Debate?

[morningstar2651]

So you think CF should have a subforum call PEER REVIEW?

I'm not clear on what your gripe is.

No - the members of CF are not experts, CF is not a scientific publication, and the focus of CF is not science - it's religion.

 

[Michael]

Science uses peer review, not public debate, to scrutinize articles before publication.

And three months before the BICEP2 paper was finally put to rest in the 'peer review' process I told you *exactly* what was wrong with that paper! They simply *assumed* whatever they wanted with respect to *other* potential causes of polarized photons. Their whole argument turned to dust by the time it even got through the peer review process, but that didn't stop them from *hyping* their claims in the press.

Nobody confuses the peer review process with debates on a message board. Nobody is immune from "messing up" simply by virtue of a degree.

 

[Michael]

No - the members of CF are not experts, CF is not a scientific publication, and the focus of CF is not science - it's religion.

That's ironic IMO. Lambda-CDM is a bad 'religion' that begins and ends with four required acts of pure blind *faith* in the *unseen* (in the lab). Belief in "space expansion" is a pure "act of faith" on the part of the believer. It *never* happens in controlled experimentation.

 

[AV1611VET]

No - the members of CF are not experts, CF is not a scientific publication, and the focus of CF is not science - it's religion.

Then where should they put PHYSICAL & LIFE SCIENCE, in your opinion?

 

[morningstar2651]

What lack of qualifications? Have you published any papers on the topic of astronomy in your lifetime? What "qualifications" do I need to notice that they botched their stellar mass estimates, and came up empty in every "test" they've ever done at LHC, LUX, etc?

Of the two of us, I'm not the one claiming to have an alternative cosmology theory. In fact, I have posted nothing about cosmology or dark matter. This entire thread you've been arguing with an imaginary version of myself that you think believes stuff about dark energy. It's as if you think by arguing with this imaginary version of myself you can prove that your theories have merit.

You wouldn't get heart surgery from someone that claimed "dark voodoo" was the real "cause" of your heart condition would you?

Nope. I'd also report him to the medical board for review and he'd probably lose his license. Kinda like when Dr. Ruth Irene Bailey had her medical license revoked for telling her patients that she was "chosen by God as the only physician able to diagnose certain ailments and conditions which other physicians could not". The medical board appointed psychiatrist said that Bailey suffered from demonic delusions/paranoid schizophrenia.

Well, for starters you might begin by noting that they *seriously botched* every stellar mass estimate of galaxies that they ever made, they botched the BICEP2 to the point of pure ridiculousness, and they came up empty at LHC, LUX, PandaX and the electron roundness "tests" of their claims, all in the past few years. What kind of "experts" are they if they can't even name so much as a single source of 'dark energy'? What good were all those degrees with respect to what they *didn't* find at LHC at LUX, at PandaX, etc? What difference did those degrees make with respect to their botched galaxy mass estimates?

Nice deflection. In what way does not finding something invalidate their qualifications?

Your *entire* argument appears to be based on a *fallacy*, specifically an appeal to authority fallacy. Worse yet, their so called 'authority' is undermined by everything they've "tested" over the past 5 years! Every single "test" has been a complete and utter failure. So much for their 'expertise".

Yes, I am using a valid argument from authority. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in one or more authoritative source(s).

The fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. You've made a ham-fisted attempt at arguing that the scientists are not experts in their fields, but it was a really weak argument. When it comes to science I'm going to listen to the conclusions of scientists over the forum posts of a layman.

 

[morningstar2651]

Then where should they put PHYSICAL & LIFE SCIENCE, in your opinion?

Delete it. It doesn't belong on a website that values religious belief over science.

The first question we should ask is "What purpose does this folder serve?"

The next question we should ask is "Why is Creation & Evolution a separate subfolder within this topic?"

The answers to these two questions will lead you to understanding why this folder was created.

Here is my explanation:

The reason "Creation & Evolution" was created as a separate subfolder is because posters were tired of digging through countless threads on those topics in the Physical & Life Science folder. C&E is a trash-bin to throw all the C&E debates into to keep them out of the rest of the website.

Physical & Life Science serves the same purpose - it's a trash-bin to keep science discussions out of the rest of the website.

 

[AV1611VET]

Physical & Life Science serves the same purpose - it's a trash-bin to keep science discussions out of the rest of the website.

If it wasn't for this "trash bin," people would be at other sites, perplexed as to how Christians think the way they do.

By way of example, some here have admitted they have never heard of YEC until they came here (or came to the United States -- or whatever).

This "trash bin" is a way of iron sharpening iron.

 

[Michael]

Delete it. It doesn't belong on a website that values religious belief over science.

Not all theists practice religion that way however.

The first question we should ask is "What purpose does this folder serve?"

Maybe it serves the Christians (and atheists) at this website that like to discuss "science"?

The next question we should ask is "Why is Creation & Evolution a separate subfolder within this topic?"

The answers to these two questions will lead you to understanding why this folder was created.

Here is my explanation:

The reason "Creation & Evolution" was created as a separate subfolder is because posters were tired of digging through countless threads on those topics in the Physical & Life Science folder. C&E is a trash-bin to throw all the C&E debates into to keep them out of the rest of the website.

Physical & Life Science serves the same purpose - it's a trash-bin to keep science discussions out of the rest of the website.

I'd guess that you're right about that actually, and I for one is grateful for it.

 

[Michael]

Of the two of us, I'm not the one claiming to have an alternative cosmology theory.

So what? You've never published any papers on astronomy, whereas I have!

In fact, I nothing about cosmology or dark matter. This entire thread you've been arguing with an imaginary version of myself that you think believes stuff about dark energy. It's as if you think by arguing with this imaginary version of myself you can prove that your theories have merit.

Not at all. I'm simply amused by the fact that your entire 'faith' in current astronomy theory is based upon *faith* in the value of an appeal to authority fallacy rather than actual physics.

Nope. I'd also report him to the medical board for review and he'd probably lose his license. Kinda like when Dr. Ruth Irene Bailey had her medical license revoked for telling her patients that she was "chosen by God as the only physician able to diagnose certain ailments and conditions which other physicians could not". The medical board appointed psychiatrist said that Bailey suffered from demonic delusions/paranoid schizophrenia.

Thats kinda of how I feel about Lambda-CDM proponents, particularly since the dark voodoo makes up 95 percent of their claims.

Nice deflection. In what way does not finding something invalidate their qualifications?

There's no deflection. All theories are judged based on how well they actually "predict" things, and no one is immune for making mistakes simply by virtue of a degree in some field of study. Not one of them can name so much as a single source of 'dark energy', so why should I believe them to be 'experts' on that topic in the first place? If they cry wolf to the tune of 7 sigma, why should I believe them to be 'experts' on anything? If they can't tell "dust" from inflation, what actually makes them an 'expert' on inflation anyway?

Yes, I am using a valid argument from authority.

It's not a valid argument from authority, it's an appeal to authority *fallacy*. The fact you can't even see that much says volumes IMO.

A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in one or more authoritative source(s).

Alfven earned himself a Nobel Prize in MHD theory and he also promoted EU/PC theory. Your "experts" haven't even all been on one side of this debate!

The fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.

Since they can't tell the effects of dust from inflation, you've yet to demonstrate that they even are a "legitimate authority' on *anything*! If their
"authority" had produced any useful results at LHC, PandaX, or LUX, you might have a valid argument. If their galaxy mass estimates hadn't been falsified several times over the past few years, you might have an argument. As it stands, you can't even demonstrate they are "experts" on anything.

You've made a ham-fisted attempt at arguing that the scientists are not experts in their fields, but it was a really weak argument. When it comes to science I'm going to listen to the conclusions of scientists over the forum posts of a layman.

I didn't say that *all* scientists are not experts in their field. I only suggested that *some* scientists (specifically some astronomers) can't tell the difference between dust and dogma!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, I am using a valid argument from authority. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in one or more authoritative source(s).

Those same authoritative sources that once took it as fact the Milky-Way was the entire universe? So even if they got that one off by orders of magnitude - everything they say now is correct? This is the sum of your argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Those authority sources who' didn't have one single model that matched reality?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

Just want to be sure we are talking about the same authoritative sources here.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I mean, I fail to see how models made from beliefs on how solar systems and galaxies form, that one and all failed to match reality are considered authoritative? Sounds to me like they are just plain failures but you'll just continue to keep propping them up anyways.

And using models already falsified to do so.

 

[morningstar2651]

My argument is that I'll take the conclusions of scientists over the rantings of anonymous unqualified strangers on a religious forum when it comes to science. You aren't going to disprove them. Full stop. End of discussion. You do not have the experience or the knowledge to do so and you are wasting your life attempting to do so. If this matters greatly to you, log off of CF, enroll at a university, obtain your qualifications, and begin your professional career in the field of science that interests you.

I also go to lawyers when I need legal advice instead of asking on CF.

If I have a medical issue, I go to a doctor instead of posting a question about it on CF.

Does any of this make sense to you, or do you call a pizza delivery man and ask them to bring a pizza cutter when you need surgery?

 

[AV1611VET]

My argument is that I'll take the conclusions of scientists over the rantings of anonymous unqualified strangers on a religious forum when it comes to science. You aren't going to disprove them. Full stop. End of discussion. You do not have the experience or the knowledge to do so and you are wasting your life attempting to do so. If this matters greatly to you, log off of CF, enroll at a university, obtain your qualifications, and begin your professional career in the field of science that interests you.

I also go to lawyers when I need legal advice instead of asking on CF.

If I have a medical issue, I go to a doctor instead of posting a question about it on CF.

Does any of this make sense to you, or do you call a pizza delivery man and ask them to bring a pizza cutter when you need surgery?

Who goes to a Christian website to get answers to scientific questions?

And just as importantly, what keeps them there for years?

 

[morningstar2651]

Who goes to a Christian website to get answers to scientific questions?

The regulars posting about science in this folder, apparently.

 

[AV1611VET]

The regulars posting about science in this folder, apparently.

Then either they have a LOT of questions, or they don't mind getting their beliefs challenged, eh?

 

[Michael]

My argument is that I'll take the conclusions of scientists over the rantings of anonymous unqualified strangers on a religious forum when it comes to science.

That's certainly your prerogative of course, but your original question was why this forum existed as a debate forum. I don't see why "Christians" wouldn't be interested in science, and/or debating various areas of science as much as anyone else. You've really never explained what makes someone 'qualified" in "dark" stuff however. Even the promoters of the theory seem rather baffled by all of it.

You aren't going to disprove them. Full stop. End of discussion.

FYI, it's technically never my job to "disprove" anything. I can't demonstrate a negative even if I wanted to. About the best anyone could hope to do is demonstrate that their "predictions" don't actually jive with real life data.

You do not have the experience or the knowledge to do so and you are wasting your life attempting to do so.

I don't think that anyone has much "knowledge" about any of their "dark" stuff frankly, particularly not after the results from LHC, LUX, PandaX etc. Even your so called "experts" have struck out repeatedly and often. I'm not really trying to convince the "true believers" in Lambda-CDM. Most of them made up their minds *years* ago, and if the data doesn't convince them that they're wrong, nothing will. I suspect most of them will go to their grave believing in supernatural dark stuff.

If this matters greatly to you, log off of CF, enroll at a university, obtain your qualifications, and begin your professional career in the field of science that interests you.

Well, it doesn't matter to me one iota for starters. I'm actually not the least big interested in what you personally believe are necessary "qualifications" to debate the merits of dark sky entities since I see no evidence at all that they exist in the first place. It's like claiming that I need a degree in astrology in order to debate the merits of astrology IMO. Furthermore I've had no difficulty getting real peer reviewed papers published on the topic of astronomy, so apparently the publishing world doesn't much care what you think of my "credentials". So far my "qualifications" haven't had any effect at all on all the *failures* related to CDM theory, and I doubt they ever will matter. The mainstream can't even make up it's mind if 'dark matter" is even "dark" in the first place, so your notion that they are somehow better "qualified" on dark stuff isn't even supported by the evidence.

I also go to lawyers when I need legal advice instead of asking on CF.

Ok.

If I have a medical issue, I go to a doctor instead of posting a question about it on CF.

I'll bet they don't require you to "have faith" in invisible pills that you're supposed to take twice a day do they?

Does any of this make sense to you, or do you call a pizza delivery man and ask them to bring a pizza cutter when you need surgery?

Everything you're talking about involves *empirical* and *tangible* items, even the lawyer. On the other hand dark energy/matter has been a complete dud in the lab. If you're into empirical science, EU/PC theory is actually a *much* more rational choice.

 

[Architeuthus]

No - the members of CF are not experts

Going through old posts, it seemed that there were once members here knowledgeable about science and interested in talking about it.