Originally posted by RJHindsNonsense. They proved through statistics that the avarage IQ of theists is less than that of that of atheists.
They did not prove anything other than they do not understand the scientific method.
Tell us what you so you know about scientific method that they do not.... ( answer; nothing )
Originally posted by humyI would say everything. I doubt these pollsters have ever done any real
Nonsense. They proved through statistics that the avarage IQ of theists is less than that of that of atheists.
Tell us what you so you know about scientific method that they do not.... ( answer; nothing )
scientific experiments in a real lab.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat a shallow statement to actually make. Perhaps God saw his good heart and knew he appreciated his creations and because of that God could have enlightend Mr Newton with some special knowledge like he had done with King Solomon.
I wonder how much more he would have figured out if he hadn't wasted all that time with pointless biblical numeration and such?
Back in his day, the church was just beginning to lose its grip but still very powerful, even the English Church. You were thoroughly brainwashed by the time you were 6 or 7.
I'm not saying he did but who are you to question any human on the planet and their views and what may have been given to them from God?
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“...I would say everything. ...”
I would say everything. I doubt these pollsters have ever done any real
scientific experiments in a real lab.
please humour us; just give ONE example -any one will do. Then show evidence that they do not understand it.
“...I doubt these pollsters have ever done any real
scientific experiments in a real lab. ...”
based on what evidence? Besides, rational scientific analysis of statistics doesn't require lab experiments nor expert knowledge of how to conduct lab experements although it may require at least extremely basic understanding of probability which you have repeatedly shown complete and total ignorance of in these forums.
Originally posted by humyThe following is a link to engineering and scientific methods.
“...I would say everything. ...”
please humour us; just give ONE example -any one will do. Then show evidence that they do not understand it.
“...I doubt these pollsters have ever done any real
scientific experiments in a real lab. ...”
based on what evidence? Besides, rational scientific analysis of statistics doesn't require lab experiments nor exp ...[text shortened]... of probability which you have repeatedly shown complete and total ignorance of in these forums.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/engineering-design-process/engineering-design-compare-scientific-method.shtml
Do you see anything in them that allows for making assumptions on the actual
evidence. You may have an assumption that you would like to prove, but you
are not allowed to prove that assumption by another assumption. That is
exactly what your Gallop pollsters did. So that proves they do not understand
how to conduct scientific or engineering experiments.
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds“...Do you see anything in them that allows for making assumptions on the actual
The following is a link to engineering and scientific methods.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/engineering-design-process/engineering-design-compare-scientific-method.shtml
Do you see anything in them that allows for making assumptions on the actual
evidence. You may have an assumption that you would like to prove, but you
are not allowed to prove tha ...[text shortened]... d. So that proves they do not understand
how to conduct scientific or engineering experiments.
evidence. ...”
Totally irrelevant: the link has nothing to do with the first link and the pollsters in the first link did not make any assumption on the evidence that effected their analysis of data. If you claim otherwise then you need to show EVIDENCE of this.
The fact remains; it is an unsurprisingly proven statistical fact that the average IQ of theists is less than that of atheists -and they proved it.
It takes stupidity to have stupid religious beliefs.
“...You may have an assumption that you would like to prove, but you
are not allowed to prove that assumption by another assumption. That is
exactly what your Gallop pollsters did. ...”
“by another assumption”? Don't know what you are taking about: which 'other' assumption you say they made that ?
Anyway, back to my question that you still haven't answered:
tell us EXPLICITLY just ONE example ( any one will do, doesn't matter which one ) of a part of scientific method that you say you understand but you say the pollsters don't and show evidence of this.
Originally posted by RJHinds"I doubt". That is your mantra. Show me your rigorous analysis of where they went wrong and then publish your paper in a reputable journal if you think they screwed up. That is how science works. Just saying 'I doubt it' does not cut the mustard.
I would say everything. I doubt these pollsters have ever done any real
scientific experiments in a real lab.
Originally posted by tim88That was English. It may not have been absolutely crystal clear at first reading but it was perfectly good English, both syntactically and grammatically.
this time in english
The answers to the two questions are:
1. Yes, there are famous scientists who are religious. Two examples in the UK are Professor Lord Robert Winston (fertility expert and Orthodox Jew) and Dr Francis Collins (ex-head of the Human Genome Project and Evangelical Christian).
2. Yes, there are lots of famous scientists.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by galveston75Of course you are right, an individual cannot tell if another had some kind of interaction with a god, but the truth of the matter is kids are brainwashed into their respective religion early on.
What a shallow statement to actually make. Perhaps God saw his good heart and knew he appreciated his creations and because of that God could have enlightend Mr Newton with some special knowledge like he had done with King Solomon.
I'm not saying he did but who are you to question any human on the planet and their views and what may have been given to them from God?
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI don't have to prove it because it is stated in the article that they made
“...Do you see anything in them that allows for making assumptions on the actual
evidence. ...”
Totally irrelevant: the link has nothing to do with the first link and the pollsters in the first link did not make any assumption on the evidence that effected their analysis of data. If you claim otherwise then you need to show EVIDENCE of this.
The fact re hod that you say you understand but you say the pollsters don't and show evidence of this.
assumptions. I think that should be proof enough for any normal and rational
person. Of course, I may not be dealing with normal and rational people on
this forum.
Originally posted by sonhouseThey don't give the data or how they got the data. All they really give is their
"I doubt". That is your mantra. Show me your rigorous analysis of where they went wrong and then publish your paper in a reputable journal if you think they screwed up. That is how science works. Just saying 'I doubt it' does not cut the mustard.
opinion on the data. We all know opinion is not science, so what is it? maybe,
speculation?
Originally posted by RJHinds“...I don't have to prove it because it is stated in the article that they made
I don't have to prove it because it is stated in the article that they made
assumptions. I think that should be proof enough for any normal and rational
person. Of course, I may not be dealing with normal and rational people on
this forum.
assumptions ...”
I point out for the third time: they made one assumption that was proven right. They didn't make that assumption effect the analysis of the evidence but mere made it there MOTIVE for their research.
Anyway, back to my question again on your previous claim:
tell us EXPLICITLY just ONE example ( any one will do, doesn't matter which one ) of a part of scientific method that you say you understand but you say the pollsters don't and show evidence of this?
I take it you cannot answer this question as you persistently don't thus demonstrating that you are talking crap as usual -there is no part of scientific method that you understand that they do not. You are simply lying.