Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
This Is Not Scientific Analysis

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by M.W.Pearson on May 8, 2002 04:16:00 UTC

assertions are not the same as
carefully supported arguments using
citations of the exact, detailed work
of other scientists. Other scientists
typically do not operate at the grand scheme level, but at the careful assembly of one more
piece at a time.
Those who operate at the grand scheme level
must still cite exact facts which have been
carefully assembled by their colleagues, peers...
folks who work in the field
So are you saying your work is based on
the exact work of other scientists?
When you make an assertion to overturn
conventional scientific consensus, do you cite the work of career scientists so that your fact base is secure...for it is only new interpretation you appear to offer...and so are
you relying on the findings of career scientists
as to the habits of geologic processes?

An honest, comprehensive reply from you will
almost certainly not be given.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins