The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Dark matter

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't think creationists should ignore scientific observations altogether - that just make the evolutionists "proud" of them selves - such as when you say that the dark matter theory is incorrect. I believe that until we prove that dark matter do not exist, we should not be "superstitious" about God's Word.--O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth and heaven! - Clark 19:42, 31 March 2014 (EDT)

Before you concede the existence of such a fanciful concept, why not first read the article, and the mathematical treatment of large-object spin rates that makes the dark matter concept unnecessary? --TemlakosTalk 19:51, 31 March 2014 (EDT)
Yes, the mathematical treatments in the article do seem to make dark matter theory unnecessary, and I didn't deny that dark matter may not exist. I'm just saying that we, as creation scientists should not ignore the scientific method in defending our faith - and the creation articles sometimes give me the impression that we are ignoring the scientific method, just like the evolutionists, to defend our beliefs.--O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth and heaven! - Clark 20:01, 31 March 2014 (EDT)
What we are actually doing, is exposing claims of "scientific" observation, that turn out to be misinterpretations of the kind that once gave us the factitious planet Vulcan. To say nothing of outright frauds.--TemlakosTalk 20:05, 31 March 2014 (EDT)
Because of some of the ignorance of science some creationists have, the evolutionists are saying all over YouTube that we creationists "claim this scientific because the Bible said so". We do not want this to happen, do we? We must have a very secure evidence for our claim before we make the claim to evolutionists. I'm not saying this specifically to this article, but I just "randomly" picked an article that seems to be a "right" place to say this - for example, we shouldn't just seemingly randomly say that God is the one holding the galaxies together, we need scientific proof for that before we make that claim - we cannot just say that it's a myracle of God without scientific evidence. I believe most physical things that are happening in the modern era doesn't "require" a myracle.--O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth and heaven! - Clark 19:50, 4 April 2014 (EDT)
All I did was quote Don DeYoung's statements. I didn't say I agreed with them. I prefer the statements of Hartnett and Carmeli, and the mathematical model I laid out from their work. That's not an invocation of a miracle, but the layout of a new relativity model better applicable to the entire cosmos.--TemlakosTalk 06:03, 5 April 2014 (EDT)
See? This is a creationist's scientific reply.--O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth and heaven! - Clark 11:48, 5 April 2014 (EDT)