|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total) |
| |
FossilDiscovery | |
Total: 893,021 Year: 4,133/6,534 Month: 347/900 Week: 53/150 Day: 26/27 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, if you want to persuade me that scientists as a group may possess any greater than the rest of humans integrity, whatever that might mean, I may have to remain unconvinced. As an institution science behaves just like any other group of people enjoying authority among the rest. Any individual behaviour is irrelevant, for the individual may buck or may not buck the trends and tendencies of the institutions they belong to, the institutions themselves may only represent those trends.
I do not see any chance given to the scientists for sprouting any wings where other groups are not given such angelic possibilities. Now given that the general human condition is to be in egregious fundamental error of thinking and to persist in the error indefinitely unless and until the persistence is met with an irresistible force, there is nothing unnatural in the current situation in cosmology under my scrutiny. The modern physical science is simply getting its fair share of the human condition while persisting in such absurdities as the Big Bang, the existence as a whole being both expandable and compressible, space possessing the attribute of peculiar motion, the Universe possessing an attribute of finite age and so on and so forth. Nothing special to write home about. Those ideas, I am afraid, are very much business as usual as far as the preposterous beliefs of humanity are concerned. I discern nothing either specially conspiratorial or exceedingly vicious in any of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
You were asking me to provide a link to Einstein's attitude towards singularities to see if he ever said anything like what I was attributing to him. I was, of course, using my own words that I am not in the habit of mincing. Einstein was much more polite in his verbal custom. Still, here's a good paper on the subject containing all the references to Einstein's proper expressions on the issue:
http://www.olduniverse.com/1,5%20Singularities.pdf Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : repair the link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I take your point that all people lack integrity to some degree or another and I agree. Everybody’s got something to hide ( ‘cept for me and my monkey). This is a long way from being patently false at the root of your existence. Whoring your intellect out to anyone who has the cash. I am not saying that scientists are more pure than the rest of us. They don’t need to be. Most of the people that I know and meet are honest. Not perfectly but fundamentally. Your perspective is cynical. Professionals, like physicists, are absolutely held to a higher standard of integrity and accountability than your average person.
This may be true for the religious zealots and luddites of the world but the entire point of research is to find the truth. The real dividends come from knowing what that truth really is and not from the research funding. I would not dispute that there is a lot invested in the status quo. I would point out that it is invested there for many reasons. Nobody wants to back a losing horse and if the one that we are on should break a leg I am sure that it will be put down with ruthless efficiency. I understand the weight of vested interests but if the opposing force really is irresistible then the changes will come. It will take more than cynical disbelief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
An opinion is like an arsehole: everybody has one.
That's why we've discovered a very good way of weeding out the ignorant opinions from the valid and relevant one's. A very reliable way is to go and do an in-depth study on the subject and get qualifications on that particular subject. At accepted, recognised institutions where quality control on the training is monitored. That's why we only allow trained, qualified medical doctors to be medical doctors. That's why we allow only trained, qualified geologists to work as geologists. MD's and geologists still would know just as much as chemists, engineers and janitors about the BBT. Not much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 3388 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
quote: Charles Darwin was trained in medicine and theology. Charles Lyell was a lawyer. I dont think that just because you study one subject that you will not know much about another. And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 2940 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
So he didn't spend 5 years on The Beagle studying geology and the natural world? ![]() But comparing the educational systems of the 1850's to today's educational systems is pretty pointless. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 3388 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
The beauty of the internet is that everyone is an expert at everything.
![]() And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
This criticism displays the error of trying to impose today’s standards on the people who lived in the past. This is done by creationists only to provide excuses for creationists with false or irrelevant degrees .
What you were saying about Darwin and Lyell was inaccurate anyway. There simply were no scientific degrees in those days. Darwin might have got a mathematics degree from Cambridge, but that would not have trained him as a scientist (or naturalist). Darwin studied under the best scientists of the day, including Henslow, Owen, Lyell and Grant. While doing the first years of medicine at Edinburgh, and then the theological studies at Cambridge, he gained the very best education in science one could get in those days. As his initial writings and specimens sent from the Beagle caused an immediate stir in the London scientific community (unknown to Darwin himself), he not only had an excellent reputation as a first class researcher upon his return, but was accepted by the naturalist community as an expert. Not only that, he also presented his research and findings to the scientific community for peer review. In other words he followed the scientific method to the letter. Creationists refuse to do it, but only present their findings in religious tracts. You are wrong about Lyell, too. He attended lectures from one of the best geologists of the time and was elected joint secretary of the Geological Society. In other words, his peers recognised him as an expert.
By the way, how is your homework going?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 3417 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Including those who are experts at stupidity. One can now find much more insane, unevidenced mythology, much more insane bigotry, and a huge amount of gobbledygook, that would have taken years to absorb, in the old fashioned method, of searching for these things, in books. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
No, the less you know, the more you think you do know.
One only becomes an expert at something the moment you realise how much you don't know about that subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
If this were true, I would have degrees covering my walls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 3388 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
quote: Theres a reason creationists and intelligent designers arent peer-reviewed. Its called philosophical naturalism. And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Oh I see they mislead you about this, too? Goodness, don't you read anything other than creationist tracts?
Read something else. Ever heard of the case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It involves one of the “leading lights” of ID, Dr. Michael Behe Start reading this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/.../dover/day11pm.html#day11pm329 Remember, this is Dr. Michael Behe testifying under oath.
There you have it, Dr. Behe calls astrology a "scientific" theory. So if your star sign is a virgo and your daily horoscope predicts that you are going win a million bucks later today, ID would classify it as “science”. They don’t follow the scientific method. Therefore not science. Therefore not peer-reviewed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2102 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
That's why you're not a creationist. You know how much you don't know. Only they think they know it all!
![]()
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022