Free Flight, Free Speech

KL-666 wrote:

Lydiot wrote:Here's a serious question: If I post peer review of his hypothesis and it shows how it is refuted - will you accept it and no longer believe him to be correct?

Why do you keep saying that i believe him to be correct after all i said? I do not care about him being correct or not, and the least about his broader hypothesis. I care about watching the skies with an open mind, and if you see an anomaly with your current theory, go and investigate it and do not turn a blind eye. People like him are prepared to investigate. The current leftovers in astronomy turn a blind eye.

Kind regards, Vincent

I apologize for phrasing it the way I did. Allow me to rephrase my question:

If I post peer review of his hypothesis and it shows how it is refuted - will you accept it and no longer bring him up as an example of how the scientific community "hushes" people with other hypotheses up?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

LesterBoffo wrote:

legoboyvdlp wrote:Dear people:
I heartily reccomend you to purchase this book.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Creator- ... 0310242096

I don't ask you to believe it.
I don't even ask you to beleive in God or Creation or anything.
But see what the experts have to see, and decide for yourself.


It can be downloaded to Kindle, or shipped. It is well worth the price.

Best,
Jonathan

You mean the experts like Ken Ham, You remember Bill Nye's talk with Ken a couple years back at the creationist museum?

J Wells, PHD, PHD
S Meyer, PHD
W. Craig, PHD
R Collins, PHD
G Gonzalez, PHD
J Richards, PHD
M Behe, PHD
J Moreland, PHD

No, as a matter of fact, I don't.

Lydiot wrote:If I post peer review of his hypothesis and it shows how it is refuted - will you accept it and no longer bring him up as an example of how the scientific community "hushes" people with other hypotheses up?

I do not see the point of that. The issue is not his hypothesis, but the hushing up of people that are prepared to look with an open mind at specific anomalies. The problem is that current astronomers are so single minded that they come up with any theory explaining anomalies in line with their expanding universe. Even completely wild ones like the dark matter and energy. It just does not occur to them that they may have to adjust their theory a bit. That is simply not sound science.

[edit]
If you want to prove anything, try dark matter and energy.
[/edit]

Kind regards, Vincent

My 'daily experience' would not be something I'd cite as proof of anything except that breathing matters.

legoboyvdlp wrote:

LesterBoffo wrote:
You mean the experts like Ken Ham, You remember Bill Nye's talk with Ken a couple years back at the creationist museum?

J Wells, PHD, PHD
S Meyer, PHD
W. Craig, PHD
R Collins, PHD
G Gonzalez, PHD
J Richards, PHD
M Behe, PHD
J Moreland, PHD

No, as a matter of fact, I don't.

You see these 'experts', cited by the Discovery Institute, ( A Neo-Conservative Christian think tank in Seattle, I'm well aware of them.. Like they don't have an agenda. ) don't impress me. None of their 'data' can be seriously peer reviewed, the taint of their wanting power and influence over young minds is highly suspect.

Tell you what, I believe it, you don't.
I am absolutely certain of God's existence, no matter if you are or not.

LesterBoffo wrote:

legoboyvdlp wrote:

LesterBoffo wrote:
You mean the experts like Ken Ham, You remember Bill Nye's talk with Ken a couple years back at the creationist museum?

J Wells, PHD, PHD
S Meyer, PHD
W. Craig, PHD
R Collins, PHD
G Gonzalez, PHD
J Richards, PHD
M Behe, PHD
J Moreland, PHD

No, as a matter of fact, I don't.

You see these 'experts', cited by the Discovery Institute, ( A Neo-Conservative Christian think tank in Seattle, I'm well aware of them.. Like they don't have an agenda. ) don't impress me. None of their 'data' can be seriously peer reviewed, the taint of their wanting power and influence over young minds is highly suspect.

Non of their data can be seriously peer reviewed...How do you know?

PZ Meyers, who works in evolutionary biology science, is a frequent critic of their work.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/01/the-discovery-institute-is-des/

You know when your "institute' funds many different Intelligent Design sympathetic political office candidates, and your 'Institute' is beating a bully pulpit to defund public funding for real science though schools and higher learning in lieu of a Creationist science, you're not gonna have a lot of serious consideration.

Just saying.

KL-666 wrote:

Lydiot wrote:If I post peer review of his hypothesis and it shows how it is refuted - will you accept it and no longer bring him up as an example of how the scientific community "hushes" people with other hypotheses up?

I do not see the point of that. The issue is not his hypothesis, but the hushing up of people that are prepared to look with an open mind at specific anomalies.

I think the dog ate my post (or did it get deleted?).

The point of it is that if you read a refutation of his hypothesis then you know that the community actually did look at it and refuted it. He was thus not "hushed up" because they just didn't have an open mind, but because he was proven wrong. Those are two completely different premises.

Suppose there is a theory on how light behaves. Let's call it "LightTheory". It becomes accepted in a broad scientific community. Then let's say someone called Frank comes along and opposes it, and instead puts forth an alternative hypothesis. Now compare the following two:

Scenario 1: The community "hushes up" Frank because it doesn't want LightTheory questioned. He thus gets no responses and no support.

Scenario 2: Some in the community look at Frank's hypothesis and show how it is inaccurate. Then he gets no further responses or support.

You see the difference between the two, right? Now, if I can show you how his hypothesis has been peer reviewed and refuted, then #2 is in effect, and not #1. So while you might be correct your example isn't. See my point? The extension of that is if and how many examples one needs to come to a conclusion. So in other words, if this is the only example you have of someone having been "hushed up", and it turns out that he was indeed peer reviewed and refuted, then you have nothing left. You have no cases on which to build your conclusion.

So again: If we find examples of his hypothesis having been disproven/refuted in science, will you accept that and accept that perhaps he wasn't hushed up because his hypothesis was unwanted, but rather because it was wrong?

KL-666 wrote:The problem is that current astronomers are so single minded that they come up with any theory explaining anomalies in line with their expanding universe. Even completely wild ones like the dark matter and energy. It just does not occur to them that they may have to adjust their theory a bit. That is simply not sound science.

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.

Lydiot wrote:I think the dog ate my post (or did it get deleted?).

On this side of the wall... blame the dog