Atheism

You guys. Stahp. You talking liek queermosexuals.

hey, apparently atheists don't know anything about science...

EDIT: tongue in cheek, I'd go toe-to-toe with Raisen on, literally, any scientific topic

Me too. Any topic really.

I'm a master at arguing about things I know nothing about.

For my part, I can be very articulate.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
For my part, I can be very articulate.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You guys. Stahp. You talking liek queermosexuals.

Originally posted by Oliver North
hey, apparently atheists don't know anything about science...

EDIT: tongue in cheek, I'd go toe-to-toe with Raisen on, literally, any scientific topic

I bet you don't even know who Walter Bishop is.

Originally posted by Mindset
What about fringe science?

I bet you don't even know who Walter Bishop is.

touche, I don't actually know what Fringe is...

Psuedoscience, well, kind of.

Teleportation, telepathy, etc.

Then there are things that were believed to be fringe science but later accepted as respected theories. I would explain it, but it's very technical and likely far above everyone's head. Only a genius like me would appreciate its value.

Originally posted by Oliver North
it was the debate between him and Gould...

A specific one off the top of my head? not sure, I did a bunch of reading about the conflict between selfish-gene and punctuated-equilibrium in my undergrad (there is actually a book called "Dawkins vs Gould"😉. I'm nowhere near an expert on either, and I don't think one theory or the other can explain what we observe exclusively, but one of the main points of contention seemed to be an almost "metaphysical" definition of "species" that existed back in those days (ie: the idea of an organism working for the good of its species, as if it were a personal goal of the organism).

I could try to look some of the stuff up again if you are interested, its just been a while.

EDIT: wow, the wiki entry is essentially just a synopsis of the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_vs._Gould

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, in conclusion, Catholicism is probably a bit less than 50% of Christians partly due to their involuntary baptisms skewing the numbers a bit, but the margin of error is too large to say for certain.

Well said. 👆

Originally posted by Raisen
All atheists are smug and worship science even though the majority of them have little to no scientific knowledge whatsoever. Isn't that description apt?

I wouldn't say all but I do indeed conclude a vast majority of them.

Most atheists are closes pantheists anyway. Those that aren't are just self-hating Jews.

Originally posted by Oliver North
hey, apparently atheists don't know anything about science...

it's why they wont let me be one 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well said. 👆

I'm glad we finally agr....HEY, wait a minute!!!

Originally posted by Astner
Well I wouldn't generalize to that extent, but I know for a fact that you're significantly restricted in terms of scientific knowledge and its applications.

Oooooh, I see a science-off coming!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oooooh, I see a science-off coming!!!

nah, Astner just has a raging hard on for me, but I want to play hard to get

Okay, then, alternatively, we should design how a "science-off" would actually work.

Both contenders start now, 1 point per citation in other people's papers, 3 point per paper, nobel prize doubles current points. GO!

I think I have 7 points? It is kind of hard to know the number of citations... ScienceDirect says I have 2 citations, but Google Scholar saya 4... ScienceDirect doesn't include the follow-up paper that is a literal continuation of that research, so I'm going with GS.

We could compare impact factors of the journals we published in?

EDIT: though I'm loath to do it, I suppose if one gets into a penis measuring contest, they must whip it out, I'm the second author on this paper:

http://webctupdates.wlu.ca/documents/39933/Olds_VR5595.pdf

additionally, my CV has almost a dozen additional conference presentations plus maybe 4-6 talks.

Impressive paper, Mr. Graham.

inimalist