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by chrimony » Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:37 am

601L1n9FR09 wrote:Sorry about the diatribe and unorthodox formatting.
I'd rather you not repeat them than apologize.
As stated earlier, I intended to read and respond to Faulkner. I read slowly but managed to complete the article. I still intend to critique it, however doing so without making apologetic s for creationism is a tall order.
This is a copout. I read most of the article, and there was very little mention of creationism. You could easily critique it and not mention creationism once, as it is a detailed critique of Don Scott's book.
He has managed in general to discard many assumptions disguised as facts but not all of them. After carefully reading his objections to plasma cosmology I do not think I need to indicate them one by one for members of this forum who are more capable than I.
This is another copout. Again, you engage in a meta argument, but fail to back it up with specific points.
So, stating what I intended to do, without also stating my doubts of success was a mistake.
Allowing myself to weigh in on this topic again is probably another one.
We agree on something, at least.
I will resume my status as cheerleader/lurker now.
I think EU has too many cheerleaders carrying stones and not enough people serious about science.

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by Sparky » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:46 pm

I think EU has too many cheerleaders carrying stones and not enough people serious about science.
Who, in the EU higher rankings, is not seriously scientific? And such a broad and unprovable general opinion is far from scientific.
it is a detailed critique of Don Scott's book.
I did not perceive it as a "detailed critique". Opinionated cherry picking at best.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

chrimony
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by chrimony » Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:43 pm

Sparky wrote:Who, in the EU higher rankings, is not seriously scientific?
My comment is mostly based on what I've experienced in this forum. The "EU higher rankings", as you call them, don't tend to participate much in the several months that I've been here. But even people like Thornhill embrace fringe scientific ideas without much skepticism as long as it ties into electricity, Also, the uncritical bashing of relativity by the EU crowd, bordering on hatred, is bizarre.
And such a broad and unprovable general opinion is far from scientific.
I'm not going to conduct a scientific survey, but I can point to many examples in this forum based on personal experience. Are you in doubt? Do you want me to?
I did not perceive it as a "detailed critique". Opinionated cherry picking at best.
A prime example of what I'm talking about. The article is replete with page numbers and references, but you try to handwave the whole thing away. A common theme of the critique is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of mainstream positions, and I think these are very serious charges for somebody out to critique mainstream science. I'll just pick one as an example:

"In the context of this discussion Scott also criticized the suggestion of stellar collisions to account for some otherwise inexplicable observations. Scott didn’t give any specifics of what kinds of stars are involved or what observations the invocation of stellar collisions is supposed to explain. The only suggestion of stellar collisions that I am aware of is mergers of stars in close binary systems, for this process has been invoked to explain a number of phenomena, such as certain types of gamma ray bursts and supernovae. However, Scott appears to have missed the point that these are mergers in close binaries, because he criticized such suggestions on the basis of how improbable the collision of two unassociated stars is. Astronomers recognize this improbability too and hence do not propose such mechanisms. "

justcurious
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by justcurious » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:35 pm

chrmony, you mention the text below as if it were some kind of slam dunk by Faulkner:

"In the context of this discussion Scott also criticized the suggestion of stellar collisions to account for some otherwise inexplicable observations. Scott didn’t give any specifics of what kinds of stars are involved or what observations the invocation of stellar collisions is supposed to explain. The only suggestion of stellar collisions that I am aware of is mergers of stars in close binary systems, for this process has been invoked to explain a number of phenomena, such as certain types of gamma ray bursts and supernovae. However, Scott appears to have missed the point that these are mergers in close binaries, because he criticized such suggestions on the basis of how improbable the collision of two unassociated stars is. Astronomers recognize this improbability too and hence do not propose such mechanisms. "

I think the message Scott was intending to convey was quite clear. In general, everything in the universe is caused by fantastic explosions, starting with the big bang (as opposed to self organizing electromagnetic forces). That's pretty obvious to anyone who can read.

I think that Faulkner did a good job at defending institutional standard astronomy, the EU leaders seem to enjoy making fun of the standard model, and frankly it's quite entertaining. So Faulkner's points seemed to mostly defend astrophysicists from Don Scott's amusing assaults, rather than countering Scott's technical arguments for an Electric Sun. The whole thing in Scott vs Faulkner seems to be a debate about he says she says. FYI the EU scientists like Dave Talbott and Wal Thornhill and others don't spend much time (if any) on this forum. I think they're too busy trying to figure out how the universe works.

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by Sparky » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:24 am

My comment is mostly based on what I've experienced in this forum.
Those in the forum cover a wide range of intellect and scientific discipline, just as consensus astronomy does. I think it is unfortunate that these forums allow nut job hypothesis, along with the documented experimentally observed suggestion that EU proponents argue.
the uncritical bashing of relativity by the EU crowd,
With references to Non- EU criticisms of relativity for support for their critical thinking.

The critical thinkers of EU do not swallow the crap that consensus astrology dishes out to it's dung beetles to play with and eat.
I'm not going to conduct a scientific survey, but I can point to many examples in this forum based on personal experience. Are you in doubt? Do you want me to?
You seem to be under the delusion that only you correctly perceive forum content. :roll: And the doubt that I have is your maturity and ability to critically think.
A prime example of what I'm talking about. The article is replete with page numbers and references, but you try to handwave the whole thing away.
I would not say, "replete", but , "some". The more accurate, some, satisfies the argument for cherry picking.
A common theme of the critique (Scott's Book) is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of mainstream positions,
Again, a too broad and biased opinion, as a characterisation. :roll:

The misunderstanding may or may not be there, but the misrepresentation of consensus positions may be an attempt to correct their misunderstanding of the data that is available. ;)

Sorry to be so hard on your religion/beliefs, but you and Faulkner seem to be caught up in the consensus cult, a supportive circle jerk of fantasy, expressed with dogmatic certitude. :roll:

I pretty much ignore the nonsense expressed in these forums, but attempt to understand the highly insightful posts, as best I can. :?

I now leave this useless exercise in favor of more intellectual pursuits. ;)

Thank you for the insight into "consensus" delusion. 8-)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

chrimony
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by chrimony » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:25 am

justcurious wrote:I think the message Scott was intending to convey was quite clear. In general, everything in the universe is caused by fantastic explosions, starting with the big bang (as opposed to self organizing electromagnetic forces). That's pretty obvious to anyone who can read.
I don't see how this addresses Faulkner's critique. The first critique is the lack of specifics, and the only specific thing you mentioned was the big bang, which isn't a stellar collision. Second, there's the issue of collisions from binary stars instead of two unassociated stars, and you don't comment at all on this. Another example of not being serious about science.

chrimony
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by chrimony » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:50 am

Sparky wrote:Those in the forum cover a wide range of intellect and scientific discipline, just as consensus astronomy does. I think it is unfortunate that these forums allow nut job hypothesis, along with the documented experimentally observed suggestion that EU proponents argue.
I'm not talking about those with a "nut job hypothesis". I'm talking about the casual critiques of the mainstream from the cheerleaders, as has been displayed in this thread and many others.
With references to Non- EU criticisms of relativity for support for their critical thinking.
Referencing some dissident papers isn't the same as critical thinking, nor does it excuse the casual, ignorant bashing.
The critical thinkers of EU do not swallow the crap that consensus astrology dishes out to it's dung beetles to play with and eat.
Right, they uncritically swallow up crap that EU dishes out instead. Not everybody, of course, but the ones that don't are the exception rather than the rule.
You seem to be under the delusion that only you correctly perceive forum content. :roll: And the doubt that I have is your maturity and ability to critically think.
I notice you didn't challenge me and accept my offer for examples, or offer your own counter-examples, but resorted to an insult instead.
I would not say, "replete", but , "some". The more accurate, some, satisfies the argument for cherry picking.
He gives page numbers for every single critique and has 18 references.
Again, a too broad and biased opinion, as a characterisation. :roll:

The misunderstanding may or may not be there, but the misrepresentation of consensus positions may be an attempt to correct their misunderstanding of the data that is available. ;)
Hypocritically, you don't offer a single refutation of the long list of critiques given. You again engage in a handwaving meta argument (and some more annoying emoticons).
Sorry to be so hard on your religion/beliefs, but you and Faulkner seem to be caught up in the consensus cult, a supportive circle jerk of fantasy, expressed with dogmatic certitude. :roll:
No problem, because from where I'm sitting from you're talking about yourself.
I pretty much ignore the nonsense expressed in these forums, but attempt to understand the highly insightful posts, as best I can. :?

I now leave this useless exercise in favor of more intellectual pursuits. ;)

Thank you for the insight into "consensus" delusion. 8-)
And thanks for...well, nothing, as you were incapable of anything specific.

justcurious
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by justcurious » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:06 pm

chrimony wrote:
justcurious wrote:I think the message Scott was intending to convey was quite clear. In general, everything in the universe is caused by fantastic explosions, starting with the big bang (as opposed to self organizing electromagnetic forces). That's pretty obvious to anyone who can read.
I don't see how this addresses Faulkner's critique. The first critique is the lack of specifics, and the only specific thing you mentioned was the big bang, which isn't a stellar collision. Second, there's the issue of collisions from binary stars instead of two unassociated stars, and you don't comment at all on this. Another example of not being serious about science.
You wish to address or debate specifics related to the art of rhetoric.
Don Scott's book is a book, it's not a scientific paper, he's allowed to make fun of mainstream astronomers, it's called free speech. The same way folks from the EU crowd get's labelled "fringe" and "crackpot science".
About collisions and such, anyone who reads his book knows what he means, except for perhaps a handfull of orthodox astronomers of the big banger variety. What Don Scott means is that in the world of mainstream astronomy, everything is seen through a newtonian/einsteinian lense, whereby collisions and explosions explain everything. For example I believe nebulae are thought to be dying stars that under their own gravitational force, collapsed unto themselves causing an explosion (which defies common sense). Then, those spectacular light shows of hot gases would take on their shapes through fluid type dynamics, one gas pressure vs another gas pressure and so on. I don't remember this stuff by heart, nor do I care to. The point is that electric forces are being ignored, preferring one the one hand mechanistic explanations (newtonian, fluids etc) or on the other hand the dark energy and relativity/big bang explanations. Both are way out on the edges. The most common sense approach to understanding our cosmos as per our current knowledge is via the electric force. Isn't that pretty evident by now?

chrimony
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by chrimony » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:09 am

justcurious wrote:You wish to address or debate specifics related to the art of rhetoric.
Don Scott's book is a book, it's not a scientific paper, he's allowed to make fun of mainstream astronomers, it's called free speech. The same way folks from the EU crowd get's labelled "fringe" and "crackpot science".
My concern is when rhetoric takes the place of science. Just as you wouldn't want EU ideas dismissed without valid arguments, EU proponents shouldn't engage in the same behavior. And of course Don Scott has free speech, I never said otherwise. So do I, you, and mainstream scientists.
About collisions and such, anyone who reads his book knows what he means, except for perhaps a handfull of orthodox astronomers of the big banger variety. What Don Scott means is that in the world of mainstream astronomy, everything is seen through a newtonian/einsteinian lense, whereby collisions and explosions explain everything.
You've been living in the EU world for too long. In reality, the EU is the handful, and Don Scott's book was meant to broaden that base. If he wants to be convincing and above criticism from the mainstream, it's his job to explain the details of what he is talking about.

And again, there is still the problem of: "However, Scott appears to have missed the point that these are mergers in close binaries, because he criticized such suggestions on the basis of how improbable the collision of two unassociated stars is. Astronomers recognize this improbability too and hence do not propose such mechanisms.
For example I believe nebulae are thought to be dying stars that under their own gravitational force, collapsed unto themselves causing an explosion (which defies common sense). Then, those spectacular light shows of hot gases would take on their shapes through fluid type dynamics, one gas pressure vs another gas pressure and so on. I don't remember this stuff by heart, nor do I care to. The point is that electric forces are being ignored, preferring one the one hand mechanistic explanations (newtonian, fluids etc) or on the other hand the dark energy and relativity/big bang explanations. Both are way out on the edges. The most common sense approach to understanding our cosmos as per our current knowledge is via the electric force. Isn't that pretty evident by now?
I don't see how your description of a collapsing star relates to stellar collision between two unassociated stars. We're discussing the critique of what Don Scott wrote, not a replacement argument along similar lines.

justcurious
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by justcurious » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:46 pm

I agree that the Don Scott critic (I forgot his name) did a very good job at defending the establishment.
However, I am not sure that he represents the mindset of a large portion of the astrophysics community.
So maybe Don Scott in some cases was thinking of certain astronomer's explanations and made sort of blanket statements. I obviously can't speak for him, I'm just guessing. I have the Electric Sun book at home, and I can see that Don Scott doesn't hesitate to tear apart the incorrect and often delusional hypothesis spread by mainstream astrophysics, so it makes it very entertaining, I get a good chuckle out of it. When will they finally see the light? They keep burying themselves deeper and deeper into a hole by defending and holding unto their out-dated beliefs.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests