666...the Devils Moving Average

Axeman - On ET we constantly hear that 95% of the people cannot trade and 5% can. I know you want to be in the minority in that text and so do I. So if you say 93% of the scientists don't believe in creation and 7% do I am clearly in the minority again but you are not. I am very happy in the minority because I am a contrarian and I know I have to try harder because of my minority position. I have also noticed that the "runt of the litter makes the best dog". If you trust all of the establishment analysts and stock market gurus you may have a few problems in your trading. Likewise if you trust all of the establishment scientists and professors you may have problems with your belief systems. Do your trading systems only rely on analyst recommendations and stock market gurus or something else and I'll bet you test your systems and hopefully look for perjudices and preconceptions? If not you better check your trading balances.:D

Good trading and shooting at least there we might agree.
 
I don't believe this at all.

In fact, the majority are theists, and I dont believe them.

Why? Their arguments don't hold water, and their evidence is non-existent.

But when creationists start making scientific claims in an attempt
to attack evolution, and the current body of evidence, which
is produced by PHD's with the proper credentials, in the proper
fields, all weigh directly against their claim, whom shall I believe?

The choice is pretty obvious.

I am NOT saying that we should believe them ONLY because the
majority of our best scientists disagree, but because of the
weight of the evidence that led them to this conclusion.


The other point you made about not having to change your beliefs
and how scientists DO change their beliefs as new evidence is
discovered, is very interesting.

You are implying that the creationists somehow have a stronger
position simply because they never change their story, and scientists
frequently change theirs.

This actually shows the opposite and the FLAW in creationism.

Creationism starts with a conclusion, and does anything it
can to defend. It is backwards from real science.

Science observes, states a hypothesis, collects evidence,
attempts to make it a theory, tests it widely, and if all this
becomes overwhelming, calls it a fact.

The FACT that scientists "change" their hypothesis/theories
shows that the scientific method is WORKING and that they
are getting closer and closer to the full answer.

The FACT that creationists stick to their "story" and refuse
to budge one inch, tells me that they are completely closeminded,
and reject all counter evidence, and REFUSE to modify their
theory because they ASSUME it's FACT to start with.


Creationism, is an unsupported conclusion.
Evolution, is theory and fact, with a huge base of evidence.
It is a cornerstone of modern biological sciences.

Sure... you can find areas that still have "problems" in it, as
with any theory, and even some facts.

Its a FACT that gravity exists, but if you dont know EXACTLY, how
it works, this does NOT invalidate it as a fact.

This is what creationists are implying. They nit pick at evolution,
and dismiss it, because science doesn't PERFECTLY understand it.

But like gravity, evolution doesn't simply stop being a theory or
a fact simply because we dont understand every tiny little
process to perfection.

If I look at the Grand Canyon, and have an overwhelming pile
of evidence that it was carved by water, you cant reject
the fact that the Grand Canyon was carved by water simply
because I cant explain HOW in perfect detail, OR because
I didn't OBSERVE it actually happening, or because my theory
fails to explain every little nook and cranny perfectly.

Our confidence level is still high enough to label my theory a "fact".


How about creationism?
What evidence have we gathered?
What hypotheses have we "tested"?
What were the expected outcomes?
How is it falsifiable?

I've never seen anyone answer these questions very well.

This makes creationism more of a statement than a hypothesis,
a theory or a fact.


peace

axeman



Quote from Doubter:

"To you I guess "credible"= establishment and that is definitely where we part company and permanently I would imagine. Don't forget majority doesn't always mean right. "
More...
 
This is a bad analogy, because as traders, we know that
trading is a special situation where the majority, is always
wrong by definition.

If everyone buys, there a no buyers left, and the price
must fall.

We can't say this of science, and other things in general.


For example... try playing in a chess tournament with a
whole team of chess grandmasters standing behind you,
and then make sure you NEVER take their agreed upon
suggested next move :D


peace

axeman




Quote from Doubter:

Axeman - On ET we constantly hear that 95% of the people cannot trade and 5% can. I know you want to be in the minority in that text and so do I. So if you say 93% of the scientists don't believe in creation and 7% do I am clearly in the minority again but you are not. I am very happy in the minority because I am a contrarian and I know I have to try harder because of my minority position. I have also noticed that the "runt of the litter makes the best dog". If you trust all of the establishment analysts and stock market gurus you may have a few problems in your trading. Likewise if you trust all of the establishment scientists and professors you may have problems with your belief systems. Do your trading systems only rely on analyst recommendations and stock market gurus or something else and I'll bet you test your systems and hopefully look for perjudices and preconceptions? If not you better check your trading balances.:D

Good trading and shooting at least there we might agree.
More...
 
Quote from Doubter:

A 'Cosmic Jerk' That Reversed the Universe
By DENNIS OVERBYE

Published: October 11, 2003


LEVELAND, Oct. 10 — Astronomers said on Friday that they had determined the time in cosmic history when a mysterious force, "dark energy," began to wrench the universe apart.

Five billion years ago, said Dr. Adam Riess, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, the universe experienced a "cosmic jerk." Before then, Dr. Riess said, the combined gravity of the galaxies and everything else in the cosmos was resisting the expansion, slowing it down. Since the jerk, though, the universe has been speeding up.

The results were based on observations by a multinational team of astronomers who used the Hubble Space Telescope to search exploding stars known as Type 1a supernovas, reaching back in time three-quarters of the way to the Big Bang, in which the universe was born. The results should help quell remaining doubts that the expansion of the universe is really accelerating, a strange-sounding notion that has become a pillar of a new and widely accepted model of the universe as being full of mysterious dark matter and even more mysterious dark energy.

"This gives great confidence that we've been on the right track," said Dr. Riess, who announced his results at a meeting here on the Future of Cosmology sponsored by the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University and the Kavli Institute.

Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, an astrophysicist at Case Western, called the turnaround from slowing down to speeding up important confirmation.

"The big surprise," Dr. Krauss said, "would have been if it hadn't happened."

Dr. Joseph Lykken, a physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, known as Fermilab, in Batavia, Ill., said, "I could go home now and be happy."

Knowing how and when the jerk occurred, astronomers said, was an important step in figuring out just what the dark energy is.

"He gave us information about when the universe hit the gas pedal," said Dr. Michael S. Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago who is director of mathematics and physics at the National Science Foundation. Different theories of dark energy, Dr. Turner said, predict different times for the transition.

"The supernovae have come through," Dr. Wendy L. Freedman, director of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, Calif., said. "The whole result could have disappeared," referring to the dark energy acceleration.

A result was also a vindication for Dr. Riess, who was a pivotal member of one of two competing groups, the one led by Dr. Brian P. Schmidt of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories in Australia. The other team was headed by Dr. Saul Perlmutter of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of the University of California, who discovered the cosmic acceleration five years ago. The groups used supernovas to chart the expansion of the universe at different times in the past.

The goal was to measure how much the universe was being slowed by the collective gravity of the cosmos and determine whether the universe would go on forever or recollapse in a "Big Crunch" on one distant day.

The groups found, though, that nearby supernovas looked dimmer than they should, implying that the universe was growing faster than expected, speeding up, under the influence of some form of antigravity — perhaps embedded in the fabric of spacetime itself.

The results were buttressed by studies of radiation left over from the Big Bang that suggested that two-thirds of the mass-energy of the universe resided in this dark energy.

"But there was always a nagging doubt," Dr. Riess told his colleagues today, that dust or some other astrophysical effect was dimming the supernovae, mimicking the effects of acceleration. If that were the case, supernovae even farther away than the ones already observed should be even dimmer.

On the other hand, if it was really an antigravity energy in space, then as space expanded, the push from this dark energy would grow along with it. In the early years of the universe, the dark energy would have been too small to counteract the gravity of the matter in the universe, and the expansion would have initially slowed. After the universe grew big enough, though, the dark energy would dominate, and the universe would start to expand.

Dr. Riess described the difference between the matter, most of which is dark, and dark energy as, "One pulls, the other pushes."
________________________________________

Another 180 degree turn. Slowing to now accelerating. They expect their credibility to keep going up with every turn. Amazing!
More...

This is actually a HUGE and interesting topic. Based on the article you pasted in it has to do with Einstein's infamous cosmological constant. (The ideas that are in the article above are actually fairly old and I remember reading articles about this subject even 3 or 4 years ago. Basically the article you posted is just verifying this experimentatlly.) There are many ironies in all of this, but here's a little history first:

Einstein was obviously one of the most incredible scientific geniuses of human history. However, there is one time in his career where he showed how psychology could bias him as much as all the rest of us sub-180 IQers. The solution to his relativity equations led him to a conclusion he did not like: an explosion! He grudgingly acknowleged "the necessity for a beginning" and the "presence of a superior reasoning power." (Of course, he did not accept the idea of a personal God.)

Initially, he apparently found this idea so disdainful that he proposed a cosmological constant which one can essentially think of as an anti-gravity-like force - massive bodies would repel each other. Einstein's proposed value was very large (compared to what is proposed for example in this article), because his purpose was to basically cancel out the effects of gravity. He was apparently hoping for the same thing Hoyle and Eddington hoped for: a static universe so that a) there was no need for a First Cause and b) there would ample time for evolution.

Anyway, a large cosmological constant was refuted in short order and Einstein stated that it was the biggest blunder of his career. This is a great example of how one's bias can filter into one's thinking.

But here's the first irony in all of this: Einstein, Eddington and Hoyle (three of the greatest scientific minds of all time) all disliked the idea of a Big Bang and in different ways fought against it before grudgingly accepting it. Who would have guessed that a few decades later that most Christians would largely fight bitterly against the Big Bang?

The second irony is that part of the reason Christians did this was because they reasoned something like this: "the Big Bang is just an example of 'evolution' of the universe and we hate evolution." But little did they realize that the Big Bang seals the death of evolution. The Big Bang establishes a universe that is MUCH too young for evolution as I have previously posted. The universe is only 14 billion years which is not NEARLY old enough for hundreds of thousands of sequentially linked random events to chain themselves together in a pattern to make advanced life here on earth.

The third irony is that science does now believe that there is a cosmological constant (but much much smaller than Einstein proposed of course) and that it now will lead to an accelerating universe. So Einstein was "accidently" right to a certain degree!

The fourth irony is that the cosmological constant is actually one of the most finely tuned of the Intelligent Design parameters and must be within 10 to the 120th for any life to exist in the universe! So one of Einstein's biggest blunders to disprove a First Cause turned out to argue loudly for that very same First Cause.
 
This is a bad analogy, because as traders, we know that
trading is a special situation where the majority, is always
wrong by definition.

If everyone buys, there a no buyers left, and the price
must fall.

We can't say this of science, and other things in general
Axeman
_______________________________________

This is a very good analogy because of the "Abilene Paradox", a book I mentioned before. As I observe the scientists I see them much more interested in consensus than true expression of the evidence before them. (this is particularly true in the biologies).
This I term "lock step" and we certainly can see that in analysts who have outside pressures to make them do what they do as do many scientists. They have a preconceived notion and are under tremendous pressure to conform to the establishment position which must at all costs defend evolution. The entire environmental religion is built around this assumption and if you don't think there is peer pressure, financial pressure, political pressure, and every other kind of dishonest and devious pressure behind that then you could have you head in the sand.
 
If scientists were so hell bent on consensus then science
would not make progress.

Sure, there is peer pressure, etc...

When a radical new idea is proposed, it SHOULD be challenged,
and pressure is a given.

Yet... ideas ARE challenged, and new ideas proposed, and
guess what? PROVEN AND ACCEPTED TOO!

The analogy fails, because reality strikes it down.
Science moves forward, regardless of corporate or lawyer or
peer pressure games.

If your right, your right. No amount of pressure of any sort
can change that.

Look at creationism. TONS of religious pressure by theist
institutions in government, etc. Yet, it fails to make headway.

Why? The majority believe it. Why does it fail?
Because the people making the case have never been able
to consistently defend themselves against the onslaught
of logic and science. Creationism simply isnt taken seriously
BECAUSE of its complete lack of evidence, and the other
serious flaws I have pointed out.

Evolution IS taken seriously, not because of this peer pressure
and bias as you claim, but because of the body evidence
supporting it.

To believe otherwise, would be to believe that somehow,
a scientist FABRICATED this whole evolution story, and SOMEHOW
"slipped thru" the ARMY of scientists who attack, shred, and rip
to pieces all new scientific theories. It's the proper thing to do.
This is the ULTIMATE test of truth and is precisely what gives
us a high confidence level in things we wish to label FACT.

Very hard to swallow.

Even Einstein was attacked and debated against for his theories.
Guess who won? Why? Because when a position is sound,
no amount of attack can defeat it in the end.


Creationism is EASILY shredded to pieces.
Over and over and over... it will get nowhere without
providing some fresh ides. Attacking evolution and science doesn't
help it's position either. It has no effect.

peace

axeman



Quote from Doubter:

This is a bad analogy, because as traders, we know that
trading is a special situation where the majority, is always
wrong by definition.

If everyone buys, there a no buyers left, and the price
must fall.

We can't say this of science, and other things in general
Axeman
_______________________________________

This is a very good analogy because of the "Abilene Paradox", a book I mentioned before. As I observe the scientists I see them much more interested in consensus than true expression of the evidence before them. (this is particularly true in the biologies).
This I term "lock step" and we certainly can see that in analysts who have outside pressures to make them do what they do as do many scientists. They have a preconceived notion and are under tremendous pressure to conform to the establishment position which must at all costs defend evolution. The entire environmental religion is built around this assumption and if you don't think there is peer pressure, financial pressure, political pressure, and every other kind of dishonest and devious pressure behind that then you could have you head in the sand.
More...
 
"The Big Bang establishes a universe that is MUCH too young for evolution as I have previously posted. The universe is only 14 billion years which is not NEARLY old enough for hundreds of thousands of sequentially linked random events to chain themselves together in a pattern to make advanced life here on earth. "

You have not proven this and are making huge assumptions.


"The fourth irony is that the cosmological constant is actually one of the most finely tuned of the Intelligent Design parameters and must be within 10 to the 120th for any life to exist in the universe! "

Again. Not proven. More huge assumptions.
As stated earlier in this thread, you are completely incapable
of calculating odds without even knowing what all the variables
are or even how many variables exist.

It may very well be the case that life would evolve for EVERY
combination of variables you can come up with.

In other words, you have consistently failed to state
your null hypothesis and therefore can not make these
kinds of claims at all, but for some reason, continue to do so.

Repetition of the same flawed argument does not make it any stronger.



peace

axeman
 
Evolution IS taken seriously, not because of this peer pressure
and bias as you claim, but because of the body evidence
supporting it.

To believe otherwise, would be to believe that somehow,
a scientist FABRICATED this whole evolution story, and SOMEHOW
"slipped thru" the ARMY of scientists who attack, shred, and rip
to pieces all new scientific theories. It's the proper thing to do.
This is the ULTIMATE test of truth and is precisely what gives
us a high confidence level in things we wish to label FACT.

Very hard to swallow.
Axeman
______________________________________

That is exactly what I believe happened but the army wanted to support it instead of really testing it and seeing if it held water. They may be still in some ways testing it. One of the reasons they want so badly to accept evolution is that it is against creation which they hate as do you. You must believe in an idealistic scientific community and I definitely do not. There are both good and bad scientists, obviously, and different fields of study are effected in different ways but the ones around evolution I totally distrust. I have seen them lie so bad in court that even they couldn't see their own propensity to lie instead of just telling the truth.
 
One side comment: an ever-expanding universe would put to death once and forever an idea that was very fashionable several decades ago: an oscillating (or reincarnating) universe. With the flow of eastern religions into our country in the 60's and 70's, the idea of a reincarnating universe was considered a verification of certain ancient Hindu scriptures (that claimed the universe was a little over 4 billion years old).

Actually, a reincarnating universe was destroyed in 1983 and 1984 by no less of a astrophysicist than Alan Guth due to reasons of entropy.
 
Repetition of the same flawed argument does not make it any stronger.



peace

axeman
____________________________________________

Amen to that! Evolution just keeps it up though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top