Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating

quote:

---

You can't cite, in the archives, where I have treated YECs on this board badly.

---

Maybe not. But then how often do you argue with the actual YECs here ? However that does not mean that if people like you were in the majority that they would not turn on each other. After all you are happy enough to go after your fellow Christians who are NOT creationists.

quote:

---

I am well esteemed in a church full of them with whom I fellowship each sabbath day as well as other personal visits and functions. We have the attitude that iron sharpens iron in our church.

---

It doesn't seem to work very well. Have none of them ever noticed your misrepresentations of the Bible and been castigated as mere novices got daring to know the Bible better than you ?

So basically you've got the dubious Ron Wyatt (so disreputable even you sometimes try to hide his involvement), a (literally) raving Ron Wyatt fanboy and a disciple of Ron Wyatt who has published a book of pseudoscientific nonsense.And you think that this ADDS to your credibility ?

God, Buz, where does it end with you? How many times were you informed at the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread, where, by the way, we're still waiting for your evidence, that Mller is a "bonafide esteemed credentialed marine research scientist." He is, according to his webpage at Wikipedia, "a professor of environmental medicine at the Karolinska Institute." He's in the Department of Biosciences and Nutrition. This is from his biography page at Karolinska Institutet: Do you see anything in there, anything at all, about marine biology? Now go to Google Scholar and search for "Lennart Mller". Do you see any papers on marine biology? Any at all?Yet wait a week (probably less) and there you'll be again claiming that Lennart Mller is a "bonafide esteemed credentialed marine research scientist."The reason you're seriously delusional is because you've been presented all the information about Mller's credentials, about religious flim-flam, about Bigfoot and alien abductions having as good evidence as the Exodus, about how more than just single pieces of unrelated evidence are required, and you just ignore it all and go blithely on as if none of this information existed. You believe what you want to believe regardless of the reality, and you don't seem to care how stupid you sound, as if being an idiot before the world were just one more cross for "poor ole buz" to carry.By the way, "LYSEMAUCHUS" actually spells his name "Lysimachus". His email's public, send him an email if you want his help here.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Additional info about Lysimachus.Edited by Percy, : Remove extraneous and very misleading "not".

But how do you know that it's effective? There have been studies that show ignorant people can't understand why they are wrong and continue to believe in the nonsense that they believe in.Among the Inept, Researchers Discover, Ignorance Is Bliss

quote:

---

"I began to think that there were probably lots of things that I was bad at and I didn't know it," Dr. Dunning said.

​

One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

​

The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

​

"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it," wrote Dr. Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and Dr. Dunning.

​

This deficiency in "self-monitoring skills," the researchers said, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.

​

Some college students, Dr. Dunning said, evince a similar blindness: after doing badly on a test, they spend hours in his office, explaining why the answers he suggests for the test questions are wrong.

​

In a series of studies, Dr. Kruger and Dr. Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to "grossly overestimate" how well they had performed.

​

In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed much greater distortions in their self-estimates. Asked to evaluate their performance on the test of logical reasoning, for example, subjects who scored only in the 12th percentile guessed that they had scored in the 62nd percentile, and deemed their overall skill at logical reasoning to be at the 68th percentile.

​

Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to "identify grammatically correct standard English," and estimated their test scores to be at the 61st percentile.

​

On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes according to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those of an "expert" panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects were also more apt to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because humor is idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were less conclusive.

​

Unlike their unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study, Dr. Kruger and Dr. Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their own competence. The researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the absence of information about how others were doing, highly competent subjects assumed that others were performing as well as they were -- a phenomenon psychologists term the "false consensus effect."

​

When high scoring subjects were asked to "grade" the grammar tests of their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities.

​

"Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in others," the researchers concluded.

​

In a final experiment, Dr. Dunning and Dr. Kruger set out to discover if training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance realistically, they found.

​

The findings, the psychologists said, support Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "he who knows best knows how little he knows."

​

And the research meshes neatly with other work indicating that overconfidence is a common; studies have found, for example, that the vast majority of people rate themselves as "above average" on a wide array of abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in statistical terms. And this overestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.

​

Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David C. Funder, a psychology professor at the University of California at Riverside, for example, said he suspected that most lay people had only a vague idea of the meaning of "average" in statistical terms.

​

"I'm not sure the average person thinks of 'average' or 'percentile' in quite that literal a sense," Dr. Funder said, "so 'above average' might mean to them 'pretty good,' or 'O.K.,' or 'doing all right.' And if, in fact, people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's really hard to evaluate whether they're right or wrong using the statistical criterion."

​

But Dr. Dunning said his current research and past studies indicated that there were many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency, and not be aware of it.

​

In some cases, Dr. Dunning pointed out, an awareness of one's own inability is inevitable: "In a golf game, when your ball is heading into the woods, you know you're incompetent," he said.

​

But in other situations, feedback is absent, or at least more ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out "You stink!" -- truthful though this assessment may be.

​

All of which inspired in Dr. Dunning and his co-author, in presenting their research to the public, a certain degree of nervousness.

​

"This article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors or poor communication," they cautioned in their journal report. "Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."

​

---

We've all observed what this study confirmed. People who can't understand the evidence tend to be the surest people about their ill-informed preconceptions.Again, how do you know they even understand your snarks?Case in point. Buzsaw might not like this, but he is demonstrating the conclusion of the mentioned experiments.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Yeah, I know. I'm hoping it'll slip through because this is Coffee House and because Buz is really outdoing himself.--Percy

My point was that if I'm delusional, so is an esteemed scientist, who did the research.How do you think he did his other scientific research, without the equipment needful for the marine aspects of it? Why do you think he invested, likely millions in a fully equipped marine ship; for pleasure purposes? I don't think so.How do you think he had the expertise and equipment, with the techy equipment aboard to do the marine research that he documented?Perhaps you could contact him and talk to him about your doubts?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

or he's a liar and a fraud, which is not unheard of in the "research" of christian mythology, see: Ron Wyatt. Well seeing as he apparently didn't even bring along a tape measure i question his expertise and equipment.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

The point is that he is NOT an esteemed marine researcher, did NO marine research and only counted on the utter gullibility of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and the assurance that they would be unable to see that all he produced was bullshit.I really doubt that he is delusional though I am willing to accept that as an explanation rather than just saying he was another Christian con man.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If he documented his research, why don't you present the documentation? All you've shown is a video of a coral formation with a chariot wheel drawn on it.

---

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

I don't think a man of his esteem would commit fraud and jeopardise his repution. Moreover, as I told Percy, if I'm delusional, he's delusional.I maintain that if secularist scientists thought they could falsify Moller, they would be there to do so.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

There is nothing to falsify. He presents no evidence just assertions. How can the falsify something that has no evidence in the first place?
Can you falsify the assertion that jesus traveled to India?

---

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

I see no problem, as I said, politely accepting that Mller is just delusional. there is absolutely nothing though to falsify about Mller, he produced no evidence to refute, just a video meant to market to the gullible Christian Cult of Ignorance.I am willing to concede that he is only delusional and not as dishonest as it seems.Edited by jar, : make it clear who I was referring to

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

{Content hidden, 1 week suspension handed out. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden, 1 week suspension handed out.

Return to the theme and spirit of message 1, or this topic is closing down.Adminnemooseus

Well my creo-dream-team (at least in terms of fun to debate) would be:Buz
ICANT
Faith
Nemesis JuggernautIf they could all agree on a stance that is