|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 11, 2020 2:03:45 GMT
Yes I am asking a question. You may have missed it, but it was the one that ended with that mark that looks like The Riddler's wardrobe. For your convenience, I will repeat the question: "How do you determine what information is relevant to a belief and how it's relevant?" What qualifications was I supposed to list for what scientists?  If you're referring to those polled, the qualification was that they graduated with a PhD in their field. What scientific field did you get your PhD in, Arlon? No, that was not listed as a qualification in either survey. Many people especially today work in "science" without a Phd, such as the "medical professionals" (nurses) we're supposed to be thanking so much now. No, it doesn't take a Phd to know we're not supposed to be coughing all over each other or drinking out of the milk carton. I know several people in real life who have jobs where they just read the output of various equipment they had nothing to do with building. There's no shame in it, those are just the jobs that are available. In my own survey I noticed that several people on this board as well as many people in the United States generally often mistake statistical analysis often used in medicine for science ceteris paribus. Some don't admit it anymore after being corrected. By the way, that is another thing you don't need a Phd to understand. The way to determine relevance of information depends entirely on the circumstances. I discussed an example of relevant information in another message that you perhaps have not read. If you have to ask such a question you apparently do not understand the definition of relevance. "The quality or state of being closely connected or appropriate" -- some online dictionary. Very few publishing scientists don't have PhDs. Yes, exceptions exist (including some very famous ones), but they remain exceptions. I would be shocked if the vast majority of those polled in the AAAS didn't hold PhDs, but that might depend on what fields they included (engineers, eg, frequently only get an MA). I doubt seriously if they included "nurses" in their list of polled scientists. Don't mistake my asking you a question with my not understanding the definition of relevance or how it relates to evidence; I'm testing to see if YOU understand it. If you want to link to the other post with the example, I'll read it, but in the meantime, your definition of relevance does not indicate how one determines what is connected/appropriate and how it is so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 11, 2020 2:14:01 GMT
Yes. There is White culture; Black culture; etc. Yes, there is American culture; Canadian culture; etc. OK, then what is it? Please, illuminate what culture all black/white people share, or what culture all Americans/Canadians share. Who made that rule? I noticed that the little children are taught to avoid generalizing about individuals and that they don't generalize, even about groups, which can be appropriate and necessary. Remember the example of southerners' preference for iced tea? I use it a lot. At one time anyway it was true people in southern states drank more iced tea. That doesn't mean all of them do. That doesn't mean you should assume Theo the individual from the South does. It just means that there is a difference in the group as a whole from other groups. One counter example is significant in science ceteris paribus. It is not in most issues in human society. There are people who think "science" is the answer to many problems in society because they understand neither science nor society. It is a big problem all over the place right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 11, 2020 2:20:32 GMT
No, that was not listed as a qualification in either survey. Many people especially today work in "science" without a Phd, such as the "medical professionals" (nurses) we're supposed to be thanking so much now. No, it doesn't take a Phd to know we're not supposed to be coughing all over each other or drinking out of the milk carton. I know several people in real life who have jobs where they just read the output of various equipment they had nothing to do with building. There's no shame in it, those are just the jobs that are available. In my own survey I noticed that several people on this board as well as many people in the United States generally often mistake statistical analysis often used in medicine for science ceteris paribus. Some don't admit it anymore after being corrected. By the way, that is another thing you don't need a Phd to understand. The way to determine relevance of information depends entirely on the circumstances. I discussed an example of relevant information in another message that you perhaps have not read. If you have to ask such a question you apparently do not understand the definition of relevance. "The quality or state of being closely connected or appropriate" -- some online dictionary. Very few publishing scientists don't have PhDs. Yes, exceptions exist (including some very famous ones), but they remain exceptions. I would be shocked if the vast majority of those polled in the AAAS didn't hold PhDs, but that might depend on what fields they included (engineers, eg, frequently only get an MA). I doubt seriously if they included "nurses" in their list of polled scientists. Don't mistake my asking you a question with my not understanding the definition of relevance or how it relates to evidence; I'm testing to see if YOU understand it. If you want to link to the other post with the example, I'll read it, but in the meantime, your definition of relevance does not indicate how one determines what is connected/appropriate and how it is so. In other words no, they don't have Phds. I'm curious myself why your definition of relevance is any different from mine and how and why it is an issue for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 11, 2020 2:28:47 GMT
OK, then what is it? Please, illuminate what culture all black/white people share, or what culture all Americans/Canadians share. Who made that rule? I noticed that the little children are taught to avoid generalizing about individuals and that they don't generalize, even about groups, which can be appropriate and necessary. Remember the example of southerners' preference for iced tea? I use it a lot. At one time anyway it was true people in southern states drank more iced tea. That doesn't mean all of them do. That doesn't mean you should assume Theo the individual from the South does. It just means that there is a difference in the group as a whole from other groups. One counter example is significant in science ceteris paribus. It is not in most issues in human society. There are people who think "science" is the answer to many problems in society because they understand neither science nor society. It is a big problem all over the place right now. I don't see what sense it makes to talk about culture of extremely large, heterogeneous groups. There are black and white people all over the world, and culture tends to be largely geographical. So to say "black culture" implies that there's some culture that links people all over the world merely based on their skin color, which is stupid. National culture can make more sense because nations can contain small, largely homogenized groups; but that's not the case for a huge country like America that's a melting pot of peoples and cultures. Yes, you can speak in terms of statistics and probabilities, but generalities tend to actually gloss over such things. "Southerners prefer iced tea;" OK, compared to what and whom and to what degree? It's possible that iced tea is most popular in the south, and yet still less popular than coke, or any other beverage. Saying "southerners prefer iced tea" isn't really telling us anything, even as a generality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 11, 2020 2:32:15 GMT
Very few publishing scientists don't have PhDs. Yes, exceptions exist (including some very famous ones), but they remain exceptions. I would be shocked if the vast majority of those polled in the AAAS didn't hold PhDs, but that might depend on what fields they included (engineers, eg, frequently only get an MA). I doubt seriously if they included "nurses" in their list of polled scientists. Don't mistake my asking you a question with my not understanding the definition of relevance or how it relates to evidence; I'm testing to see if YOU understand it. If you want to link to the other post with the example, I'll read it, but in the meantime, your definition of relevance does not indicate how one determines what is connected/appropriate and how it is so. In other words no, they don't have Phds. I'm curious myself why your definition of relevance is any different from mine and how and why it is an issue for you. How would you know? If most research scientists have PhDs, then most scientists surveyed would have PhDs. Duh. I didn't say my definition of relevance was different, but knowing a definition and knowing how to apply it is two different things, and I thought my question was pretty obvious about that: how do you determine what is connected/appropriate and how it is so? I mean, this isn't a difficult question to answer for someone who actually knows how evidence works. I keep pushing you to give an answer because I suspect either you really don't know how it works, or are trying to dodge explaining how it works in fear it will disqualify things you'd have us consider as evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 11, 2020 2:52:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 11, 2020 2:56:37 GMT
In other words no, they don't have Phds. I'm curious myself why your definition of relevance is any different from mine and how and why it is an issue for you. How would you know? If most research scientists have PhDs, then most scientists surveyed would have PhDs. Duh. I didn't say my definition of relevance was different, but knowing a definition and knowing how to apply it is two different things, and I thought my question was pretty obvious about that: how do you determine what is connected/appropriate and how it is so? I mean, this isn't a difficult question to answer for someone who actually knows how evidence works. I keep pushing you to give an answer because I suspect either you really don't know how it works, or are trying to dodge explaining how it works in fear it will disqualify things you'd have us consider as evidence. No, there are no scientists anymore who still believe the mystery of life from lifeless matter can be solved using anything known in the inanimate universe. Should any remain who escaped detection they need to be found out and fired. As I noted elsewhere, the number of scientists who do believe Darwin's theory might extend to the origin of life has been dwindling since the 1930s. There was a brief resurgence in interest in what is now called "abiogenesis" after the Miller-Urey experiment, but generally the number of scientists holding out hope for an "unintelligent" designer has been rather steadily declining as the understanding of life has been improving. Your surveys are outdated and reflect the reaction many people have to the truth as it becomes ever more clear. Kitzmiller v Dover was likely a scam engineered by people who wanted to defame intelligent design by getting bad representation of it. Notice those people were representing government, not science, not school systems generally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 11, 2020 3:02:23 GMT
Oh the feet of clay you're exposing! No, there are no scientists anymore who still believe the mystery of life from lifeless matter can be solved using anything known in the inanimate universe. Should any remain who escaped detection they need to be found out and fired. As I noted elsewhere, the number of scientists who do believe Darwin's theory might extend to the origin of life has been dwindling since the 1930s. There was a brief resurgence in interest in what is now called "abiogenesis" after the Miller-Urey experiment, but generally the number of scientists holding out hope for an "unintelligent" designer has been rather steadily declining as the understanding of life has been improving. Your surveys are outdated and reflect the reaction many people have to the truth as it becomes ever more clear. Kitzmiller v Dover was likely a scam engineered by people who wanted to defame intelligent design by getting bad representation of it. Notice those people were representing government, not science, not school systems generally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 11, 2020 3:02:57 GMT
How would you know? If most research scientists have PhDs, then most scientists surveyed would have PhDs. Duh. I didn't say my definition of relevance was different, but knowing a definition and knowing how to apply it is two different things, and I thought my question was pretty obvious about that: how do you determine what is connected/appropriate and how it is so? I mean, this isn't a difficult question to answer for someone who actually knows how evidence works. I keep pushing you to give an answer because I suspect either you really don't know how it works, or are trying to dodge explaining how it works in fear it will disqualify things you'd have us consider as evidence. No, there are no scientists anymore who still believe the mystery of life from lifeless matter can be solved using anything known in the inanimate universe. Should any remain who escaped detection they need to be found out and fired. As I noted elsewhere, the number of scientists who do believe Darwin's theory might extend to the origin of life has been dwindling since the 1930s. There was a brief resurgence in interest in what is now called "abiogenesis" after the Miller-Urey experiment, but generally the number of scientists holding out hope for an "unintelligent" designer has been rather steadily declining as the understanding of life has been improving. Your surveys are outdated and reflect the reaction many people have to the truth as it becomes ever more clear. Kitzmiller v Dover was likely a scam engineered by people who wanted to defame intelligent design by getting bad representation of it. Notice those people were representing government, not science, not school systems generally. I'll need some *gasp* evidence that no scientists believe in abiogenesis, or that the number has been "dwindling" since the 1930s. Of course, it might come as a shock to all those scientists working in the field that they aren't scientists! The last three surveys I posted were from '98, '09, and '13. Do you have any newer ones to post? I already know the answer: of course you don't, because you're just making all this up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 11, 2020 3:05:08 GMT
Oh the feet of clay you're exposing! No, there are no scientists anymore who still believe the mystery of life from lifeless matter can be solved using anything known in the inanimate universe. Should any remain who escaped detection they need to be found out and fired. As I noted elsewhere, the number of scientists who do believe Darwin's theory might extend to the origin of life has been dwindling since the 1930s. There was a brief resurgence in interest in what is now called "abiogenesis" after the Miller-Urey experiment, but generally the number of scientists holding out hope for an "unintelligent" designer has been rather steadily declining as the understanding of life has been improving. Your surveys are outdated and reflect the reaction many people have to the truth as it becomes ever more clear. Kitzmiller v Dover was likely a scam engineered by people who wanted to defame intelligent design by getting bad representation of it. Notice those people were representing government, not science, not school systems generally. Oh, dear, I'm afraid I've broken Arlon.exe and it's now stuck in a repeating loop. Quick, how do I reset the system? Sorry, didn't mean to break your brain, bro. I guess it was my fault for providing too much *evidence* that conflicted with your personal beliefs. Can't say I won't do it again, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 11, 2020 3:19:48 GMT
Any ideaology should be open for mockery, even the so called "idealogy" of atheism Really? In my view atheism is exactly the opposite of an 'ideology' due to the fact that is an absence of one. It would be possible to mock people for not believing anything, however IMHO there is a subtle though important difference. "Really?" Sure, why not. I don't believe any belief (or lack of belief) shouldn't be open to mocking/criticism. Though I do think mocking/criticisms of atheism are typically just goofy strawmans and bad arguments that have been refuted countless times: "LOL stupid atheists believe in nothing!" "If you don't believe in God, how can you say murder is wrong?!". You know, silly nonsense like that has already been addressed countless times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 11, 2020 3:21:54 GMT
No, there are no scientists anymore who still believe the mystery of life from lifeless matter can be solved using anything known in the inanimate universe. Should any remain who escaped detection they need to be found out and fired. As I noted elsewhere, the number of scientists who do believe Darwin's theory might extend to the origin of life has been dwindling since the 1930s. There was a brief resurgence in interest in what is now called "abiogenesis" after the Miller-Urey experiment, but generally the number of scientists holding out hope for an "unintelligent" designer has been rather steadily declining as the understanding of life has been improving. Your surveys are outdated and reflect the reaction many people have to the truth as it becomes ever more clear. Kitzmiller v Dover was likely a scam engineered by people who wanted to defame intelligent design by getting bad representation of it. Notice those people were representing government, not science, not school systems generally. or that the number has been "dwindling" since the 1930s. Of course, it might come as a shock to all those scientists working in the field that they aren't scientists! The last three surveys I posted were from '98, '09, and '13. Do you have any newer ones to post? I already know the answer: of course you don't, because you're just making all this up.
Do you mean like even the people from inferior public schools were taught that evolution cannot explain the origin of life? Every last one of you repeats it mindlessly on being questioned. "Evolution and abiogenesis are different topics." But you never do and possibly cannot understand what you mindlessly repeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 11, 2020 3:26:55 GMT
I'll need some *gasp* evidence that no scientists believe in abiogenesis, or that the number has been "dwindling" since the 1930s. Of course, it might come as a shock to all those scientists working in the field that they aren't scientists! The last three surveys I posted were from '98, '09, and '13. Do you have any newer ones to post? I already know the answer: of course you don't, because you're just making all this up.
Do you mean like even the people from inferior public schools were taught that evolution cannot explain the origin of life? Every last one of you repeats it mindlessly on being questioned. "Evolution and abiogenesis are different topics." But you never do and possibly cannot understand what you mindlessly repeat. I mean like any evidence you might have that no scientists believe in abiogenesis. I guess this is another case of Arlon arguing with dictionaries where by "scientists" he really means "scientists who agree with me." Anyone who disagrees with Arlon isn't a scientist, apparently, including those at the two most prestigious scientific institutes in the US and UK. I "mindlessly repeat," from the guy literally repeated the same post twice in a row! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 11, 2020 3:40:00 GMT
Do you mean like even the people from inferior public schools were taught that evolution cannot explain the origin of life? Every last one of you repeats it mindlessly on being questioned. "Evolution and abiogenesis are different topics." But you never do and possibly cannot understand what you mindlessly repeat. I mean like any evidence you might have that no scientists believe in abiogenesis. I guess this is another case of Arlon arguing with dictionaries where by "scientists" he really means "scientists who agree with me." Anyone who disagrees with Arlon isn't a scientist, apparently, including those at the two most prestigious scientific institutes in the US and UK. I "mindlessly repeat," from the guy literally repeated the same post twice in a row! Is there a theory how life began with neither an intelligent designer nor evolution? Is there "evidence" (like that word?) natural selection favors larger lifeless molecules against smaller ones in violation of the (science of the) 2nd law of thermodynamics? Are there any professional scientists who argue that the trivial reversals of entropy found in nature and Miller-Urey can explain the obviously engineered reversals required for the sustenance of life? Where? Where? All I see is retarded kids from inferior public schools on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 11, 2020 4:32:55 GMT
You seem to be conflating "cultures that originated with" white/black people or Americans/Candadians with "black/white/American/Canadian" culture. They are not the same thing. Those links are discussing the former, not the latter. Who would deny the former? As an example, you can say jazz originated in American black culture, was mostly popular with American black people; but now, the vast majority of black people (or any people) do not listen to jazz, and jazz is played by people of all colors all over the world. So to say jazz is "American culture" or "black culture" now is pretty silly. Historically it might've been, but, even historically, jazz was not listened to by all black people everywhere, nor by all Americans. Those are exactly examples of the various cultures that I had suggested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 11, 2020 4:48:06 GMT
I mean like any evidence you might have that no scientists believe in abiogenesis. I guess this is another case of Arlon arguing with dictionaries where by "scientists" he really means "scientists who agree with me." Anyone who disagrees with Arlon isn't a scientist, apparently, including those at the two most prestigious scientific institutes in the US and UK. I "mindlessly repeat," from the guy literally repeated the same post twice in a row! 1. Is there a theory how life began with neither an intelligent designer nor evolution? 2. Is there "evidence" (like that word?) natural selection favors larger lifeless molecules against smaller ones in violation of the (science of the) 2nd law of thermodynamics? 3. Are there any professional scientists who argue that the trivial reversals of entropy found in nature and Miller-Urey can explain the obviously engineered reversals required for the sustenance of life? 4. Where? Where? All I see is retarded kids from inferior public schools on the internet. 1. Yes, it's called abiogenesis, and there are many different theories within the field. I might mention there is no theory (at all) of how life began with a designer. 2. The evidence is that "larger lifeless molecules" exist, so clearly natural selection has favored them at some point. There is no violation of the 2LOT, as has been explained countless times to you. 3. Yes, pretty much all of them, as evidenced by there being tons of peer-reviewed research in abiogenesis and none in anything related to intelligent design. 4. Wikipedia article on abiogenesis alone references hundereds of articles and books on the subject by scientists. And might I add, that even assuming there was no science whatsoever behind abiogenesis, this would not, ipso facto, make ID a scientific theory or the winner by default.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 11, 2020 4:54:11 GMT
No. Your nationality is where you were born. You do not have a choice. You can choose to change lit like you choose whether to adopt or continue a religious choice. Yes, nationality is where you are born. However, why are you born where you are born? Because it was the parents' choice to live in the particular country, where they chose to have you. Same with religion. If it is your parents' religion, & they choose to pass it down to you, then you are that religion also, unless you decide against it. I don't believe a child should have to decide against religion, if it "wasn't forced" onto them in the first place. They need only to decide as an adult, if they want to choose a religion, away from any other religious notions that are often unfortunately pressured onto them from the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 11, 2020 5:01:02 GMT
1. Is there a theory how life began with neither an intelligent designer nor evolution? 2. Is there "evidence" (like that word?) natural selection favors larger lifeless molecules against smaller ones in violation of the (science of the) 2nd law of thermodynamics? 3. Are there any professional scientists who argue that the trivial reversals of entropy found in nature and Miller-Urey can explain the obviously engineered reversals required for the sustenance of life? 4. Where? Where? All I see is retarded kids from inferior public schools on the internet. 1. Yes, it's called abiogenesis, and there are many different theories within the field. I might mention there is no theory (at all) of how life began with a designer. 2. The evidence is that "larger lifeless molecules" exist, so clearly natural selection has favored them at some point. There is no violation of the 2LOT, as has been explained countless times to you. 3. Yes, pretty much all of them, as evidenced by there being tons of peer-reviewed research in abiogenesis and none in anything related to intelligent design. 4. Wikipedia article on abiogenesis alone references hundereds of articles and books on the subject by scientists. And might I add, that even assuming there was no science whatsoever behind abiogenesis, this would not, ipso facto, make ID a scientific theory or the winner by default. I'm glad you aren't saying anything that stupid in real life since that would guarantee Donald Trump a second term. I'm showing how the origin of life did not happen. If I can prove the thief did not enter by the back door (for example there isn't one), then he did not. I do not have to show which door or window he did enter. Your burden is somewhat different. If you claim life began without an intelligent designer you need to have at least some clue how. Show one. Those short RNA chains are not doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 11, 2020 5:02:38 GMT
Yes, nationality is where you are born. However, why are you born where you are born? Because it was the parents' choice to live in the particular country, where they chose to have you. Same with religion. If it is your parents' religion, & they choose to pass it down to you, then you are that religion also, unless you decide against it.I don't believe a child should have to decide against religion, if it "wasn't forced" onto them in the first place. They need only to decide as an adult, if they want to choose a religion, away from any other religious notions that are often unfortunately pressured onto them from the start. Going by that argument, parents should not give their children names either. Not even family names!!!! Let them decide for themselves what to be called. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 11, 2020 5:15:58 GMT
You seem to be conflating "cultures that originated with" white/black people or Americans/Candadians with "black/white/American/Canadian" culture. They are not the same thing. Those links are discussing the former, not the latter. Who would deny the former? As an example, you can say jazz originated in American black culture, was mostly popular with American black people; but now, the vast majority of black people (or any people) do not listen to jazz, and jazz is played by people of all colors all over the world. So to say jazz is "American culture" or "black culture" now is pretty silly. Historically it might've been, but, even historically, jazz was not listened to by all black people everywhere, nor by all Americans. Those are exactly examples of the various cultures that I had suggested. If those are examples of what you're talking about then you clearly weren't understanding what I was saying.
|
|
