SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction

Many are convinced there are alien life forms out there…Scientists have went from searching for advanced beings to micro-organisms but have yet to produce on shred of evidence on either one. Now there is another way being promoted…In Physorg

“She said several of the scientists involved in the project were interested in pursuing the notion, which Davies laid out in a 2007 Scientific American article, “Are Aliens Among Us?” So far, there’s no answer. And finding one would be fraught with difficulties, as Davies himself acknowledged. Unusual organisms abound – including chemical-eating bacteria which dwell deep in the ocean and organisms that thrive in boiling-hot springs – but that doesn’t mean they’re different life forms entirely.”

Shostak calls himself a scientist, but what accomplishments has he done? What he calls as “science” is not. Single point conclusions with observables is not science but rather storytelling. Shostak is basically telling the public is don’t believe in the miracles God rather believe in the miracles of materialism. Dead chemicals became alive even though it’s never been observed, because we are here? That’s not science!

Without observables like HNA or ANA (something like human DNA) for alien life forms to draw inference from, there is no foundation or basis for the belief! Instead, he tells this story about how aliens could be not only living among us but also inside of us. What makes him think aliens even exist at all and why just at the micro level? Believing in human evolution is not evidence, believing in the big band is not evidence, believing in one animal turning into a totally different animal isn’t evidence for alien life forms.

This also has to do with relevance for the purpose of funding. The micro world is vast with many unknowns that have yet to be discovered and many things that will never been discovered. While the public at large does have an interest, it’s still not science nor relevant or practical to spend millions upon millions of hard earned dollars looking for something that they are totally in the dark about.

Advertisements

142 thoughts on “SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction

  1. Michael, this is too funny!

    I’ve been telling you about this search for months and months. You keep whinging that mainstream scientists are blinded by the notion of all life evolving from Darwin’s “one or a few” primordial organisms. Then, when someone actually goes out and looks for such life forms, you criticize them for it. Unbelievable! It’s become a knee-jerk reaction, hasn’t it? Whatever the scientists say, they’re wrong. Even if thy say the same thing that you’ve been saying.

    PhysOrg: “She said several of the scientists involved in the project were interested in pursuing the notion, which Davies laid out in a 2007 Scientific American article, ‘Are Aliens Among Us?'”

    You don’t have a clue who Paul Davies is, do you? Besides hundreds of papers and several quantum effects named for him, he received the Templeton Prize in 1995. But you don’t have a clue what that is either, do you? Originally named the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, it is a prestigious international award for one who, in the estimation of the judges, “has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works”. Its monetary value is adjusted annually to exceed that of the Nobel Prize.

    Michael: “Shostak calls himself a scientist, but what accomplishments has he done [sic]?”

    Well, you could look up his publication record, if you had any idea how to do that. He is Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute. Dozens of papers in radio astronomy, including galaxy motion research that helped spark research into dark matter. 2004 winner of the Klumpke-Roberts Award from the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

    So what accomplishments have you? Besides winning Buffoon of the Year for not knowing who is on your side?

    Michael: “What makes him think aliens even exist at all and why just at the micro level? Believing in human evolution is not evidence, believing in the big band [sic] is not evidence, believing in one animal turning into a totally different animal isn’t evidence for alien life forms.”

    Another colossal non-sequitur. Why would anyone, even a Buffoon of the Year, think that human evolution, Big Bang, or speciation (I guess that’s what you’re referring to) would be any evidence at all for (or against) alien life forms?

    Michael: “This also has to do with relevance [sic] for the purpose of funding.”

    Might as well toss that one in the tank. We’re already laughing at full throttle.

    Reasons #342, 343, 344, 345, and 346 why people laugh at creationists.

  2. Hey Upson Downs (olorin)

    Not enough “visible” gravity to hold everything together is what sparked a belief in “dark matter.” It was for the purpose to fill in the void which still hasn’t been detected even though it’s claimed to be 75 percent of the Universe. These are one of those one point conclusions, that some are winning awards from…lol…However, it’s quite possible scientists do not fully understand the nature of visible gravity! What about that angle? What about inferences for aliens? I see not only don’t you donate your own money to the cause but you don’t have inferences for alien life forms either which is why you waste your time on analogies!

  3. Thanks for the reply, Michael. If you read the article—or, better, the primary literature, Neither Shostak nor Davies nor anyone else claims to have even your “one data point” of confirmation. They have zero data points.

    According to your post, this means that no one should even try to find life forms that have no common ancestors with the ones we know about. This seems to be a common creationist attitude—they already know all the answers, so there’s no point in looking further.

    If there are no data points, what sparked the search? You might at least read the 2007 Scientific American article.[1] Origin-of-life researchers had become convinced that DNA was not the first replicator. Even RNA has large problems. Therefore, the first life may have had a totally different form. The thinking then ran that the later appearance of RNA/DNA cells so overwhelmed the less-efficient earlier life that none remain at present.

    Davies’ suggestion is that perhaps some of them do remain, but either we don’t recognize them as living (say, in our own bodies) or they hide in places inaccessible to the modern invaders (say, deep in the earth). Chemistry even provides a couple of clues as to their nature—perhaps a sulfur- or iron-based metabolism, perhaps autocatalytic reactions[2] in a bilayer lipid membrane[3] with only physical osmotic pressure as the replicator.

    Creationists sneer at scientific research, even as they themselves desperately scramble to come up with any research of their own that is not laughable or dishonest.

    So please hold the smug sneers. They provide yet another reason for people to laugh at creationists.

    ————————

    PS: Why don’t you look into the article I cited at Olorin comment February 3, 2010 at 8:48 pm, in your post dated January 30, 2010. Somewhat more sneerable stuff there, I’d say. (Yet another OOL theory bites the dust.) Ask your source to work it up for you. You can probably even find some “millions upon millions of dollars” being wasted on research in hydrothermal vents, money that could be better spent on determining whether bacteria appeared on the third or the fourth (the leading contenders) day of Creation.

    You know I always try to help.

    ===========

    [1] SA articles are written by the same people who make the discoveries, so are much more authoritative than others in the popular press. In fact, SA is often cited in the peer-reviewed journals themselves.

    [2] A number of which are already known to chemists.

    [3] Which are known to form small vesicles spontaneously, without so much as a Creator to guide them.

  4. Michael, fire up your keyboard for the February 16 release of “What Darwin Got Wrong,” by philosopher Jerry Fodor and cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini.

    (Well, of course you still owe your devoted readers a review of “Signature in the Cell” from last August. chirp … chirp … chirp.)

    To prepare adequately, you might wish to scope out their summary in National Equir—ah, New Scientist.

    They authors fully accept the fact of evolution. But they contend that natural selection is much less a force that previously thought. This should not however, be a problem. All you have to do is unfurl the creationist banner emblazoned: “If Darwin was wrong, then evolution is wrong.”[1]

    I’ll be looking forward to your opinion on the authors’ straightforward writing style, accounts of their personal history, and other technical arcana, as you did for Stephen Meyer.

    Of course, Publishers’ Weekly complains that “Worse, their highly technical treatment renders their argument virtually incomprehensible to lay readers.”[2] So, good luck.

    Meanwhile, ka ha a ke akua me ‘oe.

    ===========================

    [1] Creationists will never understand why scientists laugh at this. After all, if Muhammed was wrong, then Islam is wrong….

    [2] Worse than what? Well PW also opines that “Overall, the scientific evidence and philosophical analyses the authors proffer are murky and underwhelming.”

  5. Michael: “Not enough “visible” gravity to hold everything together is what sparked a belief in “dark matter.” It was for the purpose to fill in the void which still hasn’t been detected even though it’s claimed to be 75 percent of the Universe.”

    No … not again …
    Dark matter *has* been detected (google for gravitational lensing), and currently is thought to comprise around 20% of the energy content of the universe, with dark energy (which is not the same as dark matter, and still somewhat controversial) making up more than 70%.

    At the very least try to correctly state what scientists currently think, not make up numbers yourself.

    Michael: “However, it’s quite possible scientists do not fully understand the nature of visible gravity!”

    What on earth is “visible gravity” ???

  6. “Creationists will never understand why scientists laugh at this.” Olorin persistently peddling the ‘creationist vs scientist’ fallacy. The fact that some scientists are Biblical Creationists seems to cause Evolutionists such a problem they prefer to just ignore it. Convenient, but disingenuous when it comes to statements like this one from Olorin.

  7. Michael, you do put up with a lot of pompous twits in these blog comments. I applaud your graciousness.

    Eelco ticks you off as like an old maid, doesn’t he?

    Particularly odd as dark matter is entirely hypothetical anyway; and a wholly nebulous concept that seems to change like the breeze. Funny he suggests there’s such an identifiable thing as ‘what scientists currently think’ about it. I’m not sure there’s even a consensus it exists, let alone a consensus of what the latest notions about it might be.

    But no matter. It’s the old Evolutionist/Naturalistic maxim at work I guess: suggest a consensus to imply you are authoritative and right.

  8. I was about to launch into a comparison of dark matter and the 20-year gap between prediction and detection of the neutrino. But neither Michael nor Dom knows what a neutrino is, or why it mattered to the first law of thermodynamics.

    So let’s cut directly to the larger question. Michael, like most creationists is death on dark matter. The question is, …………

    WHY?????

    Why does the mere mention of this new form of matter cause creationists to lose control of their turnip trucks? After all, Newton and LaPlace kicked God out of planetary-orbit management centuries ago. Why should a new form of weakly-interacting matter … matter … to them? Is it because “dark” is associated with evil? Is it their pervasive fear of anything they don’t understand? Do they fear it might be a Trojan horse to sneak evolution in through a trap door? Is it a knee-jerk reaction against scientists in general?—“If scientists are for it, we’re agin’ it.”

    It would seem that creationists would welcome dark matter. For several reasons. Scientists are confused; ha ha, poor dumb scientists. But, more to the point, dark matter is a mystery, like life. How could it possibly have come into existence by natural forces, if natural forces can’t explain it?

    What an opportunity for creationism! Quick—Call Guillermo Gonzales.[1] A diaphanous wraith that is hardly detectable, yet has the power to move massive galaxies against the naturalistic forces of gravity. Is dark matter the Hand of God?

    Please don’t waste this chance. Science may not present you with another one like this premillenium. Call the Answers Research Journal editor (Andrew Snelling), and have him tell the publicity director (Andrew Snelling) to engage their only scientist[2] (Andrew Snelling) to write a paper and send it past their only reviewer (Andrew Snelling) post haste, for inclusion in Volume 3 (if there is one).

    Hope this helps.

    Although I doubt it.

    ==========

    [1], Last heard from as a one-year contract instructor at a small Eastern Christian college.

    [2] Late of the Institute of Creation Research, whose application for scholastic accreditation was denied last year in Texas. Texas! Where the head of the Texas Education Administration is an avowed creationist. Does not bode well for their academic credentials or curriculum.

  9. Dom: “Michael, you do put up with a lot of pompous twits in these blog comments. I applaud your graciousness.”

    Insults are pretty weak arguments, ‘Dom’.

    Dom: “Particularly odd as dark matter is entirely hypothetical anyway”

    Of course it is not hypothetical at all. It has been observed. The nature of dark matter is not clear, though, but that is another question. It is just like radioactivity: this was observed, and then labeled alpha, beta and gamma radiation. That is, its nature was not understood. Now we know.
    With dark matter we are still in the phase that is has clearly been observed, but we do not know what the nature of it is, except of course for the fraction of dark matter that is baryons.

    The consensus you can just look up at Wikipedia, under ‘dark matter’. But obviously the consensus is only that: a consensus, and not the final answer. It is likely to change over time: such is the nature of science.

  10. “Funny he suggests there’s such an identifiable thing as ‘what scientists currently think’ about it”

    Not funny at all, Dom. Eelco is a professional astronomer. working on two continents. Once again Dom places his ignorance on public display.

    ==Soc

  11. Dom, Eelco, Socrates Puppette,

    You all sound very impressive indeed. Knowledge at your fingertips. An authoritative position. A rational consensus. Moral high ground even.

    At least that’s how you like to see yourselves. But there is more to the world than your bathroom mirrors.

    Olorin,
    the fact you were about to launch into another of your simplistic cartoons of science history but resorted instead to another of your misrepresentative tirades against a position you cannot be bothered to understand says about all you need to say about your approach. Another nonsensical contribution.

    Eelco,
    Firstly, just to clarify for you – my insult, as you call it, was not an argument. You might want to look up the difference between the two concepts. Indeed, were you to post a clarification on a few Evolutionist forums you could be doing Evolutionists a considerable favour in general.

    Secondly, your tone as a whole is very condescending and derisive, as I have observed from previous comments of yours too. You seem to have a particular liking for pronouncing others ignorant if they dare disagree with you, and generally you are perfectly happy to wade in with a very patronising and insulting tone. Fine, but if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. And if you don’t like being thought of as a pompous twit, try not acting like one.

    Your assertion that Dark Matter has been observed is an exaggeration. The existence of dark matter is an hypothesis. What has been observed is data that could corroborate the hypothesis.

    Even the Times newspaper in the UK, which can have its indulgent rhetorical flourishes at times, takes the trouble to point out concerning recent research that ‘The CDMS researchers emphasised, however, that they were not claiming to have discovered dark matter because there is a good chance that the events were caused by something else.’ (Times 19-12-09)

    And from I can gather there are indeed various ways of interpreting the data, some of which do not even necessitate the hypothesis of Dark Matter at all, depending on whether such an hypothesis is required in order to attempt to explain anomalies thrown up by other models.

    But quite apart from whether or not Dark Matter actually exists and quiet apart from whether or not observations are interpreted as evidence it might do, it is a quantum leap to go from researchers ‘not claiming to have discovered dark matter’ to your assertion that ‘Of course it is not hypothetical at all. It has been observed.’

    My point remains that your ticking off (‘try to correctly state what scientists currently think’) implied a consensus the existence of which is at best dubious.

    It seems Dark Matter is an idea which itself the subject of controversy and disagreement in the scientific community, let alone evaluation of the results of recent data.

    The suggestion of such a consensus can of course make someone seem more authoritative, but it does not necessarily mean the points they make are correct. Nor does it alter the fact that Dark Matter is indeed a hypothesis developed from the inadequacies of another hypothesis.

    I think a calmer and more measured approach and a little less bombast might help make you appear a little more reasonable. As it is, you merely demonstrate one of the reasons it can be very difficult to engage people of a Naturalistic persuasion in reasonable debate, because they have tendency to proclaim opinion as fact.

    Naturalists have a propensity for building a set of speculative assumptions around a previous set of speculative assumptions which are themselves derived from yet another set of speculative assumptions then calling the debatable interpretative conclusions fact.

    And I suggest the questionable existence of a presumed consensus about an inconclusive interpretation of data through a controversial hypothesis is not really justification for your dismissive and condescending tone in ticking Michael off.

    Perhaps if you might consider adopting a more rational, reasonable and intellectually honest approach you might come over as less pompous.

    Socrates Puppette,
    the fact Eelco is a professional astronomer does not mean he is not vulnerable to conceit and bombast, does it? Indeed, it could be argued that his claimed scientific consensus demonstrates a tendency amongst professional scientists to clutch at straws when it comes to trying to make themselves appear correct in every assertion.

    If you think being a professional scientist necessarily makes someone morally and intellectually unassailable then you need to have your head examined and then get out into the real world again.

    Perhaps you might then be in a position to consider if you cannot muster the energy to undertake a little more independent critical analysis of what you are told. As it is you seem to just enjoy throwing insults around because you’re just one of the big gang. But a word to the wise Soc Pup old bean, being one of the big gang doesn’t necessarily always make you look too bright.

  12. @Dom:
    ‘Pompous twit’ is an insult indeed, and I was guessing you directed it to me as well. You did not use it as an argument in a specific topical discussion, but as a general one to taint the people responding here.
    In any case, you did insult me. Did I ever insult you ?

    “Your assertion that Dark Matter has been observed is an exaggeration. The existence of dark matter is an hypothesis. What has been observed is data that could corroborate the hypothesis.”

    No, because I’ve actually observed it myself. I am an astronomer. That does not mean you should believe me because I am an astronomer, but just that I actually observed dark matter and did not just read about it.

    “It seems Dark Matter is an idea which itself the subject of controversy and disagreement in the scientific community, let alone evaluation of the results of recent data.”

    No, there is no controversy over dark matter. There is controversy over dark energy. Don’t confuse the two.

    “Even the Times newspaper in the UK, which can have its indulgent rhetorical flourishes at times, takes the trouble to point out concerning recent research that ‘The CDMS researchers emphasised, however, that they were not claiming to have discovered dark matter because there is a good chance that the events were caused by something else.’ (Times 19-12-09)”

    They have not detected dark matter particles using detectors, indeed, which would have been nice. But that would not be the only evidence for dark matter. Please look up wikipedia.

  13. Eelco,
    Regarding your comment about ‘pompous twit’ being a general argument, I refer you to my response above – my insult, as you call it, was not an argument. Look up the difference between the two concepts.

    And as for your evident dismay at being considered a pompous twit, if you don’t want to be ‘tainted’ by such an observation, perhaps, as I say, you might consider not behaving like one. Do you think your patronising, condescending, derisive and insulting tone and comments are but something of a delightful distraction for those you direct your pomposity towards? You seem indeed to be one of those persons who think your faeces don’t stink.

    If you don’t like it, don’t dish it out. Perhaps if you don’t like being thought a pompous twit you might consider revising your manner.

    Re. your claim to have observed Dark Matter I observe, firstly, that had you done so, then it would no longer be Dark Matter, would it?

    Secondly, if you have observed Dark Matter then I missed any mention in the media or scientific literature, please consider pointing me towards your presentation of your astounding breakthrough.

    Certainly it might be worth writing to Scientific American to correct their assertion on 17 December 2009 that ‘Dark matter… has never been directly observed.’
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-cdms

    And then you could write to the National Academy of Sciences to correct the assertion made on their site by Risa H. Wechsler of Stanford University that Dark Matter ‘has yet to be detected directly.’ ttp://www.nasonline.org/site/DocServer/USFOS09Wechsler_Risa.pdf?docID=66420

    You should inform these organisations, and numerous others interested in science, who assert Dark Matter is but an inference. It is unfair to keep them in the dark about your breakthrough.

    Thirdly, if you mean you have observed particular effects and interpreted them as evidence of the validity of a particular hypothesis, then perhaps that is what you should say; because to observe effects which can be interpreted as confirming the existence of a hypothetically inferred phenomenon or also be equally well interpreted otherwise is not the same thing as saying you have seen the thing itself.

    Otherwise you merely confirm you have a tendency to present opinion as fact.

    As for your assertion that ‘there is no controversy over dark matter’ you’re just trying to smooth over actual differences of opinion in the scientific community. Caltech Astronomer Josh Simon in this interview at least is clear there are different views about it –

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=A2B71EFB-ABFA-C6D7-0A728C56892215F8

    And this article too indicates divergent opinions about it –

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space

    The reality is there is controversy about assumptions requiring the hypothesis and there is controversy about the hypothesis itself, let alone about what conclusions may be drawn from recent research. Fine, that’s the way it goes, no problem. But to assert ‘there is no controversy over dark matter’ is indeed problematic, suggesting you are either uninformed, misinformed or not really being entirely honest.

    Re. your comments about the Times quote, and referring me to wikipedia – neither your comments nor anything in the wikipedia entry changes the fact that Dark Matter has not been directly observed, (except by you of course).

    I suggest you seem to struggle with the distinction between inference and observation. So I’m not really sure you are in a position to tick off Michael at all let alone in such a pompous tone.

    And your affecting offence is contemptible. If you adopted a more rational, reasonable and intellectually honest approach instead of all this bluff and bombast then perhaps I might care a hoot how you feel about being considered pompous twit. As it is, in this instance I’m not sure a little of your own medicine is entirely a bad thing.

  14. @Dom:

    OK, so you just want to insult me. Cheap.

    “Re. your claim to have observed Dark Matter I observe, firstly, that had you done so, then it would no longer be Dark Matter, would it?”

    You really have no idea what you are talking about, right ? Dark matter is dark because it does not emit or reflect radiation. Whether I observe it or not has no effect on this: it is still dark.

    “Secondly, if you have observed Dark Matter then I missed any mention in the media or scientific literature, please consider pointing me towards your presentation of your astounding breakthrough.”

    No, because many people have observed it before me, so it is not that special. Again, there is no controversy about the existence of dark matter.

    Then you go on about ‘direct’ measurements of dark matter, by which one means detecting the actual particles with an instrument that usually sits in an abandoned mine. This has not been done, as I already said before. It has been observed through gravitational lensing, which allows one to produce maps of the dark matter distribution in galaxy clusters. That’s what I do. Here is one produced by our team: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/03/image/a/format/web/
    Purple here is the dark matter map.

    And I did not claim to have observed it directly on earth using a detector, as you seem to infer. I said that I observed it. These dark matter maps are proper observations using gravitational lensing of background galaxies: no modelling involved.

    You quote various people, most of whom I know personally, and none of them doubts the existence of dark matter.

    Your last paragraph is just a nasty rant, as far as I am concerned. Suit yourself.

  15. Here is the press release for our detection of dark matter, if you’re interested: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/03/full

    Here you can read:
    “Thanks to Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys, we are detecting for the first time the irregular clumps of dark matter in this supercluster”

    It is an indirect detection (through gravitational lensing), but a detection nonetheless.

  16. Dom: “Re. your claim to have observed Dark Matter I observe, firstly, that had you done so, then it would no longer be Dark Matter, would it?”

    Bwahaahaahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    And, if Negative Numbers really existed, they would no longer be Negative would they?

    Have we been too hasty in denying that creationists have a sense of parody? Or has Poe’s Law struck yet again?.

  17. P.S.: Dom even poor Soc knows that it’s called “dark” matter because it does not interact with light.

    Duh.

  18. No Eelco, I just want you to think about your attitude. As I say, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

    And the fact Dark Matter does not emit or reflect radiation results in it being invisible, does it not? Which is to say, it cannot be seen, right? Which is why it is called Dark Matter, right?

    So your describing why it is called Dark Matter does not alter the fact that if you had observed it, then it would not be Dark Matter. Playing word games like that is just digging yourself a hole, Eelco. And you don’t make yourself look too clever to say I’m the one who doesn’t know what I’m talking about while you do it.

    But you’re assertion it has been observed before you flatly contradicts statements I referred you to at Scientific American and the National Academy of Sciences, and indeed every other source I look at, which assert the same thing in different ways, that ‘Dark matter… has never been directly observed.’

    So, entirely contrary to the impression you give that observation of it is ‘not that special’, it seems that actually if you had in fact observed it then that would be very special indeed, a world first nonetheless.

    And I was not talking about direct measurements, Eelco, I was talking about direct observation. Surely you, as a continent-hopping Astronomer, should know what the difference is. You do indeed seem to struggle with the distinction between inference and observation.

    Measuring phenomena and attributing their characteristics to a hypothetical cause is inference, isn’t it? It is not the same as observing that cause, is it? If you have observed particular effects and interpreted them as evidence of the validity of a particular hypothesis, that is to infer the existence of the thing hypothesised.
    That is exactly what the conclusions drawn from studying gravitational lensing are. Dark Matter is not observed, it is inferred. And indeed there are other possible explanations for the effect which do not require reference to the hypothesised Dark Matter.

    I wonder if you know this but feel you must appear to stand behind your earlier assertions. But you are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

    I inferred nothing about you saying you claimed you observed Dark Matter ‘directly on earth using a detector’; I made no such inference, you are making that up. You said ‘I’ve actually observed it myself’, and I questioned whether you or anyone has ever observed it, because from what I can gather it has never been observed, and indeed cannot be. I neither said nor inferred anything about observing ‘it directly on earth using a detector’. You appear to be muddying the waters, Eelco.

    You said you had observed it; I questioned that.

    Re. your referring me to the Hubble map, that does not show anything except offer further confirmation that you cannot distinguish between inference and observation.

    ‘Hubble cannot see the dark matter directly. Astronomers inferred its location by analyzing the effect of weak gravitational lensing.’
    http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=42186

    Even the press release you refer me after that to states ‘Hubble is providing indirect evidence of unseen dark matter.’ Indirect evidence is no the same thing as observation of the thing hypothesised, is it, Eelco?

    You infer Dark Matter explains the effect you observe.

    Fine, no problem there. But that is very different from saying you have observed the thing itself. And it is worth remembering there are different inferences that can be made, as indicated by the Scientific American articles I referred to earlier.

    You say – ‘You quote various people, most of whom I know personally, and none of them doubts the existence of dark matter’, but I think I actually only presented a couple of quotes, and I never even suggested any of the people I mentioned doubted the existence of dark matter. I was clarifying that Dark Matter has not been directly observed and then that there is controversy about it, as the two later Scientific American articles show.

    As for my last paragraph being a nasty rant, I think you’re being a little melodramatic, Eelco. Are you entirely unaware how funny it is for someone who likes to bully others as you do with your patronising, derisive tone to get all in flap at being considered a pompous twit?

    Why don’t you just admit that what you said was wrong? You are even contradicting yourself. ‘It is an indirect detection’ you say; which means you have not observed it as you say you have.

  19. Socrates Puppette,

    In response to my assertion that if Eelco had observed Dark Matter it would no longer be Dark Matter, you say, and I quote, ‘Bwahaahaahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!’ and then later in your P.S. ‘even poor Soc knows that it’s called “dark” matter because it does not interact with light. Duh.’

    But I’m not sure you grasp the concepts involved here. It is called Dark Matter because it cannot be seen, it cannot be observed, and this is because supposedly it does not emit or reflect radiation, and thus, as you put it, ‘it does not interact with light.’

    But if wiz Eelco could observe it, then it would obviously not be the case that it does not emit or reflect radiation but instead would indeed, as you put it, ‘interact with light.’
    Perhaps you shouldn’t throw around Duhs; stones and glass houses come to mind.

    And permit me to point out that if, as you put it, ‘Negative Numbers really existed’ they would still be negative. But if they were no longer Negative then, no, they would no longer be negative. Just as if invisible matter was visible it would no longer be invisible.

    Are you just trying to make me look like a bully by making yourself look like an idiot?

  20. Dom accuses others, then descends into word games himself—but he can’t even get that right.

    “Observe: to detect: discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of; ‘She detected high levels of lead in her drinking water’.”

    By Dom’s definition of “observe,” we do not observe music. Music has never been observed, so its existence cannot be confirmed. You should have taken up painting, Herr Beethoven.

    I repeat: Bwaahaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaa

    ——————————————-

    There are 10 kinds of people in the world.
    Those who understand binary numbers,
    and those who do not.

  21. Seriously, Dom. What exactly is the palpable threat that dark matter poses to creationism of any kind?

    Darwinian evolution kills creationism with a mechanistic theory of living species. Big-bang cosmology blasts it with a quantum theory of universe generation. Radiometric dating flattens the time scale for the young-earther bunch. But why does non-baryonic matter get your knickers in a twist?

    As I noted previously, dark matter would seem instead to be a boon to creationism Creationists are usually quick to snatch any unexplained new physical effect for their side: “See, the Bible itself proclaims that the spirit of God moves over the deep as an invisible hand.” Fits like a glove.

    And its a perfect candidate for appropriation. Naturalistic science can’t explain it. We all know that, by (creationist) definition, anything humans can’t explain can be—and has been—claimed as a direct creation of God.

    So what’s the problem, Dom?

    We await a full explication of why you have not only not embraced dark matter as your own, but have thrust it into the Outer Darkness. Specifics, please. Reasoning, please. Or is your ignorance so all-pervasive that you can advance nothing at all in favor of your position that dark matter is the very personification of Leliel?

    Enquiring Minds Want to Know.

  22. Socrates Puppette,

    I quite rightly pointed out Eelco was playing word games because that’s exactly what he was doing. Eelco was certainly indulging in word games, as I pointed out, because describing why Dark Matter (invisible matter) is called Dark Matter (invisible matter) does not alter the fact that had if it been observed it would not be Dark Matter (invisible matter).

    But I have not played word games.

    Firstly, I’m not at all sure of the definition you provide. I have here the Pocket Oxford Dictionary, the Collins English Dictionary and the Penguin Concise. None of them include the concepts of detection, discovery or determining in their definitions of observe.

    But, secondly, even allowing for those concepts in a definition of ‘observe’, that does not alter a thing. And I think if you apply a degree of rational critical thought to what I’m saying I think you might see the veracity of what I am saying.

    Neither Eelco nor anyone else apparently has seen, observed, detected, discovered, determined the presence or fact of Dark Matter.

    Dark Matter is a hypothesis. Other physical phenomena have been observed, and these observations have been interpreted as supporting the hypothesis, which is to say that Dark Matter has been inferred.

    The distinction between its observation and its inference can be seen in the fact that those observations can be interpreted without factoring in the hypothesis of Dark Matter, which is to say that other causes can be hypothesised/inferred.

    I am not devising any peculiar definition of ‘observe’; I have merely employed the usual, normal, accurate definition in context, just as did Scientific American when it asserted ‘Dark matter… has never been directly observed.’

    And as you mention it, the fact that music has actually been directly observed means it is not necessary to rely only upon inference to argue its existence. But Dark Matter has not been observed and can only be indirectly inferred.

    Eelco said he had observed Dark Matter. He even denied it is hypothetical at all.

    I questioned whether he had observed it. He ended his last post by conceding it was indirect detection, which is to say it was not observed but has been inferred from interpretation of the data. A different interpretation does not result in the inference of Dark Matter. It is all in the interpretation of the data.

    I’m not sure why you struggle so with this. The Dark Matter is invoked as an explanation, an hypothetical possibility which could explain the data; but Dark Matter has not itself actually been observed.

    Eelco’s assertion he has observed Dark Matter and denial it is even hypothetical at all are statements that very certainly should be questioned.

    You seem to dislike this kind critical analysis of the factual basis of people’s statements. I surmise you are a very possibly an Evolutionist, Soc Pup.

  23. Olorin,
    more drivel? Do you not weary of it pouring forth from the recesses of your inundated mind? I know I do.

    I have not argued Dark Matter is palpable threat to Biblical Creationism. I have attempted to question the factual basis of statements made by Eelco. It seems to have sent the lot of you into a flap.

    But you go on to confuse the theories of Naturalistic philosophy with fact. Darwinism is a speculative hypothesis which has no basis in fact, which is why many Evolutionists themselves are dropping its central tenets as quickly as they can whilst still appearing to assert its veracity. The Big Bang is speculative hypotheses that even some of a Naturalistic persuasion regard as failed and propped up by fudge. Naturalistic conclusions from radiometric dating have been shown to be far from as definitive as sometimes presented, and themselves loaded with speculative assumptions.

    Dark Matter does not get me in a twist, you must be confusing me with the nonsense you’re swimming round in.

    I just think it is unethical to call fact what is in actuality only speculative hypothesis. The question, Olorin, is why do Naturalists feel the need to act like that? And you might also wonder why you yourself seem not to give a hoot if opinion and speculation is presented as factual.

    It is complete drivel, in keeping with the usual tenor of your comments, to assert that ‘Creationists are usually quick to snatch any unexplained new physical effect for their side.’ Actually that more accurately describes what Naturalists tend to do, i.e. Junk DNA.

    In stating as you do that ‘We all know that, by (creationist) definition, anything humans can’t explain can be—and has been—claimed as a direct creation of God’ you grossly misrepresent the approach Biblical Creationism, indicating you have no real grasp of its arguments, and confirming yet again that you cannot understand the distinction between foundational assumption and scientific enquiry.

    That all creation is created by God is the foundational assumption of Biblical Creationism. Whether or not something can be explained by humans is not the criterion used to determine that. But the foundational assumption that Naturalistic explanation alone will yield all knowledge of the natural world, that assumption is indeed questioned. Which, let’s face it, is what gets you in a tiz.

    You await whatever you wish to wait for, Olorin; I am aware you believe all the world stands ready to jump at the snap of your fingers. But I have no need or intention to explain to you why I or anyone else is skeptical about the Dark Matter hypothesis.

    But I have not thrust anything out into Outer Darkness. If Dark Matter exists then that’s fine by me. But I do think being accurate about whether something is speculation or fact, inferred or observed, hypothesis or actual physical reality, is important. Particularly if you’re going grand make pronouncements about life the universe and everything.

    Again, the real question, Olorin, is perhaps why are you so willing to accept whatever opinion people thrust under your nose as a fact? Don’t you ever feel a twinge of longing for a more rational, independent, critical approach to things?

    The idea you have an enquiring mind is most comical.

    I think it s a bit rich of you to demand Reasoning from me, Olorin, as if I offer none, when it is you who seems overwhelmed by the torrents of utter drivel that well up within you.

    You seem to have an active dislike of people who wish to undertake reasoned, rational, critical analysis, reacting strongly against it with gross misrepresentation, absurdity and waffle.

  24. Then why don’t you get upset about, say, the Casimir effect? Just as indirect as dark matter. In fact, the explanation—that it results from more matter being created outside the plates than between them—would seem have more relevance to creationism than dark matter.

    I’ll bet you never got excited about the neutrino, even though physicists spoke of it as real for 20 years before it was “detected.” “Detected” is is in scare quotes because even today, its presence is not observed—in your sense of being seen. An antineutrino reacts with a proton to produce a neutron and a positron. The positron reacts with an electron to produce 2 gamma rays of a certain energy. We “observe”[1] only the gamma rays, but infer the antineutrino. And, if you think dark matter is hard to catch, neutrinos can penetrate several light-years of lead without detection.

    So why is that not as iffy as the detection of dark matter by the more straightforward gravitational lensing? Why is your ire attracted to dark matter, but not to the neutrino, the Casimir effect, or any of a dozen other phenomena? Quarks—no one has ever observed a quark directly, and no one ever will. Yet I would wager that the discovery of the top quark (naked truth) and the bottom quark (bare beauty) didn’t so much as raise premonitory hackles on your creationist defense mechanisms?

    So, again, wherefore dark matter? Is the difference only that you are entirely ignorant of these other phenomena that are on much shakier ground, observation-wise?

    Dom: “You seem to have an active dislike of people who wish to undertake reasoned, rational, critical analysis,”

    No, I dislike overarching chutzpah in one who has amply demonstrated an utter lack of knowledge in the subject he bloviates upon at great length.[2]

    One of Darwin’ s more famous sayings is that it is those of little knowledge who most confidently proclaim the limitations of science..

    The man had something there.

    ===================

    [1] Using “observe in your blinkered sense of “see,” there is yet another step. one of the gamma rays knocks an electron off a cadmium anode in a PMT, which is then multiplied to a flash of light. So, 3 steps before “observation.”

    [2] Why does a flat mirror reverse left and right, but not up and down, no matter which way you turn it? Eighth-grade stuff. You don’t have to be an astronomer like Eelco.

  25. @Dom:

    I am not playing word games: you still do not understand what dark matter is, and how it is detected. It is detected because it has mass, not because it emits light (it doesn’t). One can detect mass because it bends light (so it that sense it does interact with passing light by curving space and therefore bending the path of the photon).

    In other words, you do not just detect something because it emits light. How would you detect magnetic fields, for example ? These are invisible, so therefore are just hypothetical ? They are certainly dark ! Dark magnetic fields ! But one can detect them, quite easily, in fact.

    Same goes for gravitational forces. These do not emit light, but can still be detected.

    So you are the one playing word games here.

    Gravitational lensing methods detect the mass through the effect of this light bending. This is clearly observed to happen, and therefore dark matter has been detected, has been observed. Whether this is an indirect measurement or a direct one (I’ve explained all that already) does not matter.

    Physics is full of indirect measurements, as Olorin already showed you for the case of the neutrino, and this is also true for cosmic rays, for example: you detect the decay products, not the original particle that entered the atmosphere.

    You seem to make a big fuzz about indirect versus direct, for no apparent reason. As long as one understands all the physics involved (general relativity in the case of gravitational lensing, a well-tested theory), then the measurement is reliable, and dark matter is detected.

    And again, there is no controversy in the community about dark matter (I know the community), but there is about dark energy, or about the multiverse, etc.
    Don’t worry, plenty of controversy left, but not dark matter …

  26. Olorin,
    Is there really any point actually attempting communication with you at all? You seem to just ignore whatever is said to you and then go off on some other rant for no apparent reason other than what I can only guess is your annoyance anyone dares think differently to you.

    You say ‘Then why don’t you get upset about, say, the Casimir effect?’ but I don’t get upset about Dark Matter, Olorin, as I have already told you, my concern was that speculative hypothesis should not be described as fact. Something Naturalists seem to have a tendency to do.

    As for today’s Olorin red herrings, regarding the Casimir Effect, if it was open to being explained equally well by various hypotheses, I would consider it somewhat misleading for someone to assert dogmatically out of preference for that hypothesis that that one particular hypothesis was no hypothesis at all but a fact of the natural world.

    Regarding the Neutrino, Olorin, you show tendency to presumption again, because I did get excited about it, and when I found out about the photograph of the effects of a collision between a neutrino and a proton (much later than its release) I got myself a photocopy of the image.

    But although Neutrinos are apparently invisible, as far as I am aware their existence is measurable and identifiable through experimental application, although much about them remains unknown and open to conjecture; but without adequate conflicting explanatory theories I know of to compete and with experimental, meaning practical, applications so far corroborating the hypothesis as explanation it seems reasonable to infer the accuracy of what is hypothesised. But if someone told me they had seen a Neutrino I would feel compelled to ask about it, because as far as I’m aware, their existence is detectable only indirectly.

    Quarks too, aroused my interest; and even there, their existence and character remain hypothetically inferred, and my curiosity would be aroused if someone said they had observed one. And I think I am correct in saying that there still remain those who are not convinced the idea accurately describes physical reality. It remains an hypothesis.

    If the Quark theory stands the test of experimentation, as it seems to have done so far, then all well and good for the theory, but I still don’t think it would be correct to demand the idea of Quarks not be referred to as hypothetical, as Eelco has done regarding the idea of Dark Matter.

    Dark Matter may well be detected at some point, it would be fascinating if it were, most probably I guess through its gravitational interaction, but as it is not even conclusively recognised that Dark Matter alone can explain observed phenomena and no other possibilities exist then it seems to be laying it on a bit thick to say that it is not at all hypothetical.

    Dark Matter does not attract my ire, but certainly it attracts my interest. And I think accuracy and clarity is necessary in discussing such matters. Too easily people seem to venture into conjecture and posit it as fact. And then get hot under collar if anyone dares draw them up on it. Most particularly I personally dislike it when people find themselves feeling justified being obnoxiously patronising and derisive in scolding and insulting others purely on the grounds they suppose their opinion must be understood as fact.

    And I am not sure you are correct when you say the Casimir Effect, Neutrinos and Quarks ‘are on much shakier ground, observation-wise’ than Dark Matter. I think there are grounds for questioning that assertion.

    But all your red herrings aside, Olorin, my questioning whether Eelco has observed Dark Matter remains an important question, as is my question about whether he is right to assert it is not hypothetical.

    I have not used the term observe in a blinkered sense at all; you might presume such usage by me, that would surprise me not at all, but I have used the term in a perfectly normal sense in the same way, as I have already pointed out above to Socrates Puppette, Scientific American did in asserting ‘Dark matter… has never been directly observed.’

    You might not like my questioning Eelco’s statements, you evidently do not, but that does not mean I may not, neither does it mean I should not.

    Personally, I think your quote from Darwin, if accurate, can be seen as somewhat ironical coming from the man who projected his logical fallacy of universal inference from specific examples across the whole of Nature. Coming from anyone else I might consider such a statement as a clumsy attempt to elucidate the character of the development of scientific enquiry, but coming from him I find it hard not to see it as trying to justify flights of sheer fantasy without regard for scientific reality.

    But, just to step around this straw man of yours, I’m not proclaiming the limitations of science; I’m asking a scientist to consider revising his unjustified condescending behaviour and consider restraint and accuracy in his statements. Why is that so outrageous to you, Olorin?

    Please forgive me, Olorin, if I do not partake in your quiz in your footnote 2. You seem to have a liking for quick quizzes which achieve nothing.

    I think that covers all the red herrings you have thrown up today, Olorin.

  27. Eelco,
    You are perpetuating a confusion,

    One may detect effects on mass caused by something, and thus infer the existence and character of the cause; but that is different from observing, in whatever way, the thing itself.

    It is perfectly straightforward.
    You say – ‘Gravitational lensing methods detect the mass through the effect of this light bending… This is clearly observed to happen, and therefore dark matter has been detected, has been observed. Whether this is an indirect measurement or a direct one (I’ve explained all that already) does not matter.’

    But that is incorrect. Observation of gravitational lensing detects the mass through the effect. But that does not necessarily logically equate to your assertion that ‘therefore dark matter has been detected, has been observed.’

    Dark Matter is factored in as a possible explanation for effects observed; Dark Matter itself has not been observed or detected, characteristics of the effects of gravitational lensing have been observed, detected. The cause has been attributed to Dark Matter. Other explanations have also been put forward.

    Because Dark Matter has been hypothetically inferred does not mean it has been observed, detected or any other way you want to say it.

    You present a logical fallacy. And seem very resistant to acknowledge it.

    I’m not making a fuss about indirect vs direct, Eelco, I think that should be apparent. I’m not making a fuss at all, just asking some questions because the matter of clarity and accuracy is important. I am questioning your statement that Dark Matter is not at all hypothetical and that your claim to have observed Dark Matter.

    Please don’t feel you have to keep telling me about indirect detection in physics. I understand what you are trying to say. But I wonder if you quite understand as much as you like to suggest.

    An indirect detection requires an hypothetical inference; this is because the actual thing inferred cannot itself be observed.

    You said you had observed Dark Matter, and you later conceded ‘it is an indirect detection’; the two statements are contradictory.

    And don’t forget I was also questioning whether you need to be so unpleasant about how you engage in discussion. You seem to be displeased with being treated in an unpleasant manner; so hopefully that might give you pause for reflection about how you address others.

    I’m not sure why you insist there is no controversy about Dark Matter, when the articles I mentioned clearly showed there is. However, as you will. If it makes you happy to ignore others’ views, so be it, live as you will. But to deny their views exist could be construed as a tad pompous don’t you think?

  28. @Dom:
    “You said you had observed Dark Matter, and you later conceded ‘it is an indirect detection’; the two statements are contradictory.”

    No, they are not contradictory. That is your false statement.

    “But that is incorrect. Observation of gravitational lensing detects the mass through the effect. But that does not necessarily logically equate to your assertion that ‘therefore dark matter has been detected, has been observed.’”

    You are slowly getting there. One detects mass through the effect of gravitational lensing. You got that. Then this mass is not seen in the image. It is dark. Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this ? Dark matter, perhaps ?

    “And don’t forget I was also questioning whether you need to be so unpleasant about how you engage in discussion. You seem to be displeased with being treated in an unpleasant manner; so hopefully that might give you pause for reflection about how you address others.”

    So, where did I insult anyone ?

    “But to deny their views exist could be construed as a tad pompous don’t you think?”

    We were talking consensus, not that *everybody* agrees ! Surely a small minority still view dark matter as hypothetical, but the consensus (majority) is that it is clearly detected.

  29. Okay, Eelco,
    we’re just going round and round here. You display a remarkable capacity for obfuscating what is plain.

    Either you observe or infer. If you rely on inference, you do not observe.

    If you observe, you need not rely upon inference.

    You say inference of something is observation of something.

    Incorrect.

    And I realise mass can be detected through the effect of gravitational lensing. I realised that long before I ever heard of you Eelco.

    But asserting that detecting the effects of mass on light through gravitational lensing and then hypothesising as to the cause and then declaring you have seen the cause is another matter entirely.

    You say –
    ‘Then this mass is not seen in the image. It is dark. Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this ? Dark matter, perhaps?’

    You here equate some notion of Dark Mass to Dark Matter. But mass is distinct concept from matter. You appear to be attempting to fudge the issue.

    Have you observed Dark Matter or not?

    And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments) which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.

    Don’t be coy about it. I’m just suggesting you could try to be a bit more pleasant in your general manner. And, as I say, if you don’t like it, don’t dish it out.

    Concerning consensus/controversy about Dark Matter, Eelco, yes you implied a consensus, seemingly just to try to intimidate Michael; but that was about specific conjectural details, not about the veracity of the Dark matter hypothesis generally.

    And I questioned whether that implication justified being so dismissive. However, you did also go on to assert there exists no controversy about Dark Matter

    You stated ‘there is no controversy over dark matter’ and again later ‘there is no controversy in the community about dark matter’, but there clearly is, whether consensus is with any one view or the other.

    I accept the consensus of opinion in the scientific community may well be that the Dark Matter hypothesis is preferable, but that is very different to implying everyone agrees about all the the details of the hypothesis, and it is very different to denying it is an hypothesis at all, and it is very different to asserting there exists no controversy at all.

    Why can you not even bring yourself to acknowledge that controversy exists over the subject of Dark Matter? As I say, I’m not sure why you insist there is no controversy when even just the articles I mentioned show there is.

    Is it that you fear acknowledging the existence of other views will somehow cause you to feel less impressed with yourself? Is this why you feel compelled to patronise, deride and insult? To bolster your self-esteem? I don’t know, but your approach can hardly be described as conducive to reasonable rational discussion.

  30. Dom: “we’re just going round and round here. You display a remarkable capacity for obfuscating what is plain.”

    Me ? I’m afraid you keep on going on and on about something that is pretty plain to most people on this planet …

    Dom: “Either you observe or infer. If you rely on inference, you do not observe.”

    Again playing with words …. I actually started off saying ‘detected’. And my explanations do not seem to get to you at all.

    Dom: “You here equate some notion of Dark Mass to Dark Matter. But mass is distinct concept from matter. You appear to be attempting to fudge the issue.”

    From the point of view of detection, ‘mass’ and ‘matter’ are the same thing. Mass is the amount of matter, fine … so if the mass you measure is not zero, there is matter there.

    Dom: “Have you observed Dark Matter or not?”

    Yes, Dom. How many times have I said this already ?

    Dark matter is no longer a hypothesis (it started as a hypothesis in the time of Zwicky), but observed/detected, where this being a direct or indirect detection is irrelevant, as I explained as well (and you chose to ignore). Again, dark magnetic fields are hypothetical ???

    Keep playing word games, if you so wish.

    Dom: “Why can you not even bring yourself to acknowledge that controversy exists over the subject of Dark Matter?”

    Well, because there isn’t. Do I need to repeat this over and over again ? You do not seem to grasp the idea of ‘consensus’, which does not mean that 100% of scientists agree.

    Dom: “I don’t know, but your approach can hardly be described as conducive to reasonable rational discussion.”

    That is your opinion, and your opinion alone. I have tried to explain, to great length, what we detected, how we do this, shown you our press release, and not insulted you all this time. I have been perfectly reasonable, sifting through your lengthy and wordy replies (why ?).

    So finally, you again claim that I insulted. Can you back up this claim with specific insults ?

    And I do not think you need to defend Michael: he can do that perfectly well himself. And yes, he is (very) ignorant about this topic (not even knowing what scientists claim, whether he agrees or not), and refuses to read up on it (he keeps repeating the wrong numbers and confuse dark matter and dark energy), but I never insulted Michael or called him ignorant in general !

  31. Dom: “we’re just going round and round here. You display a remarkable capacity for obfuscating what is plain.”

    Eelco, you seem not to understand the creationist paradigm–or “foundational assumption,” as Dom insists on misnaming it.

    The problem is not that Dom disagrees with you. He refuses to understand what you are talking about. This is why arguing with creationists has been compared to trying to play chess with a pigeon. The bird knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and squawks victory.

    Creationists are not only not playing the same game, they do not understand the game. And seem to be incapable of understanding the game. It’s like speaking a second language. The only thing that creationists fathom is that other languages use different words, such as “Hello”/”goodbye”/”love” = “aloha” (etymologically, “heavenly breath”); “foreigner” = “haole” (literaly, “liar breath”). We wonder how the Hawaiians can run a language without a single adjective. Or tenses, or plurals. But they wonder how English can function without intentionals—single words that often require phrases or whole sentences in Western tongues.

    A primitive computer translation program once rendered “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” into Russian and back again to get :”The wine is fresh but the meat has gone bad.” The words are there, but the concepts are mangled beyond recognition.

    “Fact” is an entirely different concept, for example. For a creationist, a fact is an observation that comports with his faith.[1] It requires no further validation, and is absolute.. For a scientist, a fact is something that has been established to the point where withholding provisional acceptance would be perverse.[2] A contingent fact would be an oxymoron to a creationist..

    Even the questions are different. For example, a scientist says that the function of the Higgs boson is to impart mass, and inquires how it does that; while a creationist says that the purpose of the Higgs boson is to cause mass, and asks who designed it to do that.[3]

    Most people, of course, are able to shift paradigms to the appropriate context. Religious scientists such as Francis Crick and Kenneth Miller have written books both in the scientific worldview and in the religious worldview.

    Creationists in general, however, deny that any other paradigm, any epistemology, exists. This seems more than ignorance, more than lack of desire to know. My experience is that it stems from fear—fear of losing control in a world they do not comprehend.[4] For whatever reason, informing a creationist about science is an uphill battle. Dom, as you’ve noticed, blanks out simple scientific ideas a priori.

    Dom will of course deny this entire analysis. Creationists are endemic denialists. I think Dom denies his shoelaces every morning.

    But there you are. Dom will continue to quote Scripture to the contrary, as Luther did to Copernicus.. Michael thinks whatever his anonymous source tells him to think, but is occasionally curious on his own. My best hope is to lead the occasional curious lurker to think for himself..

    ================

    [1] The question of contradictory facts in different faiths is beyond the scope of this brief note. Bloodshed frequently results.

    [2] Stepen Jay Gould’s definition.

    [3] This represents the teleological assumption of religious discourse. I have found that creationists don’t even realize that they make it.

    [4] Such as why passing stricter laws never seems to reduce the number of abortions or drug usage.

  32. Eelco,
    Okay, I think we have hit an impasse.

    You say I am ‘going on and on about something that is pretty plain to most people on this planet’ but whilst that might sound an impressive dismissal of my questions, I think it’s fair to say it misrepresents them.

    You say your explanations ‘do not seem to get to you at all’; but I think your explanations have been inadequate, and so I have questioned what you have said.

    Far from playing word games I have been attempting to clarify some crucially important distinctions.

    I do not think it unreasonable to question what seem to me to be questionable assertions.

    I suggest you have made four highly questionable assertions.

    1. You have observed Dark Matter.
    2 . Dark Matter is not at all hypothetical.
    3. There is no controversy about Dark Matter
    4. Dark Mass is Dark Matter.

    Concerning these, let me take them in order.

    1.
    You claimed to have observed Dark Matter.

    This seemed odd to me because, as I indicated with examples from Scientific American and the National Academy of Sciences websites, sources seemed unanimous in asserting the that ‘Dark matter… has never been directly observed’ and ‘has yet to be detected directly.’

    So with my questioning your assertion you had observed it, you went on to assert you mean that you have observed it indirectly.

    I have pointed out that indirect detection is inference, as even the European Space Agency puts it in the item I referred to on their website – ‘Hubble cannot see the dark matter directly. Astronomers inferred its location by analyzing the effect of weak gravitational lensing.’

    It is clear you acknowledge no distinction between observation and inference; the first you call direct observation, the second you call indirect observation.

    But I do not think it is logically defensible to assert inference of the existence of something is the same thing as observation of something.

    You reject that; but that doesn’t mean I have not understood what you were saying.

    I have heard your point; I disagree with you; I think you propound a logical fallacy.
    I don’t think it is petty, or arguing for the sake of it, or trying to be difficult, or playing word games. It is a crucially important point of principle, and I am clear what you are saying and what I am saying.

    2.
    You assert Dark Matter is not at all hypothetical.

    But when I read about it from various sources and in various contexts, it is consistently explicitly described as a hypothesis or in terms which illustrate its hypothetical nature.

    Permit to give you just three examples –

    From a ScienceNOW article –
    ‘WIMPs, which are hypothetical particles thought to make up dark matter’
    http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1209/1

    From a summary about a book soon to be published by the Cambridge University Press –
    ‘Most astronomers and physicists now believe that the matter content of the Universe is dominated by dark matter: hypothetical particles which interact with normal matter primarily through the force of gravity.’
    http://cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521113014

    And even Wikipedia, which you yourself referred me to on the matter, asserts in its entry on Dark Matter –
    ‘In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

    You assert it not at all hypothetical, based on what I myself read, I find reason to question that assertion; and I do so not because I refuse to take on board what you say, but because I think what you say is incorrect; and because I think it is another important point to be clear about.

    3.
    You assert there is no controversy about Dark Matter.

    But I directed you to a couple of Scientific American articles which clearly showed that there is indeed quite some controversy about it. And I keep coming across such controversy.

    These are the two Scientific American articles I directed you to before –
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=A2B71EFB-ABFA-C6D7-0A728C56892215F8

    Here is one from National Geographic –
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060908-dark-matter.html

    New Scientist –
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17892-galaxy-study-hints-at-cracks-in-dark-matter-theories.html

    You assert there is no controversy, but there seem to be scientists who fundamentally question its existence.

    You deny there is any controversy; I read differently at these and other sources.

    I asked you why you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge such a controversy even exists; and you reply –

    ‘Well, because there isn’t. Do I need to repeat this over and over again?’

    But no matter how many times you repeat your answer won’t change the fact that such controversy very obviously exists.

    And you say I do not grasp the idea of ‘consensus’; but I do: indeed I even said
    ‘I accept the consensus of opinion in the scientific community may well be that the Dark Matter hypothesis is preferable.’ But you ignore this, and suggest that because I question your assertion that no controversy exists I therefore fail to understand what ‘consensus’ means. You confuse two distinct concepts here.

    I can but repeat what I said before –
    ‘I accept the consensus of opinion in the scientific community may well be that the Dark Matter hypothesis is preferable, but that is… very different to asserting there exists no controversy at all.’

    There clearly does exist controversy about Dark Matter; and your denial of its existence does not alter that.

    4.
    You assert Dark Mass is Dark Matter.

    You said –
    ‘One detects mass through the effect of gravitational lensing. You got that. Then this mass is not seen in the image. It is dark. Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this ? Dark matter, perhaps?’

    And later –
    ‘From the point of view of detection, ‘mass’ and ‘matter’ are the same thing. Mass is the amount of matter, fine … so if the mass you measure is not zero, there is matter there.’

    But I would question whether it is in fact correct to assert Dark Mass is the same thing as Dark Matter.

    I’m not matter and mass are actually the same thing. As I understand it, mass is a property of matter –
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

    And it seems mass is better described as energy –
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

    From which I gather, unless I am wrong in my assessment of the above information, you seem to be proposing Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the same thing.

    But you asserted the two things should not be confused-

    ‘No, there is no controversy over dark matter. There is controversy over dark energy. Don’t confuse the two.’

    Now, I may be wrong, and you may not be implying Dark Matter and Dark Mass are the same thing, but from your comments I just quoted you certainly seem to.

    And I feel the assertion should at least be questioned.

    Further to those four points

    Concerning your approach, yes, it is indeed my opinion that your manner can hardly be described as conducive to reasonable rational discussion.

    You ask me to ‘back up this claim with specific insults’, but I have already done that in a comment just above. And if you do not wish to trouble yourself to look at the references provided there, the way you waded in to this blog post is a perfect example of your condescending and derisive attitude. But the examples are there; they are not comprehensive.

    Your justification that you never called Michael ignorant in general, comes over as a somewhat weak defence; as if somehow repeatedly calling him ignorant specifically is so very different and just a fine and normal part of reasonable discussion.

    But you may think he is ignorant, but that is just your opinion, just like it is mine that you are pompous. And if you do not like that tone in debate, then perhaps you should reflect whether you wish to introduce it.

    Indeed it is you who seems to me to struggle to know what scientists claim. It is you who seem happy to deny even the existence of views other than your own let alone read about them. And if you want differing figures concerning the hypothesis of Dark Matter all one has to do is read a sampling of the literature; varying figures to your own is no reason to start name calling. And as for confusing Dark Matter and Dark Energy, well I’ve queried whether you yourself do this.

    But have you considered that points Michael makes might not agree with your views, figures, opinions etc, but that does not mean he is by default ignorant, not unless you are the measure of truth of knowledge, which is an assertion I would question.

    Yes, I’m sure Michael is perfectly capable of defending himself, but that’s not to say I cannot make known my opinion of the kind of people who seem to do a lot of commenting here, nor that I cannot applaud his graciousness for the way he puts up with you.

    But now, having laid out my queries as clearly as I can right now, and having identified we are at an impasse, I suggest we either stop here or at least begin to wind down very rapidly. I cannot keep commenting at this rate.

    But please bear in mind, just dismissing everything I say out of hand will not take this discussion anywhere, and I will merely take that as a close to the discussion. And please also bear in mind that for people to question statements you make is not an outrage, it is reasonable and acceptable behaviour.

  33. Olorin,
    Permit me to reiterate what I have mentioned previously as it all seems pertinent to your last comment-

    ‘More drivel? Do you not weary of it pouring forth from the recesses of your inundated mind? I know I do.’

    ‘You seem to have an active dislike of people who wish to undertake reasoned, rational, critical analysis, reacting strongly against it with gross misrepresentation, absurdity and waffle.’

    ‘Is there really any point actually attempting communication with you at all? You seem to just ignore whatever is said to you and then go off on some other rant for no apparent reason other than what I can only guess is your annoyance anyone dares think differently to you.’

  34. @Dom:

    I’ll keep it a lot shorter than you, if you don’t mind:

    1) dark matter has been detected indirectly, which is a detection. It has been observed through gravitational lensing, just like you observe gravity by dropping something, or magnetic fields through their effect on a compass needle. All detections.

    If that does not get through to you, then that is your problem, not mine.

    2) now you are going on about the nature of dark matter, not its existence. Of course WIMPS are hypothetical particles, and only *candidates* for dark matter. But you clearly confuse the *existence* of dark matter (it has been detected) and its *nature* (what sort of particles it is made of). I did already give you the analogy with radioactivity, which I am not going to repeat.
    This is exactly the reason why we talk about dark matter (which is not hypothetical), and not WIMPS (which is), or gravitinos, or whatever else people came up with.
    It is also important to note that part of the dark matter is just ordinary baryonic matter.

    3) there is no controversy. There are people coming up with alternatives, like MOND (I do know Zhao personally as well, and go to meetings where alternatives are discussed, for example in Edinburgh), which is a perfectly normal things for scientists to do. Coming up with alternatives is what science does, and does not imply a controversy. There are controversies in science, as I said before, but not on the existence of dark matter. What it is made of we do not know yet: there is also no controversy about us not knowing that !

    Dom: “You assert there is no controversy, but there seem to be scientists who fundamentally question its existence.”

    That is the whole point: scientists fundamentally question just about everything, which is what science does ! That does not make it a controversy, that makes it science.

    4) Dom: “You assert Dark Mass is Dark Matter.”

    I did NOT assert that. Read my post more carefully. I said that from a detection point of view it is the same thing: if you detect mass, then there is matter. I did not say they are the same thing ! I do know my physics.

    Finally, you have not listed the insults you alleged me to have made to Michael. Can you list these ?
    To use a British phrase: put up or shut up !

  35. Eelco, viele Glueck in hammering dark matter into Dom. They say you should not try to teach a pig to whistle; it is a waste of your time and only annoys the pig.

    But, since you mentioned MOND, I have a question. Doesn’t MOND’s departure from a strict inverse-square law have implications for conservation of energy? Gravitational potential is carried in the field, whose surface expands as the square of the radius. But, since the force falls off inversely as the square, energy is maintained. However, if you mess with that relation, even if only at very low accelerations, doesn’t that affect the total amount of energy in the field?

    Or am I off in the Stygian weeds, like poor Dom?

  36. Eelco,

    1. Re. your claimed to have observed Dark Matter.

    There you go again, you see –
    ‘If that does not get through to you, then that is your problem, not mine.’

    You seem incapable of presenting an argument without attributing someone else’s disagreement with you to their ignorance, confusion or stupidity.

    But just because someone disagrees with you Eelco, does not necessarily mean they do not understand what you are saying.

    I repeat, understand exactly what you are saying, and I think you present a logical fallacy when asserting that inferring the existence of something is the same thing as observing it.

    Interesting you suggest comparison with gravity and magnetic fields, because these comparisons actually illustrate my point perfectly.

    You say –
    ‘Just like you observe gravity by dropping something, or magnetic fields through their effect on a compass needle. All detections.’

    But I do not observe gravity; I observe the effects of gravity. And I do not observe magnetic fields; I observe their effects.

    To say I have seen gravity, to take just the first of your comparisons, would be incorrect; I would have seen the effects of gravity.

    The fact you reject the distinction between inference and observation is up to you. But that is not to say I do not understand your point, and to persist in suggesting I merely fail to understand what you are saying creates a false impression.

    2. Re. your assertion that Dark Matter is not at all hypothetical

    Yes, certainly, WIMPS are a theoretical proposal for the nature of Dark Matter, but so is every other proposal for it; because its nature is unknown; because at present it is only an hypothetical proposition.

    You pick up on the specific mention of WIMPS, fair enough; but you neglect the other examples I gave; such as that from Wikipedia (which you yourself referred me to) stating ‘In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’; or the summary of the new book by Robert H. Sanders (of Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, Groningen, The Netherlands) describing Dark Matter as ‘Hypothetical particles which interact with normal matter primarily through the force of gravity’;

    Those describe Dark Matter as hypothetical. As do these –

    Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy says, ‘Another explanation would be… Consequently the dark matter hypothesis is much preferred.’
    http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/observatory/radiotelescope/galacticrotationcurve/?page=darkmatter

    The website of EURECA (the collaborative experiment involving research institutes from across Europe including the University of Oxford, the Max Planck Institute for Physics, Institut d’Astrophysique Spatiale) says –

    ‘…A substantial fraction of the Universe is made up of non-baryonic dark matter. Despite this progress we still don’t know exactly what this is; and we can’t be sure that it exists at all.’’
    http://www.eureca.ox.ac.uk/darkmatter.asp

    This May 2009 ScienceDaily article states – ‘As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists.’
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090505061949.htm

    And in that article Astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen is quoted as referring to ‘the dark matter hypothesis’ – “The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite.”

    Although you say I ‘clearly confuse the *existence* of dark matter (it has been detected) and its *nature* (what sort of particles it is made of)’ actually I am clear that it is indeed largely regarded as an hypothesis.

    You go on to repeat your assertion it is not hypothetical when you say – ‘This [certainty of the existence of dark Matter] is exactly the reason why we talk about dark matter (which is not hypothetical), and not WIMPS (which is), or gravitinos, or whatever else people came up with.’

    But after reviewing the references I have given above, your use of ‘we’ cannot be taken to include the entire scientific community can it? Because obviously many consider Dark Matter to be hypothetical

    3. Re. your assertion there is no controversy about Dark Matter.
    You continue to insist there exists no controversy about the existence of Dark Matter, and not only attempt to downplay differences of opinion but also misrepresent what those differences are.

    In attempting to downplay differences you appear to resort to word games, conceding ‘alternatives’ but not ‘controversies’, saying –
    ‘There is no controversy. There are people coming up with alternatives, like MOND (I do know Zhao personally as well, and go to meetings where alternatives are discussed, for example in Edinburgh), which is a perfectly normal things for scientists to do. Coming up with alternatives is what science does, and does not imply a controversy.’

    But my handy Pocket Oxford Dictionary here defines controversy as – ‘public debate about a matter which arouses conflicting opinions.’

    And the items I have referred you to in Scientific American, National Geographic and New Scientist certainly indicate public debate about conflicting opinions.

    Those items are here –

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=A2B71EFB-ABFA-C6D7-0A728C56892215F8
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060908-dark-matter.html
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17892-galaxy-study-hints-at-cracks-in-dark-matter-theories.html

    Here are some more –
    http://www.physorg.com/news77190620.html
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36372
    Again this article from Science Daily –
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090505061949.htm
    But further to denying controversy exists by calling it ‘coming up with alternatives’, you also misrepresent what those controversies, or alternatives are about.

    You say –
    ‘There are people coming up with alternatives, like MOND (I do know Zhao personally as well, and go to meetings where alternatives are discussed, for example in Edinburgh), which is a perfectly normal things for scientists to do. Coming up with alternatives is what science does, and does not imply a controversy. There are controversies in science, as I said before, but not on the existence of dark matter.’

    Here you imply MOND is not an alternative which questions the existence of Dark Matter, and you go on to explicitly say that ‘There are controversies in science, as I said before, but not on the existence of dark matter.’

    Thus you clearly assert the ‘alternatives’, do not question the existence of Dark Matter, but that is contrary to what I have read about MOND and contrary to what is stated in articles like those mentioned above, where we find things like the following –

    ‘Astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen declares: “The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite.”’ (ScienceDaily)

    ‘Their theory does not require the existence of dark energy and dark matter.
    We can show that no ‘exotic’ ingredients have to be added to fill the gap between theory and observations,” said Capozziello.’ (Physorg)

    ‘Alternatively, they say our understanding of gravity may need modification to eliminate the need for dark matter entirely’. (New Scientist)

    ‘According to Disney, the discovery makes it very unlikely that galaxies formed according to the hierarchical theory of galaxy formation. Indeed, he goes one step further and says that the team’s results put the very existence of CDM into question — a statement that is certain to rile many astrophysicists.’ (Physics World)

    ‘“We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter.” Such approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in Europe, too.’ (ScienceDaily)

    From the above, then, it is clear that, contrary to the impression you relayed, controversies raise questions about the very existence of Dark Matter.

    And further, regarding MOND specifically –

    Wikipedia –
    ‘MOND stands in contrast to the more widely accepted theory of dark matter.’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

    New Scientist describes MOND and Dark Matter as rival theories-
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526234.200

    This article cites a researcher calling MOND an ‘alternative theory to dark matter.’
    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/darkmatter-00e.html

    So it is clear from statements like these that MOND specifically is a rival theory in contrast to Dark Matter theory.

    So, you not only persist in denying, contrary to clear evidence, that there exists any controversy about the existence of Dark Matter, you also misrepresent the specific relation of MOND assertions to the Dark Matter hypothesis.

    Then, after quoting my saying, “You assert there is no controversy, but there seem to be scientists who fundamentally question its existence,” you go on to offer the quite bizarrely blatant fudge –

    ‘That is the whole point: scientists fundamentally question just about everything, which is what science does! That does not make it a controversy, that makes it science.’

    Evoking the noble, and I suggest largely fallacious, ideal that ‘scientists fundamentally question just about everything’ you attempt to finally smother beneath this vague and irrelevant generalisation any suggestion there is any controversy about the existence of Dark Matter.

    But despite what I can only plainly call your attempts to play words games, misrepresent and fudge, the fact remains that there is very obviously controversy about the existence of Dark Matter.

    Why it is so terrible a prospect for you to admit that there is indeed controversy about the existence of Dark Matter in the scientific community, I do not know. But your denial flies in the face of the facts. Is that very reasonable of you?

    4. Re. your assertion Dark Mass is Dark Matter.

    You now deny you asserted this, but you clearly and explicitly did do. You said –

    ‘One detects mass through the effect of gravitational lensing. You got that. Then this mass is not seen in the image. It is dark. Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this? Dark matter, perhaps?’

    Let me repeat it for you –
    ‘Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this? Dark matter, perhaps?’

    Having detected Mass which is Dark, you call it Dark Matter.

    You said it; it’s there in black and white.

    You also, as you say, asserted after that ‘From the point of view of detection, ‘mass’ and ‘matter’ are the same thing.’

    But that does not necessarily negate what you said before; indeed it seems to confirm you take the one for the other. Not entirely irrelevant to the fact that you claimed to have seen Dark Matter, not Dark Mass.

    But if you are now saying they are not the same thing, then how can you claim to have seen Dark Matter if you actually saw what you call ‘mass which is dark’ or Dark Mass?

    Do you consider mass and matter the same thing or different things?

    If different, why do you call ‘mass which is dark’ ‘Dark matter’?

    Did you see Dark Matter or Dark Mass?

    Finally, Eelco, concerning you request I ‘put up or shut up!’ as you put it (exclamation mark even) about your a manner and comments, I’m not sure why you keep asking me this. The last time you asked I referred you to what I had already written, which is what I shall do now.

    Permit to me clarify this as emphatically as I can, Eelco –

    I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED EXAMPLES.

    Repeat –
    I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED EXAMPLES.

    EXAMPLES ARE AT MY POST OF February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Repeat –
    EXAMPLES ARE AT MY POST OF February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Repeat –
    EXAMPLES ARE AT MY POST OF February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am

  37. Dom: “But I do not observe gravity; I observe the effects of gravity. And I do not observe magnetic fields; I observe their effects.”

    And therefore you know it exists. You’ve detected it.

    Dom: “To say I have seen gravity, to take just the first of your comparisons, would be incorrect; I would have seen the effects of gravity.”

    Where did I say that I *saw* dark matter ? I *detected* dark matter. You are digging yourself a hole, I’m afraid.

    Dom: ” ‘In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’; or the summary of the new book by Robert H. Sanders (of Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, Groningen, The Netherlands) describing Dark Matter as ‘Hypothetical particles which interact with normal matter primarily through the force of gravity’;

    Those describe Dark Matter as hypothetical.”

    No, *again*, they describe hypothetical particles that could make up dark matter. They do not doubt the existence of dark matter.

    Then you bring up MOND, as an alternative theory not only to dark matter, but the gravity itself. I am not going to repeat what I already said about alternative theories: there are *always* alternative theories (MOND is a pretty bad one), but that does not imply controversy. Few people take MOND seriously. There are some (and I know Sanders, as I am Dutch and my name actually originates from Groningen), but that does not imply controversy.

    Dom: “Why it is so terrible a prospect for you to admit that there is indeed controversy about the existence of Dark Matter in the scientific community, I do not know. But your denial flies in the face of the facts.”

    No, it does not at al fly in the face of the facts, and I have no idea why it should be a terrible prospect. Dark energy is controversial, and dark matter used to be. Not anymore, as it is convincingly detected so many times that few people doubt its existence. Including the people you quote. *again*, the nature of the dark matter particles is unknown, which is why they are called hypothetical.

    Then you keep going on and on about the difference between mass and matter. Mass is an amount of matter. But I said that already, didn’t I ? You make a big deal about my sentence
    “‘Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this? Dark matter, perhaps?’”
    You really want me to spell out this fully, like “What shall we call this material that makes up this non-emitting mass that we so clearly detect through gravitational lensing”
    Dark matter, perhaps ?”
    If that makes you happy …

    What does not make me happy is that you still have not listed my alleged insults yet. With the emphasis on *insults*. And names these, please: put up or shut up.

  38. The last sentence should read:
    and name these, please: put up or shut up.

    Show me the specific insults.

  39. You know what I think, Dom ?

    I think that you are trying really, really hard to make me insult you.

  40. Eelco, dank je wel for the ref to MOND. The authors reasoned from a different point—showing a delta E for an elliptical orbit—but arrived at the same conclusion. That MOND would violate conservation of energy.

    Dom pontificates: “So it is clear from statements like these that MOND specifically is a rival theory in contrast to Dark Matter theory.

    In view of Dom’s insistence past all signiicance that MOND is a major alternative to CDM, it was also entertaining to read the paper’s demonstration that MOND actually implies the existence of dark matter!

    De mazzel.

  41. Eelco,

    Firstly:
    Re. your comparison of gravity –
    If I do not observe gravity, but observe the effects of gravity, then I do not observe gravity, I observe the effects of gravity. I repeat: I do not observe gravity.

    Suppose you have observed physical phenomena, effects caused by forces; you attribute those effects to force X.

    But the effects may also be equally well attributed to Y or Z, and all three options are valid hypothetical possibilities.

    On this basis, which exists: X, Y or Z?

    You refuse to accept the distinction between inference and observation. To you, your attributing the effects to X is sufficient for you to say you have observed X.

    It is a logical fallacy.

    Secondly:
    No, Eelco, I am not digging myself a hole at all. It’s actually you who seems to be digging yourself into a hole.

    You ask – ‘Where did I say that I *saw* dark matter?’

    I quote you from the cited posts –

    ‘No, because I’ve actually observed it myself.’
    And –
    ‘I actually observed dark matter.’
    February 10, 2010 at 11:06 am

    ‘I said that I observed it.’
    February 10, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    ‘Dom: “Have you observed Dark Matter or not?”
    Yes, Dom. How many times have I said this already?’
    February 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    To ‘swap’ observe with ‘saw’ now does not alter the meaning of what you said. You said you have observed Dark Matter.

    Whether you use the term ‘see’, ‘observe’ or ‘detect’ does not affect the point I am making.

    You either see/observe/detect the thing itself, or you see/observe/detect physical phenomena you attribute to the thing.

    You yourself say that you observed the effect of mass –

    ‘Gravitational lensing methods detect the mass through the effect of this light bending. This is clearly observed to happen, and therefore dark matter has been detected, has been observed.’
    February 11, 2010 at 2:31 am

    ‘One detects mass through the effect of gravitational lensing.’
    February 11, 2010 at 9:12 am

    You detect the effect of mass and then conclude matter was present.

    And later, in denying you asserted ‘Dark Mass is Dark Matter’ (which you clearly did when you said you call ‘mass which is dark’ Dark Matter) you stated that mass and matter are not the same thing –

    ‘I did NOT assert that. Read my post more carefully. I said that from a detection point of view it is the same thing: if you detect mass, then there is matter. I did not say they are the same thing! I do know my physics.’
    February 12, 2010 at 2:32 am

    So, you observe the effect of mass, and assert you have seen/observed/detected matter.

    But you infer the matter because according to your hypothesis that is what explains the mass; not because you have seen/observed/detected matter. What you saw/observed/detected was the effect of mass.

    You hypothesise the existence of unseen matter to account for the abundance of mass, then when you see an abundance of mass you attribute it to unseen matter and say you have observed the matter.

    You are asserting your hypothesis as the proof of your hypothesis. This too is a logical fallacy, that of circular reasoning.

    So, in fact, you observed the effect of mass, inferred matter and then said you observed matter.

    You assert (February 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm) ‘From the point of view of detection, ‘mass’ and ‘matter’ are the same thing’; but if that were really a valid proposition then you would not be looking for Dark Matter, would you?

    It is because they are not the same thing even concerning detection that you have a search on to locate ‘hidden’ matter, because there is too much mass for the evident matter. The mass has (supposedly, according to your hypothesis) been readily detected, but not the matter. That’s why it is hypothesised to be hidden, or dark.

    Regarding the examples I gave where Dark Matter is regarded as hypothetical, you too easily dismiss one and ignore the other five.

    The description of the soon to be published book by the Cambridge University Press by Robert H. Sanders, you suggest is not saying Dark Matter per se is hypothetical, just that it is hypothetical that it could be made up of particles.

    But I suggest that contorts the plain meaning of the text which describes Dark Matter as hypothetical. The fact it describes it specifically as hypothetical particles does not detract from this; ‘particles’ is a perfectly reasonable way to describe what matter is.

    Here is the text again. Without trying to impose a nuance that is not there, I think it perfectly plainly refers to Dark Matter as hypothetical –

    ‘Most astronomers and physicists now believe that the matter content of the Universe is dominated by dark matter: hypothetical particles which interact with normal matter primarily through the force of gravity.’’

    The other five you have merely ignored as is convenient –

    The Wikipedia entry: ‘dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter.’

    Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy: ‘the dark matter hypothesis.’

    EURECA: ‘…dark matter… we still don’t know exactly what this is; and we can’t be sure that it exists at all.’ (Indicating it indeed remains hypothetical)

    Science Daily article (2009): ‘the ominous “dark matter”… yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists. (Again indicating it remains hypothetical)

    And in that same article, Astrophysicist Bob Sanders: ‘the dark matter hypothesis.’

    These are examples I have provided of instances where Dark Matter is referred to explicitly or implicitly as being hypothetical in nature.

    You ignore all these, which I suggest are indicative of much that can be found via the internet, and you demand Dark Matter is not hypothetical at all (February 10, 2010 at 2:53 am). But not everyone agrees with you, Eelco.

    And bearing in mind that there are those in the scientific community who disagree with you, perhaps you could consider adopting a slightly less confrontational and condescending tone than you do for example in your February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am if you wish to assert it is not hypothetical. That’s all I am suggesting. Not really too much to suggest, is it?

    Just a plea to be a bit more civil towards those who disagree with you. People are allowed to disagree with you, Eelco; academic freedom, free thought and all that stuff you Naturalists like to make fine if empty speeches about. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they eat their children. And it is really much more pleasant, as well as much more conducive to free and rational debate, if you don’t jump down people’s throats at the slightest hint of differing from your own view and act as if anyone who disagrees with you must therefore necessarily be either ignorant, stupid or uninformed.

    And so to continue, you then try to smooth over your attempt to misrepresent MOND; suggesting what you said about alternative theories addresses that. But it does not. It was indeed what you said that misrepresented MOND so as to appear not to be a conflicting hypothesis.

    And, too, your declaration there are always alternative theories, does not help you apply the whitewash either, but rather seems to concede my points that Dark Matter is theoretical and that there are other theories too.

    You continue attempting your word games with ‘alternatives’ in the place of ‘controversy’, as if ‘controversy’ is a big nasty word best kept at the door.

    There are always alternatives, you say, but no controversy.

    But that is what raising alternatives is: controversy.

    I have pointed out the Pocket Oxford Dictionary definition of controversy – ‘public debate about a matter which arouses conflicting opinions.’

    The public debate (evident, as I have shown above, in places like Scientific American, National Geographic and New Scientist, Physorg, Physics World and ScienceDaily) about different theories which have conflicting implications is, according to any reasonable, straightforward, normal, plain usage of the word, controversy.

    It is not even that it implies controversy, Eelco; it IS controversy; controversy, as I have shown, about whether Dark Matter exists.

    It is if I point to wall and say “Look at that brick wall”; and you say “There is no wall.”

    I try again and again, and you keep denying it exists.

    Eventually I take your hand and put it against the wall.

    “Oh, thaaaaat!” you say. “That’s not a wall; that’s a vertical structure of bricks laid upon each other!”

    Yes, indeed, and it’s commonly called a wall.

    You can deny controversy exists about the existence of Dark Matter all you want, Eelco; it doesn’t mean we all have to pretend the wall is not there to make you feel better.

    Your denial certainly absolutely flies in the face of the facts. No matter what you say, the facts are plain. Why you adopt such a position I have no idea. But it is not very reasonable.

    And then you say I ‘keep going on and on about the difference between mass and matter’ as if I’m just being ridiculously petty; as if the concepts of mass and matter and the distinction between them are but petty irrelevancies or trifling minor details when considering Dark Matter. But Dark Matter is a hypothesis about missing matter deduced from abundance of mass. So the difference between mass and matter is important, really, don’t you think?

    And not only, I suggest, is it important to the topic generally, but I’d say it’s also specifically relevant to your assertion that you have observed Dark Matter.

    About which specific point I refer you to my earlier observations that you say you have observed the effect of mass, and assert you have seen/observed/detected matter, and that you infer the matter because according to your hypothesis that is what explains the mass.

    I don’t ‘keep going on and on about the difference between mass and matter’ in a negative and pointless way, Eelco, I am persistent in trying to clarify what is mutton and what is lamb; and the difference between mass and matter is surely crucial to the subject of trying to discover Dark Matter.

    As I said, you hypothesise the existence of unseen matter to account for the abundance of mass, then when you see an abundance of mass you attribute it to unseen matter and say you have observed the matter. This is asserting your hypothesis as the proof of your hypothesis. It is a logical fallacy; circular reasoning.

    I’m not too sorry if it makes you a little uncomfortable to think about it, because after all what is but a little discomfort in the great and noble endeavour that is the quest of scientific truth? But I persist because I am not sure it is quite fair to claim you have observed Dark Matter, when actually what you have observed is the effect of mass.

    If you don’t like my raising that matter, then that’s up to you. But I do not raise it because I fail to understand your points, or even because I am stupid or perverse, but because I think it is a fair and valid query.

    You go on to ‘spell out this fully’ for me, saying –

    ‘You really want me to spell out this fully, like “What shall we call this material that makes up this non-emitting mass that we so clearly detect through gravitational lensing”
    Dark matter, perhaps?”’

    But, firstly, that is a substantially different thing to what you said before when you said –

    ‘One detects mass through the effect of gravitational lensing. You got that. Then this mass is not seen in the image. It is dark. Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this? Dark matter, perhaps?’

    You have switched ‘Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this?’ with ‘What shall we call this material that makes up this non-emitting mass…?’

    You are not expanding on your first point, you are substantially altering what you said.

    And secondly, your revision merely indicates your assertion of opinion as fact. For you say ‘What shall we call this material…?’, but whether or not it is there is not a matter of fact but of hypothesis. You can’t state it is a fact of nature just because you speculate it might be there; not unless you want to be surrounded by logical fallacies all the day long. You infer from observing the effect of mass that it is there; you make that inference because you hypothesise it exists.

    And lastly, Eelco, about your manner and comments, I just don’t know what I can do. You keep asking me to ‘put up or shut up’, implying I have not justified what I said about your manner and comments, and I keep referring you to where I have already ‘put up’ specific examples of your derisive, patronising and insulting behaviour.

    I even highlighted the post in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS and repeated it about two or three times for you.

    I can’t make you read it, Eelco. It’s just another one of your non-existent walls. Whatever.

    You may be under the impression I’m ‘trying really, really hard’ to make you insult me, Eelco, but I think that could just be your normal underlying disposition coming to the fore. I’m actually trying to discuss perfectly valid questions with you.

    If it agitates you to engage in discussion with people who might question the grand statements you make, then perhaps you should avoid places where you might come across people who might disagree with you.

  42. Olorin,
    I don’t insist ‘past all significance’, as you put it, that MOND a major alternative to CDM; you misrepresent yet again, Oloris; one of your particular talents, I suggest.

    The quotes supplied under point 3. of my post February 12, 2010 at 1:39 pm indicate clearly that those individuals and sources quoted recognise MOND questions the existence of Dark Matter. This shows that there is indeed controversy about the existence of Dark Matter. That was my point.

    Straightforward, really.

  43. “The quotes supplied under point 3. of my post February 12, 2010 at 1:39 pm indicate clearly that those individuals and sources quoted recognise MOND questions the existence of Dark Matter.”

    You miss my point, friend Dom. The Shariati & Jafari paper suggests that MOND implies the existence of cold dark matter, rather than controverting it.

    This area moves fast. One must keep up.

    Eelco, did I not read recently that CDM clumps had been predicted and detected displaced from galactic centers for two colliding galaxies? As I recall, the collision slows the galaxies but not the CDM halos, because of their nonreactivity. Another nugget of evidence?

  44. Dom, your reactions are getting ever longer … and that does not help at all.

    Dom: “If I do not observe gravity, but observe the effects of gravity, then I do not observe gravity, I observe the effects of gravity. I repeat: I do not observe gravity.”

    Yes, you do. You seem to equate ‘observing’ with ‘seeing’, which is not correct (if seeing is defined as observing something in the visible part of the spectrum).

    You do observe gravity through its effects, like you observe all things. Have you ever wondered how you see things ? Observing a house, or whatever, is done thought the intermediate of photons. These can be visible photons, in which case the detectors, your eyes, can record those photons and produce an image in your house. But you do not detect the house itself *directly* (bumping into it would probably be a direct way of observing). The same if you observe the house in the infrared, where there is an additional device needed.

    So you keep on playing with words. Dark matter has been detected/observed, and convincingly so. I’ve even shown you my own observations.

    Dom: “You are not expanding on your first point, you are substantially altering what you said.”

    No, I am not. I was making clear what I meant with ‘this’.

    And then you keep going on about controversy. In your definition everything would be a controversy, because in science everything is publicly debatable. To my mind something is controversial when there is widespread disagreement, not just a few people with different opinions. And I know the people your refer to, and they are only a handful. Which is fine and healthy, but does not imply a controversy.

    And finally, I was specifically asking you to list those alleged *insults*, not just links to reactions. Which *insults* have I posted here on this blog. So specific words or sentences that are *insulting*, and nothing less. Again, put up or shut up: which insults did I use ? List them, not links to comments !

  45. ‘… produce an image in your house’ should be
    ‘… produce an image in your brain’ in the last comment.

  46. Eelco,
    No, I’m not necessarily restricting ‘observe’ to the visible part of the spectrum; I’m using it in the sense of perceiving something, however that may be done.

    And I’m not playing with words; I am just trying to establish a degree of accuracy.

    And it’s not that I do not understand the concept of indirect observation, nor that I am saying Dark Matter does not exist.

    The difference of opinion here is about direct or indirect observation.

    Okay, you say you have observed Dark Matter indirectly; I understand that.

    But the thing is this; I argue that inference from indirect observation is not the same thing as establishing factuality if the inference is but one hypothetical alternative.

    Your latest example of perceiving a house does not alter this point. I observe the house directly, through whatever medium. And obviously it could be detected via a number of mediums, i.e. visual or sonic. I can observe a house, music, apples, the sun, etc etc.

    But gravity, I do not observe directly, I can only observe it indirectly; just the same with neutrinos as far as I am aware. And I would argue, the same would be the case with with the hypothesised Dark Matter.

    One is direct observation, one is inference. You might not recognise the distinction between these two; okay, up to you. But I do.

    And then, as concerns the specific subject at hand, what I’m saying, I think reasonably clearly, is that if one is inferring a hypothetical concept which offers but one possible explanation of observations then one should be wary of declaring that hypothetical concept a fact of nature.

    You disagree, fair enough; up to you.

    But I think to decry my distinguishing these points as playing with words is unfair; most especially when I have even gone to the trouble of providing examples of other [to yourself] people in the scientific community who continue to regard Dark Matter as hypothetical and not necessarily observed at all.

    Such as the Wikipedia entry you referred me to (‘dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’), Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy (‘the dark matter hypothesis’), EURECA (‘…dark matter… we still don’t know exactly what this is; and we can’t be sure that it exists at all’), ScienceDaily (2009) (‘the ominous “dark matter”… yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists’), Astrophysicist Bob Sanders (‘the dark matter hypothesis’).

    You may decry all these and anyone else who disagrees with you as playing word games; or you could accept that sometimes people might disagree with you about distinguishing particular points, and you don’t have to be abrasive or abusive about it.
    Concerning your supposed expansion on what you had said, you now describe it as a clarification of what you meant by ‘this’ as if that invalidates my point that the two versions of what you said are substantially different; but it does not.

    Initially ‘this’ referred to ‘mass which is dark’ [‘One detects mass through the effect of gravitational lensing. You got that. Then this mass is not seen in the image. It is dark. Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this? Dark matter, perhaps?’] and then in your expansion, when you offered to ‘spell out this fully’, ‘this’ became ‘this material that makes up this non-emitting mass.’

    In the first ‘this’ is the mass, in the second it is the material you infer caused the mass.

    Substantially different and no small point we the subject is the detection of hypothetical matter via observing the effect of mass.

    So although you deny you substantially altered what you said, I think it evident that you did indeed not just expand your point but actually substantially altered the point you were making.

    If you did not mean what you said the first time, (that ‘mass which is dark’ is called Dark Matter), then that is another matter, and all you have to do is clarify that what you said was incorrect; I don’t think it’s problematic acknowledging something said was incorrect for whatever reason, but I think it problematic pretending we didn’t really say it.

    And then you go on to further protest against the suggestion any controversy exists concerning the existence of Dark Matter. I’m not sure why this is such a problem for you, but I’m not going pretend that the wall, to use my analogy again, does not exist when it plainly does, just because you deny it does. To try to change my mind by the sheer force of your denial is indicative, I suggest, of a tendency you display to want to try to quash opinions or views different to your own by degrees of intimidation rather that have to engage with the issues in reasonable dialogue.

    You attempt you whitewash the issue now by suggesting ‘controversy’ in my definition is too expansive a term ‘because in science everything is publicly debatable.’

    But it is not ‘my’ definition so much as it is the normal, straightforward dictionary definition; and I employ the term in its normal, straightforward way.

    And whilst everything in science may well be publicly debatable, Eelco, that does not alter the meaning of the term ‘controversy’ from being ‘public debate about a matter which arouses conflicting opinions.’

    I have shown there is public debate about Dark Matter which arouses conflicting opinions about its existence, with reference to Scientific American, National Geographic, New Scientist, Physorg, Physics World and ScienceDaily.

    I have done this because you deny it exists by asserting ‘No, there is no controversy over dark matter’ when that denial is evidently not a reflection of the reality.

    Okay, you say – ‘To my mind something is controversial when there is widespread disagreement, not just a few people with different opinions.’

    But whilst that might be the case to your mind, Eelco, I suggest it is not the case per se; I have not come across a dictionary defining controversy as being disagreement necessarily only ‘widespread’ in character.

    Controversy is public debate about a matter which arouses conflicting opinions, and there exists, as I have shown, controversy about whether Dark Matter exists.

    Try to change the meaning or application of the word controversy as many times as you wish, Eelco, it does not alter the fact that by any normal, reasonable usage of the word, that controversy exists. Even if you deny it. Denying it exists does not make it disappear. It just makes you appear somewhat unreasonable.

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    (2) Further specific examples, 14 in number –

    1 –
    ‘Do you have any idea how science works? I think not.’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:52 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    2 –
    ‘Can you please do your own reading on dark matter? Why do you want me to do your homework?’
    January 30, 2009 at 10:10 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    3 –
    ‘Oh dear – first start reading!!!’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    4 –
    ‘Think for yourself for a change, Michael!’
    July 7, 2009 at 9:53 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/plant-evolution-has-much-complexity-in-its-story/

    5 –
    ‘I don’t think you understand how science is done.’
    June 30, 2009 at 1:15 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    6 –
    ‘I do not think you understand much about cosmology’
    July 1, 2009 at 1:13 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    7 –
    ‘You say you ‘know’ who created the Universe…. Now that is arrogant…’
    May 13, 2009 at 9:18 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/gathering-and-explaining-scientific-data-is-truly-limited/#comments

    8 –
    ‘Good to hear that at least that has gotten through to you.’
    June 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/new-discovery-about-dino-vindicates-creationism/#comments

    9 –
    ‘But I think you know all this, and you still, willingly and knowingly, decide to ignore all this. *That* is intellectual dishonesty.’
    May 16, 2009 at 4:57 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-myth-of-neandertals-continues-to-be-debunked/#comments

    10 –
    ‘Are you too lazy to read the books ?’
    May 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    11 –
    ‘if you cannot be bothered to read the scientific journals’
    May 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    12 –
    ‘Trying to conduct reasoned debate with you is tedious.’
    June 7, 2009 at 5:41 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

    13 –
    ‘Michael, why do you bother? Do you really think your readers are that stupid?’
    September 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/new-hypothesis-developed-for-the-staining-of-mars/#comments

    14 –
    ‘Data? Do you know what data is, as a creationist?
    I thought you ignored most of it?’
    September 5, 2009 at 3:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/mars-geology-has-some-interesting-data-for-creationism/#comments

    Okay, so we have a total now of 19 specific examples.

    I cannot keep searching through every post. This will have to suffice.

    The fact is that your general manner is confrontational, condescending, dismissive, derisive and insulting. That’s fine if you’re okay with it; but it’s a bit rich for you get all offended just because someone thinks you’re a pompous twit

    I noticed as I was reviewing your comments that although you don’t mind calling people ignorant or confused or implying whatever else you like about them or their approach, the moment someone deals with you in like manner you immediately get in a right tizzy prancing around all indignant and denouncing them for using insults, or ad hominem or for making accusations. Yet you do it regularly.

    As I say, if you don’t like it, don’t dish it out.

    Please stop trying to come over all sweetness and light. It doesn’t wash. You have an evident inability to countenance the validity, credibility or integrity of any view which differs with yours and seem to feel you must deal with any such thing with derision and insult.

    Personally I think you’re something of a bully, Eelco. I think you’re dismissive, unreasonable and arrogant. And not a little deluded; I think you like to feel you embody the very heights of rationality whilst actually you often show you struggle to follow basic rational arguments, most especially if they threaten your sense of Naturalistic superiority. But there you go. That’s you.

    All in all, Eelco, I feel ‘pompous twit’ is really a very mild slight; but entirely accurate –

    ‘But it is also arrogant for you to say that I don’t understand something’ (Eelco)
    May 31, 2009 at 3:26 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

  47. Olorin,
    No, I’m not missing the point; you’re obfuscating.

    Even if it the paper you mention was later than all of the examples I provided, that would not necessarily negate my point that my examples show there is controversy over the existence of Dark Matter.

    As it is, the paper you mention was submitted 2007; all but two of the 7 sources I cited are later or current.

  48. DOM POST PART 1 OF 2

    Eelco,
    No, I’m not necessarily restricting ‘observe’ to the visible part of the spectrum; I’m using it in the sense of perceiving something, however that may be done.

    And I’m not playing with words; I am just trying to establish a degree of accuracy.

    And it’s not that I do not understand the concept of indirect observation, nor that I am saying Dark Matter does not exist.

    The difference of opinion here is about direct or indirect observation.

    Okay, you say you have observed Dark Matter indirectly; I understand that.

    But the thing is this; I argue that inference from indirect observation is not the same thing as establishing factuality if the inference is but one hypothetical alternative.

    Your latest example of perceiving a house does not alter this point. I observe the house directly, through whatever medium. And obviously it could be detected via a number of mediums, i.e. visual or sonic. I can observe a house, music, apples, the sun, etc etc.

    But gravity, I do not observe directly, I can only observe it indirectly; just the same with neutrinos as far as I am aware. And I would argue, the same would be the case with with the hypothesised Dark Matter.

    One is direct observation, one is inference. You might not recognise the distinction between these two; okay, up to you. But I do.

    And then, as concerns the specific subject at hand, what I’m saying, I think reasonably clearly, is that if one is inferring a hypothetical concept which offers but one possible explanation of observations then one should be wary of declaring that hypothetical concept a fact of nature.

    You disagree, fair enough; up to you.

    But I think to decry my distinguishing these points as playing with words is unfair; most especially when I have even gone to the trouble of providing examples of other [to yourself] people in the scientific community who continue to regard Dark Matter as hypothetical and not necessarily observed at all.

    Such as the Wikipedia entry you referred me to (‘dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’), Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy (‘the dark matter hypothesis’), EURECA (‘…dark matter… we still don’t know exactly what this is; and we can’t be sure that it exists at all’), ScienceDaily (2009) (‘the ominous “dark matter”… yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists’), Astrophysicist Bob Sanders (‘the dark matter hypothesis’).

    You may decry all these and anyone else who disagrees with you as playing word games; or you could accept that sometimes people might disagree with you about distinguishing particular points, and you don’t have to be abrasive or abusive about it.
    Concerning your supposed expansion on what you had said, you now describe it as a clarification of what you meant by ‘this’ as if that invalidates my point that the two versions of what you said are substantially different; but it does not.

    Initially ‘this’ referred to ‘mass which is dark’ [‘One detects mass through the effect of gravitational lensing. You got that. Then this mass is not seen in the image. It is dark. Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this? Dark matter, perhaps?’] and then in your expansion, when you offered to ‘spell out this fully’, ‘this’ became ‘this material that makes up this non-emitting mass.’

    In the first ‘this’ is the mass, in the second it is the material you infer caused the mass.

    Substantially different and no small point we the subject is the detection of hypothetical matter via observing the effect of mass.

    So although you deny you substantially altered what you said, I think it evident that you did indeed not just expand your point but actually substantially altered the point you were making.

    If you did not mean what you said the first time, (that ‘mass which is dark’ is called Dark Matter), then that is another matter, and all you have to do is clarify that what you said was incorrect; I don’t think it’s problematic acknowledging something said was incorrect for whatever reason, but I think it problematic pretending we didn’t really say it.

    And then you go on to further protest against the suggestion any controversy exists concerning the existence of Dark Matter. I’m not sure why this is such a problem for you, but I’m not going pretend that the wall, to use my analogy again, does not exist when it plainly does, just because you deny it does. To try to change my mind by the sheer force of your denial is indicative, I suggest, of a tendency you display to want to try to quash opinions or views different to your own by degrees of intimidation rather that have to engage with the issues in reasonable dialogue.

    You attempt you whitewash the issue now by suggesting ‘controversy’ in my definition is too expansive a term ‘because in science everything is publicly debatable.’

    But it is not ‘my’ definition so much as it is the normal, straightforward dictionary definition; and I employ the term in its normal, straightforward way.

    And whilst everything in science may well be publicly debatable, Eelco, that does not alter the meaning of the term ‘controversy’ from being ‘public debate about a matter which arouses conflicting opinions.’

    I have shown there is public debate about Dark Matter which arouses conflicting opinions about its existence, with reference to Scientific American, National Geographic, New Scientist, Physorg, Physics World and ScienceDaily.

    I have done this because you deny it exists by asserting ‘No, there is no controversy over dark matter’ when that denial is evidently not a reflection of the reality.

    Okay, you say – ‘To my mind something is controversial when there is widespread disagreement, not just a few people with different opinions.’

    But whilst that might be the case to your mind, Eelco, I suggest it is not the case per se; I have not come across a dictionary defining controversy as being disagreement necessarily only ‘widespread’ in character.

    Controversy is public debate about a matter which arouses conflicting opinions, and there exists, as I have shown, controversy about whether Dark Matter exists.

    Try to change the meaning or application of the word controversy as many times as you wish, Eelco, it does not alter the fact that by any normal, reasonable usage of the word, that controversy exists. Even if you deny it. Denying it exists does not make it disappear. It just makes you appear somewhat unreasonable.

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples; these are in PART 2.

  49. DOM POST PART 2 OF 2

    (2) Further specific examples, 14 in number –

    1 –
    ‘Do you have any idea how science works? I think not.’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:52 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    2 –
    ‘Can you please do your own reading on dark matter? Why do you want me to do your homework?’
    January 30, 2009 at 10:10 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    3 –
    ‘Oh dear – first start reading!!!’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    4 –
    ‘Think for yourself for a change, Michael!’
    July 7, 2009 at 9:53 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/plant-evolution-has-much-complexity-in-its-story/

    5 –
    ‘I don’t think you understand how science is done.’
    June 30, 2009 at 1:15 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    6 –
    ‘I do not think you understand much about cosmology’
    July 1, 2009 at 1:13 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    7 –
    ‘You say you ‘know’ who created the Universe…. Now that is arrogant…’
    May 13, 2009 at 9:18 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/gathering-and-explaining-scientific-data-is-truly-limited/#comments

    8 –
    ‘Good to hear that at least that has gotten through to you.’
    June 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/new-discovery-about-dino-vindicates-creationism/#comments

    9 –
    ‘But I think you know all this, and you still, willingly and knowingly, decide to ignore all this. *That* is intellectual dishonesty.’
    May 16, 2009 at 4:57 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-myth-of-neandertals-continues-to-be-debunked/#comments

    10 –
    ‘Are you too lazy to read the books ?’
    May 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    11 –
    ‘if you cannot be bothered to read the scientific journals’
    May 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    12 –
    ‘Trying to conduct reasoned debate with you is tedious.’
    June 7, 2009 at 5:41 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

    13 –
    ‘Michael, why do you bother? Do you really think your readers are that stupid?’
    September 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/new-hypothesis-developed-for-the-staining-of-mars/#comments

    14 –
    ‘Data? Do you know what data is, as a creationist?
    I thought you ignored most of it?’
    September 5, 2009 at 3:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/mars-geology-has-some-interesting-data-for-creationism/#comments

    Okay, so we have a total now of 19 specific examples.

    I cannot keep searching through every post. This will have to suffice.

    The fact is that your general manner is confrontational, condescending, dismissive, derisive and insulting. That’s fine if you’re okay with it; but it’s a bit rich for you get all offended just because someone thinks you’re a pompous twit

    I noticed as I was reviewing your comments that although you don’t mind calling people ignorant or confused or implying whatever else you like about them or their approach, the moment someone deals with you in like manner you immediately get in a right tizzy prancing around all indignant and denouncing them for using insults, or ad hominem or for making accusations. Yet you do it regularly.

    As I say, if you don’t like it, don’t dish it out.

    Please stop trying to come over all sweetness and light. It doesn’t wash. You have an evident inability to countenance the validity, credibility or integrity of any view which differs with yours and seem to feel you must deal with any such thing with derision and insult.

    Personally I think you’re something of a bully, Eelco. I think you’re dismissive, unreasonable and arrogant. And not a little deluded; I think you like to feel you embody the very heights of rationality whilst actually you often show you struggle to follow basic rational arguments, most especially if they threaten your sense of Naturalistic superiority. But there you go. That’s you.

    All in all, Eelco, I feel ‘pompous twit’ is really a very mild slight; but entirely accurate –

    ‘But it is also arrogant for you to say that I don’t understand something’ (Eelco)
    May 31, 2009 at 3:26 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

  50. DOM POST PART 1 OF 3

    Eelco,
    No, I’m not necessarily restricting ‘observe’ to the visible part of the spectrum; I’m using it in the sense of perceiving something, however that may be done.

    And I’m not playing with words; I am just trying to establish a degree of accuracy.

    And it’s not that I do not understand the concept of indirect observation, nor that I am saying Dark Matter does not exist.

    The difference of opinion here is about direct or indirect observation.

    Okay, you say you have observed Dark Matter indirectly; I understand that.

    But the thing is this; I argue that inference from indirect observation is not the same thing as establishing factuality if the inference is but one hypothetical alternative.

    Your latest example of perceiving a house does not alter this point. I observe the house directly, through whatever medium. And obviously it could be detected via a number of mediums, i.e. visual or sonic. I can observe a house, music, apples, the sun, etc etc.

    But gravity, I do not observe directly, I can only observe it indirectly; just the same with neutrinos as far as I am aware. And I would argue, the same would be the case with with the hypothesised Dark Matter.

    One is direct observation, one is inference. You might not recognise the distinction between these two; okay, up to you. But I do.

    And then, as concerns the specific subject at hand, what I’m saying, I think reasonably clearly, is that if one is inferring a hypothetical concept which offers but one possible explanation of observations then one should be wary of declaring that hypothetical concept a fact of nature.

    You disagree, fair enough; up to you.

    But I think to decry my distinguishing these points as playing with words is unfair; most especially when I have even gone to the trouble of providing examples of other [to yourself] people in the scientific community who continue to regard Dark Matter as hypothetical and not necessarily observed at all.

    Such as the Wikipedia entry you referred me to (‘dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’), Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy (‘the dark matter hypothesis’), EURECA (‘…dark matter… we still don’t know exactly what this is; and we can’t be sure that it exists at all’), ScienceDaily (2009) (‘the ominous “dark matter”… yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists’), Astrophysicist Bob Sanders (‘the dark matter hypothesis’).

    You may decry all these and anyone else who disagrees with you as playing word games; or you could accept that sometimes people might disagree with you about distinguishing particular points, and you don’t have to be abrasive or abusive about it.
    Concerning your supposed expansion on what you had said, you now describe it as a clarification of what you meant by ‘this’ as if that invalidates my point that the two versions of what you said are substantially different; but it does not.

    Initially ‘this’ referred to ‘mass which is dark’ [‘One detects mass through the effect of gravitational lensing. You got that. Then this mass is not seen in the image. It is dark. Now you have detected mass which is dark. What shall we call this? Dark matter, perhaps?’] and then in your expansion, when you offered to ‘spell out this fully’, ‘this’ became ‘this material that makes up this non-emitting mass.’

    In the first ‘this’ is the mass, in the second it is the material you infer caused the mass.

    Substantially different and no small point we the subject is the detection of hypothetical matter via observing the effect of mass.

    So although you deny you substantially altered what you said, I think it evident that you did indeed not just expand your point but actually substantially altered the point you were making.

    If you did not mean what you said the first time, (that ‘mass which is dark’ is called Dark Matter), then that is another matter, and all you have to do is clarify that what you said was incorrect; I don’t think it’s problematic acknowledging something said was incorrect for whatever reason, but I think it problematic pretending we didn’t really say it.

    And then you go on to further protest against the suggestion any controversy exists concerning the existence of Dark Matter. I’m not sure why this is such a problem for you, but I’m not going pretend that the wall, to use my analogy again, does not exist when it plainly does, just because you deny it does. To try to change my mind by the sheer force of your denial is indicative, I suggest, of a tendency you display to want to try to quash opinions or views different to your own by degrees of intimidation rather that have to engage with the issues in reasonable dialogue.

    You attempt you whitewash the issue now by suggesting ‘controversy’ in my definition is too expansive a term ‘because in science everything is publicly debatable.’

    But it is not ‘my’ definition so much as it is the normal, straightforward dictionary definition; and I employ the term in its normal, straightforward way.

    And whilst everything in science may well be publicly debatable, Eelco, that does not alter the meaning of the term ‘controversy’ from being ‘public debate about a matter which arouses conflicting opinions.’

    I have shown there is public debate about Dark Matter which arouses conflicting opinions about its existence, with reference to Scientific American, National Geographic, New Scientist, Physorg, Physics World and ScienceDaily.

    I have done this because you deny it exists by asserting ‘No, there is no controversy over dark matter’ when that denial is evidently not a reflection of the reality.

    Okay, you say – ‘To my mind something is controversial when there is widespread disagreement, not just a few people with different opinions.’

    But whilst that might be the case to your mind, Eelco, I suggest it is not the case per se; I have not come across a dictionary defining controversy as being disagreement necessarily only ‘widespread’ in character.

    Controversy is public debate about a matter which arouses conflicting opinions, and there exists, as I have shown, controversy about whether Dark Matter exists.

    Try to change the meaning or application of the word controversy as many times as you wish, Eelco, it does not alter the fact that by any normal, reasonable usage of the word, that controversy exists. Even if you deny it. Denying it exists does not make it disappear. It just makes you appear somewhat unreasonable.

    POST CONT. IN PART 2

  51. DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  52. Dom: “Re. your comparison of gravity – If I do not observe gravity, but observe the effects of gravity, then I do not observe gravity, I observe the effects of gravity. I repeat: I do not observe gravity.”

    Fotunately, Lewis Carroll has addressed this type of question—

    “You are sad, the Knight said in an anxious tone: “let me sing you a song to comfort you…. The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.'”

    “Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.

    “No, you don’t understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That’s what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged, Aged Man.'”

    “Then I ought to have said ‘That’s what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.

    “No you oughtn’t: that’s another thing. The song is called ‘Ways and Means’ but that’s only what it’s called, you know!”

    “Well, what is the song then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

    “I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On a Gate’: and the tune’s my own invention.”

    [The chorus, with apologies:]

    “Who are you, Eelco man?” Dom said,
    ” And how is it that you know?”
    And his answer trickled through Dom’s head
    like water down a hole.

  53. DOM POST PART 2OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  54. DOM POST PART 2OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 2

  55. Olorin,
    ‘Infer’ – ‘work something out from evidence or suggestions rather than from direct statements.’

    I would provide definitions for ‘waffle’, ‘drivel’, ‘smoke-screen’ and ‘evasion’, but you seem to be very familiar what their meanings.

    And, by the way, are you suggesting I call Eelco ‘the Knight’; I can certainly see the similarity; but trying to get a sensible answer from the Knight in your excerpt seems a whole lot more straightforward than trying to get one from Eelco.

  56. (Having problems getting these posts up; sorry about any duplications etc)

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  57. Okay, I’ll try here again.

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  58. [Why is this not posting?]
    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  59. [Still having problems posting, will keep trying with these last 2 parts, here or on that other post mentioned]

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  60. [try again]
    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  61. [try yet again]
    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  62. [see if this takes]
    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  63. [And again]

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  64. Dom enjoys short quizzes that show off his erudition. Today’s question is—

    If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

    Eelco: “Four. If it wags like a tail, it’s still a tail.”

    Dom: “Six. I win! I win! “

  65. Dom enjoys short quizzes that show off his erudition. Today’s question is—

    If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

    Eelco: “Four. If it wags like a tail, it’s a tail.”

    Dom: “Six. I win! I win! “

  66. Dom: “Eelco, Sorry but having getting more posts up here.”

    Thank you, Michael! Thank you, thank you.

  67. Or how about this one Upson?

    Upson: If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

    Dom: “Four. Just because you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”

    Upson: “Oh yeah, that’s the way it goes. I forgoted. He he.“

  68. [Okay, think it was too many reference links preventing posting; I’ve had to make them just references without linking]

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  69. [Okay, I think it was too many reference links preventing posting; I’ve had to make them just references without linking]

    DOM POST PART 2 OF 3

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    POST CONT. IN PART 3

  70. [Okay, think it was too many reference links preventing posting; I’ve had to make them just references without linking. And it maybe was too long, so I’m breaking it up more, so it might be more than 3]

    [Part 2]

    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’

    (https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments)

    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    [see part 3]

  71. [part 3]

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/gravity-cosmology-has-plunged-into-a-major-crisis/#comments

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am

    and

    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am

    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-progressive-figments-of-cosmological-imagination/#comments

    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#comments

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.

    [see Part 4]

  72. [Part 4]

    (2) Further specific examples, 14 in number –

    1 –
    ‘Do you have any idea how science works? I think not.’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:52 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#commens

    2 –
    ‘Can you please do your own reading on dark matter? Why do you want me to do your homework?’
    January 30, 2009 at 10:10 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    3 –
    ‘Oh dear – first start reading!!!’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    4 –
    ‘Think for yourself for a change, Michael!’
    July 7, 2009 at 9:53 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/plant-evolution-has-much-complexity-in-its-story/

    5 –
    ‘I don’t think you understand how science is done.’
    June 30, 2009 at 1:15 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    6 –
    ‘I do not think you understand much about cosmology’
    July 1, 2009 at 1:13 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    7 –
    ‘You say you ‘know’ who created the Universe…. Now that is arrogant…’
    May 13, 2009 at 9:18 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/gathering-and-explaining-scientific-data-is-truly-limited/#comments

    8 –
    ‘Good to hear that at least that has gotten through to you.’
    June 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/new-discovery-about-dino-vindicates-creationism/#comments

    9 –
    ‘But I think you know all this, and you still, willingly and knowingly, decide to ignore all this. *That* is intellectual dishonesty.’
    May 16, 2009 at 4:57 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-myth-of-neandertals-continues-to-be-debunked/#comments

    10 –
    ‘Are you too lazy to read the books ?’
    May 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    11 –
    ‘if you cannot be bothered to read the scientific journals’
    May 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    12 –
    ‘Trying to conduct reasoned debate with you is tedious.’
    June 7, 2009 at 5:41 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

    13 –
    ‘Michael, why do you bother? Do you really think your readers are that stupid?’
    September 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/new-hypothesis-developed-for-the-staining-of-mars/#comments

    14 –
    ‘Data? Do you know what data is, as a creationist?
    I thought you ignored most of it?’
    September 5, 2009 at 3:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/mars-geology-has-some-interesting-data-for-creationism/#comments

    Okay, so we have a total now of 19 specific examples.

    I cannot keep searching through every post. This will have to suffice.

    [see Part 5]

  73. [here’s Part 4]

    (2) Further specific examples, 14 in number –

    1 –
    ‘Do you have any idea how science works? I think not.’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:52 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#commens

    2 –
    ‘Can you please do your own reading on dark matter? Why do you want me to do your homework?’
    January 30, 2009 at 10:10 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    3 –
    ‘Oh dear – first start reading!!!’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    4 –
    ‘Think for yourself for a change, Michael!’
    July 7, 2009 at 9:53 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/plant-evolution-has-much-complexity-in-its-story/

    5 –
    ‘I don’t think you understand how science is done.’
    June 30, 2009 at 1:15 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    6 –
    ‘I do not think you understand much about cosmology’
    July 1, 2009 at 1:13 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    7 –
    ‘You say you ‘know’ who created the Universe…. Now that is arrogant…’
    May 13, 2009 at 9:18 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/gathering-and-explaining-scientific-data-is-truly-limited/#comments

    8 –
    ‘Good to hear that at least that has gotten through to you.’
    June 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/new-discovery-about-dino-vindicates-creationism/#comments

    9 –
    ‘But I think you know all this, and you still, willingly and knowingly, decide to ignore all this. *That* is intellectual dishonesty.’
    May 16, 2009 at 4:57 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-myth-of-neandertals-continues-to-be-debunked/#comments

    10 –
    ‘Are you too lazy to read the books ?’
    May 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    11 –
    ‘if you cannot be bothered to read the scientific journals’
    May 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    12 –
    ‘Trying to conduct reasoned debate with you is tedious.’
    June 7, 2009 at 5:41 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

    13 –
    ‘Michael, why do you bother? Do you really think your readers are that stupid?’
    September 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/new-hypothesis-developed-for-the-staining-of-mars/#comments

    14 –
    ‘Data? Do you know what data is, as a creationist?
    I thought you ignored most of it?’
    September 5, 2009 at 3:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/mars-geology-has-some-interesting-data-for-creationism/#comments

    Okay, so we have a total now of 19 specific examples.

    I cannot keep searching through every post. This will have to suffice.

    [see Part 5]

  74. [This is Part 4]

    (2) Further specific examples, 14 in number –

    1 –
    ‘Do you have any idea how science works? I think not.’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:52 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#commens

    2 –
    ‘Can you please do your own reading on dark matter? Why do you want me to do your homework?’
    January 30, 2009 at 10:10 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    3 –
    ‘Oh dear – first start reading!!!’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    4 –
    ‘Think for yourself for a change, Michael!’
    July 7, 2009 at 9:53 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/plant-evolution-has-much-complexity-in-its-story/

    5 –
    ‘I don’t think you understand how science is done.’
    June 30, 2009 at 1:15 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    6 –
    ‘I do not think you understand much about cosmology’
    July 1, 2009 at 1:13 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    7 –
    ‘You say you ‘know’ who created the Universe…. Now that is arrogant…’
    May 13, 2009 at 9:18 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/gathering-and-explaining-scientific-data-is-truly-limited/#comments

    8 –
    ‘Good to hear that at least that has gotten through to you.’
    June 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/new-discovery-about-dino-vindicates-creationism/#comments

    9 –
    ‘But I think you know all this, and you still, willingly and knowingly, decide to ignore all this. *That* is intellectual dishonesty.’
    May 16, 2009 at 4:57 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-myth-of-neandertals-continues-to-be-debunked/#comments

    10 –
    ‘Are you too lazy to read the books ?’
    May 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    11 –
    ‘if you cannot be bothered to read the scientific journals’
    May 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    12 –
    ‘Trying to conduct reasoned debate with you is tedious.’
    June 7, 2009 at 5:41 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

    13 –
    ‘Michael, why do you bother? Do you really think your readers are that stupid?’
    September 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/new-hypothesis-developed-for-the-staining-of-mars/#comments

    14 –
    ‘Data? Do you know what data is, as a creationist?
    I thought you ignored most of it?’
    September 5, 2009 at 3:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/mars-geology-has-some-interesting-data-for-creationism/#comments

    Okay, so we have a total now of 19 specific examples.

    I cannot keep searching through every post. This will have to suffice.

    [see Part 5]

  75. [Nearly there. Here’s Part 4]

    (2) Further specific examples, 14 in number –

    1 –
    ‘Do you have any idea how science works? I think not.’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:52 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#commens

    2 –
    ‘Can you please do your own reading on dark matter? Why do you want me to do your homework?’
    January 30, 2009 at 10:10 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    3 –
    ‘Oh dear – first start reading!!!’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    4 –
    ‘Think for yourself for a change, Michael!’
    July 7, 2009 at 9:53 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/plant-evolution-has-much-complexity-in-its-story/

    5 –
    ‘I don’t think you understand how science is done.’
    June 30, 2009 at 1:15 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    6 –
    ‘I do not think you understand much about cosmology’
    July 1, 2009 at 1:13 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    7 –
    ‘You say you ‘know’ who created the Universe…. Now that is arrogant…’
    May 13, 2009 at 9:18 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/gathering-and-explaining-scientific-data-is-truly-limited/#comments

    8 –
    ‘Good to hear that at least that has gotten through to you.’
    June 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/new-discovery-about-dino-vindicates-creationism/#comments

    9 –
    ‘But I think you know all this, and you still, willingly and knowingly, decide to ignore all this. *That* is intellectual dishonesty.’
    May 16, 2009 at 4:57 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-myth-of-neandertals-continues-to-be-debunked/#comments

    10 –
    ‘Are you too lazy to read the books ?’
    May 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    11 –
    ‘if you cannot be bothered to read the scientific journals’
    May 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    12 –
    ‘Trying to conduct reasoned debate with you is tedious.’
    June 7, 2009 at 5:41 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

    13 –
    ‘Michael, why do you bother? Do you really think your readers are that stupid?’
    September 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/new-hypothesis-developed-for-the-staining-of-mars/#comments

    14 –
    ‘Data? Do you know what data is, as a creationist?
    I thought you ignored most of it?’
    September 5, 2009 at 3:50 am
    at
    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/mars-geology-has-some-interesting-data-for-creationism/#comments

    Okay, so we have a total now of 19 specific examples.

    I cannot keep searching through every post. This will have to suffice.

    [see Part 5]

  76. [Part 4]

    (2) Further specific examples, 14 in number –

    1 –
    ‘Do you have any idea how science works? I think not.’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:52
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/models-are-not-meeting-expectations-in-the-universe/#commens

    2 –
    ‘Can you please do your own reading on dark matter? Why do you want me to do your homework?’
    January 30, 2009 at 10:10
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    3 –
    ‘Oh dear – first start reading!!!’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/physicists-suggest-dark-matter-is-an-illusion/#comments

    4 –
    ‘Think for yourself for a change, Michael!’
    July 7, 2009 at 9:53
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/plant-evolution-has-much-complexity-in-its-story/

    5 –
    ‘I don’t think you understand how science is done.’
    June 30, 2009 at 1:15
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    6 –
    ‘I do not think you understand much about cosmology’
    July 1, 2009 at 1:13
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/creationist-museums-second-anniversary/

    7 –
    ‘You say you ‘know’ who created the Universe…. Now that is arrogant…’
    May 13, 2009 at 9:18
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/gathering-and-explaining-scientific-data-is-truly-limited/#comments

    8 –
    ‘Good to hear that at least that has gotten through to you.’
    June 17, 2009 at 3:08
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/new-discovery-about-dino-vindicates-creationism/#comments

    9 –
    ‘But I think you know all this, and you still, willingly and knowingly, decide to ignore all this. *That* is intellectual dishonesty.’
    May 16, 2009 at 4:57
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-myth-of-neandertals-continues-to-be-debunked/#comments

    10 –
    ‘Are you too lazy to read the books ?’
    May 29, 2009 at 1:43
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    11 –
    ‘if you cannot be bothered to read the scientific journals’
    May 29, 2009 at 4:13
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/is-evolutionary-biological-history-relevant-for-science/#comments

    12 –
    ‘Trying to conduct reasoned debate with you is tedious.’
    June 7, 2009 at 5:41
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

    13 –
    ‘Michael, why do you bother? Do you really think your readers are that stupid?’
    September 24, 2009 at 3:06
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/new-hypothesis-developed-for-the-staining-of-mars/#comments

    14 –
    ‘Data? Do you know what data is, as a creationist?
    I thought you ignored most of it?’
    September 5, 2009 at 3:50
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/mars-geology-has-some-interesting-data-for-creationism/#comments

    Okay, so we have a total now of 19 specific examples.

    I cannot keep searching through every post. This will have to suffice.

    [see Part 5]

  77. [Part 5 – final part]

    I cannot keep searching through every post. This will have to suffice.

    The fact is that your general manner is confrontational, condescending, dismissive, derisive and insulting. That’s fine if you’re okay with it; but it’s a bit rich for you get all offended just because someone thinks you’re a pompous twit

    I noticed as I was reviewing your comments that although you don’t mind calling people ignorant or confused or implying whatever else you like about them or their approach, the moment someone deals with you in like manner you immediately get in a right tizzy prancing around all indignant and denouncing them for using insults, or ad hominem or for making accusations. Yet you do it regularly.

    As I say, if you don’t like it, don’t dish it out.

    Please stop trying to come over all sweetness and light. It doesn’t wash. You have an evident inability to countenance the validity, credibility or integrity of any view which differs with yours and seem to feel you must deal with any such thing with derision and insult.

    Personally I think you’re something of a bully, Eelco. I think you’re dismissive, unreasonable and arrogant. And not a little deluded; I think you like to feel you embody the very heights of rationality whilst actually you sometimes seem to struggle to follow some straightforward rational arguments, most especially if they threaten your sense of Naturalistic superiority. But there you go. That’s you.

    All in all, Eelco, I feel ‘pompous twit’ is really a very mild slight; but entirely accurate –

    ‘But it is also arrogant for you to say that I don’t understand something’ (Eelco)
    May 31, 2009 at 3:26
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

    [The End]

  78. @ Dom, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, …

    UNBELIEVABLE

    UN..BE..LIEV..ABLE

    UN……BE……LIEV……ABLE

    A veritable cesspool of distilled bile. The stench arrived here unabated over 157 degrees of longitude.

    .
    .
    .
    .
    Dom, you need not worry about your feelings of inadequacy.

    They are entirely justified.

    0 Contributions to rational discussion
    0 Qualifications for science in general
    0 Knowledge of physics in particular
    0 Adequacy of dictionaries
    0 Ability to function in polite society
    0 Willingness to learn

  79. Dom, your posts seem to expand almost as rapidly as the universe at the time of inflation … which helps even less than it did before. They also seem to replicate themselves, but that probably wasn’t your doing …

    But I am not going to outdo you on quantity.

    You use ‘observe’ in the notion of ‘perceiving things’. That is not how scientists use it.

    I am not going to repeat over and over again that a indirect observation is also an obsevation, and that in fact most observations are indirect observations.

    Controversy: in science there are always contradicting views (and you can never be sure about anything), so that would make *all* of science controversial, in your interpretation of the word ‘controversy’. I stick to my interpretation of controversy: a significant fraction of contradicting views or number of people with contradicting views. These do no exist on the topic of the existence of dark matter, which this whole thing is about, but does of course for the *nature* of dark matter, what some of your references are about. I can name at most (at most) ten fellow cosmologists who doubt the existence of dark matter, including Sanders, Disney, and Zhao (who you pointed to), Milgrom and McGaugh. But that’s it.

    Now for controversy: dark energy, multiverse, superstrings. On these topics lots of opinions float about, and no consensus yet.

    On about the insults:

    Your insults:
    ‘pompous twit’ (with annotation that this is really mild)
    ‘pompous’
    ‘bully’
    ‘arrogant’
    ‘dismissive’
    ‘deluded’

    Then your list of my alleged ‘insults’:
    ‘mysterious’
    ‘ignorant’ (always in context, always about ignorance in a specific topic!)
    ‘start reading’
    ‘think for yourself’
    ‘arrogant’
    ‘intellectual dishonesty’ (with argument given)
    ‘lazy’

    Nah, I’ve not been insulting Michael, except perhaps for ‘lazy’.

  80. Eelco: “You use ‘observe’ in the notion of ‘perceiving things’. That is not how scientists use it.”

    Eelco: “I stick to my interpretation of controversy: a significant fraction of contradicting views or number of people with contradicting views.”

    Dom’s event horizon is limited to the boundaries of his Pocket Concise Dictionary.

    And he has very small pockets.

    Everyone else knows what you mean.

  81. @Olorin:

    I like you Lewis Carroll quote !

    As for your question:
    “Eelco, did I not read recently that CDM clumps had been predicted and detected displaced from galactic centers for two colliding galaxies? As I recall, the collision slows the galaxies but not the CDM halos, because of their nonreactivity. Another nugget of evidence?”

    When two galaxies merge, their dark matter haloes merge first, with the stars and gas following later. This is a prediction from simulations by Hernquist and Barnes, would explain the observations you refer to. Do you have a reference to this, by any chance ? Dark matter haloes for galaxies are harder to map then dark haloes of galaxy clusters …

  82. Olorin
    I think you are possibly incapable of thinking in a reasonable way. Listening to you seems to commonly become like listening to a nine year old who thinks he knows everything and thinks he is being so clever coming out with nonsense.

    Its’ expected of know-it-all nine year olds; but I’m guessing from some of the long words you use you’re quite a bit older than that. Don’t you ever feel embarrassed about your imbecilic behaviour?

    I’m sorry my posts came out in the repetitive jumble they did; but it was because of problems uploading them. Can you cope with that as a concept without feeling the need to mock?

    Or are you perhaps just the kind of person who enjoys mocking people having problems? I can imagine that could the case. It’s a poor substitute for reasoned discussion, though. Evading difficult questions as you did on the comments for the blog post ‘Did Unique Dinosaurs Turned Into Birds?’ and running round mocking and making fun of people. Why you must be an Evolutionist, Olorin.

    And although you refer to my posts as ‘A veritable cesspool of distilled bile’ if you could hold a thought in that clever head of yours for more than a spin round the goldfish bowl, you would realise, if you have been reading the comments here, that I initially provided Eelco with a few examples of his attitude much earlier on, but he kept asking me for examples; I kept referring him to the ones I had provided; he kept ignoring them and maintained his aggressive tone in repeating his ‘put up or shut’ line. So eventually I repeated them for him and added some more as those seemed invisible to him.

    If Eelco, had not kept ignoring and pushing, I would not have gone into more detail.

    And I point out that they are Eelco’s comments, not mine. But if you are upset at my description of Eelco, which is justified and accurate, perhaps you should reprimand Eelco for his demeanour. I have not come across an instance where you felt compelled to do so. Just like being part of the biggest gang, Olorin? Perhaps you feel insecure. You should, you are on very shaky ground.

    But certainly I am generally aware of my inadequacy, Olorin. I am inadequate because I am a human. It is you guys who seem to feel you rise to omnipotence.

    It’s a big drop. Tread carefully.

    The list of zeros you concoct is but another example of your asinine imagination.

    I have made contributions to rational discussion here. You ignore them if you wish; but that does not change the facts.

    One does not need scientific qualifications to discuss scientific issues; even we normal people have access to books and articles about science. But the qualification which would probably be most pertinent to trying to engage Evolutionists and Naturalists in discussion would probably be in Logic so as to be able to discern the stream of logical fallacies they employ in

    I actually do have a little knowledge of physics; just a tiny bit, but not actually zero.
    Certainly enough to know that mass is generally regarded as a distinct concept from matter.

    Regarding dictionaries, I have 3 three here which serve me well enough for general sage; more substantial ones are in storage. And use online ones too. I like dictionaries, they are fascinating. Why you should come up with that one I don’t know, except that you are peeved I refer to dictionaries at all. But I find I need to when debating Evolutionists/ Naturalists because they have a tendency to use word games as an evasive tactic.

    And I function fine in polite society. I don’t even feel the need to mock, deride, insult, intimidate or bully people who disagree with me. You guys should try it. It can have the bizarre effect of opening the way to what are known as ‘conversations.’ Try it; you might like them. But you’d also have to give up the know-it-all attitude, Olorin; it makes for very short conversations.

    And I think I have a willingness to learn; that’s one reason I read. I think what you must mean is that I have an unwillingness to unthinkingly accept your sense of your own superiority and infallibility. You guys usually get upset when someone doesn’t share your views of yourselves. Insecurity, perhaps.

    As for your comments re definitions; these are whitewash. Attempting to suggest scientists use ‘observe’ to mean something other than the general notion of perception is ludicrous. The whole ground of scientific enquiry is that of studying the world around us.

    And Eelco might stick to his definition of ‘controversy’; but that does not mean the word controversy does not mean what my dictionary indicates, does it? No, it does not.

    But even if the definition you supply were taken instead, to say it negates my point about controversy over the existence of Dark Matter depends upon your definition of ‘a significant fraction’. I think my examples indicate a significant fraction contend it might not exist. Certainly they show a ‘number of people with contradicting views.’

    You merely confirm my usage of the term is correct. Thank-you.

    As I say, try logic.

    But I suspect you are merely interested in trying to confuse things to appear superior. Certainly that seems to be the consistent nature of your comments between mockery.

  83. Eelco,
    apologies for the jumbled repetition of posts. Problems posting. And I do not mean to make long comments just for the sake of it. If I could make my points in less space I would. As it is, I try to be concise. But the need for clarity requires I lay it all out carefully.

    Your attempt to detach the idea of observation from that of perception is a pointless dead-end, Eelco. Conceptually, if you remove the idea of perception from observation what do you have remaining in the idea of observation? Nothing.

    Can you supply a scientific definition of observation which removes the notion of perception form the term?

    I realise indirect observation is also observation. I have acknowledged that.

    The point, as I think I have been clear about, is that it is one thing to directly observe effects and hypothesise as to their causes, it is quite another to hypothesis as to the cause of what is directly observed and then call that hypothesis a fact if conflicting valid explanations are available.

    It is a matter best condensed, I think, to the question of the tenability of presenting opinion as fact.

    Even you, when convenient, like to suggest that after all in science and ‘you can never be sure about anything’; but it seems you can be sure when it suits.

    My interpretation of the word ‘controversy’ is not peculiar to me, it is the dictionary definition. And if you would stop trying to evade the point, I think you would realise that my assertion controversy exists about the existence of Dark Matter is also confirmed with even your use of the word – ‘a significant fraction of contradicting views or number of people with contradicting views’, precisely as I have demonstrated exists concerning the matter of whether or not Dark Matter exists, as evident in the references to Scientific American, National Geographic, New Scientist, Physorg, Physics World and ScienceDaily

    You stick to your interpretation, Eelco; your interpretation proves my point. If you weren’t so determined to deny the obvious, you would have realised that already. Why you can even name some of those who have a view contrary to your own.

    Now you even try to fudge the obvious about your demeanour and comments.

    The examples I gave were not exhaustive, just a selection to make my point; and they make my point very clearly that your manner is generally condescending, derisive and insulting. You just gonna deny the facts here too? Is that what you do best, Eelco, just ignore what you don’t like and deny the plain facts?

    Not very reasonable of you.

  84. Dom, you keep repeating yourself to exhaustion, and I can only repeat what I’ve said before.

    Dark matter is detected/observed, in the scientific meaning of the word (‘recording data using scientific instruments’, as wikipedia put it, or the actual data itself).

    If a handful of cosmologists doubt the existence of dark matter, then it is not a controversy.

    And what you call the ‘obvious’ and ‘plain facts’ is nothing but your opinion, which I for one certainly do not share.

    Again, I have not insulted Michael, or you, on this blog. I have certainly accused him of various things (and rightfully so), and stated my opinions. Accusations are not insults. And they are easily proven (lots of misrepresentations of the state of current cosmology, very simple mistakes, etc.).

    In conclusion, the nice thing about a blog like this is that the reader can make up his own mind. I’ll leave it to the reader to do just that, and will continue to map the dark matter distribution in the universe.

  85. Eelco @ 14/2/2010 6:52 am: “Do you have a reference to this, by any chance ?”

    No, I can’t remember where I saw it.

    A theory gains credence when multiple independent experiments produce results consistent with it. You have so far not mentioned the anomalously low dispersion of star velocities in galactic satellites that are further independent evidence for cold dark matter—and, I believe, inconsistent with other hypotheses such as MOND.

  86. I have to repeat my points, Eelco, because you keep repeating yours as if don’t understand them.

    You repeat again, ‘Dark matter is detected/observed’ adding ‘in the scientific meaning of the word’ as if the scientific usage has some spectacularly different meanings than the normal the normal meanings of ‘detect’ or ‘observe’, or indeed, one could say, ‘perceive’.

    But your repeating your point does not alter my point that you infer matter because according to your hypothesis that is what explains the mass; not because you have seen/observed/detected/perceived matter. What you saw/observed/detected/perceived was the effect of mass.

    Even you yourself concede it was the effect of mass that you observed.

    You hypothesise the existence of unseen matter to account for the super-abundance of mass, then you observe the super-abundance of mass and attribute it to unseen matter, then you say you have observed the matter.

    You observed the effect of mass, inferred matter and then said you had observed matter. But what you observed was the effect of mass.

    As I have already said, to assert your hypothesis as the proof of your hypothesis is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

    You deny controversy exists all you want, Eelco; as is your way; but if a number of scientists publicly debate the matter with conflicting opinions, then that is controversy in the usual, normal, proper sense of the word.

    And now, suddenly, surprise surprise, more word games to avoid what is plain.

    You do not ‘insult’; no, no; you merely ‘accuse’ and ‘state… opinions’.

    But why when you accuse and state your opinion in an insulting way is that fine and dandy but if anyone so much as says boo to you it is an indefensible insult?

    If I said to you that in my opinion you’re ignorant, arrogant, intellectually dishonest, lazy and confused you’d be stamping and blustering all over the shop about my resorting to ad hominem and insult.

    But because I say you are pompous, you get in an indignant huff and demand I put up or shut up.

    But it’s just my opinion, Eelco. I’m only accusing you of being pompous because that’s my opinion; I’m just stating my opinion.

    And how did I know that no matter how many examples I provided you would dismiss them all out of hand and excuse yourself with some ridiculous word game.

    The obvious fact of the matter is that from all the evidence I have supplied my opinion of you is indeed acutely perceptive. Indeed, according to you the mere suggestion you might not understand something is an act of arrogance –

    ‘But it is also arrogant for you to say that I don’t understand something’ (Eelco)
    May 31, 2009 at 3:26
    at
    thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/battles-and-confusion-about-theistic-evolution/#comments

    I think it is plain where the arrogance is, Eelco.

  87. Yes, Dom, I do think it is plain where the arrogance is … not on my side. Again, I let the reader decide at this point, as you just repeat yourself yet again.

    One more point about observing then: you say that dark matter is detected through the effect is has on light (which is bend systematically), instead of through the emission and absorption of light, as ‘seeing’ normally involves. So in this case we observe light emitted from distant galaxies, which is then bend and observed as we normally observe light.

    What is different here ? The extra information from the bending ? Normally you use other information as well, like colour (the frequency of light), or polarization. Why is that OK, and bending is not ?

    The bending makes you observe mass, whereas frequency makes you observe colour.

    Specific points:
    “But what you observed was the effect of mass.”
    What I observed was the effect of a mass distribution (look at the press release again: we observed a mass map !). So the mass we observed is distributed over space: we observed matter (remember: mass is an amount of matter !).

    “but if a number of scientists publicly debate the matter with conflicting opinions, then that is controversy in the usual, normal, proper sense of the word.”

    It all depends on the number:
    – small number: consensus
    – large number: controversy

    “But because I say you are pompous, you get in an indignant huff and demand I put up or shut up.”
    No, I don’t really care what *you* call me: I cared what you alleged me to have called Michael ! That’s what the ‘put up or shut up’ was about: proof for my alleged insults. You’ve spotted ‘lazy’, which is indeed a minor insult.

    “If I said to you that in my opinion you’re ignorant, arrogant, intellectually dishonest, lazy and confused you’d be stamping and blustering all over the shop about my resorting to ad hominem and insult.”
    I only would if you would not back this up. I’ve accused Michael of various things, but provided arguments for that ! He has *repeatedly* misrepresented what scientists think. If you get that wrong, fine, but he persists in misrepresenting current views of scientists (not his own views, but that of others). He also then make various bold claims, repeatedly, which is when I accuse him of ignorance *on those points* (not in general).

    “But it’s just my opinion, Eelco. I’m only accusing you of being pompous because that’s my opinion; I’m just stating my opinion.”
    Calling someone a pompous twit is not an opinion, but an insult. You also did not provide arguments, or a context, but made a general statement about people reacting here. That’s not OK, in my opinion.

    Then I’ve lookup your last quote of me, which was preceeded by:
    “That’s too obvious to comment on. Of course I do not think I’m ‘right’ about everything. That would be arrogant.
    But it is also arrogant for you to say that I don’t understand something. Why would I not understand this ?”

    That ‘something’ was actually a specific topic there … and you did omit the line above your quote !

  88. Eelco,
    Yes, Eelco, let the reader decide; so stop repeating yourself.

    I didn’t say ‘dark matter is detected through the effect it has on light’; I said no such thing. You’re making it up. Is it any wonder I have to repeat my points when you so patently misrepresent them?

    You, I repeat, you said, at least twice, that mass is detected through the effect it has on light‘ (‘Gravitational lensing methods detect the mass through the effect of this light bending’ and ‘One detects mass through the effect of gravitational lensing’)

    That’s ‘mass’, Eelco’; ‘mass’, not ‘dark matter’.

    I said –
    ‘You hypothesise the existence of unseen matter to account for the super-abundance of mass, then you observe the super-abundance of mass and attribute it to unseen matter, then you say you have observed the matter… You observed the effect of mass, inferred matter and then said you had observed matter. But what you observed was the effect of mass.’

    Now you’re saying you observed mass but mass is an amount of matter so you observed matter. Just repeating yourself again, Eelco.

    If observing mass was observing matter then you would not need to look for, according to your hypothesis, hidden matter causing a super-abundance of mass, would you? Because, according to your logic, if you observe a super-abundance of mass you have observed a super-abundance of matter; so it would not be hidden matter, would it?

    All you’re telling me is what you have said before a number of times; you detect the effect of mass and infer the existence of matter. But your hypothesis already infers that matter; you’re just presenting your hypothesis as evidence of your hypothesis.

    No, Eelco, the term ‘controversy’ does not identify ‘small number’ or ‘large number.’

    Even your own definition merely identifies ‘a significant fraction… or number of people.’

    You can keep repeating your word games to your heart’s content; it won’t change the meaning of the term ‘controversy’ and it won’t change fact that that particular controversy exists.

    And still you to play word games about your manner. Fine. Pretend whatever makes you happy, Eelco. But your unpleasant demeanour is evident.

    You say –
    ‘I’ve accused Michael of various things, but provided arguments for that!’

    Just as I have provided arguments for accusing you of being pompous.

    ‘Lazy’ was only 1 example of your insulting manner, Eelco; I provided 19 examples. There are other instances too.

    But why is ‘lazy’ minor and ‘pompous’ major? Because Eelco so decrees?

    As for misrepresenting things, you, YOU, Eelco, misrepresent creationists and other scientists and make bold claims. Excuse your behaviour any which way you wish, Eelco, the facts are the facts.

    You seem to have one rule for Michael and another for yourself. You know what they call that, right? Now you’re just persuading me you’re a hypocritical pompous twit.

    As I have said, you seem incapable of arguing without attributing someone else’s disagreement with you to their ignorance, confusion or stupidity. Your general tone and specific comments are commonly confrontational, derisive, condescending and insulting.

    I have provided quite a number of examples; offering an apology seems not even to have entered that vast head of yours. All you do is squirm and wriggle with silly word games in order to justify to yourself why it is alright for you but not others.

    ‘Calling someone a pompous twit is not an opinion, but an insult’ you say.

    But calling someone ignorant, arrogant, intellectually dishonest, or lazy is not an insult but an opinion. So Eelco decrees.

    You say –
    ‘You also did not provide arguments, or a context, but made a general statement about people reacting here. That’s not OK, in my opinion.’

    I offered my opinion about the pompous twits posting on here. I don’t have to offer any arguments or context, Eelco. But as it happens, as you popped your head in and put your hand up, and I did then go onto provide 19 specific examples of your behaviour.

    Which, of course, have been dismissed out of hand. For is Eelco not indeed Eelco? And may he not indeed insult as he pleases and expect only reverence, deference and thanks in return? For he is Eelco!

    Regarding your assertion –
    ‘But it is also arrogant for you to say that I don’t understand something’

    No matter what came before or after, Eelco; you said it.

    How anyone could dare suggest there might be something you don’t understand, Eelco, I just don’t know. Crazy world, eh? They must be deluded, crazy, ignorant confused, stupid or uninformed or something. I blame the teachers.

  89. Even Wikipedia says…

    “In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation..”

    It’s a fill in the gap device with only “faint hints” of what they consider as detection. Another hypothetical are WIMPS which is supposed to be another solution to the dark matter problem. What is funny about this hypothetical, some think they actually know it’s characteristics which was mentioned on the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search Web site. One story full of predictions piled unto another story with more predictions without real evidence!

  90. Dom (2010-0214-1108): “But the qualification which would probably be most pertinent to trying to engage Evolutionists and Naturalists in discussion would probably be in Logic so as to be able to discern the stream of logical fallacies they employ in [sic]

    I actually do have a little knowledge of physics; just a tiny bit, but not actually zero. Certainly enough to know that mass is generally regarded as a distinct concept from matter..”

    Pop-quiz time again, Dom. Since you brought the subject up this time.

    (A) In what way(s) is mass a distinct concept from matter?

    Be specific.

    (B) All matter has mass. I have just measured a nonzero mass of an object. Therefore, the object contains matter.

    Is this a logical fallacy? If so, what type?

  91. Michael, your quote clearly states ‘Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’, where hypothetical refers to its nature (‘form of’), not its existence. The quote does not read ‘The hypothetical dark matter is …’.

    It further says: “.. . that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation..”
    Indeed, it is only detectable by light passing it, being bend, or by dynamical means.

  92. Michael: “Even Wikipedia says…

    “In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation..”

    Michael, we’ve spent almost a hundred comments saying that dark matter does not emit electromagnetic radiation. Where have you been?

    On the other hand, in true creationist fashion, you omit the next part of the quotation: “but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.

    I’m not sure why the author calls it “hypothetical.” It has certainly been detected by gravitational effects on light and on normal matter, and by its effect upon the velocity dispersion of galactic satellites—far more than your soi-disant “faint hints.” My guess would be that he said it because, no, we really don’t know what it “is” yet. Scientists called radioactivity hypothetical as well before determining its nature–it could have been something familiar, something completely new, or anything in between.

    I’m also mystified why the author says “inferred” instead of “detected” or observed.” You must realize, however, that all observations require inferences. The brain doesn’t actually “observe” the light that enters the eyes. The light is converted to chemical changes, which are converted in the eye to electrical pulses representing, not the scene itself but patterns of horizontal and vertical edges and gradients across those edges. Since this is a subconscious process, you never realize that you are only inferring the scene itself. Except of course, when an optical illusion trips you up. This is exactly where these illusions come from: mental inferences gone wrong.

    Michael: “Another hypothetical are WIMPS which is supposed to be another solution to the dark matter problem.”

    WIMPS are not “another solution.” This is a category error. They are not another theory—such as MOND—that might explain the observations. WIMPS are theoretical constructs that may be dark matter.

    I might ask Michael the question that Dom can’t explain. What is it about dark matter that requires creationists to deny it? The existence of dark matter would seem to be as neutral with respect to the Bible as, say, the existence of bacteria. What difference does it make? Believe it or not, I’m curious.

  93. Dom:
    “Yes, Eelco, let the reader decide; so stop repeating yourself.”

    So why is the only thing you do next just repeating yourself ???

    Oh, and you are making your insults a little stronger as well, and still present your opinions as facts. I will let the reader decide, and I am not going to repeat myself like you’re doing above.

    I’ve done my best explaining you how dark matter is detected, what the consensus in the community is (one that I am an active member off), shown you our dark matter maps and press release.

  94. Eelco,
    Wikipedia’s entry plainly asserts that Dark Matter is hypothetical. There’s no other way to interpret the statement ‘dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’ other than that it identifies the existence of Dark Matter as an hypothetical postulate.

    To try to assert the statement means the meaning you to try to wrench from it is imposing a meaning the statement does not have.

    If I say ‘Bing Bong Cheese is a hypothetical form of cheese’ I am clearly asserting the existence of that cheese is hypothetical.

    You insist on playing word games because you cannot countenance the plain meaning of the statement.

    And I repeated myself for two reasons, Eelco; both of which I have already stated. Ignored what I said? Well, of course, you have Eelco; ignoring what is there in front of your own eyes is, after all, what you do best isn’t it.

    I repeat myself because you yourself, yes, you, Eelco, that’s right you yourself, you, keep repeating your points.

    And I repeated myself because you completely misrepresented what I said.

    If you wish me repeat these again, just ignore me and ask me the same question again.

    How is it you can repeat the same thing again and again but you expect me to shut up?

    Oh, I’ve figured it out. You are he; you are indeed Eelco. Therefore shall you do what no others shall be allowed to do. For are you not he? Are you not Eelco? And shall not you have one rule and all others another? Indeed, for Eelco decrees.

    Making your insults a little stronger? Just stating my opinion, Eelco.

    And I think it’s a bit rich you accusing someone else of presenting opinion as fact. Stones, glass houses etc.

    You have explained how you present opinion as fact with circular reasoning by using your hypothesis as evidence of your hypothesis; you have more than once confused mass and matter; you have denied the obvious existence of controversy over the existence of Dark Matter; and you have shown me a press release which also presents your logical fallacy and as well as some nice pictures of invisible stuff (Photoshop?)

  95. Dom: “Wikipedia’s entry plainly asserts that Dark Matter is hypothetical. There’s no other way to interpret the statement ‘dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’ other than that it identifies the existence of Dark Matter as an hypothetical postulate.”

    All that the wikipedia entry says is that the nature of dark matter, i.e. what form of matter it is, is hypothetical. It does not say that its existence is hypothetical.
    Reading the next line, you can see how it can be detected, and so it has.

    Your final accusation that our dark matter maps are just photoshopped is interesting, but I miss the evidence for this accusation.

  96. Eelco,
    repeating yourself? Is that allowed?

    Wikipedia’s entry plainly asserts that Dark Matter is hypothetical. There’s no other way to interpret the statement ‘dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’ other than that it identifies the existence of Dark Matter as an hypothetical postulate.You insist on playing word games because you cannot countenance the plain meaning of the statement.

    It goes on to say that its ‘presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.’

    Inferred.

    ‘…dark matter… Despite this progress we still don’t know exactly what this is; and we can’t be sure that it exists at all.’ EURECA

    The photoshop bit was joke, Eelco. ‘Cause in a picture you can’t see something that is invisble can you?

    It loses something in the explanation. You should get out more.

  97. Dom: “You should get out more.”
    I do, all the time. Observing at telescopes around the globe. Do you ?

    You keep repeating yourself, and I have already explained that wikipedia’s use of hypothetical is about the nature of dark matter, not about its existence. I think this is quite clear, especially with the line following it, which you keep ignoring.

    Now my own team have detected dark matter in 2D, but one can actually do better: 3D !

    Here is how: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/found_most_of_the_universe/

    A nice quote from this site:
    “That is how scientists can detect dark matter. Mass (both visible and invisible) twists, bends, and warps the light from distant galaxies on its way from there to here. The visible mass can be measured in several ways, and by subtracting the visible component from the total mass, researchers are able to find the location and quantity of dark matter.”

  98. Dom: “‘Cause in a picture you can’t see something that is invisble can you?”

    Well, apparently you can ! Clever, isn’t it ?
    Anything you can detect you can make a picture of …

    Never seen an X-ray of you own internals ? Invisible (if you don’t cut yourself open, that is), but still you can produce a picture of your lungs, for example.

  99. Dom: “You should get out more.”
    I do, all the time. Observing at telescopes around the globe. Do you ?

    Yes I get out and about. But Eelco, that also was a joke.

    Joke –
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

    I keep repeating myself because you keep repeating yourself. I have already told you that; repeat: I have already told you that.

    And I have already explained to you that Wikipedia’s entry clearly asserts the existence of Dark Matter is hypothetical. I have not ignored the line following it; you ignored my comment on it.

    Wikipedia entry on Dark Matter, first paragraph [emphasis added]-
    ‘In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy could account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.’

    This perfectly, absolutely, totally, definitely, undeniably clearly asserts Dark Matter’s existence is hypothetical.

    No two, three or four ways about it. You are evasive as ever, Eelco.

    Your team, I thought you said, detected the effect of mass. You then inferred the existence of the hypothetical Dark Matter.

    As I have said, you hypothesise the existence of unseen matter to account for the super-abundance of mass, then you observe the super-abundance of mass and attribute it to unseen matter, then you say you have observed the matter… You observed the effect of mass, inferred matter and then said you had observed matter. But what you observed was the effect of mass.

    Just because the site you refer me to cannot detect your logical fallacy does not mean it is not there, Eelco.

    No Eelco, in a picture you cannot see something that is invisible. X-rays of internals are of things essentially visible. But it was a joke, Eelco.

    Altogether, though Eelco, I observe you just will not allow yourself to admit where you are wrong will you? In my opinion that is intellectually dishonest of you. That’s not a joke; that’s an honest opinion.

  100. Wikipedia entry on Dark Matter, first paragraph [EMPHASIS added]-

    ‘In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is A HYPOTHETICAL FORM OF MATTER that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be INFERRED from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy COULD account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.’

  101. Dom: “But Eelco, that also was a joke.”

    Ha ha.

    Dom: “you ignored my comment on it.”

    In your 10:18 comment you leave it out, while it is an essential part of what the wikipedia sentence. The ‘but’ clearly is there to be taken seriously, not ignored.

    Dom: “But what you observed was the effect of mass.”

    Which means …. we have observed the mass, indirectly, as said so many times already. And we observed this mass to be distributed – i.e. we observed matter. And this matter is dark. So we have observed dark matter. It really is not that hard to understand.

    Dom: “No Eelco, in a picture you cannot see something that is invisible. X-rays of internals are of things essentially visible.”

    “essentially visible” is a nice expression, but I cannot see your lungs until I cut you open. So these are essential invisible while you live. Dark matter candidates like WIMPS can, in principle, be detected directly, just like neutrinos (also dark matter candidates still !), but it is very hard, and we have therefore *not yet* succeeded (although there are now claims going around …). So dark matter is essentially visible, in your phrasing, as soon as we’ve managed to build detectors that interact with dark matter particles.

    Dom: “But it was a joke, Eelco.”

    Ha ha. But why repeating it then ?

    Dom: “Altogether, though Eelco, I observe you just will not allow yourself to admit where you are wrong will you? In my opinion that is intellectually dishonest of you. That’s not a joke; that’s an honest opinion.”

    It would actually be intellectually dishonest if I would say that I’m wrong when I really think I am not ! That would be a lie. I think I am right, and thus I say so.

  102. Yes Dom, stop repeating yourself. I’ve explained the ‘hypothetical’ often enough now. The nature of dark matter is unknown (hypothetical particles like WIMPS), its existence is not.
    The fact that something exists does not mean you understand what it is made of. Again the analogy with radioactivity should not be forgotten ! Alpha, beta and gamma radiation, remember ?

    The ‘COULD’ reflects on the fact that dark matter is mostly observed in galaxies and galaxy clusters, and one cannot be sure that the rest of the universe (filaments, voids) also contains dark matter.
    People are now trying to measure the large-scale dark matter distribution using another lensing method, which is not easy and not conclusive yet. Hence the ‘COULD’. We know for sure for galaxy clusters and galaxies, but not for the rest of the universe.

  103. Eelco,

    In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is A HYPOTHETICAL FORM OF MATTER that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be INFERRED from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy COULD account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.’

    This absolutely, perfectly, completely clearly asserts Dark Matter’s existence is hypothetical.

    Deny it all you Eelco; it won’t make it go away.

    You indirectly observed mass; which is where you started form in the first place.

    You hypothesise the existence of unseen matter to account for the super-abundance of mass, then you observe the super-abundance of mass and attribute it to unseen matter, then you say you have observed the matter.

    You observed the effect of mass, inferred matter and then said you had observed matter. But what you observed was the effect of mass.

    As I have already said, to assert your hypothesis as the proof of your hypothesis is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

    Internal parts of the body are visually perceptible things. Your comparison was just lousy. And it was a joke.

    EURECA: ‘…dark matter… we still don’t know exactly what this is; and we can’t be sure that it exists at all.’

    Joke repeat because of serious response from Eelco who not only did not get joke but responded with nonsensical rebuff because Eelco understands everything.

    You think you are right? Really? Well, I guess when you gotta live with it all the time it just kinds wears you down, right? Is your being right a universal constant? Or is it relative to the fact you ignore fact, logic and the existence of other views entirely?

  104. Yes Eelco,

    YOU stop repeating YOURSELF you pompous twit.

    I’ve demonstrated your error, shown your behaviour for what it is, and explained your intellectual dishonesty enough now.

  105. Dom: “I’ve demonstrated your error, shown your behaviour for what it is, and explained your intellectual dishonesty enough now.”

    No, you have not at all demonstrated my error. And I am not intellectually dishonest, as I still think that what I have said here is correct, and I would actually be dishonest if I would say otherwise.

    Dom: “You observed the effect of mass, …”

    I observe the effect of mass on the light of background galaxies, and therefore observed the mass to exist, and because it is dark and distributed, I have observed dark matter.

    Dom: “Internal parts of the body are visually perceptible things.”

    What do you mean by ‘visually perceptible things’ ?? Lungs etc. are invisible, and only indirectly observable using X-rays.

    Dom: “YOU stop repeating YOURSELF you pompous twit.”

    You have already said ‘pompous twit’ before, so you are repeating yourself.

  106. Firstly, I have shown that you present a logical fallacy –

    You hypothesise the existence of unseen matter to account for the super-abundance of mass, then you observe the super-abundance of mass and attribute it to unseen matter, then you say you have observed the matter… You observed the effect of mass, inferred matter and then said you had observed matter. But what you observed was the effect of mass… to assert your hypothesis as the proof of your hypothesis is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

    secondly, your intellectual dishonesty has been evident in your denial of the obvious and various methods of evasiveness –

    -You refuse admit there exists controversy about the existence of Dark Matter, in spite of the evidence, so you call it ‘alternatives’ instead.

    -You refuse to admit your behaviour is dismissive, condescending and insulting, in spite of the evidence, so you call your behaviour ‘opinion’ and ‘accusation’ instead.

    -You decry behaviour toward you that you dislike but treat others exactly that way yourself.

    -You refuse to accept the plain meanings of texts and twice attempted to distort the meanings of texts because you did not like what they said.

    -You attempted to misrepresent MOND as not conflicting with the Dark Matter hypothesis.

    -You refuse to admit when you have confused an issue; i.e. referring to mass as matter.

    -You misrepresent what I have said without any attempt at apology or acknowledgement or correction when pointed out.

    -All in all, Eelco, your intellectual dishonesty is not only plain but expansive.

    Thirdly, you say –
    ‘I observe the effect of mass on the light of background galaxies, and therefore observed the mass to exist, and because it is dark and distributed, I have observed dark matter.’

    But this is yet another reiteration of your logical fallacy. Mass and matter are different things. You infer matter because that’s what you hypothesise.

    Fourthly, lungs etc are visible, Eelco. I think surgeons often see them.

    Fifthly, I am allowed to repeat myself just as much as you are, Eelco. You may think others must jump at your command merely because you are he, you are Eelco, but actually other people are allowed to do as you do too, whether you give them permission or not.

  107. The only new thing:

    Dom: “Fourthly, lungs etc are visible, Eelco. I think surgeons often see them.”

    Didn’t I already say that it is visible in case you cut someone open ? Pretty extreme in case you just want to observe the lungs …

    Other than that you are just repeating yourself. Which you are perfectly entitled to do: it is not very helpful, though.
    Especially repeating insults.

    Finally, I do not “refuse” to do this or that: it is not a question of refusing to agree: I actually do not agree with what you are saying.

  108. “The only new thing”
    “Didn’t I already say that it is visible in case you cut someone open?”

    Yes Eelco you did; then contradicted yourself by saying ‘Lungs etc. are invisible, and only indirectly observable using X-rays.’

    Other than that you are just repeating yourself. Which you are perfectly entitled to do: it is not very helpful, though. Especially repeating denials and evasions and misrepresentations.

    You say –
    ‘It is not a question of refusing to agree’ but I never said anything about your refusing to agree. You are making that up. Evasiveness and misrepresentation on your part, again, Eelco.

    What I said was –

    ‘Your intellectual dishonesty has been evident in your denial of the obvious and various methods of evasiveness –

    -You refuse admit there exists controversy about the existence of Dark Matter, in spite of the evidence, so you call it ‘alternatives’ instead.

    -You refuse to admit your behaviour is dismissive, condescending and insulting, in spite of the evidence, so you call your behaviour ‘opinion’ and ‘accusation’ instead.

    -You decry behaviour toward you that you dislike but treat others exactly that way yourself.

    -You refuse to accept the plain meanings of texts and twice attempted to distort the meanings of texts because you did not like what they said.

    -You attempted to misrepresent MOND as not conflicting with the Dark Matter hypothesis.

    -You refuse to admit when you have confused an issue; i.e. referring to mass as matter.

    -You misrepresent what I have said without any attempt at apology or acknowledgement or correction when pointed out.

    All in all, Eelco, your intellectual dishonesty is not only plain but expansive.’

  109. Dom: “Yes Eelco you did; then contradicted yourself by saying ‘Lungs etc. are invisible, and only indirectly observable using X-rays.’”

    How did I contradict myself ?? You cannot observe lungs, unless you cut someone open.

    This is my analogy with dark matter: this can be observed indirectly (like taking X-rays of lungs), unless someone comes up with a good enough detector to directly observe dark matter (in a mine, perhaps), which is much harder (just like cutting someone open just to look at lungs is much harder than taking X-rays).

    In both cases the easiest is the indirect way.

    The rest of your post is nothing new, just repeats, over and over again ….

  110. Eelco (2010-0215-0318): “Michael, your quote clearly states ‘Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’, where hypothetical refers to its nature (‘form of’), not its existence. The quote does not read ‘The hypothetical dark matter is …’. ‘

    Dom (2010-0215-0852): “If I say ‘Bing Bong Cheese is a hypothetical form of cheese’ I am clearly asserting the existence of that cheese is hypothetical.”

    Approach the issue grammatically, Dom. Yeah, parse the sentence. “hypothetical” modifies the word “form.” It does not modify “matter.” To appreciate the difference, you might try recasting the sentences as “Dark matter is a form of hypothetical matter,” and “Bing Bong Cheese is a form of hypothetical cheese.” See how easy that was?

    Your hypothetical form of Bing Bong Cheese causes observable mental confusion. Or perhaps it was the aftereffects of Creationist Grammar 50 1/2. (A highly remedial course.)

  111. Eelco,
    ‘Never seen an X-ray of you own internals? Invisible (if you don’t cut yourself open, that is), but still you can produce a picture of your lungs, for example.’

    ‘Lungs etc. are invisible, and only indirectly observable using X-rays.’

    I took the second statement to suggest lungs are only indirectly observable, after you had stated they can be observed if someone is cut open, in so many words.

    On second reading, I see it can be taken to mean indirectly observable specifically using X-rays.

    So yes, you can argue you didn’t contradict yourself there.

    However, lungs are objects that can be detected visually, Eelco; whether one can see them at a particular time or not; which is why your comparison does not work.

    As for my repeating what I had said, it was because yet again you misrepresented what I had said in order to evade the implications of what I’d said.

    Eelco the evader.

  112. Olorin,
    the meaning is straightforward, evident and undeniable; and the rest of paragraph’s consistency with this underlines it even more emphatically [EMPHASIS added]-

    ‘In astronomy and cosmology, DARK MATTER IS A HYPOTHETICAL FORM OF MATTER that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence CAN BE INFERRED from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy COULD account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.’

    Is your evasive waffly drivel supposed to achieve anything other then make you look like an idiot?

  113. Dom: “DARK MATTER IS A HYPOTHETICAL FORM OF MATTER”

    We’ve already beaten teat one to death. A Nederlander has to teach you English grammar.

    Dom: “CAN BE INFERRED from gravitational effects ”

    In the dark room, I can’t see the wall. But I CAN INFER its presence by tactile means when I careen into it at sufficiently high velocity.

    Dom: “COULD account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.”

    Or dark matter could be somewhat less than a vast majority; maybe there’s SOMETHING ELSE out there too.
    .
    .

    This entire subargument is miring itself in a miasma of obfuscation. Arguing the nature of a cosmological phenomenon by dissecting the placement of a adjective in a second-hand source such as Wikipedia? Priceless. (And valueless.)

    This does, however, point up a fundamental difference between scientific research and theological investigation. Dom’s approach may be valid in theology, where kabbalists analyze every jot and tittle of a revealed text in order to determine weighty questions of morality such as whether energizing an electrical circuit breaks the Shabbat (it does—see under “fire”) or when sundown prayers commence north of the Arctic Circle (debate still in progress)

    In science, the ultimate authority is physical evidence. Words in reviewed literature carry weight, because, unlike creationists, the authors will lose credibility for unsupported work, and will lose their professional lives for fraud. Even peer-reviewed work is analyzed and replicated. Secondary authorities carry no probative value whatever—at best, the opinions in these sources may suggest further work or avenues to investigate.

    Creationists seem incapable of groking the difference between the theological and the scientific paradigms. Whether this is due to ignorance, delusion, or some other cause is debatable. Put, as long as it persists, we might as well be talking to a wall.

    You can argue all you like that the Wikiwiki entry says no such thing, or that Wikipedia itself is not authoritative. It matters not to them.

  114. I really should not be disparaging. After all, it was a Dutch professor of statistical mechanics in grad school who informed me of the proper usage of hyphens in English compound adjectives….

  115. Olorin,
    So why are you beating a dead horse, Olorin?

    You claim to teach me grammar, but all you’re demonstrating is a propensity for sulking and a talent for making a spectacle of yourself.

    I am not ‘dissecting the placement of an adjective’; that is yours and Eelco’s evasive game. And if you don’t like Wikipeda as a source, tell Eelco; he first made reference to it.

    If you think arguing the way you are is valueless, then why don’t you trying desisting Olorin, o brainy being.

    And you paint an expansive landscape of your ridiculous prejudicial world view, but you are, perhaps unsurprisingly, wrong again. My approach has been to present the plain straightforward text. It is you and Eelco who are tying the text up in knots to avoid its plain meaning.

    The Wikipedia text is plain that ‘dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter’; as is that of the Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy (‘Another explanation would be… Consequently the dark matter hypothesis is much preferred.’), EURECA (‘A substantial fraction of the Universe is made up of non-baryonic dark matter. Despite this progress we still don’t know exactly what this is; and we can’t be sure that it exists at all’), the 2009 ScienceDaily article (‘As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists’), and the statement of Astrophysicist Bob Sanders (‘the dark matter hypothesis’).

    You try to twist the plain meaning of the Wikipedia text all you wish, it is neither open to interpretation, for it is obvious in meaning, not does it stand alone as an example of its meaning.

    And you present a romanticised misconception when you say that ‘In science, the ultimate authority is physical evidence’; that is simply not he case. If it were then the scientific community at large would comprehensively have thrown Evolutionism into the bin altogether, as opposed to the way it is sliding its way out of the central tenets of Darwinsim inch by inch because Darwin was obviously wrong. Authority seems instead to rest with an absurd philosophical consensus which cannot countenance the idea of anything beyond Nature.

    And you show your prejudice and ignorance again, Olorin, when you describe reviewed literature and suggest Creationists are outside such a process. Misrepresentative again, Olorin; one of your most trusted tools in your tool box.

    And I hope you are not suggesting sources like Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy, EURECA, Astrophysicist Bob Sanders are secondary. Just ignoring what you don’t like. Another of your favoured tools from the tool box.

    I think Biblical Creationist actually tend to grasp much more firmly the difference between the Biblical and the Naturalistic paradigms. It is Naturalists who seem to me to persistently confuse foundational assumptions and scientific enquiry. You do it habitually.

    You couldn’t talk to a wall without demanding it be called a parakeet.

    I am not arguing ‘that the Wikipedia entry says no such thing’; that is what you and Eelco have been doing. Can you not get even the most basic point of fact right? Must you confuse and misrepresent EVERYTHING?

    But I did not initially reference Wikipedia; Eelco did.

    You guys are ridiculous.

    And, no Olorin, perhaps you’d better not be too disparaging; stones, glass houses, etc. Because in the Wikipedia text you and Eelco have been at pains to distort there are no hyphenated compound adjectives –

    ‘In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy could account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.’

  116. Dom, for me the wikipedia entry is clear enough, and represents the state of play as I know it (as an active researcher in the field) fairly well.

    Of course Olorin is absolutely right stating that physical evidence (like I presented) is the most reliable, first-hand source, but the scientific literature is often fairly technical. The wikipedia article does a good job summarizing what science currently thinks about dark matter (which I tried to convey to you), in my opinion.

    Do with this whatever you like, Dom. I’m now going to let the (very few) readers make up their mind, like I said a while ago.

  117. Dom (2010-0214-1108): “But the qualification which would probably be most pertinent to trying to engage Evolutionists and Naturalists in discussion would probably be in Logic so as to be able to discern the stream of logical fallacies they employ in [sic]

    I actually do have a little knowledge of physics; just a tiny bit, but not actually zero. Certainly enough to know that mass is generally regarded as a distinct concept from matter.”

    Olorin 2010-0215-0118) “Since you brought the subject up this time. (A) In what way(s) is mass a distinct concept from matter? Be specific. (B) All matter has mass. I have just measured a nonzero mass of an object. Therefore, the object contains matter. Is this a logical fallacy? If so, what type?”

    Dom (2010-0215-0901): “And the right answer is –
    Oh Olorin, you’re just too clever for me!”

    Perhaps, but that’s not the point. The point was your claim to a minimal modicum of knowledge in logic and physics. The evidence seems to be in:

    0 LOGIC
    0 PHYSICS

    Please pardon me for arranging demonstrations, instead of engaging in feckless “Yes I do”/”No you don’t” hot air.

    Someday Dom may indeed shatter my expectations with actual evidence of knowledge. But, so far……

    .

    Dom (2010-0213-1723): “Personally I think you’re something of a bully, Eelco. I think you’re dismissive, unreasonable and arrogant.”

    To the willfully ignorant, knowledge is taken as arrogance….

  118. Olorin
    I dunno, but you’re just too deep for me.

    But don’t forget – to the willfully derisive, rude and evasive arrogance is taken as knowledge.

  119. Eelco
    the Wikipedia entry is perfectly clear. It states Dark Matter is hypothetical.

    The statements from Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy, EURECA, ScienceDaily, and Astrophysicist Bob Sanders also clearly indicate Dark Matter to be hypothetical.

    You didn’t present physical evidence, Eelco, you presented an official version of your logical fallacy.

    Is your press release a more direct first hand and reliable source than Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy, EURECA or Astrophysicist Bob Sanders? Are these people not able to understand ‘fairly technical’ literature?

    You say ‘The wikipedia article does a good job summarizing what science currently thinks about dark matter’; and that article asserts that Dark Matter is hypothetical: ‘In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter.’

    Far from trying to convey this to me, you have denied Dark Matter is hypothetical at all and tried to distort the plain and obvious meaning of the Wikipedia statement that it is.

    If you are ‘now going to let the (very few) readers make up their mind, like I said a while ago’, then why don’t you actually do so and stop your persistent efforts to misrepresent the Wikipedia entry and portray the crux of this discussion as being simply a matter of your being better informed than anyone else on the planet.

  120. Bugger, lost my card … oh well … time for a game of quantum fluctuations in an inflationary universe.

  121. Dom,

    Eelco is a blur when he tries to make his viewpoint known, for example, he says, “Do with this whatever you like, Dom. I’m now going to let the (very few) readers make up their mind, like I said a while ago.” This is a classic example of storytelling, Eelco doesn’t know how many readers there are, he has no observational data to reach such a conclusion, yet he makes such a comment. And one wonders why science has been malpractice by the secularists. It’s the same reason why there is a climategate and scientists there are under fire. Even though those who contribute in Wikipedia, for the most part believe dark matter exists but until it’s really detected, they consider it a hypothetical which is an accurate label of the data. Are mainstream media outlets wrong in saying dark matter has yet to be detected for the first time?

    “For 80 years, it has eluded the finest minds in science. But tonight it appeared that the hunt may be over for dark matter, the mysterious and invisible substance that accounts for three-quarters of the matter in the universe.’ -UK Guardian

    It’s going to take them a year to decide if they captured what they think is dark matter, which is something they have never observed before but claim to know what it is in order to capture it in the first place…Similar to that of Eelco’s estimation on readers…A more logical conclusion is…

    “A minority of astronomers and physicists dismiss dark matter as a fudge. Instead, they suspect that the strength of gravity varies from place to place.”

  122. Michael, it is my educated guess that there are very few readers on your blog. I do have observational data on which I base this guess: the very few reactions that are posted here. Few reactions –> few readers. Not that hard to base a rough estimate (‘very few’) on that. Of course I should quote uncertainties, and discuss at length the pitfalls in such an estimate, run some monte-carlo simulations, etc.

    Is that worth it ?

    Obviously I strongly disagree with your ‘dark matter is not detected’ line, but I do agree with your last sentence, as a few astronomers and physicists do indeed make such claims. They are usually not cosmologists, though.

  123. Michael: “Eelco doesn’t know how many readers there are, he has no observational data to reach such a conclusion, yet he makes such a comment.”

    On the other hand, the one person who does have data on the hits to his blog is apparently not willing to controvert Eelco’s estimate.[1]

    How about it, Michael? Hmmmmm?

    The undersigned devoted readers want to know.

    — Olorin
    — Socrates Puppette
    — Upson Downes
    — Beck N. Forth
    — Chick & Gordon Bleu
    — Helena Handbasket
    — Ray D. O’Waves
    — Ann Korzaway
    — Beau Tocs
    — Nu Moon
    — Chester Field
    — Ford vanDoor Key

    =========

    [1] We should distinguish ‘reader’ from glancing blows by those who merely drop by, have a good laugh, then disappear back into te Oort cloud. The first job of any statistical analysis, of course, is to define the population.

  124. Eelco, Michael is not only illiterate in scientific concepts, he often exhibits a failure of reading comprehension, as you noted with respect to the Wikipedia entry.

    In the past two months alone, I have been moved to comment by the egregiousness of several specific lapses of his basic reading skills, viz—

    Olorin comment 2010-0108-0432 for post dated 2010-0108. Michael thought an article said that portions of the Old Testament were first written in Greek. The authors were referring to the New Testament.

    Olorin comment 2010-0101-1745 for post dated 2009-1231. Michael grabbed a quote which actually demonstrated the opposite of his contention.

    Olorin comment 2009-1218-1148 for post dated 2010-1217. Michael said that an article stated junk DNA was redefined as non-functional DNA, when it had actually been redefined as non-coding—an entirely different concept.

    My opinion is that Michael is incapable of comprehending anything that disagrees with his beliefs. Not just unwilling, but incapable.

    =============

    Time stamps are in the format YYYY-MMDD-HHMM

  125. Olorin: “On the other hand, the one person who does have data on the hits to his blog is apparently not willing to controvert Eelco’s estimate.”

    Creationists can become very quiet when one calls their bluff.

    Chirp… chirp… chirp…

    PS: The substantive review of Signature in the Cell that Michael promised last August—oh, six months ago, now—has likewise never materialized.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s