Rodney King said it best.....

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I have a Masters in Environmental Geology and Soils Science with an emphasis on math and computer modeling,

As the Shadowmaster suspected: not physics.
Just another stamp collector.
"geology" ==> You should join Glenn Morton's AGW threads.

and I have published articles in journals, and popular international magazines. As to these subjects I have referenced peered reviewed journals on the subject, and defer and refernce to cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians in these fields. You have failed to bring anything to cite in these discussions.

The Shadowmaster happens to know that element's credentials are loftier than these but he does not brag about them.

I do not put myself forward as na authority in these fields, but cite those that are, and not promot anonymous sources as authority.

Anyone can be a Googler and search the web for someone else's articles.
You have nothing personal to discuss and you criticize others for offering thoughts based upon their own merit.

a strange attitude indeed.

I do not personally have a problem with people citing authority in defense of their argument. Ideally, if someone "Googles" something that seems to contradict something I have said and it is from a fairly reputable source - honestly, I appreciate it.

It gives me a chance to either steer them in the right direction or reconsider my own take on the matter.

Unfortunately, the latter has never happened to me, because I'm smarter than a two-dollar pistol, but I am open to constructive criticism - and moreover, it is my nature to teach.

When someone counters what I say with something entirely obtuse - or they're simply trying to appear smart - I take that into consideration and try to respond without humiliating them.

Then you have the ones who just want to fight. For those, I usually lower myself to their level and slaughter them at their own game.

Kind of like Patrick F. McManus or Studs Terkel.

You know - the whole, quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur bit.

And of course there is Simon Schama and his ab imo pectore resonations.

From there, I usually love "lamp".

Originally posted by HELLBOY

I do not personally have a problem with people citing authority in defense of their argument. Ideally, if someone "Googles" something that seems to contradict something I have said and it is from a fairly reputable source - honestly, I appreciate it. It gives me a chance to either steer them in the right direction or reconsider my own take on the matter. Unfortunately, the latter has never happened to me, because I'm smarter than a two-dollar pistol, but I am open to constructive criticism - and moreover, it is my nature to teach. When someone counters what I say with something entirely obtuse - or they're simply trying to appear smart - I take that into consideration and try to respond without humiliating them. Then you have the ones who just want to fight. For those, I usually lower myself to their level and slaughter them at their own game. Kind of like Patrick F. McManus or Studs Terkel. You know - the whole, quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur bit. And of course there is Simon Schama and his ab imo pectore resonations. From there, I usually love "lamp".

Makes a guy proud to know ya.

Originally posted by shadowmaster

Makes a guy proud to know ya.

The feeling's mutual, of course.

Every once in a while, I come across someone I just like even though I may have never spoken to them before.

So I'll leave it at that, before I start quoting Nicholas Sparks novels and calling myself, "Ginger".

Every once in a while, I come across someone I just like even though I may have never spoken to them before.

In Shadowmaster's case you'll never see him either.

Originally posted by MooseOnTheLoose

Every once in a while, I come across someone I just like even though I may have never spoken to them before.

In Shadowmaster's case you'll never see him either.

The knows it.

Originally posted by element771

that happens to be a particle physicist.

Where are the credentials to back up this claim???

Fine. Then don't pretend like they are comparable to actual [scientific] journals.

Never did!!!

What are you talking about?

It is not science to believe that the SM is a particle physicist.

Am I citing the SM to disprove the eternal universe? NO!

I did not say you were using this to disprove an eternal universe. By our present knowledge that is a foolish notion anyway!

It is bad science to promote someone as an authority without credentials and documentation.

You asked in a previous post where you claimed that 'Authors are published in these mags not scientists.' I had difficulty finding the post, because some posts were split off from the 'Death' thread. But the following documents it. Apparently you in actuality are unfamiliar with the magazines in question, because you would realize that in most articles the Bibliography of each article are the equivalent peer reviewed articles by the same authors with the same conclusions as the articles in these magazines. You also have done nothing to document the spurious claims you made in this post. You would also realize that the articles in SA are almost exclusively written by scientists, and in Discover by far the majority are written by scientists who published in peer reviewed journals the equivalent more technical articles. Your claim to be an ex-spurt simply translates to a 'drip that failed.'

Originally posted by element771

Scientific American and Discover are magazines that promote pop science. While interesting, there articles are designed to entertain as well as to inform. Most articles that I have read in discover and SA were absolutely riddled with assumptions and lacked any sense of reality in the field (these were biology articles, so I am an expert and am familiar with the research in the areas of the articles).

If you are using these two in the place of scholarly journals then it is you who only understand it on a popular level. There is no peer review in magazines. They can print anything they want without having to back it up with any rigor or subject it to peer reviews. Authors are published in these mags not scientists.

Again, the reason why they publish this far out ideas as virtual certainties is to sell magazines. No one would buy a magazine that had a story entitled "The Universe - Finite and All There Is" How boring is that?!?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Where are the credentials to back up this claim???

I don't have access to his diploma.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

It is bad science to promote someone as an authority without credentials and documentation.

This is not science. How is it science? This is a discussion about the universe. I am not using this thread to direct any research that I am doing. It is an informal discussion.

If SM is a particle physicist, which I have reason to believe that he is, he is an authority....plain and simple.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

You asked in a previous post where you claimed that 'Authors are published in these mags not scientists.'

OK. I was wrong to say most articles are written by authors and not scientists.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

You also have done nothing to document the spurious claims you made in this post.

Are these magazines peer reviewed?

My "spurious" claim is that they are not.

You also have failed to answer some of my questions....

How have I misrepresented science?

also,

Do you believe that the Earth is round?

Do you believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun?

Please cite primary articles to back up your answers.

The nice thing about theologyweb is that a person's posts stand on their own merits. Being just a googler puts everyone on the same footing.

Jorge and Shunyadragon have the same sources of information upon which to base their claims.

No thinking required.

Originally posted by element771

I don't have access to his diploma.

You do not have access to any of his credentials nor publications.

If SM is a particle physicist, which I have reason to believe that he is, he is an authority....plain and simple.

YES,IF!!!!! But this has not been established yet.

Are these magazines peer reviewed?

My "spurious" claim is that they are not.

You also have failed to answer some of my questions....

Your spurious claims were concerning the nature and intent of the articles in these journals, which was demeaning and degrading to the scientists who publish in these magazines. Please reread the content of your previous post that I cited.

How have I misrepresented science?

Your above cited railing against the magazines and the scientists who publish in them is a good start.

Your objections to multi-verse and an infinite eternal misrepresent the current views of the disiplines of science and math that make of Cosmology. I may review the threads and posts you have made and cite more specific examples as I have done here.

Of course nothing is proved in any form either way, but your statements have misrepresented cosmology.

Do you believe that the Earth is round?

Do you believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun?

Please cite primary articles to back up your answers.

Yes, numerous peer reviewed articles have published photographs of this phenomenon and films from space have documented this movement and shape of the planets inluding the earth. What is the purpose for this foolish line of reasoning. Do you dougt for some reason this is true?

You still have documented nothing with citations including your spurious attacks on the scientists that publish in these magazines. By the way you did not say most, you said scientists were not the authors in these magazines.

It's obvious that Shadowmaster is really Stephen Hawking. Who else would need typists to make his posts for him?

sheesh.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

YES,IF!!!!! But this has not been established yet.

This is your opinion. I have talked to and interacted with the SM via personal communication on numerous occasions and I am satisfied.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Your spurious claims were concerning the nature and intent of the articles in these journals, which was demeaning and degrading to the scientists who publish in these magazines. Please reread the content of your previous post that I cited.

I am simply stating facts.

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.

These are facts that cannot be refuted.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Your objections to multi-verse and an infinite eternal misrepresent the current views of the disiplines of science and math that make of Cosmology.

Which objections and how do they misrepresent cosmology?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Yes, numerous peer reviewed articles have published photographs of this phenomenon and films from space have documented this movement and shape of the planets inluding the earth. What is the purpose for this foolish line of reasoning. Do you dougt for some reason this is true?

Air ball. I need primary references to verify this claim.

Originally posted by shadowmaster

As the Shadowmaster suspected: not physics.
Just another stamp collector.

Oh, pfft. If it weren't for MY subject, the beautiful mathematics, we'd both be hitting each other up for the latest Elvis image we can paste to our various books.

By the way, are the skeptics going to get the gears going now that they know a physics master from the believing side is here?

Originally posted by Anon

By the way, are the skeptics going to get the gears going now that they know a physics master from the believing side is here?

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