|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 25, 2020 17:45:05 GMT
Especially if you haven't read them. I read them, it's the same retarded posts you always make (science=bad, religion=good) I never said science was bad. I would say you probably are. Not the same thing, see?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 25, 2020 17:46:36 GMT
I read them, it's the same retarded posts you always make (science=bad, religion=good) I never said science was bad. I would say you probably are. Not the same thing, see? So you agree with the vast scientific consensus on evolution and global warming, right?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 25, 2020 17:56:36 GMT
I never said science was bad. I would say you probably are. Not the same thing, see? So you agree with the vast scientific consensus on evolution and global warming, right? First of all there is no voting in science, so there is no "consensus" to consider. Secondly, how would you know what actual scientists think about anything?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 25, 2020 18:01:54 GMT
So you agree with the vast scientific consensus on evolution and global warming, right? First of all there is no voting in science, so there is no "consensus" to consider. Secondly, how would you know what actual scientists think about anything? "First of all there is no voting in science" Well no, there kind of is, if the majority of scientists agree on something, that's called "consensus". That's the very definition of the term. "Secondly, how would you know what actual scientists think about anything?" Because I listen to what the majority of them have to say (and not just cherry pick a few hacks like you hero Behe) I noticed you didn't actually answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 25, 2020 18:43:07 GMT
First of all there is no voting in science, so there is no "consensus" to consider. Secondly, how would you know what actual scientists think about anything? "First of all there is no voting in science" Well no, there kind of is, if the majority of scientists agree on something, that's called "consensus". That's the very definition of the term. "Secondly, how would you know what actual scientists think about anything?" Because I listen to what the majority of them have to say (and not just cherry pick a few hacks like you hero Behe) I noticed you didn't actually answer my question. I noticed you missed the day(s) I explained the difference between actual science ceteris paribus and statistical analysis, which often fails to reveal much of any use, especially where avant-garde medicine is concerned..
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 25, 2020 18:48:44 GMT
"First of all there is no voting in science" Well no, there kind of is, if the majority of scientists agree on something, that's called "consensus". That's the very definition of the term. "Secondly, how would you know what actual scientists think about anything?" Because I listen to what the majority of them have to say (and not just cherry pick a few hacks like you hero Behe) I noticed you didn't actually answer my question. I noticed you missed the day(s) I explained the difference between actual science ceteris paribus and statistical analysis, which often fails to reveal much of any use, especially where avant-garde medicine is concerned.. So basically confirmation bias (ignore what the majority of scientists have to say, only listen to the hacks that affirm your preconceived beliefs). Gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 25, 2020 18:54:56 GMT
I noticed you missed the day(s) I explained the difference between actual science ceteris paribus and statistical analysis, which often fails to reveal much of any use, especially where avant-garde medicine is concerned.. So basically confirmation bias (ignore what the majority of scientists have to say, only listen to the hacks that affirm your preconceived beliefs). Gotcha. So basically you're the product of inferior public schooling and determined to win some game I'm not even playing.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 25, 2020 18:57:39 GMT
So basically confirmation bias (ignore what the majority of scientists have to say, only listen to the hacks that affirm your preconceived beliefs). Gotcha. So basically you're the product of inferior public schooling and determined to win some game I'm not even playing. I dunno what that actually has to do with what I said, I'll just label as another one your weird nonsequitors that has nothing to do with anything. Is that your tacit admission you ignore what majority of scientists have to say only listen to the ones that make you feel good? At least your being honest.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 25, 2020 19:03:10 GMT
So basically you're the product of inferior public schooling and determined to win some game I'm not even playing. I dunno what that actually has to do with what I said, I'll just label as another one your weird nonsequitors that has nothing to do with anything. Is that your tacit admission you ignore what majority of scientists have to say only listen to the ones that make you feel good? At least your being honest. I prefer to ignore you. What you have to do with any scientists; majority, minority, plebiscite, or grand duchy is your problem.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 25, 2020 19:06:35 GMT
I dunno what that actually has to do with what I said, I'll just label as another one your weird nonsequitors that has nothing to do with anything. Is that your tacit admission you ignore what majority of scientists have to say only listen to the ones that make you feel good? At least your being honest. I prefer to ignore you. What you have to do with any scientists; majority, minority, plebiscite, or grand duchy is your problem. No real argument, just a lame ad hom, cool. I'll take the win on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 25, 2020 19:09:02 GMT
I prefer to ignore you. What you have to do with any scientists; majority, minority, plebiscite, or grand duchy is your problem. No real argument, just a lame ad hom, cool. I'll take the win on this one. Don't spend it all in one place.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 29, 2020 10:30:49 GMT
A few years ago, the Arizona state legislature passed a law that the Bible could be taught in the state’s secular public schools. The law wasn’t for classes about the Bible – objective, historical, literary lessons – but Christian supremacy, inerrancy, and right-wing U.S. revisionist history (e.g. the U.S.. Constitution is based on the Bible). So, the Camp Verde School Board voted 4-0 to use a curriculum from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. The NCBCPS materials treated Christianity as true and the Bible as fact. One researcher claimed it had “shoddy research, factual errors and plagiarism.” Even after the course was revised, it still promoted conservative views. Dianne Post, the legal director for the Secular Communities for Arizona, wrote a piece for the Verde News (behind a paywall) in which she highlighted some of her concerns: It repeats historical errors and uses fake quotations to promote Christian nationalism, the mistaken belief that the American system of law and government is based primarily on the Bible. To cut to the chase: a survey of the student body came up with only two students who might be interested in taking the course. With such low interest, the district can’t justify offering the class, much less finding a teacher for it. Tory Roberg, the lobbyist for Secular Coalition for Arizona said: How do you feel about Islam, Mike? Is their separation of church and state okay with you?
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jul 29, 2020 14:28:48 GMT
How do you feel about Islam, Mike? Is their separation of church and state okay with you? Do you mean the lack of church and state separation? I don't see how what happens in other countries and cultures pertains to the specific topic of the O.P. - which is fundamentalist christianity attempting (again!) to make their particular corner of that religion part of the tax funded school curriculum in the U.S. Never forgetting, though, that freedom of and from religion is a basic human right and should be part of America's advocacy of democracy in international affairs. Even some countries we think of now as progressive and free have had official state tax supported religions in their very recent histories. Norway, where one set of My Lovely Wife's grandparents immigrated from, until well into the 20th century designated the Lutheran church as their official religion. You could be something else but your taxes would still support Lutheranism. If you wanted a passport, you had to get a recommendation from a Lutheran pastor even if you never attended another or no church. I'm sure this is the kind of control that conservative politicians in the U.S. would like to have over the citizens and that they look to their president to get it for them.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 29, 2020 17:29:16 GMT
How do you feel about Islam, Mike? Is their separation of church and state okay with you? Do you mean the lack of church and state separation? I don't see how what happens in other countries and cultures pertains to the specific topic of the O.P. - which is fundamentalist christianity attempting (again!) to make their particular corner of that religion part of the tax funded school curriculum in the U.S. Never forgetting, though, that freedom of and from religion is a basic human right and should be part of America's advocacy of democracy in international affairs. Even some countries we think of now as progressive and free have had official state tax supported religions in their very recent histories. Norway, where one set of My Lovely Wife's grandparents immigrated from, until well into the 20th century designated the Lutheran church as their official religion. You could be something else but your taxes would still support Lutheranism. If you wanted a passport, you had to get a recommendation from a Lutheran pastor even if you never attended another or no church. I'm sure this is the kind of control that conservative politicians in the U.S. would like to have over the citizens and that they look to their president to get it for them. There will be a worldwide religion in about ten to fifteen more years. You may not live to see it, but if you do, your choice will be to either join it or die. It won't be Christianity, although it will retain elements of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jul 29, 2020 17:48:24 GMT
Do you mean the lack of church and state separation? I don't see how what happens in other countries and cultures pertains to the specific topic of the O.P. - which is fundamentalist christianity attempting (again!) to make their particular corner of that religion part of the tax funded school curriculum in the U.S. Never forgetting, though, that freedom of and from religion is a basic human right and should be part of America's advocacy of democracy in international affairs. Even some countries we think of now as progressive and free have had official state tax supported religions in their very recent histories. Norway, where one set of My Lovely Wife's grandparents immigrated from, until well into the 20th century designated the Lutheran church as their official religion. You could be something else but your taxes would still support Lutheranism. If you wanted a passport, you had to get a recommendation from a Lutheran pastor even if you never attended another or no church. I'm sure this is the kind of control that conservative politicians in the U.S. would like to have over the citizens and that they look to their president to get it for them. There will be a worldwide religion in about ten to fifteen more years. You may not live to see it, but if you do, your choice will be to either join it or die. It won't be Christianity, although it will retain elements of Christianity. I think I hear little birdies tweeting as they fly around my head.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2020 19:12:39 GMT
So basically confirmation bias (ignore what the majority of scientists have to say, only listen to the hacks that affirm your preconceived beliefs). Gotcha. So basically you're the product of inferior public schooling and determined to win some game I'm not even playing. ... there is no "consensus" to consider. Secondly, how would you know what actual scientists think about anything Basically you are just a climate change denier, a dying breed these days - and for which the reasons are often I would suggest more psychological than scientfic. I hope that helps. But it won't. Feel free to substantiate your opposing view. But you never do.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 31, 2020 10:56:36 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
- you are just a climate change denier,
- a dying breed these days
- 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities
- There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate
- However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring
- As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture
- No, I am not now nor have I ever been a climate change "denier." I do maintain an open mind on issues where I have insufficient data to make a decision. You do not have an open mind.
- Yes, having an open mind is becoming more rare because it requires a more thorough base of knowledge from which to judge new information than most people bother to learn.
- That is not evidence. You keep telling me I have no evidence. You keep repeated "evasion noted" as if I have omitted anything. You have nothing better though. I know you don't like it when I point out your severe failures of logic. I just did though. Furthermore I think it is important for you to know that it is not just a one time occurrence. You do that all the time. It is your big problem.
- This is the truth that I recognize for now.
- Not here though, where is it?
- That is not true and given present technology not possible.
Because you constantly self report that you "lack" beliefs, intelligent people need a means to know how much you know or believe and why. There are "traps" that you fall in such as these here on climate change that make you stand out as a person of no valid opinions on the matters.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 31, 2020 11:43:40 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
- you are just a climate change denier,
- a dying breed these days
- 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities
- There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate
- However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring
- As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture
- No, I am not now nor have I ever been a climate change "denier." I do maintain an open mind on issues where I have insufficient data to make a decision. You do not have an open mind.
- Yes, having an open mind is becoming more rare because it requires a more thorough base of knowledge from which to judge new information than most people bother to learn.
- That is not evidence. You keep telling me I have no evidence. You keep repeated "evasion noted" as if I have omitted anything. You have nothing better though. I know you don't like it when I point out your severe failures of logic. I just did though. Furthermore I think it is important for you to know that it is not just a one time occurrence. You do that all the time. It is your big problem.
- This is the truth that I recognize for now.
- Not here though, where is it?
- That is not true and given present technology not possible.
Because you constantly self report that you "lack" beliefs, This is not true generally, it applies only insofar as asserting whether a deliberate supernatural exists, and so is a strawman. I believe that climate change is currently a global emergency for instance. Thank you for your opinions. But I was merely replying to the your specific claim that 'there is no scientific "consensus" to consider.', and then 'how would [one] know what actual scientists think about anything'. I think I have proved you wrong in both these cases, which will do for now. (It might also be observed that the consensus about climate change reported by me dates back a few years. If anything it has hardened now.) As for the evidence for global warming just do the Google and use that open mind of yours to form an opinion, although it is getting a bit late. If there are any others seeking evidence, they can start here: www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/bams-sotc-2009-brochure-lo-rez.pdf" Yes; a repeated lack of direct substantiation for your claims and direct answers to direct questions. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 31, 2020 12:34:30 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] - No, I am not now nor have I ever been a climate change "denier." I do maintain an open mind on issues where I have insufficient data to make a decision. You do not have an open mind.
- Yes, having an open mind is becoming more rare because it requires a more thorough base of knowledge from which to judge new information than most people bother to learn.
- That is not evidence. You keep telling me I have no evidence. You keep repeated "evasion noted" as if I have omitted anything. You have nothing better though. I know you don't like it when I point out your severe failures of logic. I just did though. Furthermore I think it is important for you to know that it is not just a one time occurrence. You do that all the time. It is your big problem.
- This is the truth that I recognize for now.
- Not here though, where is it?
- That is not true and given present technology not possible.
Because you constantly self report that you "lack" beliefs, This is not true generally, it applies only insofar as asserting whether a deliberate supernatural exists, and so is a strawman. I believe that climate change is currently a global emergency for instance. Thank you for your opinions. But I was merely replying to the your specific claim that 'there is no scientific "consensus" to consider.', and then 'how would [one] know what actual scientists think about anything'. I think I have proved you wrong in both these cases, which will do for now. (It might also be observed that the consensus about climate change reported by me dates back a few years. If anything it has hardened now.) As for the evidence for global warming just do the Google and use that open mind of yours to form an opinion, although it is getting a bit late. If there are any others seeking evidence, they can start here: www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/bams-sotc-2009-brochure-lo-rez.pdfYes; a repeated lack of direct substantiation for your claims and direct answers to direct questions. I hope that helps. I believe you know which "lack" of belief I mean as would many people only aged twelve. I can see that you still cannot tell the difference between claims and evidence, thank you for your continued consistency.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 31, 2020 14:05:14 GMT
I think I hear little birdies tweeting as they fly around my head. I like how specific he is. "It won't be Christianity, but it will retain elements of Christianity" could describe any number of loopy New Ager belief systems current and past. Surely Erjen isn't supporting those ?
|
|