(December 7, 2018 at 9:36 pm)sdelsolray Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 9:00 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: This is a terrible argument.  Cherry picking scientists who only say what you want them to say wouldn't be scientific. That's why we have peer review.   If someone shares scientific work, that is the standard they are held by regardless of religion, ideology, or worldview.  As soon as you start adding unnecessary bias, then you begin floating out of the realm of scientific study.

Have your read Stephen Myer's books?  They are not peer reviewed, nor are they "scientific work".  Yes, adding unnecessary bias is not desirable, as is writing about something you have never read.

I have heard him speak for many hours.

(December 7, 2018 at 11:13 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 9:32 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Stevie Weavie Meyer is a debunked fool.
"Stephen C. Meyer is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement. Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College". Wikipedia

He holds a PhD from Cambridge.  He is no fool.

Yes he is a fool credentials don't change that

---

(December 7, 2018 at 11:15 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 9:36 pm)sdelsolray Wrote: Have your read Stephen Myer's books?  They are not peer reviewed, nor are they "scientific work".  Yes, adding unnecessary bias is not desirable, as is writing about something you have never read.

I have heard him speak for many hours.

Which is as worthless as nothing

(December 7, 2018 at 10:45 pm)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:So now a question is an excuse?  He said "no scientists" suggest such a thing.  If he says "no" and there's just one, then his statement fails.  Unless a 0 value = a value of 1, then you're both wrong now. Congratulations.

1. As i said excuses
2.And again nope 
So i'm afraid you are wrong congratulations

Sounds more like you making excuses for being wrong. lol

But okay, believe whatever you like. 

Him - There's 0
Me - Here's 1
Him - That 1 doesn't count. I meant it had to be a different 1.
You - You're making excuses. He must be right.

And this is when I say - Derp!

(December 7, 2018 at 11:15 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 9:36 pm)sdelsolray Wrote: Have your read Stephen Myer's books?  They are not peer reviewed, nor are they "scientific work".  Yes, adding unnecessary bias is not desirable, as is writing about something you have never read.

I have heard him speak for many hours.

Waitaminute. Are you saying you haven't read Signature In The Cell?

(December 7, 2018 at 11:24 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: And this is when I say - Derp!

You greatly overestimate yourself my solipsist friend.

(December 7, 2018 at 8:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: It is not disputed, and YOU have no evidence for that lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

Stephen Meyer disputes it without evidence or expertise in the relevant fields.

Bringing up Meyer as a counter to evolution is as stupid as me asserting I'm a better soccer player than Leo Messi.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 10:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Who’s the new guy?  *popcorn*

An idiot who thinks the definition of the scientific method is "accept unquestioningly everything in the bible while dismissing out of hand all evidence contradictingit".

We're talking about a man who thinks that logic puzzles so simple I was given them in primary school are only solvable by geniuses (to go from his thread spamming in the maths area).

(December 8, 2018 at 5:59 am)LastPoet Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 11:24 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: And this is when I say - Derp!

You greatly overestimate yourself my solipsist friend.

Do you want to know why I like math? Maybe not, but here it is anyway.

It could give a flip about your feelings or my feelings.  It cares about solving problems through numerical values.  That's it. I can be mad at it, tell it that it's stupid, refer to it as "my solipsist friend", or whatever I want to say about it.  It won't listen to a word I say, it doesn't care to, it doesn't need to.  It's simply there to do what it's supposed to do.

Additionally when you try to invalidate someone as a scientist or from a particular study because it's a different field, then you're missing the whole point of scientific study. I have a degree, but only in two scientific fields, but it doesn't limit me to those fields.  Actually it might make me relevant to a study in a different field because I can help isolate variables based on my fields of study. The requirements don't change. At the end of the day, myself and whoever I'm working with just need to follow the same scientific standards.  If we miss something, no problem.  Trial and error is acceptable.  It may be what is needed to set up the appropriate parameters next time, or it may help other scientists do an even better study.  That is how we we advance our knowledge. Even when we work separately, we're still contributing collectively.

---

(December 8, 2018 at 6:15 am)Wololo Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

Stephen Meyer disputes it without evidence or expertise in the relevant fields.

Bringing up Meyer  as a counter to evolution is as stupid as me asserting I'm a better soccer player than Leo Messi.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 10:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Who’s the new guy?  *popcorn*

An idiot who thinks the definition of the scientific method is "accept unquestioningly everything in the bible while dismissing out of hand all evidence contradictingit".

We're talking about a man who thinks that logic puzzles so simple I was given them in primary school are only solvable by geniuses (to go from his thread spamming in the maths area).

I can speak for myself, so no need to make things up.  What you're doing is what's commonly known on the Internet as "trolling,"   For real world purposes, we also call it "slander."

- What "contradiction" did I accept?
- What supposed contradiction did I even assert?
- You're missing the point of the titles. It's meant to be a fun thing and not taken to heart.  Just like the prizes.  Is the concept if socializing and enjoying something foreign to you?  Is math not an acceptable medium to do so?

The skunk in the crowd is usually the one in the crowd crying out that everybody else is a skunk.

(December 8, 2018 at 6:37 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 8, 2018 at 5:59 am)LastPoet Wrote: You greatly overestimate yourself my solipsist friend.

Do you want to know why I like math? Maybe not, but here it is anyway.

It could give a flip about your feelings or my feelings.  It cares about solving problems through numerical values.  That's it. I can be mad at it, tell it that it's stupid, refer to it as "my solipsist friend", or whatever I want to say about it.  It won't listen to a word I say, it doesn't care to, it doesn't need to.  It's simply there to do what it's supposed to do.

I am having a hard time undertanding your diatribe. Were you adressing someone else?

Quote:Additionally when you try to invalidate someone as a scientist or from a particular study because it's a different field, then you're missing the whole point of scientific study. I have a degree, but only in two scientific fields, but it doesn't limit me to those fields.  Actually it might make me relevant to a study in a different field because I can help isolate variables based on my fields of study. The requirements don't change. At the end of the day, myself and whoever I'm working with just need to follow the same scientific standards.  If we miss something, no problem.  Trial and error is acceptable.  It may be what is needed to set up the appropriate parameters next time, or it may help other scientists do an even better study.  That is how we we advance our knowledge. Even when we work separately, we're still contributing collectively.

You do not sound like you have one. Is it a philisophy degree?

(December 7, 2018 at 7:14 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 7:12 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Such as?

Strawman. Nobody is making that claim.

No such thing. Want to claim there was? Provide evidence. You can't.

No fringe reset for you.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and others.

DNA shows we descended from one man and one woman.

Your error has been explained to you in terms a 4 year old could understand.

I can thus only conclude that you are in fact an intentional lying scumbag.

(December 8, 2018 at 6:37 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 8, 2018 at 5:59 am)LastPoet Wrote: You greatly overestimate yourself my solipsist friend.

Do you want to know why I like math? Maybe not, but here it is anyway.

It could give a flip about your feelings or my feelings.  It cares about solving problems through numerical values.  That's it. I can be mad at it, tell it that it's stupid, refer to it as "my solipsist friend", or whatever I want to say about it.  It won't listen to a word I say, it doesn't care to, it doesn't need to.  It's simply there to do what it's supposed to do.

Contrary to your assertion here, mathematics is fertile ground for controversy and debate about some of the most fundamental questions relating to it. It does care what different mathematicians have to say about it, and there is no settled answer. The reason you likely think it is as you say is because you have a simplistic conception of mathematics, that probably incorporates substantial misunderstandings and misrepresentations, as your views on science do.