Warning: include_once(/homepages/8/d566965614/htdocs/svod-europe/wp-content/plugins/Akismet3/Akismet3.php): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /homepages/8/d566965614/htdocs/svod-europe/wp-settings.php on line 254

Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '/homepages/8/d566965614/htdocs/svod-europe/wp-content/plugins/Akismet3/Akismet3.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php5.5') in /homepages/8/d566965614/htdocs/svod-europe/wp-settings.php on line 254
You are right. - SVOD-Europe

You are right.

October 29, 2018 at 3:30 pm

Once again, it seems Forrest mistakes results which are unexpected from our current models of galaxy formation (know to be incomplete) for evidence against the big bang (which no one claims). In this instance yours is not. A random cut-and-paste error can perhaps be written off as an honest mistake. And, as we have seen multiple times (most recently highlighted by John Galt above), Forrest is unfortunately willing to go beyond mere cherry-picking.

It’s the hypothesis that best fits the evidence. Originally Posted by forrest noble I gave three quotes from the link, two seem to conflict with what was expected, and one quote did how to write an economics essay a level
not. I would like to have seen either a retraction, or an acknowledgement that you were mistaken. I gave three quotes from the link, two seem to conflict with what was expected, and one quote did not.

You keep arguing on the basis of a badly written secondary source and think we should value the conclusions you draw from that.While we are at it, let’s look at that secondary source more closely. I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine. regards Forrest John,My opinion is that some of their observations seem to conflict with the BB model. You are right. John Galt…..thank you for never accusing me of stupidity! You have corrected me..and made me feel like a small little girl with her head down and her feet point inwardly, BUT you have never accused me of stupidity!THANK YOU..

Here they are again.“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.””The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe.”The quote below does not seem to conflict with the BB model:“More massive galaxies like the Milky Way were rarer in the early Universe so that not enough could be sampled to describe properly their characteristics.” If you had read the original research you would have understood that the first quote is in no way in conflict with BB theory. As a moderator I have likely been called upon to do something about it. The writers of this pop-science article have rather missed the point, or deliberately sexed up the findings.” But, no. Mr.

I quoted their conclusions form the section of the paper called conclusions and I gave a falvour of the prior evidence for galactic evolution from their section called Introduction. I drew no conclusions. And I have demonstrated that your opinion is seriously incorrect. As a moderator I have likely been called upon to do something about it. Originally Posted by forrest noble I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine.regards Forrest I take no pleasure in accusing you of dishonesty.

As a member I find this persistent dishonesty unwelcome. Don’t you think it’s time you quit the contrived approach of cherry picking and misinterpretation? If I do you a disservice and you honestly believe the assertions you make, don’t you think it is time you got a sufficient education to entitle you to discuss these topics? As a member I’m looking for some serious effort on your part to reform.

And when called on this type of dishonest behavior, he has the effrontery to presume to teach others about “proper forum decorum.”As does John Galt, I favor an accusation of dishonesty over stupidity. And if you do cite a peer-reviewed source, read it thoroughly first. I provided the original paper so that you – and others – could see that for yourself.

Originally Posted by forrest noble Originally Posted by KALSTER Originally Posted by forrest noble I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine. regards Forrest It must be severe confirmation bias then. Originally Posted by forrest noble Any reader, like yourself, can read the article or paper which you provided, and draw their own conclusions, or post their own quotations from either. As I’ve said many times before, if you don’t want “rude” behavior directed at you, simply stop persisting in dishonest, crackpotty behavior that will inevitably provoke a strong response from denizens of a science forum.Next, stop making up quotes — because you will be found out.Stop your offensive practice of repeatedly referring to webzine articles when asked to cite peer-reviewed sources. Please locate the words you believe apply, or retract the assertion.

Originally Posted by forrest noble I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine. regards Forrest It must be severe confirmation bias then. I could have selected a dozen different sets of quotes that would have conveyed the same message.The bottom line is that either you lied, or you are blinded by a belief and are unable to see what is front of you. You misrepresented the findings of the paper. If you pay attention it will reduce the risk of you making more blunders.I find nowhere in the original paper that your second quote can be a paraphrase of.

Within roughly 10 years form now when the James Webb is up and running, either the Big Bang model will be proven by nothing but observing small young, immature galaxies appearing at the farthest distances, but if old appearing large galaxies are seen at the farthest distances, the Big Bang model seemingly will have to be modified or replaced by an older or infinite-age universe model. No — “severe” is correct (generous, even).As to your last sentence, it is yet another example of an unsupported self-serving BS opinion.Just stick to science, Forrest, if you can. Originally Posted by forrest noble I have a whole collection of such articles involving distant galaxies appearing the same as close-by galaxies. Failing that I’ll be having a serious talk with my moderator persona and will demand some action.

I am interested in what the original researchers say and they say, implicitly, forrests is full of ****. Failing that I’ll be having a serious talk with my moderator persona and will demand some action. Originally Posted by forrest noble I interpret the title of the article “Galaxies have kept their shape for 11 billion years …..” to mean that galaxies have not changed much in 11 billion years. Here they are again.“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.” “The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe.” The quote below does not seem to conflict with the BB model: “More massive galaxies like the Milky Way were rarer in the early Universe so that not enough could be sampled to describe properly their characteristics.”The above quote would indicate that the early universe was different in the past.Any reader, like yourself, can read the article or paper which you provided, and draw their own conclusions, or post their own quotations from either.

The link is badly written. I don’t know why you believe that such tactics will work. I’ve lost count of how many times you’ve linked to a paper that you allege supports a statement of yours, only to find that it does no such thing, and often that it even completely contradicts your statement.

And then cherry-picks quotations from preferred sources to support his delusional worldview. My first advice is to consider — with great seriousness — what John Galt is saying above.You complain a lot about the strong language I direct at your posts, but I’m actually going easy on you, compared to what you’d experience at a conference, e.g. What do you think? I think that I don’t give a **** what the title of a badly written, second hand article is. I interpret the title of the article “Galaxies have kept their shape for 11 billion years …..” to mean that galaxies have not changed much in 11 billion years.

I would have had no problem with you at all if you had said, “Hmm. Sorry but I just can’t help it…..it is a Forrest Gump moment!!RUN FORREST RUN!!!like far away *L* Anyone can come to their own conclusion. What do you think? I have a whole collection of such articles involving distant galaxies appearing the same as close-by galaxies.

I don’t know about the use of the word “severe,” but otherwise I think your selection of wording is very good added: I think the trouble with “confirmation bias” is that those who are well aware of its meaning unsually acuse those with different opinions of having such bias, but rarely choose to consider the characteristic in themselves or in those involved in scientific studies. But selectively splicing a bit here and a bit there to construct a quote is a conscious act of deception. I merely described what they had found and what they had concluded. Mahalo nui loa!I straightened out my feet, by the way…….chuckle Of course I realize that there are probably a great many more papers and articles that have come to the opposite conclusion.

I seriously suggest you actually read the original material. This is not because I say so, but because your conclusions patently disagree with the conclusions of the researchers. Originally Posted by Strange Once again, it seems Forrest mistakes results which are unexpected from our current models of galaxy formation (know to be incomplete) for evidence against the big bang (which no one claims).

Originally Posted by KALSTER Originally Posted by forrest noble I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine. regards Forrest It must be severe confirmation bias then. Others have pointed out your preference for quoting from second hand sources. Anyone can come to their own conclusion.

Originally Posted by forrest noble I gave three quotes from the link, two seem to conflict with what was expected, and one quote did not. Originally Posted by forrest noble Originally Posted by John Galt As a member I find this persistent dishonesty unwelcome. However, by my standards I prefer to accuse someone of dishonesty, rather than stupidity. Originally Posted by forrest noble John,My opinion is that some of their observations seem to conflict with the BB model.

I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine. regards Forrest FN, although it is likely futile, I will offer you some advice (some of which you have heard before, but not heeded). And then cherry-picks quotations from preferred sources to support his delusional worldview. There was no cherry picking on my part. He does not hesitate to make up quotes and attribute them falsely to others, in an effort to create the appearance of support for his unfounded opinions. Indeed anyone can come to their own conclusion, but only some of those conclusions are worth a damn.

Don’t you think it’s time you quit the contrived approach of cherry picking and misinterpretation? If I do you a disservice and you honestly believe the assertions you make, don’t you think it is time you got a sufficient education to entitle you to discuss these topics? As a member I’m looking for some serious effort on your part to reform. If they are the same as this article then they are just as valueless in supporting your unfounded position. The point is in the OP you made the case that the referenced paper provided data that conflicted with Big Bang theory.

What I do find is page after page of comments that reflect the wide range of evidence for ongoing evolution of galaxy form, mass and activity. I don’t know about the use of the word “severe,” but otherwise I think your selection of wording is very good added: I think the trouble with confirmation bias is that those who are well aware of its meaning unsually acuse those with different opinions of having it, but rarely choose to consider the characteristic in themselves or in those involved in scientific studies.