[Closed] Why are you atheists so angry?

Given the immediately obvious existence of a dissenting opinion (which would tend to suggest it doesn't meet those criteria)

How does a dissenting opinion mean it doesn't meet the criteria? you made a big point about repeatable results.
The fact that it is a meta-analysis answers this, yet you ignore this.

Plenty of precedent in scientific studies

Right, so all academic evidence is flawed then?

You think she made a mistake? now you show the evidence

Really? Why do you say that?

Just because that's what I think.

I could point out that my comment about the conference is the most trivial thing for you to provide evidence for, and I was rather hoping you might provide more than that

It's because it is so trivial that i say 'oh dear'. It's an academic conference, academic conferences are peer-reviewed. You'll be asking for evidence that it actually happened next!

Just because that's what I think.

You'll have noticed in this thread, that is not enough

academic conferences are peer-reviewed

All of them? Including the ones I've presented at?

You'll have noticed in this thread, that is not enough

You've mistaken me for someone who has read the thread.

You think she made a mistake? now you show the evidence

Not my assertion.

All of them? Including the ones I've presented at?

if they weren't, they weren't academic

Ah - define academic conference for me then (a non-circular definition would be preferable).

peer-reviewed, that's what makes it academic

tell you what, have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_conference

[i]You think she made a mistake? now you show the evidence[/i]
Not my assertion.

looks like it here

aracer - Member

and it's not possible to make a mistake when collating those results - a mistake which wouldn't be repeated if somebody else also looked at those results?

Spit out the hook, aracer. 🙂

peer-reviewed, that's what makes it academic

tell you what, have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_conference

Ah - as I suspected, a circular definition. In which case how do I know that conference was an "academic conference" as opposed to the one of the sort I presented at?

Though then again, it would appear not:

[b]Some[/b] disciplines require presenters to submit a paper of about 6–15 pages, which is peer reviewed by members of the program committee or referees chosen by them.

and it's not possible to make a mistake when collating those results - a mistake which wouldn't be repeated if somebody else also looked at those results?

Hmm, now lets see. An assertion or a question?

Though it's kind of irrelevant, given I'm simply querying your original assertion.

Nice selective quoting there aracer, the line previous

Prospective presenters are usually asked to submit a short abstract of their presentation, which will be reviewed before the presentation is accepted for the meeting.

Hmm, now lets see. An assertion or a question?

really? using that back door? Ok it is not possible given the level of review such a paper and its other version would have gone through.

Let me ask you then, do you think she made a mistake in collating the data?
Do you think it is the likely reason for the results showing a higher than random correspondence?

Prospective presenters are usually asked to submit a short abstract of their presentation, which will be reviewed before the presentation is accepted for the meeting.

Yep - my presentations were subject to that. Note the lack of the use of the word "peer", or any suggestion of the selection of a panel of referees.

Ok it is not possible given the level of review such a paper and its other version would have gone through

You should tell that to some of the other scientists who've published peer reviewed papers which have subsequently been found to have flaws. Or are we back to the "something special" about this particular paper?

Let me ask you then, do you think she made a mistake in collating the data?
Do you think it is the likely reason for the results showing a higher than random correspondence?

I'd consider that in the absence of anybody else having done a similar study that there's certainly a possibility.

Note: that's quite a long way from being an assertion in case you were wanting to try that one again. It's just a reasonable level of doubt.

Yep - my presentations were subject to that. Note the lack of the use of the word "peer", or any suggestion of the selection of a panel of referees.

Who on earth do you think they ask to review it if not peers?

Who on earth do you think they ask to review it if not peers?

Like Prof Hyman?

Reviewing by peers != peer-reviewed

You should tell that to some of the other scientists who've published peer reviewed papers which have subsequently been found to have flaws. Or are we back to the "something special" about this particular paper?

No, I think the special and rare ones are the ones which are flawed and go through. They are in the very small minority. Do you think this paper has something special about it? not only is it one of the flawed ones that got through, but it is even rarer in that it has not been found out yet, despite being very controversial and counter to most peoples understanding.

Like Prof Hyman?

Reviewing by peers != peer-reviewed

WTF? Hyman said the data research techniques were fine.

Hyman did not review the paper, he responded to it.

not only is it one of the flawed ones that got through, but it is even rarer in that it has not been found out yet

Interesting. Do you have numbers for how many flawed papers haven't been found out yet?

Look, it's all very well playing these games, but you gotta know when it is over. Arguing that Utts might have made a mistake is just silly. yes, it is possible, but it seems pretty unlikely, given how often this work has been published, even with an adversarial partner, who agrees that the data is 'right'.

The assumption of academic publishing is that if it gets through the review process, then it is ok. Now the onus is one you to show that it is not. If you think there was no mistake then concede that point. I'll wait for that before we resume. Keep in mind that if you question this, then you pretty much have to ignore just about all academic research

Arguing that Utts might have made a mistake is just silly. yes, it is possible, but it seems pretty unlikely

I think your position has moved a little?

You also seem to have expended quite a lot of effort defending your assertion, given how obviously wrong I am.

The assumption of academic publishing is that if it gets through the review process, then it is ok. Now the onus is one you to show that it is not.

Not if you're arguing that there's no need for anybody to repeat the work - the usual standard for scientific work to be widely accepted.

Have you seen any pots around here, elf?

Pots? Plenty of [i]posts[/i], but no pots. 🙂

Universe still expanding, largely because it has to in order to contain elfins ego....

My ego remains at a constant size. It's your awareness and awe of it what is expaynding... 😉

Where GrahamS he is? Frightened?

Funny, cos he told me to move along, but then he's gawn and disappeared. 😐

Maybe he's thinking up an answer to my question. Yes, that'll be what he's doing.

You also seem to have expended quite a lot of effort defending your assertion, given how obviously wrong I am.

Well it is tiring answering silly questions, yes.

Actually, the last statement helped me to see what i need to do here

Lets see what some of history's great scientists have to say:

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." [b](Lord Kelvin)[/b]

"I am a Christian ... I believe only and alone ... in the service of Jesus Christ ... In Him is all refuge, all solace." [b](Johannes Kepler)[/b]

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." [b](Louis Pasteur)[/b]. Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence.

[b]Robert Boyle[/b] believed in Jesus Christ's "Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man."

"Order is manifestly maintained in the universe … the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God." [b](James Prescott Joule)[/b]

"There are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?" [b](Werhner Von Braun)[/b]

"Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created." [b](Carl Linnaeus)[/b]

"I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." [b](Sir Joseph Lister)[/b]

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." "The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being." [b](Sir Isaac Newton)[/b]

[b]Michael Faraday[/b] was careful to "Thank God, first, for all His gifts."

Presumably, that's YOUR idea of a peer review. I suppose someone might be moved to go off and collect a lot of quotes from atheist scientists to show you, yet again, that none of this is proof or evidence of anything but, well, you obviously refuse to recognise the obvious and actually, I simply can't be arsed.

EDIT (repeat).

someone might be moved to go off and collect a lot of quotes from atheist scientists to show you, yet again, that none of this is proof or evidence of anything

True. Although I don't really know what the peer review remark is referring to, having only scanned the last page or two of comments.

Quotes by Christian scientists doesn't "prove" God.
Neither do quotes from Atheist sicentists "disprove" God.

All it tells us is that some people conclude God exists, some don't.

And that God and Science aren't mutually exclusive.

Although I don't really know what the peer review remark is referring to

Oh, FFS.

What's the point of the post, then?

God and Science aren't mutually exclusive.

big bang
Dinosaurs
age of the universe
Origin of the species

WOuld you lkike me to go on ?

You cannot argue that advancements in science [ which means us understanding the world in an ever mor eaccurate way] have all lead to evidence thet counters biblical and religious accounts of how we came to be.

And from pages ago as i have just readf rom where i left off

So either 81% of us are utterly wasting our time and energy by having faith/belief in a god, or the other 19% are ignoring something very significant
Is it reasonable to suggest that 81% of people are wrong in believing there is something more to life than just muddling along for 80 years with no real purpose, and that death is the end?

Well all 81 % don’t follow the same one so we can still safely assume the majority of these are wrong and wasting their time – perhaps you may wish to ask why so many people believe so passionately and with equal faith when they are wrong – you may wish to consider why it is so hard to work out which are “wrong” given it is evidence based.

Quotes by Christian scientists doesn't "prove" God.
Neither do quotes from Atheist sicentists "disprove" God.

All it tells us is that some people conclude God exists, some don't.

"God doesn't exist" - some random on STW
"God exists" - some other random on STW

They also show that some people conclude God exists, some don't - you seem to have gone to a lot of effort for the same result.

Though hang on a minute...

"Atheism is so senseless..." (Sir Isaac Newton)

Newton also said that direction of light propagation doesn't get changed by a gravitational field - but observation shows it does. Why do you expect me to trust him on God when he got other stuff so wrong?

And that God and Science aren't mutually exclusive.

Quite a lot of claims by religious people and science are though.

Newton also said that direction of light propagation doesn't get changed by a gravitational field - but observation shows it does. Why do you expect me to trust him on God when he got other stuff so wrong?

True, he has since been proved wrong on at least one of his statements, such is the nature of science.

But as nobody's yet categorically disproved God by observation then the books still open on that one?

Science is a dynamic thing, with theories constantly being proposed, refuted and refined as human understanding grows ... the ultimate conclusion might be God ... who knows ... it wouldn't be scientific for science to just ignore or reject 'God' just because it doesn't agree with current understanding of stuff ... "we don't like the implications so we'll assume it doesn't exist" ...

But as nobody's yet categorically disproved God by observation then the books still open on that one?

Yeah. I see what you're saying.

nobody's yet categorically disproved God by observation then the books still open on that one

You cannot prove a negative which is why you are asked to prove god exists. The burden of proof is on you to support your assertion and you can produc eno objective evidence just faith and other stuff
If I make a claim can i just ask you to disprove it ?
It is not a good way to seek knowledge [ reduce error]

Newton also practicised alchemy FWIW - genius for sure but knowledge based on his time

Unicorns
Fairies
Trolls
Underpants Gnomes

You forgot the FSM

You cannot prove a negative which is why you are asked to prove god exists. The burden of proof is on you to support your assertion and you can produce no objective evidence just faith and other stuff

There's two sides of the arguement, so it's not just up to 'my' side to produce evidence for God's existence. It's equally up to the 'other' side to provide objective evidence to the contrary.

Either way, it's a nice discussion but ultimately nobody can be argued into a belief in God.

origin of the species

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis."

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life.

Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this.

There's two sides of the arguement, so it's not just up to 'my' side to produce evidence for God's existence. It's equally up to the 'other' side to provide objective evidence to the contrary.

Go on then. You believe in God, which presumably means you believe the FSM doesn't exist. You prove he doesn't.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism

Nope - it just required there to have been some very simple organism at the start which things evolved out of. The belief commonly held by evolutionists is that there was some spontaneous creation of very simple life, but the rest of evolution doesn't depend on this.

Plenty of evidence for evolution after the existence of a simple organism, plenty of evidence against creationism.

What's an FSM?

Anything like a Gruffalo?

It's equally up to the 'other' side to provide objective evidence to the contrary.

You are really controlled by an invisible and undectable green fish which lives in your ear

Now prove this is worng ?
Would you accpet this as true because you cannot or would you ignore it because I can produce no evidence to support this assertion

nobody can be argued into a belief in God

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

one wonders why you spend so much time trying to convince non believers by reposting stuff from here then.

As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis

What's an FSM?

Anything like a Gruffalo?