RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   
  Topic: Does NASA know about this ?, Anti evolution< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:28   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,15:00)
It's almost as if they don't realize that different branches of science are independent of each other.

NOT IF THEY DENY MY JESUS THEY AIN'T

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:37   

Correction to my previous post:

It's almost as if they think that different branches of science are independent of each other.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:54   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:37)
Correction to my previous post:

It's almost as if they think that different branches of science are independent of each other.

Almost.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:56   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:37)
Correction to my previous post:

It's almost as if they think that different branches of science are independent of each other.

I think your previous post made more sense in the context of what we're talking about.  ID Creationists constantly use people from completely different fields to bash evolution when said fields have absolutely nothing to do with biology (psychology), or sometimes even nothing to do with science (philosophy), and yet they still feel qualified to be the final authority on whether or not evolution is scientific.

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,15:16   

Ah. Right, at that pathetic level of detail they're independent, and a person can be intimately familiar with one set of pathetic details while being a complete amateur* in another.

The dependence is that all of them have to be consistent with the same set of data.

*Which produces the question what would an incomplete amateur look like, but never mind that.

Henry

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,17:03   

"Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. "

Really?

You didn't read the Bible first and then go look for validation of your already firm conclusions?

I'm betting you did.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,05:20   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2009,04:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)
Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).

Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.

its my assertion and i insist its true. This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.
I don't need to prove my point by lists. Those who know the makeup in these areas know its not close to a cross section of the nation.
Thats my point.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,05:26   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 08 2009,06:42)
Robert, I don't mind telling anyone that I am 79. Why can't you answer the simple question about your age?

Got anything to be afraid of? If you are the adolescent you appear to be, there's always the prospect of improved intellect and expanded knowledge. FYI, the brain is not fully developed before about 25 so I suspect you have a few years to go. Rejoice, there's still hope!
Quote
We do alright and will prevail soon enough.

You all have been at it for so long and all you have are promises about the future. I am more interested in what you have today. Got anything? So far you haven't even given a hint that you might have a clue.

I didn't know you wanted my age. its 44.
Today creationism is exploding in popularity and fame in many  types.
YEC can confidently teach and persuade audiences to question and reject claims of solid evidence behind the great claims of evolution.
In fact its just finding your audiences that is the frustration.
Thats why government institutions must become a target for equality in the discussions on origins.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,06:19   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:20)
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2009,04:35)
       
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)
Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).

Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.

its my assertion and i insist its true. This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.
I don't need to prove my point by lists. Those who know the makeup in these areas know its not close to a cross section of the nation.
Thats my point.

"Insisting" it's true doesn't make it true, Booby. And yes, if you make assertions regarding demographics of sex and ethnicity, you need to demonstrate the validity of your claims--that's what science is all about. Oh, and I know you're wrong about "all" anthro students/professors  being liberal democrats -- I have friends in the field at UCLA who are not democrats at all. I can prove that if need be -- because I prefer not to make empty claims based on nothing more than vapid assertions as you do, Booby.

Do you think that anthro departments are skewed in favor of males, Booby? How about graduates? Males? Females? PhD.'s? How about "skewed" in terms of ethnicity? More minorities than European-descent caucasians? what? What does "skewed" mean in your world, Booby ... one more male than females? 10% more? 50? Clarify yourself and start using data rather than vapid claims of pretending you know you're right.  

So...have you ever suffered some form of brain trauma in your life, Bobby?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,10:29   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,11:20)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2009,04:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)
Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).

Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.

its my assertion and i insist its true. This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.
I don't need to prove my point by lists. Those who know the makeup in these areas know its not close to a cross section of the nation.
Thats my point.

Assertions are not evidence, however forceful.

I could for example assert something terrible and shameful about you personally, yet that wouldn't make it true now would it?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,10:33   

Yeah bubba like if you look at the members of the NAS you'll find that none of them are retarded.  Skewed like a mofo.  and not even on "coolness"

Jesus wept

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,12:14   

Quote
This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.


Check out darwincentral.org. You couldn't ask for a more politically conservative forum -- everyone a card carrying evilutionist.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3284
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,13:45   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:26)
I didn't know you wanted my age. its 44.
Today creationism is exploding in popularity and fame in many  types.
YEC can confidently teach and persuade audiences to question and reject claims of solid evidence behind the great claims of evolution.
In fact its just finding your audiences that is the frustration.
Thats why government institutions must become a target for equality in the discussions on origins.

1) reality TV is also exploding in popularity and fame.  It's still trash.

2) Please give me one tool that is based on YEC that can be used to predict the effect of antibiotics on bacteria.

3) We don't have an audience.  Evolution does not 'pander to the masses'.  It's called science.  It doesn't care what you think about it.  It's science.  It simply is.

4) No, the reason government institutions must become your target is because they are the only ones who are willing to believe you.  Scientists refuse to listen to your arguments because you have none.

Now, I asked a bunch of questions earlier which you ignored.  Please answer the one above.

What is one tool, based on YEC, that can accurately predict the outcome of anything?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,20:28   

"High science" is science done in the laboratory on the top floor of the building. Obviously.

Henry

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,02:56   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 10 2009,06:19)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:20)
       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2009,04:35)
       
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)
Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).

Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.

its my assertion and i insist its true. This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.
I don't need to prove my point by lists. Those who know the makeup in these areas know its not close to a cross section of the nation.
Thats my point.

"Insisting" it's true doesn't make it true, Booby. And yes, if you make assertions regarding demographics of sex and ethnicity, you need to demonstrate the validity of your claims--that's what science is all about. Oh, and I know you're wrong about "all" anthro students/professors  being liberal democrats -- I have friends in the field at UCLA who are not democrats at all. I can prove that if need be -- because I prefer not to make empty claims based on nothing more than vapid assertions as you do, Booby.

Do you think that anthro departments are skewed in favor of males, Booby? How about graduates? Males? Females? PhD.'s? How about "skewed" in terms of ethnicity? More minorities than European-descent caucasians? what? What does "skewed" mean in your world, Booby ... one more male than females? 10% more? 50? Clarify yourself and start using data rather than vapid claims of pretending you know you're right.  

So...have you ever suffered some form of brain trauma in your life, Bobby?

This isn't science. my assertion is from my knowledge. So its in good standing as a assertion. it doesn't mean you have to believe it.
One does not have to prove ones point to justify the assertion. only you can say your not persuaded by your knowledge.

i have seen heaps of stats about demagraphics in high sciences.
in fact they proudly make the point about the liberal democrat or liberal leanings. Ethnic/sex/immigrant ratios are common knowledge. If you don't know then simply do research. Not my job.

Skewed does not mean on purpose. i just mean results.
Anyways this is all about any profession is not a cross section of the people but can show deeper motivations and so change how one scores who's on whose side.
Evolution must make its case on the merits and likewise creationism.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,02:59   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2009,13:45)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:26)
I didn't know you wanted my age. its 44.
Today creationism is exploding in popularity and fame in many  types.
YEC can confidently teach and persuade audiences to question and reject claims of solid evidence behind the great claims of evolution.
In fact its just finding your audiences that is the frustration.
Thats why government institutions must become a target for equality in the discussions on origins.

1) reality TV is also exploding in popularity and fame.  It's still trash.

2) Please give me one tool that is based on YEC that can be used to predict the effect of antibiotics on bacteria.

3) We don't have an audience.  Evolution does not 'pander to the masses'.  It's called science.  It doesn't care what you think about it.  It's science.  It simply is.

4) No, the reason government institutions must become your target is because they are the only ones who are willing to believe you.  Scientists refuse to listen to your arguments because you have none.

Now, I asked a bunch of questions earlier which you ignored.  Please answer the one above.

What is one tool, based on YEC, that can accurately predict the outcome of anything?

The bible predicts a great deal and is always right.
Genesis is right and so any conclusions about the natural world can be predicted to fit within the boundaries of genesis.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,03:07   

You didn't answer my question as to whether you've ever had head/brain trauma, Robert.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,03:13   

It is a well-known result in neurology that certain forms of frontal lobe damage lead to perseverative behavior patterns.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3284
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,08:16   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,02:59)
The bible predicts a great deal and is always right.
Genesis is right and so any conclusions about the natural world can be predicted to fit within the boundaries of genesis.

So you believe that bats are birds, spiders are insects,  and that the value of Pi is exactly 3.

Got it.  You're nuts.

Yes, you can 'assert' anything you want.  However, your credibility [sic] will be enhanced by citing sources that support your claims.

Fell free to 'assert' that Pi = 3.  But, please don't build a bridge using it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3284
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,08:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2009,03:13)
It is a well-known result in neurology that certain forms of frontal lobe damage lead to perseverative behavior patterns.

So? Lobotomy?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1015
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,16:57   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2009,08:17)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2009,03:13)
It is a well-known result in neurology that certain forms of frontal lobe damage lead to perseverative behavior patterns.

So? Lobotomy?

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,17:06   

I wonder if the YEC engineers are working on finding that missing day?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,20:04   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:00)
It's almost as if they don't realize that different branches of science are independent of each other.

I think it's more like they do think that they're independent of each other and don't understand the role that consilience plays in supporting a theory.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,20:49   

Booby's getting awfully close to "Help, help, 'We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture'".

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,22:09   

Quote
I think it's more like they do think that they're independent of each other and don't understand the role that consilience plays in supporting a theory.

That does seem likely. But to complicate (irreducibly?) the matter, the independent/dependent question is not a simple question. Where overlap exists they have to be consistent with each other, and any of them can make use of results from any of the others where appropriate. But also each can have lots of details that none of the other branches specifically depend on.

Henry

  
  54 replies since Nov. 06 2009,12:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]