Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[Gadawg73]

My cousin in Ithaca just texted and stated he gets Boortz in NY. Guess he is not in major markets there as I heard him in Toronto last summer on the lake.

 

[newpolitics]

Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.

You really think the fact that I went to public school actually is the cause for my saying this about fox? That's quite a leap, considering how many factors go into something a person might choose to type on an internet forum.

Let me clear this up: I wasn't being serious. I don't actually think that's a good idea to censor fox, although I secretly wish it were possibility, because I think they are evil.

Apology accepted.

Welcome home.

Don't mistake what i said for an apology. I will never apologize for bad-mouthing a crap "newstation." I was clearing my own name, so I don't lose all credibility on these stupid boards.

 

[newpolitics]

Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".

"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."

Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters

I think it is implicit that when a scientific study come out, you must take it with a grain of salt. Not because of the possibility of fraud, just because, people make mistakes, and time is usually a good test of whether these predictions outlined in any given study can be replicated across the field. As it is either substantiated or not, the theory or study will gain momentum or lose it.

I find it funny that to you, this discredits science in general. There are thousands of studies done a year. To assume that not one of them is up to something fishy is overlooking our humanity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You really think the fact that I went to public school actually is the cause for my saying this about fox? That's quite a leap, considering how many factors go into something a person might choose to type on an internet forum.

Let me clear this up: I wasn't being serious. I don't actually think that's a good idea to censor fox, although I secretly wish it were possibility, because I think they are evil.

Apology accepted.

Welcome home.

Don't mistake what i said for an apology. I will never apologize for bad-mouthing a crap "newstation." I was clearing my own name, so I don't lose all credibility on these stupid boards.

I said 'apology' just to jerk your chain.
Worked, eh?

"...so I don't lose all credibility on these stupid boards."

So much to work with here!

First, Fox News, the premier cable news station is not 'evil'....jerk.

Second, it has more liberals on air than your fav cable stations.

Third, have no fear that you may 'lose all credibility'....you can't lose what you don't nor will ever have.

And, as I end my refrain, I can see why you would seek a niche 'on these stupid boards'....as a 'stupid board' would be your comfort zone.


Step off.

 

[newpolitics]

Apology accepted.

Welcome home.

Don't mistake what i said for an apology. I will never apologize for bad-mouthing a crap "newstation." I was clearing my own name, so I don't lose all credibility on these stupid boards.

I said 'apology' just to jerk your chain.
Worked, eh?

"...so I don't lose all credibility on these stupid boards."

So much to work with here!

First, Fox News, the premier cable news station is not 'evil'....jerk.

Second, it has more liberals on air than your fav cable stations.

Third, have no fear that you may 'lose all credibility'....you can't lose what you don't nor will ever have.

And, as I end my refrain, I can see why you would seek a niche 'on these stupid boards'....as a 'stupid board' would be your comfort zone.


Step off.

talk to the hand?

 

[Woyzeck]

1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"

It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.

Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.



Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.

3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!

So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?

Debate me.

"Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly."

Of course they were used correctly...that's exactly what sticks in your craw.

If they were, then answer some of my issues with them. They should be perfectly answerable if they were used correctly.

Try actually answering with substance instead of saying "no you're wrong" over and over again.

I've found, and this thread indicates, that those fearful that their worldview is more a house built on a foundation of sand needing just enough of a shaking....and it is gone.

That doesn't answer my post. Stop with your passive-aggressive insult bullshit and write an actual reply to something I've said. Is saying something actually relevant anathema to you?

You are a case in point.
Rather than admitting that there numerous cases of foundation-less theories, and therefore no more 'scientific' than many of the ideas found in theology...
...you keep mumbling 'debate me, debate me.'

If I'm wrong, and the theories we are debating are "foundation-less" than it shouldn't be too hard to answer my points.

What new ideas do you bring to the table?
None.

Oh look. Yet another excuse to not actually answer what I said. There's a lot of heavy irony in accusing me of introducing no new ideas.

You can't prove that there are multiple universes, or how or why the universe began, or bridge the gaps between the standard model and string theory, or why there is not proof that evolution is based on a series of changes leading to new species- but on new species that arise filled with all the properties that differentiate them from other forms....

This string of assertions is the closest thing you've actually done to actually reply to me in awhile.

I'm pretty sure I never asserted there were multiple universes, let alone tout evidence that proved it. I said it was a hypothesis, which even Dawkins admitted it was. Anyone with two brain cells concerning physics knows its by and large speculation at this point. I'm pretty sure it'd be wrong to take Dawkins' opinion on it seriously, since he isn't a physicist by trade. I sure don't take stock in his opinions on physics that's for sure. So this rapidly becomes irrelevant seeing as I said nothing you claim to say.

And oh, look. You've introduced cosmology into the debate. Funny, I don't recall this ever coming up before. It's largely irrelevant. Fun fact though, one of the proponents of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaître. The Pope at the time tried to claim his new theory validated the Bible. Lemaître wrote him, stressing this was not so.

Why should I have to bridge the gaps between the standard model and string theory? You're the one who brought string theory into begin with. I made no claims regarding it. Photonic was correct when he said the general consensus is not to put much stock into it. String theory is actually a theory that hasn't been proven. Don't tell me you believe it, PC.

You do realize you're little tidbit actually makes sense when you input the theory of evolution? It doesn't do much to disprove any part of it. At any rate, we know speciation occurs. I even gave you an example of it happening in a laboratory setting, as well as speciation resulting from the artificial selection of humans. Look at almost anything we've domesticated in our time as modern humans on earth, from bananas to chickens.

And, the most momentous of events, the ability of the human mind, and body, which is not found elsewhere in the biosphere.....

And your point is? Oh, I get it. The body and mind is too difficult for people to understand. It is far too complicated and advanced than anything on earth. How haughty. What a poor mindset to take. We understand a bit more than you'd like to admit, but on the whole not as much as we would like.

You're right, we don't know much about the brain. And just like I pointed out awhile ago, we also don't know a lot about physics. But that doesn't invalidate what we already know.

...the degree of magnitude explained in only one place:

Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

A Bible verse. Really. A Bible verse. We should toss away all our knowledge accumulated over the past six hundred years of progress and look to the Bible for answers? Your excuse for mangling physics and biology isn't to prop up another evidence-based theory, but stamp God over everything?

Well hey, at least you've admitted what I've been reading between the lines since the beginning of the thread. If that's what you wanna do, more power to you. But don't insist that modern physics or biology is incorrect or wrong because of it, especially if you can't offer any actual evidence why.

Debate you?
I've destroyed you.

Oooh dramatic. You like putting so much ham into your posts that William Shatner would be jealous. I'm sure your next line will be "Stand aside everyone, I take large steps."

You would have a point, if you had actually bothered to make some points when replying to me. As I've been chiding and chasing you for several pages now.

 

[Woyzeck]

You should really come and visit the United States...you might get a different perspective.

I was born and raised in America (New York). What do you mean by different perspective? Or rather, what perspective do presume I am missing?

Well, then....judging from your post you, no doubt, attended a government school. Thinking persons don't suggest censorship of opposing viewpoints.

Could you be any more elitist? You sound like the upper-class of America or Britain, the rich snobs who paid their way into Harvard and Oxford and look down on anyone for not being rich.

 

[Woyzeck]

1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"

It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.

Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.



Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.

3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!

So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?

Debate me.

Why do so many honest scientists make a comment and it gets out to the creationist then all of a sudden we get a recant of the comment and puppets like yourself get out and spew that is not what was meant. Perfect example Gould and Eldredge.

Please. I've pointed out times when you've posted chopped quotes by Charles Darwin, ones from right out of the Origin of Species. You really shouldn't be one to act like any and all quotes posted are 100% honest and not out of context.

 

[LOki]

Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.



Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.



So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?

Debate me.

"Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly."

Of course they were used correctly...that's exactly what sticks in your craw.

If they were, then answer some of my issues with them. They should be perfectly answerable if they were used correctly.

Try actually answering with substance instead of saying "no you're wrong" over and over again.



That doesn't answer my post. Stop with your passive-aggressive insult bullshit and write an actual reply to something I've said. Is saying something actually relevant anathema to you?



If I'm wrong, and the theories we are debating are "foundation-less" than it shouldn't be too hard to answer my points.



Oh look. Yet another excuse to not actually answer what I said. There's a lot of heavy irony in accusing me of introducing no new ideas.



This string of assertions is the closest thing you've actually done to actually reply to me in awhile.

I'm pretty sure I never asserted there were multiple universes, let alone tout evidence that proved it. I said it was hypothesis, which even Dawkins admitted it was. Anyone with two brain cells concerning physics knows its by and large speculation at this point. I'm pretty sure it'd be wrong to take Dawkins' opinion on it seriously, since he isn't a physicist by trade. I sure don't take stock in his opinions on physics that's for sure. So this rapidly commons irrelevant seeing as I said nothing you claim to say.

And oh, look. You've introduced cosmology into the debate. Funny, I don't recall this ever coming up before. It's largely irrelevant. Fun fact though, one of the proponents of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaître. The Pope at the time tried to claim his new theory validated the Bible. Lemaître wrote him, stressing this was not so.

Why should I have to bridge the gaps between the standard model and string theory? You're the one who brought string theory into begin with. I made no claims regarding it. Photonic was correct when he said the general consensus is not to put much stock into it. String theory is actually a theory that hasn't been proven. Don't tell me you believe it, PC.

You do realize you're little tidbit actually makes sense when you input the theory of evolution? It doesn't do much to disprove any part of it. At any rate, we know speciation occurs. I even gave you an example of it happening in a laboratory setting, as well as speciation resulting from the artificial selection of humans. Look at almost anything we've domesticated in our time as modern humans on earth, from bananas to chickens.



And your point is? Oh, I get it. The body and mind is too difficult for people to understand. It is far too complicated and advanced than anything on earth. How haughty. What a poor mindset to take. We understand a bit more than you'd like to admit, but on the whole not as much as we would like.

You're right, we don't know much about the brain. And just like I pointed out awhile ago, we also don't know a lot about physics. But that doesn't invalidate what we already know.

...the degree of magnitude explained in only one place:

Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

A Bible verse. Really. A Bible verse. We should toss away all our knowledge accumulated over the past six hundred years of progress and look to the Bible for answers? Your excuse for mangling physics and biology isn't to prop up another evidence-based theory, but stamp God over everything?

Well hey, at least you've admitted what I've been reading between the lines since the beginning of the thread. If that's what you wanna do, more power to you. But don't insist that modern physics or biology is incorrect or wrong because of it, especially if you can't offer any actual evidence why.

Debate you?
I've destroyed you.

Oooh dramatic. You like putting so much ham into your posts that William Shatner would be jealous. I'm sure your next line will be "Stand aside everyone, I take large steps."

You would have a point, if you had actually bothered to make some points when replying to me. As I've been chiding and chasing you for several pages now.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Woyzeck again.​

 

[LOki]

1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"

It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.

Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.



Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.

3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!

So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?

Debate me.

Why do so many honest scientists make a comment and it gets out to the creationist then all of a sudden we get a recant of the comment and puppets like yourself get out and spew that is not what was meant. Perfect example Gould and Eldredge.

When Gould and Eldredge say quote-mining Christian Creationist asshats are wrong about what they conclude, then the evidence is clear: Christian Creationists dishonestly pull scientific commentary out of context to advance their retarded agenda.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I don't understand what this has to do with religion vs. science....

It speaks to the unethical lying of scientists to gain wealth. Same that is going on with the lie of global warming.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.



Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.



So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?

Debate me.

"Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly."

Of course they were used correctly...that's exactly what sticks in your craw.

If they were, then answer some of my issues with them. They should be perfectly answerable if they were used correctly.

Try actually answering with substance instead of saying "no you're wrong" over and over again.



That doesn't answer my post. Stop with your passive-aggressive insult bullshit and write an actual reply to something I've said. Is saying something actually relevant anathema to you?



If I'm wrong, and the theories we are debating are "foundation-less" than it shouldn't be too hard to answer my points.



Oh look. Yet another excuse to not actually answer what I said. There's a lot of heavy irony in accusing me of introducing no new ideas.



This string of assertions is the closest thing you've actually done to actually reply to me in awhile.

I'm pretty sure I never asserted there were multiple universes, let alone tout evidence that proved it. I said it was a hypothesis, which even Dawkins admitted it was. Anyone with two brain cells concerning physics knows its by and large speculation at this point. I'm pretty sure it'd be wrong to take Dawkins' opinion on it seriously, since he isn't a physicist by trade. I sure don't take stock in his opinions on physics that's for sure. So this rapidly becomes irrelevant seeing as I said nothing you claim to say.

And oh, look. You've introduced cosmology into the debate. Funny, I don't recall this ever coming up before. It's largely irrelevant. Fun fact though, one of the proponents of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaître. The Pope at the time tried to claim his new theory validated the Bible. Lemaître wrote him, stressing this was not so.

Why should I have to bridge the gaps between the standard model and string theory? You're the one who brought string theory into begin with. I made no claims regarding it. Photonic was correct when he said the general consensus is not to put much stock into it. String theory is actually a theory that hasn't been proven. Don't tell me you believe it, PC.

You do realize you're little tidbit actually makes sense when you input the theory of evolution? It doesn't do much to disprove any part of it. At any rate, we know speciation occurs. I even gave you an example of it happening in a laboratory setting, as well as speciation resulting from the artificial selection of humans. Look at almost anything we've domesticated in our time as modern humans on earth, from bananas to chickens.



And your point is? Oh, I get it. The body and mind is too difficult for people to understand. It is far too complicated and advanced than anything on earth. How haughty. What a poor mindset to take. We understand a bit more than you'd like to admit, but on the whole not as much as we would like.

You're right, we don't know much about the brain. And just like I pointed out awhile ago, we also don't know a lot about physics. But that doesn't invalidate what we already know.

...the degree of magnitude explained in only one place:

Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

A Bible verse. Really. A Bible verse. We should toss away all our knowledge accumulated over the past six hundred years of progress and look to the Bible for answers? Your excuse for mangling physics and biology isn't to prop up another evidence-based theory, but stamp God over everything?

Well hey, at least you've admitted what I've been reading between the lines since the beginning of the thread. If that's what you wanna do, more power to you. But don't insist that modern physics or biology is incorrect or wrong because of it, especially if you can't offer any actual evidence why.

Debate you?
I've destroyed you.

Oooh dramatic. You like putting so much ham into your posts that William Shatner would be jealous. I'm sure your next line will be "Stand aside everyone, I take large steps."

You would have a point, if you had actually bothered to make some points when replying to me. As I've been chiding and chasing you for several pages now.

1. Ohhhhhh......my poor, poor little toad!

Now I see the injury I've done you!

You actually thought that this thread was about YOU?????
"I'm pretty sure I never asserted there were ....."
"Debate me...debate me...!!!"
I should have realized...you're just lonely!

But, why would anyone care what you believe???
You....less than significant!
Now...be clear, I find you insignificant....but not 'worthless,' like your pal Lowest.
See...now don't you feel better?

Now, focus like a laser: the quotes were from/about atheist scientists who despise the use of faith and belief, yet use same, as in...
"You can't prove that there are multiple universes, or how or why the universe began, or bridge the gaps between the standard model and string theory, or why there is not proof that evolution is based on a series of changes leading to new species- but on new species that arise filled with all the properties that differentiate them from other forms...."

And you thought this was about you???
Forgive if I am reduced to the same behavior as most folks who know you: I'm giggling.

2. "Try actually answering with substance instead of saying "no you're wrong" over and over again."
Are you sure you're speaking of moi?
I provide quotes form the famous atheists...(as opposed to you, the invisible atheist) to document my premise....
...in fact you've objected to same. Now I see why: you wish to be quoted, and recognized!
Right,... in another life.

3. "This string of assertions is the closest thing you've actually done to actually reply to me in awhile."
You???
Again??
You're so needy!
Pathetic.

4."...write an actual reply to something I've said. "
OMG! The only thing that could possibly rival your post for psychiatric problems would be a copy of the DSM-IV manual.

5. " Yet another excuse to not actually answer what I said."
Who are you again?
Oh, yes....a psychiatrists' dream.

6. "You've introduced cosmology...I don't recall this ever coming up before."
Do you know what cosmology is?
The science of the origin and development of the universe.
Now, you're sure you " don't recall this ever coming up before"?
Then, why bring up the Big Bang theory in the next sentence?
You know, there are pills you can take for this memory problem...ask your
doctor if they are right for you.

7. "And your point is?"
One more time? Sure.
My point is that those scientists- and camp-followers, like yourself- who attack theology, have ulterior purposes, as their chosen ideology uses the very methods that theology uses.
Get it now?

8."The body and mind is too difficult for people to understand. It is far too complicated and advanced than anything on earth."
Not quite, but you're getting close.
As far as humans, there are abilities and differences not found elsewhere in the biosphere. Certainly there is no progression of abilities leading form other species that explain the sudden appearance of these differences in degrees of magnitude.
Beginning to get the point...and it's not about you!
It's about attacks on religion by well know scientists and philosophers.

Now....unless you are able to argue that all of science is empirical, is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. ....well, save the effort, as you will have lost the argument.

Silly me!
I forgot: you post to assuage the loneliness!
Well, then, by all means......
...anything that prevents suicide.