Originally posted by shunyadragon

Going simply by what people say, is lousy science to say the least. 'Throwing in an atheist' does not help your case. The problem is you put a theist up as an authority without proper support.

FIFY

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Going simply by what people say, is lousy science to say the least.

So you do your own research?

Wow!

Originally posted by element771

I think that is what all the fuss is all about. No one seems to have a problem with SoR credentials.

Not in this thread. But in others certain users have claimed such of me.

Boy I hope that user doesn't read that and show-up. I'm really not in the mood for them.

Oh for freakin...

Would you guys start debating already. Stop arguing about this non sense and start arguing about the topic at hand.

Why? Everyone is having fun.

Originally posted by Sea of red

Oh for freakin...

Would you guys start debating already. Stop arguing about this non sense and start arguing about the topic at hand.

This has implications for the topic. If he thinks that articles in Discover are peer reviewed and this is where he gets his ideas about the field of cosmology, then his knowledge of the literature is biased towards what gets written in Discover. Plain and simple.

He also has the audacity to label me as a layman when he doesn't even understand peer review.

I have also asked him to point out which objections did I make that he feels to be unfair and how do they misrepresent cosmology?

He has not done that yet.

Originally posted by element771

This has implications for the topic. If he thinks that articles in Discover are peer reviewed and this is where he gets his ideas about the field of cosmology, then his knowledge of the literature is biased towards what gets written in Discover. Plain and simple.

He also has the audacity to label me as a layman when he doesn't even understand peer review.

I have never said that I got my ideas about cosmology from Discover. I never said that Discover was peer reviewed in the manner that scientific journals are. I would appreciate if you would not misrepresent me in this way, but that may be expecting too much of you.

I object the way you spuriously trashed and misrepresented these magazines and the scientists who publish in them, and I cited you correctly. You in turn have failed to provide any documentation for your attack on these magazines.

I have also asked him to point out which objections did I make that he feels to be unfair and how do they misrepresent cosmology?

He has not done that yet.

I did. You have proposed that multi-verses and an eternal infinite existence beyond our universe is not a legitimate supportable scientific theory and hypothesis. This is misrepresenting the current view of most cosmologists.

Originally posted by element771

So you do your own research?

Wow!

No, I do not go by anonymous sources as authorities as you propose without credentials and documentation, 'going on what people say.' This is a joke of huge proportions. Using well known physicists, cosmologists and mathematicians through searches in libraries and the internet is not doing your own research. It appears your unfamiliar with this process and prefer to, 'based your views 'on what people say.'

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I object the way you spuriously trashed and misrepresented these magazines and the scientists who publish in them, and I cited you correctly. You in turn have failed to provide any documentation for your attack on these magazines.

This is my documentation for pointing out the flaws in using magazines as a source in keeping up with any field in science.

Can you refute any of the following?

1. These articles are not peer reviewed.

2. Anything written in these articles is not subjected to the process by which science utilizes to maximize credibility and caution.

3. Therefore, although these articles are based on scientific research, there is less accountability with claims. Claims and speculation that would never be allowed under the peer review process are not censored with the rigor that peer review utilizes.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I did. You have proposed that multi-verses and an eternal infinite existence beyond our universe is not a legitimate supportable scientific theory and hypothesis. This is misrepresenting the current view of most cosmologists.

Wrong. Thank you come again.

Have never said this.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

It appears your unfamiliar with this process and prefer to, 'based your views 'on what people say.'

If you don't base your views on the commentary of others then you must do your own research.

What was the topic?

Originally posted by HELLBOY
How do you know we haven't met already?

How do you know that somewhere in the remote deserts of New Mexico, we may have not shared a "caravan" of black suburbans?

Shadowmaster is in a perpetual state of trans-dimensional flux. His appearances are rare and not always under his control.

People think J.P. Holding is the last boss of TheologyWeb. But if the day ever comes when a skeptic party triumphs, they'll find the sky darkened as SHADOWMAN emerges unsuspectedly, with his strange Japanese anime-like powers and the Final Form Last Boss music all ripped off from Carmina Burana and the like.

Originally posted by Anon

People think J.P. Holding is the last boss of TheologyWeb. But if the day ever comes when a skeptic party triumphs, they'll find the sky darkened as SHADOWMAN emerges unsuspectedly, with his strange Japanese anime-like powers and the Final Form Last Boss music all ripped off from Carmina Burana and the like.

The doubts that SHADOWMAN is real

Originally posted by element771

If you don't base your views on the commentary of others then you must do your own research.

You said 'what people say,' and not commentary of others. Actually I will take commentary into consideration as to the source, and the credentials and documentation of the source before I will consider commentary reliable.,

Originally posted by element771

This is my documentation for pointing out the flaws in using magazines as a source in keeping up with any field in science.

Can you refute any of the following?

Refutation is not the issue.

1. These articles are not peer reviewed.

As I have said before, the review process in these magazines is not the same as journals.

You consider the review process inadequate in maximize crediblity and caution. I consider the editorial board, not one editor to represent the peers of the authors, and adequate to maximize credibility of the magazine.

2. Anything written in these articles is not subjected to the process by which science utilizes to maximize credibility and caution.

I believe the process of review by the editors of these magazines to be adequate to maximize credibility and caution to maintain the reputation of the magazine.

There is no indication in the history of either magazine that they have published material to sensationalize the content for sales.

3. Therefore, although these articles are based on scientific research, there is less accountability with claims. Claims and speculation that would never be allowed under the peer review process are not censored with the rigor that peer review utilizes.

I do not agree, even the peer review process in found flawed at times and not successful. I believe the review process is more than adaquate, and rigor of the review comperable to peer review processes of most journals.

What you have failed to do is back up your accusations in the previous post as I have cited that the madazines do not measure up to excellent accademic standards. In the history of our exchanges you have failed to cite anything to back up your assurtions.

Your accusation that an article promoting the 'universe is all there is' does not make it because it is not sensational enough is foolishness. You simply have to scite journal sources that support this notion in contemporary cosmology, which you have failed to do

Wrong. Thank you come again.

Than you would have no trouble with these concepts being the prevalent view of contemporary cosmology supported by sound science.