Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2017 6:49 PM
403 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Faith, Meddle, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric, xongsmith (8 members, 395 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,138 Year: 9,744/21,208 Month: 2,831/2,674 Week: 255/961 Day: 119/136 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1010 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 76 of 165 (689268)
01-29-2013 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Drosophilla
01-29-2013 7:49 AM


Ha, yea right, some people here believe that we are descended from a chimpanzee like creature, but I sure ain't one of them! I guess you meant the other 99.86 posters here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Drosophilla, posted 01-29-2013 7:49 AM Drosophilla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Panda, posted 01-29-2013 10:32 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 85 by AZPaul3, posted 01-29-2013 1:43 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Drosophilla, posted 01-29-2013 3:11 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1010 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 77 of 165 (689269)
01-29-2013 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Blue Jay
01-28-2013 7:25 PM


Re: your terms boo hoo
Are you still feeling hurt because you can't reconcile why men would like woman with big breasts if they seek child- like woman?

Or perhaps it's because you were unaware that there are entire nations of women with big fat noses ?

In case you hadn't noticed the OP is about bad science bias, and traits that are not likely to be useful in the survival quest. Sorry if that's too hard for you to grasp.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 01-28-2013 7:25 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 01-29-2013 11:11 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 01-29-2013 12:06 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1093 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 78 of 165 (689275)
01-29-2013 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Bolder-dash
01-29-2013 9:24 AM


BD writes:

Ha, yea right, some people here believe that we are descended from a chimpanzee like creature, but I sure ain't one of them! I guess you meant the other 99.86 posters here.


It is simply your abject ignorance bleeding though into the bullshit you talk.
You do not know what you are talking about and you do not know what anyone else is talking about.

Congratulations on being a genuine moron.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-29-2013 9:24 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 78 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 79 of 165 (689281)
01-29-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Bolder-dash
01-29-2013 9:36 AM


Think of the image you're presenting
Hi, Bolder-dash.

Again, I am fully willing to move on to the next phase in our discussion, but if you are unwilling to concede a simple point about whether or not female apes have beards, then what guarantee do I have that the discussion won't just become recursive the next time I mention ape beards?

You'll notice that, upthread, Larni was able to admit that his claim ran afoul of photographic evidence, despite his pro-evolution bias. You wish to have a discussion about "bad science biases"; but your case is hopelessly lost if you cannot even match the level of intellectual honesty your audience can clearly see in your opposition.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-29-2013 9:36 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-30-2013 11:15 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Arriba
Junior Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 22
From: Miraflores, Lima, Peru
Joined: 01-24-2013


Message 80 of 165 (689285)
01-29-2013 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Blue Jay
01-28-2013 6:31 PM


Re: The story is not complete.
I had wanted to respond to someone else because I don't want this debate to turn into a purely Arriba vs. Blue Jay, but after looking at the other responses (if I can call them that) it became clear that I needed to respond to you again.

Rather than imagining the situation let's take a possible scenario and see how it works out. Let's assume, for example, that you take a standard rapid EIA test (saliva) for HIV and you come back positive. As you can see at http://www.hivinfosource.org/...vbasics/diagnosis/index.html this test is 99.5 percent accurate. What are the chances that a fine monogamous guy like you really is HIV positive? Is it 99.5 percent? How can we calculate the probabilities?

The answer is simple: We don't have enough information in the above paragraph to calculate the chance that you really are HIV+ because we need to know your a priori probability of being HIV+ before we can make the calculation. A simple look at http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm reveals that there are 1.2 million people in the US that are HIV+ and 20% of those don't know it. So a quick glance at the US population clock shows that there are 315,238,000 people in the US. Accordingly we can calculate that there are 240,000 people in the US who are HIV+ and don't know it and 314,038,000 people in the US who are not HIV positive. As such we can calculate your a priori chance of being HIV+ as 0.076 percent (that is 240,000 / (240,000+315,238,000)).

So now if we take a group of 20,000 people there will be (on average) 15 people in that group that are HIV+ and 19,985 who are negative. So if we test all of them using this test, which is 99.5 percent effective, we will get 15 people testing positive for HIV (and really being positive) and 999 people who falsely test positive. Accordingly any person who tests positive for HIV using the rapid EIA saliva test their real chance of actually being HIV+ is (drumroll) 1.48 percent. That means that 98.52 percent of people who test positive for HIV using this test really don't have the disease - and this is with a test that is 99.5 percent accurate!

So my message to any other users in this forum who might have suggested that I had "[constructed] a rather elaborate fantasy to explain how the data we have might support the sexual selection hypothesis, and the hypothesis might still be wrong..." is simple: Take a remedial math class and get back to me.

To Blue Jay I say this: Don't think that just tightening the p value to 0.01 will be a panacea to the problems that plague science. We know that science is based on the logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent." Accordingly no positive find can ever be certain. You may go out and find a million black ravens, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of a white one that you just haven't found yet. Perhaps we can calculate the subjective probability that all ravens are black using Bayesian statistics, but that will never reach 100 percent.

So now that we have taken a look at the math let's return to the peacock train situation. Anyone with a brain can look at the peacock and seriously doubt that the theory of natural selection can actually explain that train that thing away. Maybe it can, but odds are that it can't. In order to use Bayesian statistics we must first know the a priori chance and since we don't know that we are required to make a guess. Yes, for those of you who think that science is some sort of infallible method, scientists spend most of their time guessing. Sorry to burst your bubble.

So let's start with a 1 percent chance that sexual selection can explain away the peacock tail. With that in mind we start doing experiments and we find the Marion Petrie study that I had previously mentioned. While I don't have the study at hand (and haven't found it using Google) I think it's fairly safe to say that she must have hit a 95 percent statistical confidence interval or she wouldn't have gotten published. Those of you who paid attention in statistics class might well remember that the probability of the hypothesis (given the evidence) aka P(H|E) can be calculated thusly:

P(H|E) = (P(E|H) * P(H)) / P(E)
where the P(E) is P(E|Htrue)*P(H)+P(E|Hfalse)*(1-P(H))
And if you don't believe that you can look at http://www.cs.washington.edu/...urses/cse473/98au/Nov16.html and see that I'm right.

Since we are assuming p=0.05 we know that the probability of the evidence (if the hypothesis is true) is 95 percent whereas the probability of the evidence (if the hypothesis is false) is 5 percent so now it's math time!

P(E) = 0.95*.01+.05*.99 = .118
So P(H|E) = .01 / .118 = 8.47 percent so after reading about Marion Petrie I must say that although I am now willing to seriously entertain the possibility that natural selection can account for the peacock's train I remain quite sceptical (91.53 percent sceptical, to be exact). So you can imagine what a seven-year study that couldn't replicate Marion Petrie's study does to my confidence in the highly improbable pro-Darwin claims - and that's not even taking bias into account.

Additionally for those who think that I should wait to see if that seven-year study can be replicated, I'd like to point out that this study came out in 2008 so even if someone started right away to try to replicate it, we won't have those results until at least 2015.

However, should you have other information or calculations, please feel free to share them! I have an open mind.

------------------

On other issues, I must say that I am really surprised at your reaction. I have posted links to a mathematical proof and numerous non-replicated studies that clearly show that science doesn't work nearly as well as its proponents claim. Yet your response is simply that I must sign on for more of the same! Imagine, for a moment, that some Christian quoted you a verse from the Bible which you found particularly unhelpful. After informing him that you thought the Bible was nearly worthless he then thrust the book into your hand and said, "All right, then, what verse do you recommend?" Wouldn't you stare at him rather dumbfoundedly? If so then surely you can understand my flabbergasted look at you when you suggest that I simply must continue to use a known-flawed method to try to find the truth when a simple look at its results reveal that flipping a coin is much more likely to lead me to the right result than relying on published scientific studies.

Praytell, Blue Jay, how would you respond to a witchdoctor after informing him that scaring the evil spirits out of people has a bad track record of curing people and he retorted, "...you provide no alternative ideas that are demonstrably better."

Sure maybe I don't have the cure for diabetes in my back pocket, but that doesn't mean I'm going to turn to scaring the evil spirits out of sufferers or using an egg to draw out the negative humours given them by the evil eye. Why should I let some witchdoctor bully me into using methods known to be useless?

Let me throw the ball back in your court: What makes you think that truth exists? What makes you think that science can discover truth? What makes you think that your brain, which you believed evolved into the form it is in order to enable you to shag more women, is even capable of recognizing or comprehending truth?

Researchers seeking to alleviate their ignorance - nonsense! They're only interested in getting funding, ideally federally funding, and that funding is intended to aid them in procreating as best as they can in order to further spread their genes. Truth has nothing to do with it so stop pretending. Science is how people who can't kick the ball through the goalposts try to get laid.


"...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..." - Imre Lakatos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Blue Jay, posted 01-28-2013 6:31 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2013 12:08 PM Arriba has responded
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 01-29-2013 2:10 PM Arriba has not yet responded
 Message 88 by AZPaul3, posted 01-29-2013 2:12 PM Arriba has responded
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-29-2013 3:14 PM Arriba has responded
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-30-2013 4:05 AM Arriba has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12912
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 81 of 165 (689291)
01-29-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Bolder-dash
01-29-2013 9:36 AM


Re: your terms boo hoo
Bolder-dash writes:

Are you still feeling hurt because you can't reconcile why men would like woman with big breasts if they seek child- like woman?

Ralph Waldo Emerson writes:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Bolder-dash writes:

In case you hadn't noticed the OP is about bad science bias, and traits that are not likely to be useful in the survival quest.


You seem to be thinking backwards. The traits that exist in a population are the ones that are most useful for survival. The question isn't why peacocks survive despite the obvious disadvantage of their long trains. It's why the long trains are a net advantage.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-29-2013 9:36 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11236
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(5)
Message 82 of 165 (689292)
01-29-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Arriba
01-29-2013 11:19 AM


Re: The story is not complete.
To Blue Jay I say this: Don't think that just tightening the p value to 0.01 will be a panacea to the problems that plague science. We know that science is based on the logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent." Accordingly no positive find can ever be certain. You may go out and find a million black ravens, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of a white one that you just haven't found yet. Perhaps we can calculate the subjective probability that all ravens are black using Bayesian statistics, but that will never reach 100 percent.

So now that we have taken a look at the math let's return to the peacock train situation. Anyone with a brain can look at the peacock and seriously doubt that the theory of natural selection can actually explain that train that thing away. Maybe it can, but odds are that it can't. In order to use Bayesian statistics we must first know the a priori chance and since we don't know that we are required to make a guess. Yes, for those of you who think that science is some sort of infallible method, scientists spend most of their time guessing. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And yet, here we are communicating instantly over vast distances, because of the advances that this terribly inaccurate science gave us

It always amuses me when people talk about how bad science is on the internet

Let me throw the ball back in your court: What makes you think that truth exists? What makes you think that science can discover truth? What makes you think that your brain, which you believed evolved into the form it is in order to enable you to shag more women, is even capable of recognizing or comprehending truth?

Science put a man on the freakin' moon! It works. It doesn't matter if there some real underlying TRUTH or not.

Science yields results. It has improved the lives of countless people.

You should come down off your soapbox, swallow a little humility, and say "Thank You" to all the scientists for working as hard as they do.

Busting their balls about how inaccuarate and bad science is, is embarrasing to humanity. You should be ashamed of yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Arriba, posted 01-29-2013 11:19 AM Arriba has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Arriba, posted 01-29-2013 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Arriba
Junior Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 22
From: Miraflores, Lima, Peru
Joined: 01-24-2013


Message 83 of 165 (689299)
01-29-2013 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2013 12:08 PM


Unprovable Postulates
I can't count the number of times I've heard that science has put a man on the moon and how the Internet wouldn't be possible without science. People roll their eyes and say how hard they laugh that someone uses their computer to say that science doesn't work.

On the other hand, I can't count the number of times I've heard that the Earth wouldn't exist without Jesus Christ, much less the Sun, and my body, and there would be no plants or animals to eat. They say that they laugh every time someone stands on the Earth and says they don't believe in God.

Although you may find it strange, I don't see any difference between their position and yours. You are two sides of the same coin - a bunch of gibbering idiots insisting that the truths printed in your holy books are beyond questioning.

Egyptians build the pyramids, so I guess that means I need to believe in Ra, too, don't I?

Here's a news flash for you - the most important reasons I have the computer I'm typing on are three:

1. Double-entry accounting.
2. Charles Babbage, mathematician, and his differential engine.
3. Six Sigma Statistical methods.

Or are you one of those people who thinks that math is science?


"...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..." - Imre Lakatos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2013 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Theodoric, posted 01-29-2013 1:07 PM Arriba has not yet responded
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 01-29-2013 2:05 PM Arriba has not yet responded
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2013 3:04 PM Arriba has not yet responded
 Message 92 by subbie, posted 01-29-2013 4:04 PM Arriba has not yet responded
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-30-2013 1:42 AM Arriba has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5751
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 84 of 165 (689301)
01-29-2013 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Arriba
01-29-2013 12:43 PM


Re: Unprovable Postulates
2. Charles Babbage, mathematician, and his differential engine.

Hugely overblown. A Babbage engine would have been at least size of a very large room. Modern computer theory were much more heavily influenced by Alan Turing. Though the Analytical Engine had many of the features of a modern computer it was in actuality a technological dead end. What we know know as computers were designed and developed independently and with very little connection to Babbage and his ideas.

3. Six Sigma Statistical methods

Are you freaking serious? Six Sigma is the TM of quality. The ultimate purpose of Six Sigma is to enrich the consultants. ISO 9001 is a much more effective QM program. I venture to guess computer manufacturers have used parts of each, but in reality Six Sigma is more about the process than actually implementing anything.

But that you think it really has much to do with the computer sitting on your desk is kind of stunning.

ABE
Babbage's Differential Engine did not have any features of a modern computer. It was simply a calculator.
The Analytical Engine had features also found in modern computers.
Know of which you speak if you want to make some sort of profound statement.

Edited by Theodoric, : More on Babbage


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Arriba, posted 01-29-2013 12:43 PM Arriba has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 85 of 165 (689304)
01-29-2013 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Bolder-dash
01-29-2013 9:24 AM


some people here believe that we are descended from a chimpanzee like creature, but I sure ain't one of them

Actually, yes you are, except for the descended part. You seem to have gotten stuck and missed the evolution train.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-29-2013 9:24 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9430
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 86 of 165 (689307)
01-29-2013 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Arriba
01-29-2013 12:43 PM


Re: Unprovable Postulates
. Double-entry accounting.
2. Charles Babbage, mathematician, and his differential engine.
3. Six Sigma Statistical methods

Does the computer on your desk manage to work without using any technological advances derived from quantum mechanics? Could you actually hook a computer up to the internet that relies only on technology that Charles Babbage was familiar with?

I think you have some point about generally tying all of science together as one field and treating them as one thing. But your chosen example is ridiculous.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Arriba, posted 01-29-2013 12:43 PM Arriba has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 78 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 87 of 165 (689311)
01-29-2013 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Arriba
01-29-2013 11:19 AM


Re: The story is not complete.
Hi, Arriba.

Arriba writes:

I had wanted to respond to someone else because I don't want this debate to turn into a purely Arriba vs. Blue Jay, but after looking at the other responses (if I can call them that) it became clear that I needed to respond to you again.

I'm flattered that I come off as so worthy of responding to! I feel that you've come to this conclusion in error, but I have lots of dissertation writing to procrastinate, so I won't complain.

Arriba writes:

So my message to any other users in this forum who might have suggested that I had "[constructed] a rather elaborate fantasy to explain how the data we have might support the sexual selection hypothesis, and the hypothesis might still be wrong..." is simple: Take a remedial math class and get back to me.

I am personally in great need of remedial math classes, and will consequently not make much effort to challenge you mathematically, despite not knowing what your credentials are. But, I happen to know that the poster you're referring to has advanced credentials in mathematics, so, due to my current biases, I am inclined to think that his post was not made in ignorance.

-----

Arriba writes:

To Blue Jay I say this: Don't think that just tightening the p value to 0.01 will be a panacea to the problems that plague science. We know that science is based on the logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent." Accordingly no positive find can ever be certain.

This is common knowledge. But, from my perspective, you are making claims about certainty, while nobody else is. I support the sexual-selection hypothesis, not because I am certain that it is correct, but because I have yet to see any alternative hypothesis that explains the evidence as well as sexual selection does.

-----

Arriba writes:

In order to use Bayesian statistics we must first know the a priori chance and since we don't know that we are required to make a guess...

...So let's start with a 1 percent chance that sexual selection can explain away the peacock tail...

... P(E) = 0.95*.01+.05*.99 = .118
So P(H|E) = .01 / .118 = 8.47 percent...

... I remain quite sceptical (91.53 percent sceptical, to be exact).

Okay, I am not very knowledgeable about math or statistics, but you clearly didn't do any Bayesian statistics there: you just used the prior probability, instead of attempting to infer a posterior probability, which would have improved on your estimate and given you the ability to attach an uncertainty to it. All you actually did was name-drop Bayes and then pretend that math backs up your questionable decision to define your level of skepticism arbitrarily.

I arbitrarily decide on an a priori probability one order of magnitude higher, and am therefore only 9.153% skeptical. Actually, I think we technically only get one significant figure, so I'm just 9% skeptical.

-----

Arriba writes:

I have posted links to a mathematical proof and numerous non-replicated studies that clearly show that science doesn't work nearly as well as its proponents claim. Yet your response is simply that I must sign on for more of the same! ... you suggest that I simply must continue to use a known-flawed method to try to find the truth when a simple look at its results reveal that flipping a coin is much more likely to lead me to the right result than relying on published scientific studies.

Here are some flaws in your argument:

  1. Your mathematical "proof" is based on a couple of assumptions, which means it's not a "proof," but a "model."
  2. The arbitrariness of your assumption calls into question the validity of your comparison with coin-flipping.
  3. You did not attempt to account for the uncertainty associated with the inference from your model, so you cannot even state that your 8.47% likelihood differs significantly from the 50% a coin-flip would yield.
  4. Neither you nor anybody else has quantified how well proponents of science claim that science works, so you can't have "clearly shown" anything relative to that value.
  5. Also, you cited a single blog post, not "numerous non-replicated studies."

If your argument is so full of holes that a mathematical dunce like Blue Jay can tear it apart, then perhaps you should reconsider your absolutist stance on "flawed methodologies."

-----

Arriba writes:

Praytell, Blue Jay, how would you respond to a witchdoctor after informing him that scaring the evil spirits out of people has a bad track record of curing people and he retorted, "...you provide no alternative ideas that are demonstrably better."

Well, if I had an alternative idea that is demonstrably better, I think I would respond by showing it to him. But, who knows? Ever since you showed me how flawed empirical hypothesis-testing is, I can only be approximately 8% confident that my current hypothesis of my own personality is accurate, so we might as well flip a coin to determine how I might respond.

If, on the other hand, I have no alternative ideas that work better, what, exactly, could I say to him? "Um... maybe you could try something else that doesn't work?" Would that convince you to change your ways?

-----

Arriba writes:

Let me throw the ball back in your court: What makes you think that truth exists? What makes you think that science can discover truth? What makes you think that your brain, which you believed evolved into the form it is in order to enable you to shag more women, is even capable of recognizing or comprehending truth?

Indeed.

I am unclear where this tirade on truth came from. I have no trouble accepting that scientific conclusions come with rather large uncertainties, or that they are consequently wrong with very high regularity: what I have trouble with is that you seem to want us to stop doing science, but don't have any real insights into what we could do instead to avoid our current quandary.

I can only conclude that you are recommending that we give up trying to learn things. I cannot see how that would be an improvement on our current situation, but perhaps you could show me.

-----

Arriba writes:

Researchers seeking to alleviate their ignorance - nonsense! They're only interested in getting funding, ideally federally funding, and that funding is intended to aid them in procreating as best as they can in order to further spread their genes. Truth has nothing to do with it so stop pretending. Science is how people who can't kick the ball through the goalposts try to get laid.

Your arbitrarily-inflated skepticism has turned you into quite the cynic. I hope you at least believe that we are clever enough to have concluded that participating anonymously in this debate is highly unlikely to have positive influences on either our sex lives or our status in the scientific community.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Arriba, posted 01-29-2013 11:19 AM Arriba has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 88 of 165 (689312)
01-29-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Arriba
01-29-2013 11:19 AM


Re: The story is not complete.
That means that 98.52 percent of people who test positive for HIV using this test really don't have the disease - and this is with a test that is 99.5 percent accurate!

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

What you, purposefully, miss is that of all the people who take the test 99.5% of them get a result that is correct.

You twist and turn the numbers to show a failure that really isn't there. And you do the same with your analysis of selection. Your statistics, Mr. I-know-all-science-is-wrong, are as bogus as your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Arriba, posted 01-29-2013 11:19 AM Arriba has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Arriba, posted 02-01-2013 9:51 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11236
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(3)
Message 89 of 165 (689318)
01-29-2013 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Arriba
01-29-2013 12:43 PM


Re: Unprovable Postulates
I can't count the number of times I've heard that science has put a man on the moon and how the Internet wouldn't be possible without science. People roll their eyes and say how hard they laugh that someone uses their computer to say that science doesn't work.

On the other hand, I can't count the number of times I've heard that the Earth wouldn't exist without Jesus Christ, much less the Sun, and my body, and there would be no plants or animals to eat. They say that they laugh every time someone stands on the Earth and says they don't believe in God.

Although you may find it strange, I don't see any difference between their position and yours.

One difference is that I can point to the moon and then show you a video of man walking on it. We don't have any objective evidence that God even exists.

You are two sides of the same coin - a bunch of gibbering idiots insisting that the truths printed in your holy books are beyond questioning.

Bullshit. Nothing is beyond questioning. In fact, if you've ever taken even highschool level science classes, they should be showing you how to perform the experiments to test the hypotheses. That is the epitome of questioning. "You don't have to believe us, you can show it to yourself".

Egyptians build the pyramids, so I guess that means I need to believe in Ra, too, don't I?

Complete non-sequitor.

We don't have objective evidence that Ra even exists. You know that big shining thing in the night sky? That's the moon. Man walked on it because of science, something you claim doesn't work. Reality proves you wrong, you have to ignore it to maintain your position.

Here's a news flash for you - the most important reasons I have the computer I'm typing on are three:

1. Double-entry accounting.
2. Charles Babbage, mathematician, and his differential engine.
3. Six Sigma Statistical methods.

That's not people communicating instantly over vast distances throught the internet, which is something that came about because of science.

Or are you one of those people who thinks that math is science?

No, science uses math.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Arriba, posted 01-29-2013 12:43 PM Arriba has not yet responded

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1021 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 90 of 165 (689321)
01-29-2013 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Bolder-dash
01-29-2013 9:24 AM


Hmmm
Ha, yea right, some people here believe that we are descended from a chimpanzee like creature, but I sure ain't one of them! I guess you meant the other 99.86 posters here.

Interesting! I hadn't realised that 99.86% of the participants on this board are creationists....for they are the only ones who believe that the Theory of Evolution involves "humans being descended from a chimpanzee-like creature". You, yourself, have nailed your colours to the mast by saying that very statement.

Unfortunately for you, it is a classic creationist strawman. Do you know why it's a strawman though? There is the tester.....when you can honestly answer that you can (begin) to appreciate what the ToE really says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-29-2013 9:24 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017