Thread Reopen Requests

I missed this post since I was offline for a while but thought it interesting. I guess that the issue of balance is almost an impossible goal. How many creationists actually have any scientific background or education..even interest? Most biblical literalists/fundamentalists are actively discouraged from obtaining scientific information as far as I can see. What is more surprising to me personally as John, Brian Johnston, Mr. Pamboli and others have often pointed out is how often many of the creationists do not really have much of a grasp of the bible or biblical history. I do not wish to paint all creationists with this brush but there are many who fit the bill of being scientific illiterates who don't really know much about the religion(s) they supposedely support. Given this observation, it is not surprising that when dealing with science, those with a scientific background tend to dominate the forums. In the more religion oriented forums I would say there is (or has been) more balance.What has been the most disappointing are people like salty, or Peter Borger, and Ten-sai/Inquisitor who have some background but are totally unwilling to engage in a rational discussion. Inquisitor was one of the biggest disappointments for me personally because I thought it would be interesting to argue a scientific principle from a legal perspective or mock legal setting and all he wanted to do was claim that he was an intelligent lawyer, that everyone else was stupid and then disappear i.e. internet troll.In any case, your post got me thinking about the forum in general and my own participation here over the last year and I just disgorged my thoughts....cheers,
M

Hi Moose,
What happened to the Nature of Mutations thread in the Evolution forum? though off topic a bit, salty was playing nice and participating and now all of the posts are gone except the last few and the thread is closed. You indicated a broken thread...will it be restored?cheers,
M

Thanks for the clarification Moose...it is a bit of a pity as the original part of the thread had some really good posts....and I missed the last few interactions because I did not log in over the weekend...on the other hand, the open threads move on...
cheers,
M

Hi Moose, Thanks..gave it a shot but could not find what I was looking for (i.e. the posts from last weekend that I missed)...no problem..Admin started a new thread on the same topic and it is moving along.cheers,
M

Yeah Moose was in a thread closing frenzy...it must be like potato chips..once you start you cant stop

Don't get me wrong...a couple of the threads deserved closure...but I am glad you re-opened the one with Zealot.Good luck with the spam...my email is dead so I am spam free

quote:

---

instead of spending your time replicating and reporting real evidence?

---

This charge is more appropriately leveled at you Stephen...why are you not replicating the prayer experiments as they were done in the publications you hold in such high regard? You have belly ached that they have not been (and that they therefore somehow constitute evidence while admitting thay have not been reproduced and are controversial)...get off your hypocritical lazy ass and demonstrate that you are not a crank....or is it just fun to pontificate as opposed to doing actual work?

Silly old fool,

quote:

---

I have repeatedly testified that I have replicated the prayer experiments hundreds, no thousands of times, filling my life with way more riches and joy than I ever hoped to have.

---

This is anecdote and personal opinion. You cannot even define whether you yourself repeated it hundreds or thousands of times..nice controlled experiment there Stephen...has your turning lead into gold experiment worked as well? Your wishful thinking is not a replication of the studies you claim support what you say.

quote:

---

No need for many of the published studies

---

..and this suggests you take issue with the published prayer studies and how they were conducted. You are a sample of 1, and an extremely biased and unreliable sample (your inability to remember the professor who you say supports your take on science) and thus add nothing to the reproducibility of the scientifically conducted prayer studies. The prayers studies themselves revealed nothing more than placebo effect and in one study, negative effects. This you brush off because you don't want to hear it (yet another piece of evidence that you are not a scientist).Your blindly wishing to have science bolster your weak faith is an obvious crisis of your own belief in what you are saying. Your inability to comprehend that an actual scientific study of prayer effects on whatever require a proper sample size, controls, and independent reproduction of results is an obvious deficit in your ability to grasp how science works and what science is.I will take your refusal to either conduct proper prayer studies scientifically and your attack on published research an admission on your part that you are 1. too lazy to do it 2. are scared to death of what the results will be.