Message #31971

[andre]

Hi Andre,

I hope you don't mind a little friendly disagreement.  I have been to your forum and there is some nice work being done there. However, finding a few inconstencies here and there in a theory does not, in itself disqualify the theory, nor also form a counter-theory.  That is sort of the same argument that creationists use to try and disprove evolution, and I sort of think we should be above it.  There is nothing wrong with asking valid questions, but there are too many people in the skeptic camp that come to the argument with an agenda.  Ideally, scientists should come to the whole topic without any agenda whatsoever and simply report their observations.

Science constantly realigns it's ideas as new data comes about. The fact that most of the data has only firmed up the consensus speaks for itself.

It would be a good idea to limit the discussion to science, as in truth seeking. That means that there would neither be place for agenda talk (the physical truth is not asking the highest bidder what it should be) nor consensus talk (the physical truth is not determined by the majority). We have to stick to historical observations, suppositions, physics, verifying the suppositions. And that's a big mess as I intend to demonstrate.