Invalid Arguments

[durangodawood]

Older than you I’d wager.

Invalid Arguments

Except we now must make it three for three.

I just thought the word lobotomy sounded like potlemy. Nothing more. Certainly no offense meant.

And I'm sorry I invoked that boring overrated band.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not my biggest argument. You obviously missed the point of my post. You put yourself forward as the absolute authority on every subject. No matter what anyone else says, if you don't agree then it is the other poster who is wrong. So, if you write Potlomy but another poster writes Ptolemy then, since you're the absolute authority on everything, we must all be wrong and the correct spelling is Potlomy.

What does that even mean?

Sort of like the same thing all of you do, putting yourself forward as the absolute authority on any subject? You claim everybody is always wrong but yourself, therefore you are claiming to be an expert.

There is a difference between what I do and all of you do. I support my claims with science. You all on the other hand just say, no, your wrong, without having any evidence whatsoever to support your claims. All any of you have ever presented is claims of mutations over millions of years, which can’t be observed or tested, in contradiction to the actual observational evidence of how variation occurs. Claims of common ancestors that are one and all missing and can’t be found. Ignoring that every single solitary fossil of any type remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest found for that type. Ignore finches mating right in front of your eyes, and the very scientific definition of subspecies itself. In the end it’s claims versus observational data, and I’m sorry, the observational data wins every time.

I don’t care if you spell it pitolemy, you’re best argument against my claims, since that was the only argument you put forward in defense, was a spelling error. Had you another argument, you would have presented it. Since you did not, one can conclude you have no valid argument against the facts....

So you’ll have to excuse me if I put your other invalid arguments into the same basket as this invalid argument.

 

[Speedwell]

Sort of like the same thing all of you do, putting yourself forward as the absolute authority on any subject? You claim everybody is always wrong but yourself, therefore you are claiming to be an expert.

There is a difference between what I do and all of you do. I support my claims with science. You all on the other hand just say, no, your wrong, without having any evidence whatsoever to support your claims. All any of you have ever presented is claims of mutations over millions of years, which can’t be observed or tested, in contradiction to the actual observational evidence of how variation occurs. Claims of common ancestors that are one and all missing and can’t be found. Ignoring that every single solitary fossil of any type remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest found for that type. Ignore finches mating right in front of your eyes, and the very scientific definition of subspecies itself. In the end it’s claims versus observational data, and I’m sorry, the observational data wins every time.

I don’t care if you spell it pitolemy, you’re best argument against my claims, since that was the only argument you put forward in defense, was a spelling error. Had you another argument, you would have presented it. Since you did not, one can conclude you have no valid argument against the facts....

So you’ll have to excuse me if I put your other invalid arguments into the same basket as this invalid argument.

What was your argument? that because a 2nd century astrologer got it wrong we still don't know?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sort of like the same thing all of you do, putting yourself forward as the absolute authority on any subject? You claim everybody is always wrong but yourself, therefore you are claiming to be an expert.

I am not aware of any poster other than you who has that attitude. Most readily accept that they are not absolute authorities and defer to those who know a lot more about a subject than they do. You, on the other hand, tell those who have the knowledge that they don't know what they're talking about, and should listen to you even though you have no expertise in their field.

There is a difference between what I do and all of you do. I support my claims with science. You all on the other hand just say, no, your wrong, without having any evidence whatsoever to support your claims. All any of you have ever presented is claims of mutations over millions of years, which can’t be observed or tested, in contradiction to the actual observational evidence of how variation occurs. Claims of common ancestors that are one and all missing and can’t be found. Ignoring that every single solitary fossil of any type remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest found for that type. Ignore finches mating right in front of your eyes, and the very scientific definition of subspecies itself. In the end it’s claims versus observational data, and I’m sorry, the observational data wins every time.

There you go again telling everyone that you're right and they're wrong. How many times have people patiently explained the errors you make and yet you continue to insist that it's those who know more than you who know less?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

1. Does that include bringing up a mousetrap whenever someone mentions the irreducible complexity of the flagellum?

2. Are you sweeping cosmic evolution under the carpet?

3. Forget "beauty of the sunset." How about Christian edifices, holidays, literature, and martyrs?

4. God is invisible; and those who demand evidence of His existence within the realm of science does not fully understand science's limitations.

5. There are two kinds of sins: sins of commission and sins of omission. I don't need to interact with atheists to know what sins they are denying, since they deny them on principle.

6. Does that go for evolution's connect-the-dots as well? Whose gaps are bigger? God's or evolution's?

7. Does that apply to the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials, as well as other things done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It? In addition, does your disgust of quote mining also apply to those who quote mine THOU SHALT NOT KILL to rail against the Old Testament commands to destroy the enemy?

8. Does that include "Christians" who did bad things as well; such as the aforementioned Crusades, Inquisition, and Witch Trials?

I wish people knew how incredibly profound #4 is - on all sides. The last clause contains the most pith.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I wish people knew how incredibly profound #4 is - on all sides. The last clause contains the most pith.

Which dictionary are you using for your definition of "profound"? Using the definition "having or showing great knowledge or insight" I see nothing profound there.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What was your argument? that because a 2nd century astrologer got it wrong we still don't know?

Apparently they don’t, since the observations falsified every model of Star formation they had. As observations falsified every model they had of the suns heliosphere.

But that 2nd century astrologer made the same argument you are about to make about those that went before. He too claimed he knew more than they and so was correct. And in 100 years they’ll be making the same claims then about us too. And in a few more centuries....

You see, every single few generations people think they got it all figured out. Then the next few generations come along, discards their epicycles, and thinks they got it all figured out.

It’s always been that way and always will be. And every time they’ll be wrong, and the next paradigm will replace the old. And they will think they got it all figured out and.....

As the fossil record falsifies evolution, as does the observation of how animals propagate and variation enters the specie falsifies evolution.

 

[gaara4158]

I wish people knew how incredibly profound #4 is - on all sides. The last clause contains the most pith.

No. We fully understand science’s limitations. We just don’t give credence to claims that can’t be investigated scientifically.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am not aware of any poster other than you who has that attitude. Most readily accept that they are not absolute authorities and defer to those who know a lot more about a subject than they do. You, on the other hand, tell those who have the knowledge that they don't know what they're talking about, and should listen to you even though you have no expertise in their field.

Maybe they should since every theory of Star formation they had has been falsified by the observations. Sure, defer to those that have themselves been shown to be wrong. That’s not saying to much for any of you, that you’ll accept whatever they tell you to believe, even when the observations falsify the theory.

There you go again telling everyone that you're right and they're wrong. How many times have people patiently explained the errors you make and yet you continue to insist that it's those who know more than you who know less?

You haven’t explained any errors or shown any. You just keep making claims I am wrong, then as your greatest defense to the subject of the post, bring up spelling errors which are irrelevant to the post. So far that’s been your only explanation of any error, that I misspelled a name.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. We fully understand science’s limitations. We just don’t give credence to claims that can’t be investigated scientifically.

Really? What is Energy and where did it come from? Romans 1:20

What is dark matter? It’s been investigated scientifically over 12 times and has come up zilch every time, doesn’t stop the claims of credence. How many experiments does it take to falsify it, 14, 15? I mean it only took 4 null results to falsify aether theories.

Ahh, you mean credence to claims you don’t want to give credence to.

And just how do we scientifically investigate multiple dimensions, which abound in in scientific literatures. Or is that science fiction literature?

 

[gaara4158]

Really? What is Energy and where did it come from? Romans 1:20

What is dark matter? It’s been investigated scientifically over 12 times and has come up zilch every time, doesn’t stop the claims of credence. How many experiments does it take to falsify it, 14, 15? I mean it only took 4 null results to falsify aether theories.

Ahh, you mean credence to claims you don’t want to give credence to.

Yes, really. Science doesn’t claim to have the answers to everything. It’s just the process by which we attempt to construct the most accurate model of reality possible. Sometimes that means admitting we just don’t know. Does that make you uncomfortable?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Which dictionary are you using for your definition of "profound"? Using the definition "having or showing great knowledge or insight" I see nothing profound there.

If you see nothing profound, then so be it.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No. We fully understand science’s limitations. We just don’t give credence to claims that can’t be investigated scientifically.

Ok.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You haven’t explained any errors or shown any. You just keep making claims I am wrong, then as your greatest defense to the subject of the post, bring up spelling errors which are irrelevant to the post. So far that’s been your only explanation of any error, that I misspelled a name.

Did I say I had explained any errors? Or did I say others have explained your errors? You have a nasty habit of reading what you want to read, not what is actually written. I wonder if that is part of the reason you consider yourself to be so much more knowledgeable than others? Try reading what people write and respond to the points they actually make, not the points you think they make.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, really. Science doesn’t claim to have the answers to everything. It’s just the process by which we attempt to construct the most accurate model of reality possible. Sometimes that means admitting we just don’t know. Does that make you uncomfortable?

And then continue to waste my tax dollars in the search for it, instead of discarding falsified theory and looking for alternatives.

They aren’t looking for alternatives, they just keep wasting my tax dollars searching for Fairie Dust because they need it to explain why their incorrect theories don’t predict things correctly.

Admit there is no dark matter and then you have to adjust dark energy, which means adjusting expansion, which means adjusting.......

No, far better to keep searching for what doesn’t exist than to have your entire cosmology come crashing down.

Nope, doesn’t make me uncomfortable at all that you and they don’t know, since I know what causes flat rotation curves in a universe 99.9% plasma. But that they don’t understand is understandable since they don’t study plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma. Might be a good idea, huh? Just saying.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Ahh, you mean credence to claims you don’t want to give credence to.

This.

Let's not forget that academia is religious. If someone presents a claim - even with evidence - and it is considered non-credible by the authorities that be (i.e. consensus) then it is considered unscientific. It is scoffed.

Until the claim is accepted as right, or credible.


Barry Marshall had to drink an entire petri dish of Heliobacter Pylori in order to prove to his "academic 'peers'" that primary source of ulcers come from peptic bacteria. At that time (1980s) "science," as it were, scoffed at the idea that bacteria was a primary cause of ulcers - that it was primarily due to irritation from spicy foods, or stress. He finally received the Nobel Prize in the early 2000s for his discovery.

Why did he have to do this? Because academia is an incredulous lot that is radically dogmatic. There is an analogue for every position of, say, the Catholic Church system. Barry Marshall is one of many hundreds of learned persons that have been rejected as legitimate scientists because of incredulity, politics of academia, funding/grant money, and discreditation for the purposes of exploiting research. And, every time I hear the restrictiveness of academia, I can count the number of decades the entire race degenerates because of it (just based on history alone.)

 

[gaara4158]

And then continue to waste my tax dollars in the search for it, instead of discarding falsified theory and looking for alternatives.

They aren’t looking for alternatives, they just keep wasting my tax dollars searching for Fairie Dust because they need it to explain why their incorrect theories don’t predict things correctly.

Admit there is no dark matter and then you have to adjust dark energy, which means adjusting expansion, which means adjusting.......

No, far better to keep searching for what doesn’t exist than to have your entire cosmology come crashing down.

Nope, doesn’t make me uncomfortable at all that you and they don’t know, since I know what causes flat rotation curves in a universe 99.9% plasma. But that they don’t understand is understandable since they don’t study plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma. Might be a good idea, huh? Just saying.

So show some evidence for what you “know.”

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This.

Let's not forget that academia is religious. If someone presents a claim - even with evidence - and it is considered non-credible by the authorities that be (i.e. consensus) then it is considered unscientific. It is scoffed.

Until the claim is accepted as right, or credible.


Barry Marshall had to drink an entire petri dish of Heliobacter Pylori in order to prove to his "academic 'peers'" that primary source of ulcers come from peptic bacteria. At that time (1980s) "science," as it were, scoffed at the idea that bacteria was a primary cause of ulcers - that it was primarily due to irritation from spicy foods, or stress. He finally received the Nobel Prize in the early 2000s for his discovery.

Why did he have to do this? Because academia is an incredulous lot that is radically dogmatic. There is an analogue for every position of, say, the Catholic Church system. Barry Marshall is one of many hundreds of learned persons that have been rejected as legitimate scientists because of incredulity, politics of academia, funding/grant money, and discreditation for the purposes of exploiting research. And, every time I hear the restrictiveness of academia, I can count the number of decades the entire race degenerates because of it (just based on history alone.)

Oh without a doubt. It is the good ole boys club, and to be a member you must recite the same rhetoric as is handed down by the powers that be.

There is no such thing as science today. It is simply confirm the fallacy. For example: every single observation in the last decade has falsified the accepted theory of Star formation. Yet the same falsified theory is what they continue to preach and teach. It matters not that the stars were observed to be forming not out of clouds of gas under gravitational collapse, but along filamentary current pathways. It matters not that the amount of matter observed was orders of magnitude less than the Jeans mass limit for Star formation. It also matters not that they were observed to be forming in multitudes along these fillimentary current pathways, making the mass limit even more unbearable.

No, science today is simply about affirming the fallacy. Promoting what is popular and then witch hunts begin for those that do not ToE the accepted party line. Which is why I give little credence to their claims. They have been shown so much falsifying data their only option is to discard theory or to look the other way. Sadly they have chosen to turn a blind eye to the observations. The ToE is no different. Falsifying observations after falsifying observation, yet they turn a blind eye and continue to proclaim all is well in Wonderland. Darwin would be shocked at the current state of affairs science has degraded into. He allowed a falsification of his theory, under which all conditions have been met.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So show some evidence for what you “know.”

Why? Until you study how plasma behaves in a universe 99.9% plasma and stop treating it as neutral dust and gas, you won’t understand.

Until you come to accept that states of matter behave differently, it’s pointless. Until you come to accept that gravitational theory only applies to solids, liquids and gasses; .1% of the universe, planetary systems; you’ll continue to find your accepted theories falsified with every observation. Gravity is only the dominating force in neutral matter, which comprises .1% of the universe. But at the time when it was proposed, people believed that the universe was 99% neutral matter and 1% plasma. With enlightenment has come the knowledge that it is just the opposite, yet they continue to apply the wrong theory to the wrong state of matter as the dominating force. And hence they are surprised by the observations every single time they look into the telescope.

No, there is nothing wrong with gravitational theory. It does not need modified, it simply need to be confined to the states of matter it is applicable to. And hence the second one leaves the confines of the solar system, what was just shown to be 99% correct, suddenly needs 96% ad-hoc Fairie Dust added to make it even seem to reflect a semblance of reality.

Peratt, a world renowned plasma physicist needs no dark matter to explain galaxy rotation or formation. Just plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma.

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

And the Nobel prize plasma physicist Hannes Alfven tried to tell them over 40 years ago they were headed down the wrong path.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870005703.pdf

As he rightly stated. Cosmology can no longer be left in the hands of those who get their knowledge from textbooks which have been shown by laboratory experiments to be wrong, and have never set foot in a plasma laboratory.

One would think in a universe 99.9% plasma, astronomers and cosmologists might want to study plasma physics, but it appears they still haven’t got a clue.

 

[gaara4158]

Why? Until you study how plasma behaves in a universe 99.9% plasma and stop treating it as neutral dust and gas, you won’t understand.

Until you come to accept that states of matter behave differently, it’s pointless. Until you come to accept that gravitational theory only applies to solids, liquids and gasses; .1% of the universe, planetary systems; you’ll continue to find your accepted theories falsified with every observation. Gravity is only the dominating force in neutral matter, which comprises .1% of the universe. But at the time when it was proposed, people believed that the universe was 99% neutral matter and 1% plasma. With enlightenment has come the knowledge that it is just the opposite, yet they continue to apply the wrong theory to the wrong state of matter as the dominating force. And hence they are surprised by the observations every single time they look into the telescope.

No, there is nothing wrong with gravitational theory. It does not need modified, it simply need to be confined to the states of matter it is applicable to. And hence the second one leaves the confines of the solar system, what was just shown to be 99% correct, suddenly needs 96% ad-hoc Fairie Dust added to make it even seem to reflect a semblance of reality.

Peratt, a world renowned plasma physicist needs no dark matter to explain galaxy rotation or formation. Just plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma.

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

And the Nobel prize plasma physicist Hannes Alfven tried to tell them over 40 years ago they were headed down the wrong path.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870005703.pdf

As he rightly stated. Cosmology can no longer be left in the hands of those who get their knowledge from textbooks which have been shown by laboratory experiments to be wrong, and have never set foot in a plasma laboratory.

One would think in a universe 99.9% plasma, astronomers and cosmologists might want to study plasma physics, but it appears they still haven’t got a clue.

Because evidence precedes acceptance. I have no idea what you’re talking about and it’s going to stay that way until you explain using evidence.