« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: What is Twistor Theory? | Roger Penrose AND What came before Big Bang? Why he changed his mind.

By: De_Composed in GRITZ | Recommend this post (0)
Mon, 09 Jun 25 12:54 AM | 15 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens!
Msg. 09400 of 09425
(This msg. is a reply to 09399 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Re: “Absolutely was using the FIRST definition. ”Come on, mt. You're a smart guy. Surely you understand that what I wrote, "scientific consensus" - or, "scientific general agreement" - has a very different meaning than what you wrote, "science BY consensus" (emphasis mine.) The inclusion of "BY" means that consensus is how the science is performed. It is, of course, a despicable, childish, LEFTIST practice. So, why did you change the context behind what I wrote, distorting the meaning severely? You ARE a scientist, so you know better.

I was hoping - and thought - you were joking. Computers don't have a "sarcasm" font, after all. But you say you weren't. Were you just being sloppy... or communicating poorly? That's okay, too. It happens to the best of us.

If it's neither of those things then . . . tsk, tsk.






- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: What is Twistor Theory? | Roger Penrose AND What came before Big Bang? Why he changed his mind.
By: monkeytrots
in GRITZ
Mon, 09 Jun 25 12:39 AM
Msg. 09399 of 09425

Webster:
1 a: general agreement : unanimity
the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border
—John Hersey

Absolutely was using the FIRST definition. And still strenuously object to using that as ANY form of 'validation of truth'.

It is nothing better than 'argumentation by authority', in this case 'the authority of the majority'.

It still remains, irrefutably, a basic error in logic.

There is little doubt in my mind that the majority of vocal physicists pushing hypothesis (NOT theories) of the big bang do not believe in Creation - even though the research they are publishing clearly shows the CREATION of matter(and various and sundry particles') where no matter existed 'pre big bang'.

Also of note: NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF OTHER UNIVERSES - but widely 'believed' to be possible.

God CEASED creating on the Seventh Day. There is no evidence of any more 'matter' creating 'big bangs' occurring elsewhere or since. Again, observable science not being in disagreement with the 'simple minded' explanation of Genesis.


« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next