Mainstream/ alternative science discussions and arguments

[pantheory]

33 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Then you really are a sloppy and impatient researcher, Pantheory.

 

Here, this is what you would have found if you'd done your research properly.

 

http://commonsensescience.net/speakers.html

 

Charles W, Lucas, Jr.
Click for Resume

• Evidence for a Young Earth – Radiometric Age of the Earth.
• Evidence for a Young Earth – Polonium Radiohalos.
• Evidence for a Young Earth – Recent Expansion of the Earth with Stretch Marks
• Evidence for a Young Universe – 2.7 K Cosmic Background Radiation, Hubble’s Law and Quantized Redshifts
• History of the Earth According to Science and the Bible – includes creation, flood, separation of the continents, genealogies, radiometric age, etc.
• Derivation of Universal Electromagnetic Force Law (technical, for physicists/scientists)
• Mechanism By Which God Created from Genesis 1 and Science
• Finger Prints of the Creator (Electromagnetic theory of everything with God's symmetry evident at every level or scale of creation)

 

David L. Bergman Click for Resume Conflict of Atomism and Creationism in History Common Sense Approach to the Atom A Creationist Cosmology Creation Worldview (Lecture without PowerPoint Slides) Forms Of Real Molecular Structures (FORMS). A computer simulation of sub-atomic structure and internal motions     Glen C. Collins Click for Resume Atomic Structure – Why do we Care? Common Sense Physics – Physical Model of the Atom Evidence for a Young Earth – Radiometric Age of the Earth. How Philosophy Drives Scientific Models & Vice Versa CSS Atomic Models vs. Standard Models Creationist Inconsistencies and Biblical Principles Wholescale Replacement for Modern Physics Scientific Evidence – The Facts Support the Bible   So, please retract what you said about me making things up.   Thank you.   Walter.

 

Of all your statements/ links above not one has an advanced degree related to Geology, Biology, or Physics concerning young Earth creationism. Your beginning reference is to Charles W, Lucas, Jr. He is the CEO of the organization you referenced, and his degree is in computer science. He also is the founder of the related church. To be an expert in the field one's degree should be in geology to scientifically show that the Earth is far younger. All others on the list you posted relate to alternative theory that would better agree with the Bible, but not necessarily young-Earth creationism.

 

 

[WalterP]

26 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Although somewhat humorous, your link has nothing to do with science IMO. Remember, astronomical observations are not facts. Neither are their interpretations. Examples of facts in science are atoms and molecules, since both observation and a mountain of supporting evidence exists. Examples of theory which may not be fact at all (and which are totally wrong IMO) are the existence of quarks and gluons, called quark theory.

 

In astronomy the non-factuals (wrong theory and non-existent IMO) are dark matter, dark energy, Inflation, expanding and warped space, the big bang beginning, interpretations of the microwave background, etc.

 

I see that you are employing your gift of interpreting the facts as you see fit, Pantheory.

 

It is a fact that Matt Strassler is a particle physics scientist.

 

It is a fact that his blog deals with science and science-related matters.

 

It is a fact that his linked articles deal with how data and evidence are used in science.

 

But you see nothing to do with science in the linked articles?

 

How very strange!

 

I suppose that if I were to cite these articles in full, for everyone here to read, you still would interpret them as having nothing to do with science?

 

That's a rare gift you have, Pantheory.

 

The ability to not see something if you don't want to.

 

Which might go some way to explaining why, in over four decades, you've never seen any data to contradict your own theories.

 

You just choose not to see it.

 

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, pantheory said:

 

Of all your statements/ links above not one has an advanced degree related to Geology, Biology, or Physics concerning young Earth creationism. Your beginning reference is to Charles W, Lucas, Jr. He is the CEO of the organization you referenced, and his degree is in computer science. He also is the founder of the related church. To be an expert in the field one's degree should be in geology to scientifically show that the Earth is far younger. All others on the list you posted relate to alternative theory that would better agree with the Bible, but not necessarily young-Earth creationism.

 

 

 

No. They are YEC's, Pantheory.

 

Or are you unable to read what their website clearly says?

 

Or, more likely, are just choosing not to see what's there?

 

Which is what you seem to do, whenever confronted with facts you cannot accept.

 

Anyway, here are some more facts for you to not accept.

 

WebSite Links

Thanks for visiting Common Sense Science. Here are a few sites around the web that we recommend.

Physical Models of Atoms and Molecules

http://commonsensescience.org/harrison/www/index.html

 

The Charge Fiber Models of Elementary Particles - A Tutorial Introducing the Latest CSS Models

http://commonsensescience.org/survey/

 

Institute for Creation Research

http://www.icr.org

 

Answers In Genesis

http://www.answersingenesis.org

 

Creation Research Society

http://www.creationresearch.org

 

Center for Scientific Creation

http://www.creationscience.com

 

Creation Research Society Quarterly

http://208.230.138.173/crsq.html

 

Creation By Design

http://www.creationbydesign.com

 

Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum

http://www.mtblanco.com
 

Links to Creation Websites

http://www.creationism.org
 

Foundations in Genesis of Idaho

http://www.figionline.com
 

Midwest Creation Fellowship

http://www.midwestcreationfellowship.org

 

 

You see?

 

These scientists are fully paid up members of the Young Earth Creationist school of Biblical Literalism.

[WalterP]

You accused me of making things up, Pantheory.

 

I'll have a retraction AND an apology from you for making such a baseless accusation.

 

Today, please!

[pantheory]

"It is a fact that Matt Strassler is a particle physics scientist."

 

Yes, he is. And some of his writings relate to alternative physics, but nowhere do I see that he is a young-Earth creationist, which is your statement -- concerning young-

Earth creationist scientists.

[pantheory]

17 minutes ago, WalterP said:

You accused me of making things up, Pantheory.

 

I'll have a retraction AND an apology from you for making such a baseless accusation.

 

Today, please!

 

I have yet to see any young-Earth creationists educated in the fields I identified. But realize that you too can misinterpret what you are reading. But if there are such really stupid, or crazy zealot scientists who believe in the bible version of creation, then I apologize. But you still have not showed me any evidence of it. Show me their education, and clear evidence in quotes that they are young-Earth creationists. But that's still not the point. The point of this thread is simply my statement that sometimes science theory can be totally wrong just like religion.

 

I agree with you in that if we searched the world I'm sure we could find a few who put their Abrahamic religious beliefs above their science education.

[WalterP]

49 minutes ago, pantheory said:

"It is a fact that Matt Strassler is a particle physics scientist."

 

Yes, he is. And some of his writings relate to alternative physics, but nowhere do I see that he is a young-Earth creationist, which is your statement -- concerning young-

Earth creationist scientists.

 

Oh dear, oh dear!   

 

Pantheory, when you are in a hole... stop digging.

 

Let's take a look at exactly what I wrote.

 

Posted yesterday at 07:34 PM

This article is a satire, but it gets the point across.

https://profmattstrassler.com/2017/01/23/whats-all-this-fuss-about-having-alternatives/

 

Q.  Did I say that Strassler was a YEC in this post? 

A. No.

 

Posted 1 hour ago

I'm glad you liked that piece by Matt Strassler, Pantheory.

Here's the sequel to it.

https://profmattstrassler.com/2017/01/24/keeping-track-of-alternate-futures/

Here's the section that's particularly relevant to this thread.

If facts can be chosen at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function. Science — a word that means “evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works” — depends on the existence and undeniability of evidence. It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch;  there’s just one type.  I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.”

If instead you give up evidence-based reasoning, then soon you have politics instead of science determining your decisions on all sorts of things that matter to people because it can hurt or kill them: food safety, road safety, airplane safety, medicine, energy policy, environmental protection, and most importantly, defense. A nation that abandons evidence is abandoning applied reason and logic; and the inevitable consequence is that people will die unnecessarily.  It’s not a minor matter, and it’s not outside the purview of scientists to take a stand on the issue.

If Strassler had written...

"If facts can be interpreted at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function."

...then he would have been writing about your approach the facts, data and evidence, Pantheory.

Also, do you see what he says about evidence?

There is only one type.

There are no alternatives.

Those people who give themselves license to peddle alternatives to the evidence invariably do so for subjective, personal reasons.

They have lost their grasp of professional objectivity.

If they ever had it at all.

Walter.

 

Q.  Did I say that Strassler was a YEC in this post?

A.  No.

 

Posted 2 hours ago

No Pantheory, I'm not joking.

These men are properly accredited scientists, but they are first and foremost Biblical Literalists and Young Earth Creationists.

http://commonsensescience.net/scientists.html

The horse they put in front of the cart is their Christian faith.

But, in every other respect they are doing and thinking exactly like you.

They see the same data as mainstream scientists, just as you do, but they interpret it according to their personal agendas, just as you do.

The fact that their motivation is religious and your motivation is secular doesn't disqualify the comparison.

The bottom line is that both you and they are playing fast and loose with the data, for reasons outside of professional scientific inquiry.

You are both putting the horse of personal agenda in front of the cart of objectivity.

This is the danger of allowing yourself the freedom to interpret data from a personal viewpoint, rather than agreeing to use a common standard.

Walter.

 

Q.  Did I say that these men (Barnes, Bergman, Collins and Lucas) are YEC's?

A.  Yes, I did.

 

Do you see where you've been sloppy (again) Pantheory?

 

I said that the four scientists named above, from the commonsensescience.com site were YEC's.

 

At no point in this thread did I say that Strassler was a Yec.

 

Are you clear on this now?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

54 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

I have yet to see any young-Earth creationists educated in the fields I identified. But realize that you too can misinterpret what you are reading. But if there are such really stupid, or crazy zealot scientists who believe in the bible version of creation, then I apologize. But you still have not showed me any evidence of it. Show me their education, and clear evidence in quotes that they are young-Earth creationists. But that's still not the point. The point of this thread is simply my statement that sometimes science theory can be totally wrong just like religion.

 

I agree with you in that if we searched the world I'm sure we could find a few who put their Abrahamic religious beliefs above their science education.

 

Ok, here you are, Pantheory.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_G._Barnes

He was a member of this organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Research_Society which is exclusively Young Earth Creationist.

 

 

http://creationwiki.org/David_Bergman

Creationwiki is an outreach arm of this organization http://nwcreation.net/subjects.html the North West Creation Network.

 

 

Glen C Collins

http://wiki.creation.org/Young_Earth_United_States_organizations

Scroll down to Georgia to see this.

Common Sense Science. Roswell.
President: David L. Bergman; Vice President: Charles W. Lucas; Directors: Thomas W. Hagler, Jr. and Glen C. Collins.
Newsletter: Foundations of Science.

 

 

Dr. Charles W. Lucas

See link above and...

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol1/iss1/ Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism

Lucas was a speaker at this conference.

Please note the titles of various lectures.

Recent Creation and Worldwide Flood: The Perfect Agreement Between Biblical Chronology, Recorded History, and Other Extra-biblical Geochronometers

It's a Young World After All: Easily Understood Evidence

This was a conference given by YEC's, for YEC's.

 

 

Your apology is accepted.

 

 

The point of this thread is simply my statement that sometimes science theory can be totally wrong just like religion.

 

The above cuts both ways, Pantheory.

 

By that standard your science theories are just as likely to be wrong as any other.

 

All you've done here is to level the playing field.

 

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Ok, here you are, Pantheory.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_G._Barnes

He was a member of this organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Research_Society which is exclusively Young Earth Creationist.

 

 

http://creationwiki.org/David_Bergman

Creationwiki is an outreach arm of this organization http://nwcreation.net/subjects.html the North West Creation Network.

 

 

Glen C Collins

http://wiki.creation.org/Young_Earth_United_States_organizations

Scroll down to Georgia to see this.

Common Sense Science. Roswell.
President: David L. Bergman; Vice President: Charles W. Lucas; Directors: Thomas W. Hagler, Jr. and Glen C. Collins.
Newsletter: Foundations of Science.

 

 

Dr. Charles W. Lucas

See link above and...

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol1/iss1/ Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism

Lucas was a speaker at this conference.

Please note the titles of various lectures.

Recent Creation and Worldwide Flood: The Perfect Agreement Between Biblical Chronology, Recorded History, and Other Extra-biblical Geochronometers

It's a Young World After All: Easily Understood Evidence

This was a conference given by YEC's, for YEC's.

 

 

Your apology is accepted.

 

 

The point of this thread is simply my statement that sometimes science theory can be totally wrong just like religion.

 

The above cuts both ways, Pantheory.

 

By that standard your science theories are just as likely to be wrong as any other.

 

All you've done here is to level the playing field.

 

 

Walter.

 

No, that's not exactly what I asked for. For this little, less-important side discussion I think you are mixing up your subjects, nouns, and adjectives. You are saying Young-Earth creationist scientists. What their credentials relate to are "scientists who are young earth creationists." In my view there is a big difference. To be a young earth creationist scientist you have to deny the many mountains of evidence to the contrary in geology, isotope dating, archeology, paleontology, biology, zoology, anthropology, astronomy, organic chemistry, bio-chemistry, physics, etc. No real scientist in these related fields would ever confuse pseudo-science writings by a young earth creationist, as being real science.

 

"By that standard your science theories are just as likely to be wrong as any other."

 

True, but if so they are just as likely to be right as any other.

 

But for some of my theory I have what can be considered "proof" of theory. Here is a example and link.

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en#d=gs_md_cita-d&u=%2Fcitations%3Fview_op%3Dview_citation%26hl%3Den%26user%3D7ONCj-kAAAAJ%26citation_for_view%3D7ONCj-kAAAAJ%3Ad1gkVwhDpl0C%26tzom%3D480

 

 

 

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

No, that's not exactly what I asked for. For this little, less-important side discussion I think you are mixing up your subjects, nouns, and adjectives. You are saying Young-Earth creationist scientists. What their credentials relate to are "scientists who are young earth creationists." In my view there is a big difference. To be a young earth creationist scientist you have to deny the many mountains of evidence to the contrary in geology, archeology, paleontology, biology, zoology, anthropology, astronomy, organic chemistry, bio-chemistry, physics, etc. No real scientist in these related fields would ever consider any pseudo-science writings by a young earth creationist, as being science.

 

I see, so once again it is ONLY your interpretation of the data that matters.

 

And you can avoid offering me your apology by making a closed circle of the issue.

 

You define what a YEC scientist is and because these people don't meet with your criteria, you don't have to apologize to me.

 

Very neat.

 

 

But this sort of behaviour does highlight a blind spot in your 'open mindedness'.

 

If you cannot conceive of something (like a YEC scientist) being real, then you let your refusal to believe it govern your thinking.

 

And then you adjust your definitions and interpretations accordingly, denying the possibility that you could simply be wrong.

 

So much for your open mindedness and readiness to be wrong.

 

Quote

"By that standard your science theories are just as likely to be wrong as any other."

 

True, but if so they are just as likely to be right as other alternative theory.

 

Not so.

 

Applying Occam's Razor and all things being equal, the scientist who only interprets the data in a way that satisfies himself is more likely to be wrong than to be right.

 

Quote

 

But for some of my theory I have what can be considered "proof" of theory. Here is a example link.

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en#d=gs_md_cita-d&u=%2Fcitations%3Fview_op%3Dview_citation%26hl%3Den%26user%3D7ONCj-kAAAAJ%26citation_for_view%3D7ONCj-kAAAAJ%3Ad1gkVwhDpl0C%26tzom%3D480

 

 

 

 

Are articles submitted to Google Scholar peer reviewed?

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Returning to your 'interpretation' of data to support only that which you consider tenable, Pantheory...

 

I see that you were trying the same approach in Scienceforums.com as you tried here.

 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78115-galaxies-have-kept-in-shape-for-11-billion-years/?tab=comments#comment-761593

 

But Ophiolite corrected you there , in much the same way as BAA corrected you here.

 

You misunderstood the Hubble sequence, believing that it represented an evolutionary model of galaxies, when Hubble never intended it as such and it doesn't perform that function.  As we see, here.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_sequence

 

Elliptical and lenticular galaxies are commonly referred to together as “early-type” galaxies, while spirals and irregular galaxies are referred to as “late types”. This nomenclature is the source of the common,^[19] but erroneous, belief that the Hubble sequence was intended to reflect a supposed evolutionary sequence, from elliptical galaxies through lenticulars to either barred or regular spirals. In fact, Hubble was clear from the beginning that no such interpretation was implied:

The nomenclature, it is emphasized, refers to position in the sequence, and temporal connotations are made at one's peril. The entire classification is purely empirical and without prejudice to theories of evolution...^[3]

The evolutionary picture appears to be lent weight by the fact that the disks of spiral galaxies are observed to be home to many young stars and regions of active star formation, while elliptical galaxies are composed of predominantly old stellar populations. In fact, current evidence suggests the opposite: the early Universe appears to be dominated by spiral and irregular galaxies. In the currently favored picture of galaxy formation, present-day ellipticals formed as a result of mergers between these earlier building blocks; while some lenticular galaxies may have formed this way, others may have accreted their disks around pre-existing spheroids.^[20] Some lenticular galaxies may also be evolved spiral galaxies, whose gas has been stripped away leaving no fuel for continued star formation,^[21] although the galaxy LEDA 2108986 opens the debate on this.

 

But hey, what does it matter what anyone else says?

 

Don't like what mainstream science says about something?

 

Well, just do as you normally do and choose to interpret things in your own way.

 

There!  Problem solved.

[WalterP]

Btw Pantheory, you seem to have stopped posting in Scienceforums some time in 2013.

 

Why was that?

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

Returning to your 'interpretation' of data to support only that which you consider tenable, Pantheory...

 

I see that you were trying the same approach in Scienceforums.com as you tried here.

 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78115-galaxies-have-kept-in-shape-for-11-billion-years/?tab=comments#comment-761593

 

But Ophiolite corrected you there , in much the same way as BAA corrected you here.

 

You misunderstood the Hubble sequence, believing that it represented an evolutionary model of galaxies, when Hubble never intended it as such and it doesn't perform that function.  As we see, here.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_sequence

 

Elliptical and lenticular galaxies are commonly referred to together as “early-type” galaxies, while spirals and irregular galaxies are referred to as “late types”. This nomenclature is the source of the common,^[19] but erroneous, belief that the Hubble sequence was intended to reflect a supposed evolutionary sequence, from elliptical galaxies through lenticulars to either barred or regular spirals. In fact, Hubble was clear from the beginning that no such interpretation was implied:

The nomenclature, it is emphasized, refers to position in the sequence, and temporal connotations are made at one's peril. The entire classification is purely empirical and without prejudice to theories of evolution...^[3]

The evolutionary picture appears to be lent weight by the fact that the disks of spiral galaxies are observed to be home to many young stars and regions of active star formation, while elliptical galaxies are composed of predominantly old stellar populations. In fact, current evidence suggests the opposite: the early Universe appears to be dominated by spiral and irregular galaxies. In the currently favored picture of galaxy formation, present-day ellipticals formed as a result of mergers between these earlier building blocks; while some lenticular galaxies may have formed this way, others may have accreted their disks around pre-existing spheroids.^[20] Some lenticular galaxies may also be evolved spiral galaxies, whose gas has been stripped away leaving no fuel for continued star formation,^[21] although the galaxy LEDA 2108986 opens the debate on this.

 

But hey, what does it matter what anyone else says?

 

Don't like what mainstream science says about something?

 

Well, just do as you normally do and choose to interpret things in your own way.

 

There!  Problem solved.

 

btw, thanks for that. It likely took you some research time to find such postings of mine 8 years ago in another forum. It was interesting for me to read and remember that material again.

 

Since my posting there was contrary to mainstream theory, he was countering my post with the mainstream version and explanation, one interpretation of observations compared to another. No correction was involved since either could be right concerning interpretations, but not IMO

.No claims of certainty were made by either of us.

 

You seem to like sarcasm. As for myself, I'm not too fond of it.

[WalterP]

Ah yes, so when Ophiolite says that you misinterpreted the study, you interpret that to mean that you weren't misinterpreting the study.

 

And when Ophiolite said that you were mislead by the lightweight Wired.com article, you interpret that to mean that you weren't mislead.

 

And when he said that you were cherry-picking from the Wired article, you interpret that to mean that you weren't doing that.

 

And when he says that the original science paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf supports Big Bang theory, you interpret that to mean the opposite.

 

 

I'm impressed, Pantheory.

 

Whatever someone writes, you interpret it to mean what you want and not what they actually mean.

 

That must be how you've been able to maintain your unwavering belief in your own theories for over 40 years, without finding a shred of evidence to contradict them.

 

Whenever the possibility of contradiction occurs you put your 'interpretational' glasses on and 'Hey Presto!' you don't see a contradiction any more.

 

 

Impressive!

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

Btw Pantheory, you seem to have stopped posting in Scienceforums some time in 2013.

 

Why was that?

 

I spend more time here now because socializing is part of the scheme here. Although I probably could learn more about mainstream science views in another forum, I have more fun here talking to friends and explaining science in general to people.

 

"Are articles submitted to Google Scholar peer reviewed?"

 

Articles/ papers are not submitted by the authors necessarily. All of mine were chosen by them without my knowledge. All must be published in peer reviewed journals and meet their criteria. They only started promoting my material since 2013. My published material before then must have been considered. for them to accept me in the first place.

 

I really have little time for such conversations in any forum in general so I try to take longer between replies and postings to enable more time for my ongoing research projects. This year there's more time at home because of COVID, unfortunately.

[WalterP]

Pantheory,

 

Your innate ability to interpret things they way you want might explain why you have a real problem accepting the Moderators interpretations of forum rules and guidelines that cramp your 'interpretational' style.

 

As we can see here.

 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87710-were-gravitational-waves-actually-detected/?tab=comments#comment-797204

 

Moderator Note

It was off topic then and is still off-topic now. We have no problem discussing these issues - what we object to is News stories being hijacked by every members who has a personal theory (/ or a disagreement with a mainstream theory) which is contradicted by said News Story.

 

Interesting!  Once again you took an article and through the wonder of your 'interpretational' glasses were able make it say that opposite of what it actually meant.

 

But, being unable or unwilling to accept the Mods interpretation of the forum's guidelines you complained about it.

 

I don't see my response being off-topic. The topic was gravity waves being detected related to the Inflation era of cosmology. My response was to question whether gravity waves were really detected considering other possibilities which I mentioned, and if so why would they necessarily be a product of the Inflation era, also considering other possibilities. Mainstream news stories and papers make assertions and come to conclusions which one can discuss, or question why their conclusions may be valid or not. In my response I made no mention of any particular alternative theory, but alternative possibilities should have been discussed IMO, not just the mainstream interpretation. As we now know their news story interpretation of what they had observed could likely have been wrong.

 

Spyman wrote...

  On 2/11/2015 at 7:29 PM, pantheory said:

/Snip/ I don't see my response being off-topic. /Snip/

The rules are pretty simple: don't argue moderation in a science thread and keep fringe science outside of mainstream areas.

 

  On 2/11/2015 at 5:46 AM, pantheory said:

/Snip/ I believe this was a form of censorship to stop contention rather than to allow a differing opinion. /Snip/

 

There is nothing preventing you from discussing alternatives regarding determining or interpreting the cause or meaning of gravity waves. They gave you a new thread to discuss your "alternative possibilities", they didn't even move it to Speculations and kept it here in the Science News section. But instead of nurture the discussion you wanted, you are ruining it by moaning about moderation and censorship. My advice is for you to stop the complaining and proceed to make a new, fresh and objective thread in the Speculations area instead.

But I think Strange's one-liner takes the prize.

 

You are so determined to prop up your crank "theory," you refuse to acknowledge reality when it spits in your face.

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

10 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

I spend more time here now because socializing is part of the scheme here. Although I probably could learn more about mainstream science views in another forum, I have more fun here talking to friends and explaining science in general to people.

 

I really have little time for such conversations in general so I try to take longer between replies and postings to enable more time for my ongoing research projects. This year there's more time at home because of COVID, unfortunately.

 

Well, I supposed our loss is Scienceforum's gain.

 

 

[Christianchat_Chat]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

Whatever someone writes, you interpret it to mean what you want and not what they actually mean.

 

That must be how you've been able to maintain your unwavering belief in your own theories for over 40 years, without finding a shred of evidence to contradict them.

 

Whenever the possibility of contradiction occurs you put your 'interpretational' glasses on and 'Hey Presto!' you don't see a contradiction any more.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

14 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

 

No, all theories interpret observations. Here we are talking about cosmology. I am a scientist and have written a book and had a number of peer-reviewed science papers published over the years. My own theory can be seen here.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

As a Christian I expect you could not believe my theory or the mainstream Big Bang theory. But one big difference between my own theory and the Big Bang involves the age of the universe. In my model, and in the eyes of other steady-state theorists, the universe is either far older, as in my model, or infinite in age according to other steady-state models. When very distant galaxies are observed, for instance, the Big Bang model would assert that they are very young galaxies based upon the limiting age of the universe according to the Big Bang model. But for me, if the galaxies appear to be old, then my model would assert that they are old since my  model has no such limiting age to it.  There are a great many alternative cosmology models, and many have a science basis for them. Here are a few examples including my own theory, the Pan Theory.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

 

As a Christian I would expect that no part of cosmology, or any related theory, would sound appealing to you, right?  Cheers.

 

[WalterP]

16 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

btw, thanks for that. It likely took you some research time to find such postings of mine 8 years ago in another forum. It was interesting for me to read and remember that material again.

 

Since my posting there was contrary to mainstream theory, he was countering my post with the mainstream version and explanation, one interpretation of observations compared to another. No correction was involved since either could be right concerning interpretations, but not IMO

.No claims of certainty were made by either of us.

 

You seem to like sarcasm. As for myself, I'm not too fond of it.

 

Hmmm... that's kind of odd, don't you think, Pantheory?

 

The Lion's Den is the one part of Ex-C where the gloves can come off and almost anything goes.

 

So, having created this thread here and then invited me to participate in it, telling me that you're not fond of what is permitted here seems a little precious.

 

According to the Lion's Den Rules, " ...conversations in the Lion's Den are intended to be permissively unrestrained without devolving into repetitious verbal abuse."

 

So if I were to write that you are a lying, devious, manipulative, self-serving charlatan and scientist wannabe with delusions of grandeur, that would be ok in the Den.

 

Provided I don't repeat myself.   

 

 

But, since I possess an unfailingly polite and courteous demeanour, I would never verbally abuse you, Pantheory.

 

Instead I choose to exercise my powers of free interpretation to claim that my words don't mean what they appear to and are, in fact, compliments.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

".....But, since I possess an unfailingly polite and courteous demeanour, I would never verbally abuse you, Pantheory. Instead I choose to exercise my powers of free interpretation to claim that my words don't mean what they appear to and are, in fact, compliments."

 

OK, Great,  Thanks for that, and Cheers

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

".....But, since I possess an unfailingly polite and courteous demeanour, I would never verbally abuse you, Pantheory. Instead I choose to exercise my powers of free interpretation to claim that my words don't mean what they appear to and are, in fact, compliments."

 

OK, Great,  Thanks for that, and Cheers

 

Not at all. 

 

After all, I'm simply employing your highly-developed skill of interpreting the meaning of words and statements to be what you choose, not what they actually are.

 

Out of interest Pantheory, is there ever an element of danger involved in doing this generally, in your daily life?

 

Such as freely interpreting 'Don't Walk' signs to mean what you want and then having to dodge fast moving cars?

 

Or do you just use your free interpretation skills selectively, to help you get what you want from others?

 

Just curious.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

17 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

 

Hi Christian! 

 

I wouldn't worry too much about Pantheory's challenging tone.

 

That's because both of you have something in common.

 

You both use highly efficient ways of dealing with anything that challenges your beliefs.

 

You believe by faith and therefore don't need to bother with any evidence that might challenge your beliefs.

 

Pantheory doesn't need to bother with any evidence that might challenge his beliefs because he can just interpret that evidence to mean something else.

 

So, you both get what you both want.

 

Your beliefs proofed from any possibility of being challenged by evidence.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[midniterider]

56 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Hi Christian! 

 

I wouldn't worry too much about Pantheory's challenging tone.

 

That's because both of you have something in common.

 

You both use highly efficient ways of dealing with anything that challenges your beliefs.

 

You believe by faith and therefore don't need to bother with any evidence that might challenge your beliefs.

 

Pantheory doesn't need to bother with any evidence that might challenge his beliefs because he can just interpret that evidence to mean something else.

 

So, you both get what you both want.

 

Your beliefs proofed from any possibility of being challenged by evidence.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Let's hear it for faith!  Hip hip, Hurray! Hip hip, Hurray! Hip hip, Hurray!

 

 

[Christianchat_Chat]

30 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Hi Christian! 

 

I wouldn't worry too much about Pantheory's challenging tone.

 

That's because both of you have something in common.

 

You both use highly efficient ways of dealing with anything that challenges your beliefs.

 

You believe by faith and therefore don't need to bother with any evidence that might challenge your beliefs.

 

Pantheory doesn't need to bother with any evidence that might challenge his beliefs because he can just interpret that evidence to mean something else.

 

So, you both get what you both want.

 

Your beliefs proofed from any possibility of being challenged by evidence.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

hi.  i dunno.  his tone here doesn't seem very challenging does it?       

 

i could be wrong.