“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#765494 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So Darwin's theory was not scientific until other scientists recognized it as valid.
When he compiled his data and put it on paper, it was not scientific.
Then, other scientists read it, thought about it, and it became scientific.
....
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are?
Sorry baby, science ultimately relies upon the recognition of other scientists. Why? Because professionals working in the discipline need to know how:

1. methodologies were chosen
2. studies were carried out
3. whether they can be replicated
4. whether appropriate mathematical models were used
5. whether relevant questions were asked

etc.

Science is therefore produced by the consensus of scientists. It's not dogma. It's a gated knowledge producing system based on reliability and accuracy (these are technical terms, look them up), and the ability of other scientists to determine those.

You are arguing for anyone to be able to produce science - without the double checking of whether their techniques are actually accurate methodologies to use. Hence you believe in ID. Hence you follow frauds like Cruthers.

You have no way to independently verify whether those people are actually doing good work - work that is as objective as possible, using techniques that remove human observer bias. Hence you believe in all kinds of pseudoscience that is not science because of its injection of subjectivity and observer bias.

So, yes, science is determined by the consensus of scientists. If otherwise, we could not have the rigorous methodologies we have in place. If otherwise, we wouldn't have the powerful, competitive, knowledge producing disciplines that we have.

I described this process to a friend of mine who works in business, and I explained to him how frustrated I was that my work needed to go through lengthy reviews. He said "When I first started in business I would have agreed that the support of your peers was not necessary - but now, having seen all the crazies, with all their non-productive and insane ideas - I recognize the value of professional opinion on whether industry-led projects should have support."

Science is like capitalism. It's competitive - if you have a solid idea, one that's supported by evidence and able to be demonstrated through hypothesis testing, it will be recognized by other professionals.

If you're just a quack, you're going to get warned by your committee. If you ignore those warnings, repeatedly - for it takes a tremendous amount of effort to be dumped at the level of the PhD, with all that investment in you - repeatedly, you're going to get sidelined, maybe booted out. Universities don't want to give up their PhD students. They have invested professional integrity in taking them on, resources in training them that far. They don't do it lightly. Cruthers is quite clearly a quack.

And you believe him. That tells us a lot about how you (mis)judge science.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#765495 Aug 6, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
<quoted text> I could be harsh as well but what does it really get ya?
Anyone that doesn't agree with the " thus sayeth christine" gets the harshest of your dumbas$ replys.
I give what I get and if you look, that " dirty for dirty" is how I play..
you show nothing but ridicule for anyone that don't agree with you..
More wishful thinking? Anyone who abuses me gets the like for like they deserve.

You don’t like like for like then fook off and join a church forum where everything is pink and fluffy and everyone is going to agree with every word you say

Bollocks, I show ridicule for the ridiculous and as I have said often before, you deserve it.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#765496 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I have often reassured women on the stretch-ability.
Some are extremely apprehensive anyhow.
And you have often reassured you fellow inmates of your stretch-ability

I have told you before stop dropping the soap in the showers, you will earn yourself a bad reputation.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#765497 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So Darwin's theory was not scientific until other scientists recognized it as valid.
When he compiled his data and put it on paper, it was not scientific.
Then, other scientists read it, thought about it, and it became scientific.
....
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are?
....
You are not in possession of the basic understanding of biology, math, or physics to hold court on Crothers, Minnich, or Behe. They can factually and scientifically defend their positions. You rely on your philosophical dogma.
This has happened before:
FIFTH GENERAL COUNCIL
This council was held at Constantinople (5 May-2 June, 553), having been called by Emperor Justinian. It was attended mostly by Oriental bishops; only six Western (African) bishops were present. The president was Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople. This assembly was in reality only the last phase of the long and violent conflict inaugurated by the edict of Justinian in 543 against Origenism (P.G., LXXXVI, 945-90). The emperor was persuaded that Nestorianism continued to draw its strength from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 457), and Ibas of Edessa (d. 457), also from the personal esteem in which the first two of these ecclesiastical writers were yet held by many. The events which led to this council will be narrated more fully in the articles POPE VIGILIUS and in THREE CHAPTERS; only a brief account will be given here.
From 25 January, 547, Pope Vigilius was forcibly detained in the royal city; he had originally refused to participate in the condemnation of the Three Chapters (i.e. a brief statement of anathema upon Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings, upon Theodoret of Cyrus and his writings, against St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus, and upon the letter written by Ibas of Edessa to Maris, Bishop of Hardaschir in Persia). Later (by his "Judicatum", 11 April, 548) Vigilius had condemned the Three Chapters (the doctrine in question being really censurable), but he expressly maintained the authority of the Council of Chalcedon (451) wherein Theodoret and Ibas- but after the condemnation of Nestorius- had been restored to their places; in the West much discontent was called forth by this step which seemed a weakening before the civil power in purely ecclesiastical matters and an injustice to men long dead and judged by God...
Do you realize your entire point here is that science should be dogmatic according to Buck's will?

You're arguing that we should all uncritically accept Hawking's claim before it's peer reviewed, before it's been tested and only because you happen to really, really, really believe in it.

And the funniest part is that you only like the fact that he does away with black holes. You don't accept the other conclusions that must be accepted if he's correct - namely, that the universe becomes infinite.

By your weak standards, we should accept just any physicist's statements as fact - so long as they agree with your theistic perspectives. If part of their hypothesis agrees, don't worry, we can just ignore the part that doesn't agree.

I'm the one telling you it's not science until it's been reviewed by professionals working in the discipline. I'm the one who further explained to you that Hawking's work would remain speculative until demonstrated by hypothesis testing - but you completely ignored my wise words to you because, at the heart of this, you just want your theistic belief system to be upheld, dogmatically, at any cost - no difference between you and any religious believer here.

Your entire argument above is one of dogma. It's all you know. You're hilarious.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#765498 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Crothers is published in physics journals.
If he's a failure, what are you?
Just like him, I am not a PhD, the difference is I have never tried to earn a PhD whereas Crothers was expelled.

Yup just looked up his publications – anyone can publish on Facebook

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765499 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha, Buck!
Oh, I'm sure the creationist pretend physicist would provide an unbiased account of why he was booted from his PhD program!
Ok, so basically your argument is as follows:
1. How do we know Cruthers is a reliable source?
2. Well, Cruthers tells us he is.
3. How do we know what Cruthers tells us is reliable?
4. Well, he says so!
No different than "how do we know the Bible is the word of God?"
1. Well, Bible tells us it is!
2. How do we know the Bible is accurate in this regard?
3. Well, the Bible assures us it is!
Whatever, Buck. You're logic is so full of fallacy today, it's embarrassing.
You mischaracterized the discussion.

You made a claim. The claim was that Crothers was expelled from his PhD course because "he is a quack".

I didn't offer a testimony to his reliability, I simply challenged the basis for your claim.

In that challenge, I provided his firsthand account of the incidents involved, supported by documents, including documents from the opposing side of the controversy.

What did you offer? Nothing.

You offered an assessment of Crothers as a quack based on nothing but an expulsion.

I offered evidence for the contrary view.

Unless you have something else, I will consider this another in a long series of your embarrassing losses to me.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#765500 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Back this up.
For what reasons was he booted from his PhD program? You have no idea, do you?
Please include the portion determining him a "quack".
I'll give you the version of the person who was there.
Here is an excerpt. You can read the whole story at the link below. It gives a far more factual and technical account than your ignorant repetition of talking points, complete with copies of correspondence that went back and forth:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD...
Excerpt:
I wrote to the University Academic Committee in protest. Go here for my letter. The Academic Committee replied in full support of its professors in the School of Physics, and completely ignored Hamer's alteration of my work and his misrepresentation of my work. Go here for the Committee's letter in reply. My next letter to the Academic Committee is here. The whitewash reply is here, wherein the Presiding Member Faculty of Science, Dr. David Cohen, defends the misconduct of Gal and the other relevant professors in the School of Physics, and conveniently omits addressing most of the issues upon which I specifically called for his comment. I was not invited to meet with the Academic Committe, but Gal conferred with them.
I was then formally without a supervisor (although actually without a supervisor since early 2005 when Webb withdrew his support), and therefore effectively expelled de facto from PhD candidature since the University rules do not allow candidature without a supervisor, as the Academic Committee and the professors well knew. No one in the School of Physics would replace Webb as supervisor, and the University officials all knew this. By this tactic the University eliminated me from the PhD programme, whilst maintaining a façade of integrity and due process, despite the fact I was not invited to the meeting of the Academic Committee.
So, he was booted.

He himself says that Roy Kerr (of whom I'm sure you've heard) wrote to him: "...he told me that my complaint of his discourtesy was "insulting crap". Then he told me that my work was "rubbish" and referred me to the usual change of co-ordinates (e.g. Kruskal-Szekeres). "

"Usual" in the above case means "accepted"..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765501 Aug 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like him, I am not a PhD, the difference is I have never tried to earn a PhD whereas Crothers was expelled.
Yup just looked up his publications – anyone can publish on Facebook
He was published in the journal Progress in Physics, at the invitation of the editors.

Progress in Physics is an American scientific journal, registered with the Library of Congress (DC, USA). It is peer reviewed and listed in the abstracting and indexing coverage of: Mathematical Reviews of the AMS (USA), DOAJ of Lund University (Sweden), Zentralblatt MATH (Germany), Scientific Commons of the University of St.Gallen (Switzerland), Open-J-Gate (India), Referential Journal of VINITI (Russia). Progress in Physics is for publications on advanced studies in theoretical and experimental physics, including related themes from mathematics.

Congratulations, Christine, on you crack research.




Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765502 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

You're arguing that we should all uncritically accept Hawking's claim before it's peer reviewed, before it's been tested and only because you happen to really, really, really believe in it.
No.

You changed your story. Smart move, because your story was stupid.

No, I did not argue that we should "uncritically accept Hawking's claim".

I didn't argue that we should accept it at all.

You didn't argue against it being accepted uncritically; you argued that it is not science.

Examining it critically is fine with me.

What is not fine with me is you pronouncing it not science because it discomforts you.

sci·ence noun \&#712;s&#299;-&#6 01;n(t)s\
: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

Nowhere in there is a prerequisite for peer-review.

You argue vociferously for scientific rigor, but you don't know what it is.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765503 Aug 6, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>So, he was booted.
He himself says that Roy Kerr (of whom I'm sure you've heard) wrote to him: "...he told me that my complaint of his discourtesy was "insulting crap". Then he told me that my work was "rubbish" and referred me to the usual change of co-ordinates (e.g. Kruskal-Szekeres). "
"Usual" in the above case means "accepted"..
Crothers makes a compelling case that Kruskal-Szekeres is wrong.

You have no point.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765504 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry baby, science ultimately relies upon the recognition of other scientists. Why? Because professionals working in the discipline need to know how:
1. methodologies were chosen
2. studies were carried out
3. whether they can be replicated
4. whether appropriate mathematical models were used
5. whether relevant questions were asked
etc.
Science is therefore produced by the consensus of scientists. It's not dogma. It's a gated knowledge producing system based on reliability and accuracy (these are technical terms, look them up), and the ability of other scientists to determine those.
You are arguing for anyone to be able to produce science - without the double checking of whether their techniques are actually accurate methodologies to use. Hence you believe in ID. Hence you follow frauds like Cruthers.
You have no way to independently verify whether those people are actually doing good work - work that is as objective as possible, using techniques that remove human observer bias. Hence you believe in all kinds of pseudoscience that is not science because of its injection of subjectivity and observer bias.
So, yes, science is determined by the consensus of scientists. If otherwise, we could not have the rigorous methodologies we have in place. If otherwise, we wouldn't have the powerful, competitive, knowledge producing disciplines that we have.
I described this process to a friend of mine who works in business, and I explained to him how frustrated I was that my work needed to go through lengthy reviews. He said "When I first started in business I would have agreed that the support of your peers was not necessary - but now, having seen all the crazies, with all their non-productive and insane ideas - I recognize the value of professional opinion on whether industry-led projects should have support."
Science is like capitalism. It's competitive - if you have a solid idea, one that's supported by evidence and able to be demonstrated through hypothesis testing, it will be recognized by other professionals.
If you're just a quack, you're going to get warned by your committee. If you ignore those warnings, repeatedly - for it takes a tremendous amount of effort to be dumped at the level of the PhD, with all that investment in you - repeatedly, you're going to get sidelined, maybe booted out. Universities don't want to give up their PhD students. They have invested professional integrity in taking them on, resources in training them that far. They don't do it lightly. Cruthers is quite clearly a quack.
And you believe him. That tells us a lot about how you (mis)judge science.
Science relies on critical examination by other scientists - yes.

Is that what makes a body of work "science"?- No.

I didn't see any additional substance from you on Crothers, just more assertions.

So that one remains in your "loss" column, along with the above.

It's getting crowded in there.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#765505 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
What prediction? You're now claiming that science, ALL of our sciences, predict that life comes (or can come) from non-life?
Not all, but all that can make such a prediction which could point to either side of the dichotomy, points to abiogenesis.
More abiogenesis nonsense?
This looks like a declaration of ignorance.
You shouldn't teach impressionable minds your scientific dogma.
This IS a declaration of ignorance.

Science isn't dogmatic. Christians often criticize science because it isn't.

Are you not a fan of dogma?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#765506 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So when Darwin's theory was introduced, it was not scientific.
When the hypothesis of black holes was posited, it was not scientific.
It only becomes scientific when it achieves consensus.
Thanks. The definition of science is not organic or inherent, rather, it's definition is determined on a case by case basis.
I see.
Your dismissal of anyone who diverts from your dogma - Crothers, Behe, Minnich - is a religious devotion rarely seen among the Christian clergy.
With Hawking, as he is one of your faithful, you don't know what to do with him. So you just say he didn't mean what he said.
Are you gunning for Pope?
Hawking did mean what he said.

You're just too thick-headed.

And dishonest, by taking words out of context and omitting material material.

And stop with the Pope crap.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765507 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

... the creationist pretend physicist...
You call someone names like that knowing not one damn thing about them, except that they disagree with your dogma.

You feign dedication to rigorous process, then expose yourself as blatantly deceitful, corrupt, hypocritical, mendacious, and delusive.

If your posts get any more amateurish, I will stop reading them.

And I know you want me to read them.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#765508 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Yup, that's the current recognized theory.
Doesn't mean it's right, just means it's the currently recognized one.
You are correct in the sense that consensus does not make a claim true.

If anyone was making the argument that the ToE is correct because lots of people believe it is correct, that would be fallacious. Nobody is doing that.

Do you feel at all uncomfortable, or vulnerable, being a Christian with a faith based worldview, criticizing one of the most well supported theories in all of science?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#765509 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I thought this was priceless - it looks like something I would write.
Stephen Crother's letter:
19th June, 2005
Sir,
I have carefully read your reply. It is painfully clear to me that you have
understood none of my arguments. I could address each of your arguments in turn and demonstrate why they are incorrect, but it seems to me that this would be a complete waste of time and energy. Therefore, I shall address only one of your arguments, for it is this one misconception that is central to all your, quite fallacious, arguments.
Your interpretation of your transformation of the standard metric for
Minkowski space in terms of Schwarzschild’s original form is wrong. Evidently you think that because you call your new variable by the pronumeral r that it must be a radius. The pronumeral used is actually of no account whatsoever. Furthermore, you do not understand the very basic geometrical relations between the components of the metric tensor...
Skip to closing:
That concludes my address of technical matters. I now address you on the personal level.
I must first apologise, as you for a gentleman I mistook. In all the email you sent me you included rude, arrogant, condescending, stupid, and insulting remarks. You have rightly earned yourself a bloody nose, and if not for the distance between us I might well have visited you to deliver the causative blow, not because of your incompetent technical argument, but because your behaviour has been that of an arsehole. It seems that you are doomed to live and die a conceited shithead, and, moreover, a conceited shithead who cannot do even elementary geometry.
Stephen J. Crothers, my kind of guy.
I can see why he's your kind of guy.

Ignorant, misguided and foolish.

And when he's cornered, he resorts to insults.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765510 Aug 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hawking did mean what he said.
You're just too thick-headed.
And dishonest, by taking words out of context and omitting material material.
And stop with the Pope crap.
Stuff it up your shiny tighties, Counselor.

Hawking meant what he said? OK

He said, "There are no black holes..."

A black hole is defined as having an event horizon which prohibits the escape of light.

That's why it's called "black".

Hawking says no such event horizon exists.

What does that say for black holes?

You tell me, genius.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#765511 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Stuff it up your shiny tighties, Counselor.
Hawking meant what he said? OK
He said, "There are no black holes..."
A black hole is defined as having an event horizon which prohibits the escape of light.
That's why it's called "black".
Hawking says no such event horizon exists.
What does that say for black holes?
You tell me, genius.
Your dishonesty is in the ...

Why don't you include the rest of what he said?

Don't bother, I know the answer.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765512 Aug 6, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>

Science isn't dogmatic.
"... problem is to get them to... accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth."

"Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

-Richard Lewontin, one of the world's leading spokesmen for evolutionary biology

Notice, Lewontin uses "cannot allow a divine foot", which would be unnecessary if science were incapable of pointing toward a divine foot. He is saying it cannot be allowed. He cannot let science point that way, because of an a priori philosophy.

That's a good definition of dogma.
WSH

Albertville, AL

#765513 Aug 6, 2014
Apocalypse666 wrote:
Come on and do it.
Prove there's a god.
Don;t read off scripture or anything like that just prove there's a god.
Hopefully you're dead and finally getting your painful proof, you atheist chicken shit

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Heartfelt Farewell by Thousands of Devotees 19 min Himanshr 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 28 min Pegasus 265,196
21 Dead Babies Found on Riverbank in China (Mar '10) 39 min TehO 662
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 40 min MUQ2 37,821
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 44 min pusherman_ 559,652
Who would like Darwins Theory of Evolution take... (Dec '10) 1 hr ChristineM 48,263
Hey guys..we are hiring boy for threesome sex.. 1 hr myveryownjulia 2
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr ctsseo 605,054
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 8 hr Chris Clearwater 175,684
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 9 hr duststorm 441,786
More from around the web