Biochemist Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Check post count before trying to say what is and what is not done around here. Your only half way there. I understand that you emphasize quantity over quality. That does not excuse hostility.Further, it is shown statistically that the higher the level of education, the less apt to be a "believer".And even more so, the more highly regarded a person is in the scientific community, the odds increase dramatically to where the most highly regarded scientists in the world show less that 7% as theists. Thus my statement is factual. If posting factually accurate statements is considered hostile... ...A point that is interesting, but unrelated and circuitous. That fact that non-theists hold other non-theists in high regard is self fulfilling. The fact that the highly educated are less theistic could easily be related to arrogance more than intelligence. It would certainly seem to apply in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Get an education. Oh but then you would no longer be a Creationist would you? Poor Tormod. No one here to help fight scientific ignorance?I see we have an intellectual ;) here. Intellectual = someone with book knowledge and no common sense. I do have an education, BA Rice University 1988 (began as Bio major but marriage changed that plan ;) ). Unlike the average intellectual, I have kept my mind open to all sides of an issue. As I've been reminded on this forum, science is about questioning what one person calls fact. Darwin understood this as he said that if in a reasonable amount of time his theory couldn't be proved, it should be discarded. That is the scientific method... hypothesize, experiment, prove/disprove. Sorry, science has yet to prove evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 ..I have little patience for the intentional promotion of ignorance and have a reputation for speaking out against it. ...Patience? I think the list of items that you do have patience for is reasonably short. Again, I am dicussing tone (e.g., hostility) not content. You can share whatever blather you like. Even in your consistently biased style. But we will continue to attempt to tune your personal skills. And I suggest that your perspective of your reputation is a shade different than reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Darwin understood this as he said that if in a reasonable amount of time his theory couldn't be proved, it should be discarded. That is the scientific method... hypothesize, experiment, prove/disprove. Sorry, science has yet to prove evolution. Uh.. no. If his theory was unsupported, it should be discarded. You can't PROVE things with the scientific method. It's not designed that way. You find evidence for something, hence the theory of gravity, not the "proof" of gravity. You CAN disprove something, by finding contrary evidence. Little contrary evidence has been found against Darwin, and nothing definitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 I understand that you emphasize quantity over quality. That does not excuse hostility....A point that is interesting, but unrelated and circuitous. That fact that non-theists hold other non-theists in high regard is self fulfilling. The fact that the highly educated are less theistic could easily be related to arrogance more than intelligence. It would certainly seem to apply in this context.Bio - you are the man. THAT is the most intelligent post I've seen so far. ;) Isn't it interesting how prized the intellectual moniker is? It is supposed to mean that hey are capable of thinking for themselves and are open to diversity of opinion, but they tend to be close-minded and have quite a lot of lemming-like qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 I understand that you emphasize quantity over quality.When your point was to "instruct" someone with more direct experience in the specific area under discussion, quantity IS the metric. As to quality...A point that is interesting, but unrelated and circuitous.circuitous - not being forthright or direct in language or action (Webster) So I was NOT being direct? Try learning a word's meaning before using it if you want to claim quality. That fact that non-theists hold other non-theists in high regard is self fulfilling.Also try learning about statistical analysis. And the sources of the statistics. ("Nature" mag amoung others)The fact that the highly educated are less theistic could easily be related to arrogance more than intelligence. OK then, explain how arrogance is MORE of the explanation than intellegence, when in fact there is also statistical correlation between IQ and lack of theistic belief. (as is proven by MENSA membership surveys). Please show us verifyable statistical data showing your claimed arrogance to non-theism correlation. Or am I being too circuitous in asking for evidence for your claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 ..Little contrary evidence has been found against Darwin, and nothing definitive.We need to get a little tighter here, B. There is a lot of evidence against Darwinism, and a lot of evidence against gradualism generally (irrespective of mechanism). This does not thow out the evolutionary model, but Darwinism hardly in the clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 I would like to suggest that if we continue the discussion of evolution, someone should start a new thread in the evolution forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 There is a lot of evidence against Darwinism. Let's be honest and say there is a lot of non-scientific evidence against Darwinism. There is not much scientific evidence against it. This is a science forum and as such evolution is discussed as a theory, not as a hoax or a superstitious belief. This is *especially* important to remember when it is brought up in the theology forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 OK then, explain how arrogance is MORE of the explanation than intellegence, when in fact there is also statistical correlation between IQ and lack of theistic belief. (as is proven by MENSA membership surveys). Please show us verifyable statistical data showing your claimed arrogance to non-theism correlation...Oh, great CaptiveNonthinker- Perhaps you could revisit stats 101 and recall the difference between correlation and causality. That fact that intelligence and non-theism are correlated says nothing about causality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 I would like to suggest that if we continue the discussion of evolution, someone should start a new thread in the evolution forum. If it is a discussion of evolution per se, yes. But if it is related to the topic (Bible history as fact or fiction) it sure belongs here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 I see we have an intellectual ;) here. Intellectual = someone with book knowledge and no common sense.Hahahaha, you gotta love the approach. Invent claims and meanings to words as you go along! But I do appreciate the complement, once we use the ACTUAL meaning of Intellectual - 1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect 2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect. I do have an education, BA Rice University 1988 (began as Bio major but marriage changed that plan ;) ).Too bad you didnt get far enough into your education to get educated on the actual subject matter. Or you would have KNOWN the difference between Evoution and Abiogenesis. Or is your false assertion based on intentional misapplication of termonology in order to mislead discourse? IOW was it simple ignorance or intentional lying? Unlike the average intellectual, I have kept my mind open to all sides of an issue.OK so being a below average intellectual means not being able to apply critical thinking skills to information? Anyone with even basic Reasoning skills is able to reject irrational and illogical assertions and does not need to waste resources being "open" to them. Einstein did not present either General or Special Relativity by keeping his [1]"mind open to all sides of an issue.[/1]. e.g. he had to reject H. A. Lorentz's Ether. (Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden. http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html) Just as he outright rejected any theistic god belief. As I've been reminded on this forum, science is about questioning what one person calls fact.Then this forum has moved extremely far away from what Science actually is. A real shame. Tormod how did you let that happen? Or is it my fault for not being around for a while? Darwin understood this as he said that if in a reasonable amount of time his theory couldn't be proved, it should be discarded. That is the scientific method... hypothesize, experiment, prove/disprove. Sorry, science has yet to prove evolution.Far too absurd a claim to even bother with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Not an appropriate level of challange?! That sounds like an insult! ;)Nah, if you remember what I would call "challenge"... It is probably a complement to everyone else :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Darwin understood this as he said that if in a reasonable amount of time his theory couldn't be proved, it should be discarded. That is the scientific method... hypothesize, experiment, prove/disprove. Sorry, science has yet to prove evolution. Scientific theories cannot be proven, only falsified. I think you need to read up on the scientific method, Skippy. It doesn't really matter *what* Darwin said about his theory. Modern evolutionary theory is much broader than what Darwin was able to formulate. Not only was he not the first to suggest or even study evolution, but he was not the last. Thousands of people study evolution - in the field - which means it is a tried and tested theory. Not all mechanisms of evolution are understood. But evolution as a process in nature is accepted as a scientific fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Then this forum has moved extremely far away from what Science actually is. A real shame. Tormod how did you let that happen? Or is it my fault for not being around for a while? Yes, of course. What did you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 And I suggest that your perspective of your reputation is a shade different than reality.You might want to check that before making the assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Isn't it interesting how prized the intellectual moniker is? It is supposed to mean that hey are capable of thinking for themselves and are open to diversity of opinion, but they tend to be close-minded and have quite a lot of lemming-like qualities.READ: they tend to disagree with what I claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts