Strange

Also remember that even the very best popularizations and news stories are based on simplifications and analogies - often very crude analogies. So don't take any of it too literally.

Yep. I guess he didn't get beyond the first three words. Even skimmed right over the question mark. That article is quite amusing. It says things like "no dark energy" but then goes on to say that their model can be treated as a cosmological constant (er, that'll be dark energy) and that space is filled with a quantum fluid (which is another of the current hypotheses for dark energy). I wonder how those people who object to dark matter and dark energy are going to feel about that "quantum fluid". I guess they will label it aether and crow about being right all along. Sigh. Please stop making cryptic comments and state what is on your mind. Use your brain to explain your point of view. And: Did you read the article?

Would you care to expand on that. It makes zero sense. Did you read the article? Do you understand what it says? Do you realise that the universe is still expanding (and Hubble was wrong)? Would you like me to ask the mods to move this to Speculations?

And yet it turns out that Hubble was wrong about that. And this has NOTHING to do with the article you linked to. Perhaps you only read the headline and don't actually know what it was about?

Swansont put this well in one of his blog posts: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/14667

This was a great article from swansont's blog about the nature of the scientific process (and, incidentally, why pantheory's whining is irrelevant non-science). https://theconversation.com/failure-in-real-science-is-good-and-different-from-phony-controversies-37217

Are you kidding? Breeders make sure that their animals remain within the breed standard. Of course. It is a human concept. There are no God-given "kinds", despite what creationists tell you.

Talk Origins is still a good source to learn about evolution. You need to understand the basics before you try and understand advanced biology and genetics. If you want something explained from your quotes then you will need to ask more specific questions.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. You do realise that this doesn't change anything significant about the big bang model? If it turns out to be correct then it gets rid of the initial singularity. But most people don't think the singularity was a thing, anyway. It is generally thought that combining quantum theory and relativity will remove the singularity. This paper may be an approach to doing that. (Or it might be completely wrong). Beyond that, we still live in an expanding universe that was originally in a hot dense state. https://plus.google.com/100479352836033641546/posts/3wW3fNH7GMV

It does affect spacetime because it has mass. It isn't directly. It contributes to the total mass-energy of systems and therefore the degree to which they curve space-time. It is resistance to acceleration.

We understand what gavity is to exactly the same degree to which we understand what magnetism is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o

Could you show us exactly where that error in the math is? And can you explain how, if the math is wrong, GPS works? And, as quantum theory, and therefore modern electronics, includes relativity how is it that the transistors in your computer work? That is the trouble with trying to wave away science: it still works.

Although, they do sometimes. Blood letting versus antibiotics?

There have been various attempts to mdel the effects of drak matter by changing the way gravity works (e.g. it has slightly more effect than expected at very large distance or very large masses). MOND is the most well known of these. This seems to be what you are suggesting. From analyses I have seen in the past, even the best of these can only reduce the need for dark matter, not eliminate it completely. And since then, dark matter has been mapped more accurately using gravitational lensing and it isn't always associated with concentrations of mass (the Bullet Cluster is perhaps the most well-known example).

Nice analogy. When people pick away at details, it is like they think science is a house of cards that will collapse as soon as you start poking. Instead it is in ancredibly strong structure of mutually supporting theories. But the other problem with that approach is that, if they are allowed to get away with it, you answer questions 1, 2, 3 ... and then they circle back to 1 as if it has never been refuted.

The maths will be reworked in more detail. Others will check and work with it. Eventually someone will pull out some results that can be tested (which may prove the idea is consistent with reality and existing theories). Ideally, there would be tests which can distinguish this from other theories and hence show that this (or something like it) is an improvement on existing theories. Or they will find an error in the maths. Or the predictions will not match observations. And then it is back to the drawing board. Something like this, that takes quantum effects into account, appears to be necessary and will eventually be developed to the level of an accepted theory. Note that the title and opening paragraph of that article are highly misleading, if not completely wrong. Mordred posted a couple of really good articles about this in another thread. The second one is short and to the point.

Pull up the "answers to standard creationsit questions" on the Talk Orgins site then you will have an instant response to every one of his questions (he won't have any original ones).

In which case, I agree: you are wasting your time.

This is why I think all technical documents should use serif fonts. Unfortunately, this is overruled by marketing who want the documents to look "modern".

In Japan, people often put a dash through the upright of a D to avoid it being confused for an O (the letter, not the number). The habit of putting a line through a Z might have originated when we also had the letter yogh which looked a bit like a Z. So much so that there are a number of names, such as Menzies (pronounced Mengies), where the Z replaced yogh.

Being optimistic, it might just be that Dad doesn't know anything about evolution, has never really thought about it and has picked up a couple of simplistic arguments along the way. When it is explained how it really works, he might say, "Oh I see. That's pretty cool!"

In fact, there are already two (at least) threads discussing the news that the results may be wrong. So maybe the discussion could take place there...

LMGTFY: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ozone+embryo+-chick+-egg

That has nothing to do with what you claimed, that length contraction is due to EM fields.

I haven't read through all of those (tl;dr) but the first few focus on the issue of speciation, as if we have never seen it hapen. This page has a particularly good discussion of the problems with defining "species" and plenty of examples of observed speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (at that point, it comes down to "you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts"). In fact the whole Talk Origins site is a good source for refuting all the common objections.All supported with high quality refrences. I'm sure it has a section on entropy. As for the entropy argument ("things work towards simpler forms not more complex") I would just point him at acorns and oak trees. (And the relevant Talk Origins pages.)