Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Induction - upon which science is based - only establishes mathematical probabilities based on empirical data, not certainty. Yes, it is hypothetically possible (I suppose?) that unicorns,
Bigfoot, the immortal soul and tooth fairies exist, but until evidence is produced for them, the argument for them will be weaker that that for something for which said empirical evidence has been produced.

8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life
by Jesse Emspak, Live Science Contributor | November 26, 2014 11:55am ET

Relativity is one of the most famous scientific theories of the 20th century, but how well does it explain the things we see in our daily lives?

Formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, the theory of relativity is the notion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. The theory explains the behavior of objects in space and time, and it can be used to predict everything from the existence of black holes, to light bending due to gravity, to the behavior of the planet Mercury in its orbit.

The theory is deceptively simple. First, there is no "absolute" frame of reference. Every time you measure an object's velocity, or its momentum, or how it experiences time, it's always in relation to something else. Second, the speed of light is the same no matter who measures it or how fast the person measuring it is going. Third, nothing can go faster than light. [Twisted Physics: 7 Mind-Blowing Findings]

The implications of Einstein's most famous theory are profound. If the speed of light is always the same, it means that an astronaut going very fast relative to the Earth will measure the seconds ticking by slower than an Earthbound observer will — time essentially slows down for the astronaut, a phenomenon called time dilation.

Any object in a big gravity field is accelerating, so it will also experience time dilation. Meanwhile, the astronaut's spaceship will experience length contraction, which means that if you took a picture of the spacecraft as it flew by, it would look as though it were "squished" in the direction of motion. To the astronaut on board, however, all would seem normal. In addition, the mass of the spaceship would appear to increase from the point of view of people on Earth.

But you don't necessarily need a spaceship zooming at near the speed of light to see relativistic effects. In fact, there are several instances of relativity that we can see in our daily lives, and even technologies we use today that demonstrate that Einstein was right. Here are some ways we see relativity in action.

GPS SatellitePin It Credit: Mechanik | Shutterstock.comView full size image
1. Global Positioning System
...

Counterexamples to Relativity

The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible.[note 1] Here is a list of 53 counterexamples: any one of them would show that the mathematical theory is incorrect:
Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed.[1] Indeed, it is doubtful whether black holes even exist, and the latest observation disproved the prediction.[2]
The orbital eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts.[3]
The Pioneer anomaly.
The Sun is a perfect sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation."[4]
Quantum entanglement near the event horizon of a black hole -- with one particle of the pair on one side, and other particle of the pair on the other side -- defies the Theory of Relativity.[5] Relativity is a mathematical theory that cannot permit any exceptions, just as arithmetic falls part if 2 times 2 is ever not equal to 4.
The speed of light in a vacuum is slower than expected -- less than c -- based on new data from a 25-year-old supernova.[6]
"Celestial signals defy Einstein. Strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than Einstein believed."[7]
A physics article published in 2014 states that "general relativity, which describes gravity at low energies precisely, break[s] down at high energies."[8]
Subatomic particles with mass have a speed observed to be as fast as the speed of light ("we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos"[9]), which contradicts Relativity because the Lorentz factor is then infinite.[10][11] Neutrinos were observed to travel at the speed of light by an independent experiment also: "Their neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower."[12]
Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys"). During the gravity assists from Earth, both the Galileo spacecraft and the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft experienced a change in velocity different than that predicted by General Relativity.[13][14]
Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen, nonexistent "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.[15] "Dark matter mysteriously missing around sun. Theories say neighborhood should be filled with it, but new study shows otherwise."[16]
The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.[note 2]
Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, no direct observation of gravity waves has occurred.[17] Sound like global warming? Then, in classic liberal claptrap, the liberal media claimed that gravitational waves were discovered when in fact no such direct observation was made.
The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
Atheistic science admits that "observations don't match predictions, because the objects farthest from each other in the known universe are so far apart that the time it would take to travel between them at the speed of light exceeds the age of the universe," and implausible theories are created to try to explain it.[18]
The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
The observed lack of curvature in overall space.[note 3]
The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.[note 4]
The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.
The failure to discover gravitons, despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. While these tax dollars were not necessarily "wasted", the lack of results indicate that scientists need to revisit their hypothesis.
Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.[note 5]
The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."[19]
The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.[20]
The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.[21]
"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.[22]
"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."[23]
The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.[24]
The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.[note 6]
Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.[note 7] This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.[note 8]
The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?
Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.[25]
The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.[note 9]
Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time (formally: movement forward in time) cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.
It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of faith.
Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."[26]
Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."[27][28]
Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.[29]
General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected. [30]
The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.[31]
Scientists are unable to explain a June 2012 cluster of earthquakes in Ireland.[32]
Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets. Scientists are studying Gamma Cephei, a system of two stars and one known planet. When data from the Hubble Space telescope was analyzed, it was found that the observed orbital arrangement should not be stable.[33]
General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect. The Christian researcher and economist Maurice Allais noted a sudden change in the orientation of a swinging pendulum during the 1959 solar eclipse.[34] Many subsequent attempts to duplicate the result have been reported as failures, consistent with an concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons in a closed system can exist in the same quantum state and if one electron changes all others must compensate. As the universe is a closed system when one electron changes state so must all others, even if they are thousands of light years apart.[35]
The recent findings of gravitational waves are actually just dust.[36]

Can evolution generate truly novel biological features?

Introduction

One central issue in the debate over Darwinian evolution is the question of evolutionary novelty -- can evolution produce truly novel features? The consensus of modern scientific research is that mutation and natural selection together can indeed produce novel, beneficial features in biological systems. Scientists further postulate that this low-level novelty extends to entire populations, which can, over time, become entirely separate species.
On the other hand, creationist and intelligent design writers have insisted that whereas minor changes may occur within an established "kind," nothing fundamentally new can come through "random" or "undirected" evolution. In any event, so they argue, no significant changes have ever been observed in biological species, so that evolution must be regarded only as a "theory" [Dembski2002].

Specific examples of evolutionary novelty

But numerous instances of evolution in action have been observed in the natural world, often generating novel, beneficial features within just a few years or decades. Here are just a few examples:
The Hall-Hartl E. coli experiment. ...

Lenski's long-running E. coli experiment. ...

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

Induction - upon which science is based - only establishes mathematical probabilities based on empirical data, not certainty.

The orbital eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts.[3]

the general relativistic gravitomagnetic acceleration of the Moon due to the Earth's angular momentum has the right order of magnitude

The Pioneer anomaly.

The Sun is a perfect sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation."[4]

Quote:

Induction - upon which science is based - only establishes mathematical probabilities based on empirical data, not certainty.

I would say this rather differently, but by and large I agree.

but until evidence is produced for them, the argument for them will be weaker that that for something for which said empirical evidence has been produced.

All you have to do is come up with something better

The evidence and necessary inference are there. So your clearly superior hypothesis is...?

You're greatly constraining the Theory of the Big bang.

I have just come back from a stimulating conference at Clark University about “Manufacturing Denial,” which brought together scholars from wildly divergent disciplines — from genocide studies to political science to philosophy — to explore the idea that “denialism” may be a sufficiently coherent phenomenon underlying the willful disregard of factual evidence by ideologically motivated groups or individuals.

Let me clarify at the outset that we are not talking just about cognitive biases here. This isn’t a question of the human tendency to pay more attention to evidence supporting one’s view while attempting to ignore contrary evidence. Nor are we talking about our ability as intelligent beings to rationalize the discrepancy between what we want to believe and what the world is like. All of those and more affect pretty much all human beings, and can be accounted for and at the least partially dealt with in the course of normal discussions about whatever it is we disagree about.

Rather, the Oxford defines a denialist as “a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence,” which represents a whole different level of cognitive bias or rationalization. Think of it as bias on steroids.
...