Another article by that former congressional canidate...

Phil has seem to struck a nerve...

And he uses the same old tired "they didn't believe Galileo either" argument...

Now Hoagland's excuse for Phil's 'attack' is to draw away attention from the 'fossil'. He seems a little miffed that the Space.com article on fossils didn't even mention him. Awww... What a whiner.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

Fossil or no, this is a blatant grab for attention.

__________________
My Music, 56k stream available -Check it out!

Nobody ever said having brains and common sense was a prerequisite to running for public office.

8-[

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

The fact that this guy ran for Congress is meaningless. Anyone can run, even conspiracy theorists who base their arguments on bad science, illogical conclusions, and utter lack of evidence. Hoagland's touting of this guy's "endorsements" is typical of his tactics. He gives enough information to make his arguments sound legitimate, but holds back the real information you need to make an informed decision.

For example: what was Sadler's platform for running (some of that, but not much, can be gleaned from his website)? How much of the vote did he get? How much experience does he have investigating scientific (and non-scientific) claims? These are all relevant, and pertinent.

Hoagland is clearly using this guy as an "argument from authority", so questioning his authority is not only fair, it's important.

Isn't this a sort of form of argument from irrelevant authority?

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

From the article:

With each passing day, the Flat Earth find is CONFIRMED, by how it is being ACTIVELY ignored by geographers. Yeah creationism is confirmed. HIV denial is confirmed. And so on.

This guy also thinks that the grinding was some kind of cover-up. I don't get it. How is that supposed to work? Or am I not supposed to think about that? How will grinding the rock erase the photos? Or is NASA afraid the Beagle 2 will appear out of nowhere and document the fossils? :roll:

I think we have found the Kent Hovinds of astronomy.

Using Galileo's ridicule as a metaphor for his own reminds me of the saying, 'they also laughed at Bozo the clown'

Whenever I see someone like Hoagland going back to the Galileo argument, I am reminded of an old Abbott & Costello skit (quote may not be perfect, I'm doing it from memory).

Abbott: That's crazy!!

Costello: Oh yeah!! Well, they called Galileo crazy! They called Columbus crazy! They called Raymond Strumeister crazy....

Abbot: Wait, wait, who is Raymond Sturmeister?

Costello: Oh, he's my wife's second cousin <whispers> frankly, He is Crazy!!

__________________
JayUtah wrote:
The marketplace of ideas ensures that each item is put on display, but does not compel its purchase.

If Hoagland can call himself a scientist I guess I can too. Or do I need to grow a beard too? I really don't like beards.

-jt-3d- the worlds newest scientist. I like it. It's got a ring to it.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Sadler ran against the incumbent Democrat Jerry F. Costello for U.S. House District 12 in Illinois in 2002 and received 30.7% of the vote (58,413 votes), according to the Associated Press.

For a UFOlogist politician, that performance is remarkable! UFOlogist Stephen Bassett conducted a much-hyped campaign for the Maryland 8th Congressional District seat in 2002 and received a whopping 0.71% of the vote (1,420 votes).

Yikes! He's a creationist as well! Look at that UFO page, just below the picture of a sand dune in the martian crater (which he implies is a geodesic dome).

Hoagland's variable lack of critical thinking extends to his endorsements as well.

All I can say is that I've seen the pics and to these eyes and all I saw were some things that looked like cracks in the rock. I may not be a paleontologist, but I know what a shrimp looks like.

Hey, I already have a beard, does this mean I'm a scientist. [-X oh

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

I fear for this country if scientifically illiterate louts can run for Congress and actually get people to vote for them. This guy doesn't make Hoagland look any better...

what's that old saying about the "company you keep?"

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

This is very unsurprising. Those who have quack views in one field often have them in other vields as well. Consider these HIV deniers who are also evolution deniers: Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, and Tom Bethel. Then there the geocentrists and relativity deniers who are creationists. Hovind has non-mainstream views of cancer and Constitutional law.

The beard is optional, although it is highly desirable, since it gives you something to stroke thoughtfully while contemplating deep matters. The white coat and glasses are, of course, required. 8-[

I agree that the beard is optional, especially after being told I was cuter after I shaved it off last week. However, I now realize that I must invest in a white lab coat. Although, no one else in my dept. wears one, so would I be a better scientist than them in that case? Maybe I better avoid it in front of my advisor. :wink:

Oh, the beard's an absolute necessity for respectability. My little brother Tony demonstrates...

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

Hey, that's great!!...all I need is a white coat.

Ditto.

__________________
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Hutch, that Abbott & Costello quote reminds me of a well-worn phrase:

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bobo The Clown.

So, are you gentlemen that require beards for science implying that women can't be scientists? [-X

:wink:

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

Only women who grow beards... Just kidding SciFiChick. My boss is an un-bearded female Ph.D. in chemistry.

In addition to the beard, glasses and lab coat, if you want to be a MAD scientist you have to practice your evil laugh and saying "You fools! I'll destroy you all!"

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Whew!! I was going to have trouble with the beard growing as well. I do have the lab coat, the glasses (Hey! I'm a geek--they're mandatory!), but I prefer waiting for an electrical storm and shouting "Live! LIVE!!!" accompanyed by grandiose gestures.

Psi-less

__________________
"Given only the ships and right sails for the heavenly space, there will also be men unafraid of the terrible distances."--Kepler, to Galileo

I tried the electrical storm->creating life thing once. However, because of that I was no longer allowed to any more high school dances. Because of that, I moved on to the 'plotting world domination' ploy.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

I must confess that I stroke my beard while thinking, and I don't have a white coat, glasses or laboratory.

Just to get back to the "They laughed at Galileo" comment. I hear this often and my reply usually goes something like this:

Galileo was:

1) Well educated and highly knowledgable of the paradigm at that time.
2) Had access to the best telescopic equipment available
3) Took many detailed observations
4) Only then, when his observations did not agree with current theories of the universe, which he was well versed in, did he propose alternatives.

I then proceed to ask the people using the "Galileo defense" to finish item #1, at a minimum, before spouting off alternative theories.

I'm beginning to wonder...just how many of "us" posters have a beard?? Sounds like a BABBling topic.

Oh good Lord! You gave me a scare since I normally vote republican. I remember voting for Costello that year, though. I do not think I could have shown my face on this board again if I had voted for Sadler.

That will teach me not to research the candidates before voting.

You forgot "They laughed at me at the Academy (or University, or NASA or where ever) and they won't laugh at me now!!! BWAAAWWAAAAAA"

But they are usually defeated by the Good Guys anyway, and we laugh at them more...

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait