Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Guillermo González

"For the first time, we are able to compare the Sun’s Li abundance in a fair way to a sample of comparison stars. We find that its Li abundance is low compared to our sample of comparison stars, and it is comparable to the Li abundances of SWPs (Star With Planets) with similar Teff values."

G. Gonzalez et al.

Guillermo deserves more recognition than he is getting. He has good guesses. I don't think it matters what is the source of his guesses. Here he reports the confirmation of his hunch that Li abundance in stars can be used to search for planets like ours. That is science; you have a hunch and you check it. If it is true you use it. It seems that the source of his insights is some belief in Intelligent Design.

You know, I do not believe in God, and I don't care where Guillermo gets his information, for all I care he may have a direct red telephone line to the big guy up there. I do not care. Is it true or not?, if it is, Guillermo is alright in my book.


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

But he has to make an unfounded leap of faith past the scientific method and the more probable solution that there is a natural law, rather than an ID... even if tomorrow it were hard fast proven that we are not here by accident.

That only comes from indoctrination, not from doing honest science.

On the other side of the coin is the practice of copernicanism that most liberal scientists generally follow, which is the counter-evidential belief that there is no purpose in nature.

Pick your religion, non of them are doing science when they draw these bogus conclusions.

Eduardo Cantoral said...

The fact is that Li concentration in stars is an indication of possible planet formation.

I don't care how he got that guess.

Anonymous said...

I agree 100%, and I don't know why I didn't pick up on the bigger point sooner, because this is exactly what is wrong with opponents of IDists and proves that they are more interested in fighting a culture war than they are in the integrity of science, contrary to much denial on their part.

For example, Georges Lemaitre thought that evidence for the big bang was support for the literal interpretation of genesis.

So do we willfully ignore, downplay and deny every observation that he made because of this? Of course not.

Then why do opponents of ID do exactly the opposite? Because they are not the least bit interested in science.

Eduardo Cantoral said...

Right on, man. I like you.

Twitter Updates

Search This Blog

Total Pageviews