Posted: Jan 11, 2019 9:59 am
truelgbt wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That's not a correction. What Newolders said is factually correct.truelgbt wrote:Unfortunately, fallible humans are the ones always involved. Scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. have as many personal biases, personal issues and blind spots as anyone else.
Which is why we have things like peer-review, the concept of fallibility etc.
And no-one is saying humans are perfect, but the scientific method is the most efficient and productive method to study the universe that we have.truelgbt wrote: The personal 'baggage' which they bring into the equation will muddy-up or muck-up the end result which they present to the rest of us and skew that result.
Nothing but a vague and unsubstantiated assertion.truelgbt wrote: An increase in education does not automatically imply an increase in wisdom..
Except that it does. Wisdom is about knowledge, education about acquiring it.
You seem to be confusing wisdom with intelligence, but then no-one here has argued that education necessarily leads to an increase in intellect.truelgbt wrote:We should never think to ourselves that a higher degree or job title means their words and claims are to be implicitly believed.
That's a substantially different point than you made a sentence before.
And no-one here has argued that higher degree means that person is always right or should always be believed.truelgbt wrote:
Unfortunately, when it comes to the topic of origins, many do just that - implicitly accept what they say.
Tell that to the people who do so.truelgbt wrote: They don't even question the a-priori assumptions, premises, presuppositions, etc. which went into the whole thing or don't even know what they are to begin with. So sad.
The bridge is starting to creak.truelgbt wrote: So, maybe you or someone here can list for us the assumptions and premises that cosmologists commonly use for the big bang, and how those assumptions and premises were demonstrated or somehow verified.
Why would anyone do your work for you?
It is your set of ill-defined assertions, not ours.
??? Where is the LIST?
Where are your responses to what I actually said?
truelgbt wrote: Please folks, no answers such as "I don't need to list it because..." You either know this answer or you don't.
Nope, you don't get to dictate how people respond to your posts.
Myself and others have raised valid criticisms of your claims. If you cannot refute them, that's fine, but don't dismiss them out of hand and pretend it's all about the list.