Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

[Lydiot]

BAD DOG!



(I must have closed the window before sumiting reply....)

[KL-666]

Hello Lydiot,

I do not know how to get it into your mind that i am not talking about replacing one hypothesis with the other. I wish this guy had never released a hypothesis, then you would not be so confused. I am talking about one hypothesis that is patched so much that it needs to be considered to adjust it. And that there needs to be a culture of willingness to do so.

In your last words you finally talk about that willingness, saying:

Current scientists that I listen to, particularly astrophysicists, frequently make it a point to mention that they and others have no problem adjusting existing theories or dropping them completely if a competing theory makes more sense. I have no idea who these astronomers are that you're talking about.

There is a huge difference between just saying "have no problem" and actually to be willing. The idiotic large patches with the dark matter and dark energy do not tell me that there is any willingness. And your very convenient distracting from that issue, tell me there is not much willingness at your side either.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

I didn't bring this guy up. You did. It was my impression that his case was an example of someone being dismissed because the scientific community had already made up its mind and was just inflexible as it were. Was that not the reason you brought him up?

"My argument is not that anyone is right or wrong. But that anyone that researches stuff that may go against the expanding universe is hushed up. There are more examples of the like,"

So, if your basis for the above conclusion is this guy, I'm asking you if you would reconsider your opinion if I can show that his research indeed was evaluated and just deemed inaccurate. Will you?

[KL-666]

I trust "that his research indeed was evaluated and just deemed inaccurate". So you do not need to demonstrate that again.

He was dismissed from valuable telescope time for looking too much at inconvenient anomalies. Real science needs these guys, real scientists ask: kick a dent in my theory with observation. Weak scientists try to get rid of such people and argue to take away these guys means to kick a dent in their theory. And they avoid to discuss their insane solutions that keep their theory fixed.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

So if his research was invalidated how do you know he was ignored because it was "inconvenient" as opposed to just wrong?

Why should the scientific community give him time when he is wrong?

[Lydiot]

Another thing worth mentioning is that claiming something is cheap. It's really cheap. Anyone can do it.

So the only approach that makes any sense is for the person making the claim to provide the evidence and reasoning for why it would be true.

I'm other words if the proposition is that God exists then the onus is on you.

[KL-666]

Hello Lydiot,

I gave you evidence, but you conveniently ignore it, to be able to call me cheap.

There is a culture to only allow telescope time to true believers in the expanding universe. This mono culture comes to light when participants of the inbreed group can come up with huge fantasies like dark matter and dark energy, and get away with it.

Apart from that there are reports that such culture is at play, from scientists that want to look for anomalies. This is only supporting evidence for the previous one. Only attacking the least important evidence someone lately called a "straw man".

Where is your evidence that such culture is not at play? Bring me the men that have said: "Wow this dark disney stuff goes really to far. We need to look at the base of our thinking. Probably there are issues with applying the red-shift theory to astronomy". And show me that such men still get telescope time.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

We have maybe another culprit about losing posts. When you write a very long post and others post in the meantime, sometimes, very rarely, something seems to get lost. I had the effect once but I am not sure whether I accidentally ended up in the edit window again, didn't notice and changed threads (which would be a clear user error on my end). I try to pinpoint that down, but the time, I can work on it is limited and I don't want to run a complete log who pressed which button at what time or such things (would be some effort to program it anyway). So please, keep checking whether your post was actually sent or put back to edit because there were in the meantime more replies.

[Lydiot]

Hello Lydiot,

I gave you evidence, but you conveniently ignore it,

But again: What I'm saying is that the evidence you gave is evidence ONLY if it (his hypothesis) wasn't evaluated and dismissed as being faulty. If it was evaluated then it is no longer evidence of "hushing up", because it was taken seriously enough to be evaluated. This is just basic logic.

to be able to call me cheap.

No, that wasn't addressed at you, it was addressed at any and all people who make a claim about something without then seeing fit to justify that claim by some evidence and reasoning, which can then be evaluated and confirmed or refuted. It wasn't personal at all.

There is a culture to only allow telescope time to true believers in the expanding universe. This mono culture comes to light when participants of the inbreed group can come up with huge fantasies like dark matter and dark energy, and get away with it.

First of all, in terms of making claims and the size of those claims, there is currently no bigger claim than that of god. An omniscient omnipresent omnipotent creator of universes is clearly by far a more "huge" claim than dark matter. So if the size of the claim was an issue then bringing up dark matter in a thread about "creation or evolution / big bang or big belief" seems a bit.... unconvincing.

Further more, there is observational evidence that appear to support dark matter / dark energy, and one only has to check Wikipedia to get a list of that evidence. And, while one does that, one can also see competing 'hypotheses' on it. So in fact the community doesn't seem to all stick to one theory.

Apart from that there are reports that such culture is at play, from scientists that want to look for anomalies. This is only supporting evidence for the previous one. Only attacking the least important evidence someone lately called a "straw man".

That's not a "strawman" at all. A "strawman" is an argument that wasn't made in the first place, not just "least important".

If you have more evidence to support your claim I'd happily read it. I actually thought I was being entirely reasonable here. I asked you for evidence so I could consider your claim. You posted links (thank you), and I read them. I think that's a very fair course of action. We seem to differ now on what the implications would be if your evidence turns out to not be evidence. I would argue that it would be reasonable for one out of two things to happen:

a) You provide other evidence that proves your assertion, or
b) You revise your opinion of it, seeing that your evidence no longer proves what you say it does

Where is your evidence that such culture is not at play?

I already told you: If this guy's alternative hypothesis was evaluated then the community did play along and give him the attention he deserved. It was evaluated, shown to be inaccurate, and then we move on. And that is in addition to other hypotheses currently being considered. It appears the community is in fact not all in agreement on the issue.

Bring me the men that have said: "Wow this dark disney stuff goes really to far. We need to look at the base of our thinking. Probably there are issues with applying the red-shift theory to astronomy". And show me that such men still get telescope time.

Kind regards, Vincent

But really this just begs the question again: What do you propose as an alternative working system for the scientific method? What you are hinting at is essentially telling group A to halt their research on X so that B can work on Y. How many "letters of the alphabet" should be accommodated and how is it to be determined who gets to do what and when? There are alternative theories around, and they all compete with each other.

In a sense you're setting up a no-win situation for science, and a guaranteed win for you, because the community is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

- It promotes some theories / hypotheses more than others = it's a biased community
- It takes into account all hypotheses and give them all equal time and attention = there's no consensus so who knows what's "true"

With what your view appears to be they can't win. But I see no alternative proposal from you for how it should work.

The only thing we know for certain is that science and the scientific community has led us to some truly remarkable findings upon which we've created remarkable technology. If an airbus A380, the space shuttle, the Large Hadron Collider, and even just smart phones aren't proof of the community working then I don't know what is...

[SkyBoat]

Lydiot, you'll have to blame the dog, like IAHM-COL said. None of your posts have been deleted. To date the only posts that have been deleted by the administrators have come from spammers or persons trying to sell pornography.