Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[F1fan]

Typical psychology department…

I go by the information you have provided, which is lacking, and make a conclusion on what is available.

I didn’t cast doubt, I asked clarifying questions to qualify what you are saying, so that is the perfect level of confidence.

Do you accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life?

 

[GoodAttention]

Do you accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life?

It is the best explanation we got.

Doesn’t excuse your mediocre attempt to glorify the scientific process though.

 

[F1fan]

It is the best explanation we got.

Doesn’t excuse your mediocre attempt to glorify the scientific process though.

Sounds like you have an axe to grind with science. Can you explain your problem with it?

 

[shunyadragon]

Typical psychology department…

I go by the information you have provided, which is lacking, and make a conclusion on what is available.

I didn’t cast doubt, I asked clarifying questions to qualify what you are saying, so that is the perfect level of confidence.

I think you are putting undue emphasis on stereotyping the Psychology Department.

Let's reference the actual numbers of those that reject science based on religious beliefs of Christianity and Islam based on the acuracy and historicity of the Pentateuch.

Do you want to deal with the actual figures regardless of p-values?

 

[GoodAttention]

Sounds like you have an axe to grind with science. Can you explain your problem with it?

Haha I think you are projecting.

I asked you a question any “peer-reviewer” would have your “experiment” which was, to start, sample size.

If I have an axe to grind it’s over your lack of scientific method and use of deflection.

 

[GoodAttention]

I think you are putting undue emphasis on stereotyping the Psychology Department.

Let's reference the actual numbers of those that reject science based on religious beliefs of Christianity and Islam.

Do you want deal with the actual figures regardless of p-values?

God no.

Those people are divinely inspired, what can we do about that?

 

[F1fan]

Haha I think you are projecting.

I asked you a question any “peer-reviewer” would have your “experiment” which was, to start, sample size.

If I have an axe to grind it’s your lack of scientific method.

So you want to make this personal even though you haven't seen my work? Explain how that is objective.

 

[GoodAttention]

So you want to make this personal even though you haven't seen my work? Explain how that is objective.

I’m asking you to tell me about your work but you won’t, I should be the one thinking it’s personal, not you.

 

[shunyadragon]

God no.

Those people are divinely inspired, what can we do about that?

This response would confirm @F1fan's research without considering p=values,

Divinely inspired? There are hundreds of diverse conflicting claims of religions and the divisions that claim "Divine Inspiration." Are you saying" "Divine Inspiration" trumps science,

Nonetheless, those that claim to reject science base their claims on Divine inspiration and belief in the ancient text of the Pentateuch without provenance.

 

[GoodAttention]

This response would confirm @F1fan's research without considering p=values,

TBC

Divinely inspired? There are hundreds of diverse conflicting claims of religions and the divisions that claim.

Nonetheless, those that claim to reject science base their claims on Divine inspiration and belief in the ancient text of the Pentateuch without provenance.

Again, what are you going to do about that?

As a scientist you should have more understanding of why it is so.

 

[shunyadragon]

TBC



Again, what are you going to do about that?

I am a geologist with over 50 years experience do everything I can to promote All the sciences as the evolving nature of our knowledge of our physical existence with sound foundation on Methodological Naturalism

As a scientist you should have more understanding of why it is so.

Why what is so?!?!?!?

As far as the problems of the rejection of the sciences of evolution and by the way the sciences of Global Climate Change I fully understand the unfortunate intentional ignorance of the religious perspective.

Are you acknowledging @F1fan's conclusions,

 

[GoodAttention]

I am a geologist with over 50 years experience do everything I can to promote All the sciences as the evolving nature of our knowledge of our physical existence with sound foundation on Methodological Naturalism

I commend you.

Why what is so?!?!?!?

Are you acknowledging @F1fan's conclusions,

Would you acknowledge any conclusion without evidence of a sample or sample size!!!

 

[F1fan]

I’m asking you to tell me about your work but you won’t, I should be the one thinking it’s personal, not you.

My study was an example of how a hypothesis and theory work. You have some weird hostility going on here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

None provided in the history of your posts. All you have claimed is the certainty of your belief in your metaphysical beliefs.

I've not seen this evidence or any attempt to demonstrate how what we do know fits those wild claims better than the explanations we have. It is just filling in the gaps with what appear to me to be fantasy. And when those gaps are filled with fact, it is just more baseless denial, meaningless repetition and rambling meandering around no point.

Still waiting for you to document the experiments to support your claims.

After 6 years and 8 months, I don't anticipate that anything remotely close to experimental results will be revealed. It will likely be more projection, empty claims and semantic games.

 

[shunyadragon]

I commend you.



Would you acknowledge any conclusion without evidence of a sample or sample size!!!

I acknowledge the evidence of many polls every year in recent history, stated beliefs of churches, and their leaders, and the intentional ignorance of science over the past hundreds of years, The conclusions of the research by @F1fan are in agreement with the pols and the statements of the beliefs of the leaders and organizations like the Discovery Institute widely funded and supported in the USA by churches and Christians.

I acknowledge the basis of the rejection of the sciences based on the claims of accuracy and historicity of the Pentateuch in Christianity and Islam.

It is interesting that in contemporary Judaism dominated by Reform Judaism the Pentateuch is no longer considered factually or historically accurate and it is their books in their language, This view of science in Judaism evolved through the large Jewish scientific community in the 19th and 20th century like Einstein.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

While the development of civilization, language and agriculture are not claimed to have arisen from coincidence or accident--more straw men--there is no reason to consider empty fantasy and absurdity as the explanation for their origins. It isn't even offered as explanation, but declared as fact without any reason to consider it. The usual.

 

[GoodAttention]

My study was an example of how a hypothesis and theory work. You have some weird hostility going on here.

Sample size?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've seen hundreds, perhaps thousands of claims regarding things not in evidence--ancient science, ancient language and so on--and they remain not in evidence. And that isn't because the evidence is invisible or we must be emperors to see it. It is because claims are not evidence for what is claimed and rambling nonsense is not evidence for what is claimed.

 

[GoodAttention]

I acknowledge the evidence of many polls every year in recent history, stated beliefs of churches, and their leaders, and the intentional ignorance of science over the past hundreds of years,

I acknowledge the basis of the rejection of the sciences based on the claims of accuracy and historicity of the Pentateuch in Christianity and Islam.

Reasonable conclusions from the information you had.

It is interesting that in contemporary Judaism dominated by Reform Judaism the Pentateuch is no longer considered factually or historically accurate and it is their books in their language, This view of science in Judaism evolved through the large Jewish scientific community in the 19th and 20th century like Einstein.

Reflects the literal vs not literal readings as you know.

 

[YoursTrue]

While the development of civilization, language and agriculture are not claimed to have arisen from coincidence or accident--more straw men--there is no reason to consider empty fantasy and absurdity as the explanation for their origins. It isn't even offered as explanation, but declared as fact without any reason to consider it. The usual.

So how do you figure beavers learned to make dams? And bees make beehives? Do you or scientists know?