Religon VS Science

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You can state your profession all you want, Like I said credentials don't verify nothing. except that you were educated by an institution on a particular Field.

I won't argue with your personal opinion on the subject. Any professional will disagree with you, as well as anyone that will be considering giving you money either as compensation for employment or as money for consultation. An educated individual will be given more respect and deemed more credible to those people.

Now, "don't verify nothing", this is bad grammar, and you are stating that credentials verify things by using a double negative. For future reference most people that are considered credible use proper grammar.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
An education on a Field doesn't equate to credentials, just because you went to school to study a Field and I choose to learn it on my own doesn't mean your more versed than person who didn't.

Actually, it does. You can deny this, but society as a whole disagrees, and you are of no consequence when others are considering credentials.

Originally posted by Regret
I won't argue with your personal opinion on the subject. Any professional will disagree with you, as well as anyone that will be considering giving you money either as compensation for employment or as money for consultation. An educated individual will be given more respect and deemed more credible to those people.

Who said anything about money, The main objective of science is to better human life. yes their is profit involved. but If Someone's research is Irrefutable, why does it matter if he's not qualified his works speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Regret

Now, "don't verify nothing", this is bad grammar, and you are stating that credentials verify things by using a double negative. For future reference most people that are considered credible use proper grammar.

And this isn't english class, it's Kmc you understand what i'm saying so that's that.

Originally posted by Regret

Actually, it does. You can deny this, but society as a whole disagrees, and you are of no consequence when others are considering credentials..

I already know that, I don't really care what society thinks. social constructs are created by those who have power. if you have control over society you can make anyone percieve your reality with social constructs and labels. Bottom line is the ends justify the means and Established science is very bias. I can give many examples of this.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Who said anything about money, The main objective of science is to better human life. yes their is profit involved. but If Someone's research is Irrefutable, why does it matter if he's not qualified his works speaks for itself.

We are talking about credibility, not science at the moment. And the work does speak for itself, not necessarily for that someone.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And this isn't english class, it's Kmc you understand what i'm saying so that's that.

Yes, but, my opinion of your credibility is less because you use improper grammar.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I already know that, I don't really care what society thinks. social constructs are created by those who have power. if you have control over society you can make anyone percieve your reality with social constructs and labels. Bottom line is the ends justify the means and Established science is very bias. I can give many examples of this.

That is all fine and good, but the work does not always lead to credibility. The work may be good, but that someone may not gain credibility due to it.

--------------------
An example of credibility effecting the timeliness of betterment of human life through science:

Who was the first person to come up with what is now termed Pavlovian conditioning?

It might surprise you to know that Pavlov was not the first. A man by the name of E.B. Twitmyer presented a paper on the subject (that had been completed two years earlier) to the APA prior to Pavlov's report. His credibility was lacking and so his findings were viewed as lacking as well.

Prior to Twitmyer was Alois Kreidl in 1896. He wasn't interested in the subject, and so the finding was not pursued by the community at large.

--------------------

Credibility can be an asset, lack of credibility is often a hindrance.

Originally posted by Regret
We are talking about credibility, not science at the moment. And the work does speak for itself, not necessarily for that someone.

That makes no sense, How can someone's work not represent his credibility?

Originally posted by Regret

Yes, but, my opinion of your credibility is less because you use improper grammar.

And I told you what Ithink of your opinion.

Originally posted by Regret

That is all fine and good, but the work does not always lead to credibility. The work may be good, but that someone may not gain credibility due to it.

--------------------
An example of credibility effecting the timeliness of betterment of human life through science:

Who was the first person to come up with what is now termed Pavlovian conditioning?

It might surprise you to know that Pavlov was not the first. A man by the name of E.B. Twitmyer presented a paper on the subject (that had been completed two years earlier) to the APA prior to Pavlov's report. His credibility was lacking and so his findings were viewed as lacking as well.

Prior to Twitmyer was Alois Kreidl in 1896. He wasn't interested in the subject, and so the finding was not pursued by the community at large.

--------------------

Credibility can be an asset, lack of credibility is often a hindrance.

And you just proved my point, Established science is heavily bias, and uses unfair POV. you have yet to explain WHY someone's credibility effects his work with out mentioning someone's opinion.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, because that is what I was addressing in my post. That's what I was talking about. Completely. You caught me, you with your italics and science.

If you insist on referring to Intelligent Design as IDT, i.e. Intelligent Design Theory, by all means, explain how it qualifies as a scientific:

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yet another person ignorant of what IDT is.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
That makes no sense, How can someone's work not represent his credibility?

And I told you what Ithink of your opinion.

And you just proved my point, Established science is heavily bias, and uses unfair POV. you have yet to explain WHY someone's credibility effects his work with out mentioning someone's opinion.

No one ever said scientists were not biased, we have been speaking about credibility, not work. We are discussing it because when someone debates something on the forum the only thing that means anything is the credibility of that individual and his sources. If those two things mean nothing to you, then there is no reason to speak with you further.

Life is unfair, sad but true. People's opinions are all that matters often. Very few people will ever take your opinion, let alone you, seriously without some form of education behind you. You will be limited in your possibilities.

You appear to need much more help than I am willing to give. I don't know what you do, but I hope that I never have to rely on you to do anything that might impact my life in any way.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Then you'll know that IDT isn't just based off of "EVOLUTION IS WRONG", I presume.

I presume that you know for a theory to be scientific, it must be observable, testable, replicatable, falsifiable, make predictions about the natural world and its phenomena, etc.?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you insist on referring to Intelligent Design as ID[b]T, i.e. Intelligent Design Theory, by all means, explain how it qualifies as a scientific: [/B]

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You can state your profession all you want, Like I said credentials don't verify nothing. except that you were educated by an institution on a particular Field.

😆

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
An education on a Field doesn't equate to credentials, just because you went to school to study a Field and I choose to learn it on my own doesn't mean your more versed than person who didn't.

That is exactly what it means.

Originally posted by Regret
No one ever said scientists were not biased, we have been speaking about credibility, not work. We are discussing it because when someone debates something on the forum the only thing that means anything is the credibility of that individual and his sources. If those two things mean nothing to you, then there is no reason to speak with you further.

Life is unfair, sad but true. People's opinions are all that matters often. Very few people will ever take your opinion, let alone you, seriously without some form of education behind you. You will be limited in your possibilities.

You appear to need much more help than I am willing to give. I don't know what you do, but I hope that I never have to rely on you to do anything that might impact my life in any way.

I'm not asking you to take my word, I dwell in facts and if you want them I can always post them.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
It's been posted many times, why don't you re-read the thread thjat post information on it and tell me why it's not a theory?

Because it is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable, and it does not make predictions about the natural world and its phenomena.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because it is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable, and it does not make predictions about the natural world and its phenomena.

You didn't even elaborate why, you just made a claim as usual. what's the poiont in debating someone like that.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You didn't even elaborate why, you just made a claim as usual. what's the poiont in debating someone like that.

slam

Evolution is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable. that doesn't stop you from accepting it as a valid theory.

Evolution has never been observed.

No test has ever shown mutations create new traits.

Evolution doesn't make any predictions because it's mechanism are random.

So what merit does it hold.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Evolution is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable. that doesn't stop you from accepting it as a valid theory.

Evolution has never been observed.

No test has ever shown mutations create new traits.

Evolution doesn't make any predictions because it's mechanism are random.

Do some research before attacking credible science.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You didn't even elaborate why, you just made a claim as usual. what's the poiont in debating someone like that.

How many times must it be explained to you that the one who makes a positive claim has the burden of proof to substantiate it?

If it is your claim that Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, then you must explain how it is observable, testable, replicatable, and falsifiable, and explain the predictions it makes about the natural world and its phenomena.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How many times must it be explained to you that the one who makes a positive claim has the burden of proof to substantiate it?

If it is your claim that Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, then you must explain how it is observable, testable, replicatable, and falsifiable, and explain the predictions it makes about the natural world and its phenomena.

And I did several times in a previous thread, Not one person gave me a response.

Originally posted by Regret
slam

Do some research before attacking credible science.

Typical response, instead of telling me why I'm wrong. you just tell me to do some research (Which I have)

-The mechanism of Evolution are random, Mutations are random and so are the results, same applies for natural selection. so how does evolution make any predictions as to their effect on any organism.

-Evolution has never been witnesses.

-No, experiment has even proved evolutions claim of mutations creating traits, so I don't even understand how a mutation is a mechanism.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And I did several times in a previous thread, Not one person gave me a response.

If Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, and you have explained how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory several times, then it should not be difficult for you to answer the following questions:

How is Intelligent Design observable?

How is Intelligent Design testable, and how are the results replicatable?

How is Intelligent Design falsifiable?

What predictions does Intelligent Design make about the natural world and its phenomena?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Evolution is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable. that doesn't stop you from accepting it as a valid theory.

Evolution has never been observed.

No test has ever shown mutations create new traits.

Evolution doesn't make any predictions because it's mechanism are random.

So what merit does it hold.

The Mind of Observable. Hence Psychology.

Development is Observable. Hence Evolution. 🙂

There is so much evidence to back up Evolution, so much more than any religion has to offer.

Why don't you actually READ a book on this before you go making these uneducated claims, because obviously for you to make statements like this you don't know the first thing about the topic. ❌