religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

[SkepticThinker]

Thats not true. It is universal, it happens also to unbelievers. Theres many examples of that. And i can give you sources if you wish.

There are scam artists yes, but that dont mean theres not the real.

Look at the video below. Jessica utts. She explains that ESP has hits above chance.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YrwAiU2g5RU&ved=0ahUKEwjCopX12IDhAhVLwYMKHejrDBkQo7QBCCgwAQ&usg=AOvVaw2mdaeEg-evu_n9AlIZRffU


Well, theres no DIRECT proof of God because we dont see him. But, design as in complexity and information is a real phenomena. I just INFER actual design, where as atheists will say design is an illusion.

Screw the experts, they disagree amongs themselves anyway, so what do they know? Lol

So tell us, how is she not a billionaire by now, from all those lottery winnings she should have been able to predict?
That's the kind of thing I think about when people make claims about ESP being real and such.

And then there is this:

"Although Utts and I — in our capacities as coevaluators of the Stargate project — evaluated the same set of data, we came to very different conclusions. If Utts’s conclusion is correct, then the fundamental principles that have so successfully guided the progress of science from the days of Galileo and Newton to the present must be drastically revised. Neither relativity theory nor quantum mechanics in their present versions can cope with a world that harbors the psychic phenomena so boldly proclaimed by Utts and her parapsychological colleagues. ...

When we examine the basis of Utts’s strong claim for the existence of psi, we find that it relies on a handful of experiments that have been shown to have serious weaknesses after undergoing careful scrutiny, and another handful of experiments that have yet to undergo scrutiny or be successfully replicated. What seems clear is that the scientific community is not going to abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles on the basis of a handful of experiments whose findings have yet to be shown to be replicable and lawful."
The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality - CSI

 

[Audie]

ecco:
However, I am open to learning. Please present a few scientific book or papers by qualified people that deny the commonly accepted findings of geology, biology, physics, etc. Produce just one scientific book that proves evolution is wrong.​

Papers from people with advanced degrees in biology or paleontology showing evolution is wrong.

Papers on physics from people with advanced degrees in physics showing radiometric dating is wrong.

Papers on geology from people with advanced degrees in geology showing slow erosion of the Grand Canyon is wrong.

I think we can agree that people like Dr. Wise are not qualified because they have admitted they would not believe in naturalism regardless of the amount of evidence presented.

You might find one of each. But then you need to ask yourself why you believe the one instead of the vast majority of their peers.

Here is a good read on K Wise
Losing Faith in the Wisdom of YEC

 

[Audie]

Actually, we are talking about science. The bottom line is that you believe and accept science only up to the point that it conflicts with your deeply held religious beliefs.

Ah,do you suppose that could be why he so
fervently argues against Dr. Wise being
intellectually dishonest?

 

[ecco]

Dont broad brush everybody. On a podom pole theres not just two extreme polarized views, theres many views inbetween.

I don't. I realize that there are atheists like me and there are biblical believers like yourself. I also know that the vast majority of people fall somewhere in between. That's why most scientists who believe in evolution also believe in God. They take Genesis as allegory and folk tales.

You act like theres just science, then theres religion. Wrong. Theres many views in between.

In this case, yes. The two views are diametrically opposed. Either God created the universe or God didn't create the universe. There's no in between.

And those years of study are not without controversy. And its not all due to religion.

It depends on what you mean by controversy.

There is no controversy in the scientific world about evolution. It is as firmly accepted as a spherical earth and heliocentricity. The only controversy about evolution comes from religious people who will not accept it because it conflicts with their deeply held religious views. Folks like you.

There is controversy in the scientific community about some of the details about evolution. That is acceptable and not just limited to evolution. There is controversy about the precise nature of gravity - but no one denies gravity. There is controversy about the precise nature of atoms - but no one denies basic atomic theory.

It is only religious people who make allegations such as yours about "controversy".

 

[ecco]

I didnt say we could learn it in a few short paragraphs.

And yet you do believe that the few short paragraphs of Genesis explain the origins of the universe, the earth and of man.

I am saying the evidence for God is real. Its inferential evidence. I get bored saying that over and over and over AND OVER to atheists and agnostics so much.

Ah, yes - inferential evidence (my emphases)

http://academic.depauw.edu/jeffreydunn_web/InferentialEvidence.pdf
Fundamental to the Bayesian approach is the claim that beliefs come in degrees and that, to be rational, these degrees of belief (henceforth: ‘credences’) must be representable by a probability function. Second, the Bayesian approach gives an account of how beliefs should change over time. The standard view is that a rational agent updates her credence function upon the receipt of evidence. Conditionalization tells us how this goes: Conditionalization: crt1(·) = crt0(·|Et1) In this expression Et1 is all the new evidence the agent learns at t1 and cr(A|E) =df cr(A ∧ E)/cr(E). An important implication of Conditionalization is that the proper response to one’s evidence is to give it full credence (because cr(E|E) = 1). In what follows, I’ll use the term ‘Standard Bayesianism’ to refer to any view with these two features

Perhaps you can present the probability functions associated with your beliefs.

Perhaps you can present evidence that show how your beliefs have changed over time.

Perhaps you can show how you updated your credence function upon the receipt of evidence.

Or, more realistically, you can just admit that your inferential evidence is solely based on:

God Said It
I Believe It
End of Story​

 

[ecco]

Look at the video below. Jessica utts. She explains that ESP has hits above chance.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YrwAiU2g5RU&ved=0ahUKEwjCopX12IDhAhVLwYMKHejrDBkQo7QBCCgwAQ&usg=AOvVaw2mdaeEg-evu_n9AlIZRffU

Yes, "She explains". She gives no evidence. She shows no examples of double blind tests. She is a parapsychologist...

par·a·psy·chol·o·gy
/ˌperəsīˈkäləjē/
noun

1. the study of mental phenomena which are excluded from or inexplicable by orthodox scientific psychology (such as hypnosis, telepathy, etc.).

In other words, she believes in the supernatural. A lot of people believe in the supernatural. None can provide evidence thereof.

Instead of linking to 28-minute video discussions, link to some actual tests that show evidence for the paranormal. What? Oh, you can't? Hmm.

 

[ecco]

I suppose I should be less critical of you, and
take cultural differences into account. You are
much less well educated, so you become confused
on what it or is not science, what is intellectual
dishonesty, how research is done, or what
constitutes scientific evidence.

We are taught to quickly see when someone knows
more than we do, and to learn from them, not
look foolish trying to argue.

You were not taught to take personal
responsibility for your failures.

We are taught to be relentlessly self critical, and
that it is shameful to make excuses or try to
put the blame for our failures on others, that the
most shameful failure is when we do not even try.

You seem to like to reinforce your mistakes.

We learn that to make an apology, it must be
simple and sincere, not "if you feel that I..."
or any other half way and insincere apology.

Your apology was good until the excuses
and finger pointing began.

You did not learn better, so, I now know not
to expect it of you.

Ouch

 

[ecco]

So tell us, how is she not a billionaire by now, from all those lottery winnings she should have been able to predict?
That's the kind of thing I think about when people make claims about ESP being real and such.

And yet, there are quite a few physics who have become quite well off by making "predictions".

Early on they "predicted" there are a lot of people who are extremely gullible that they could take advantage of.

 

[ecco]

Ah,do you suppose that could be why he so
fervently argues against Dr. Wise being
intellectually dishonest?

Could be.

 

[Jollybear]

Could be.

You gave me way too many posts. I dont have time to respond to it all.

So, ill respond to one post of yours. Pick what one youd like me to respond too? Number of the post.

Just for future reference, if you want to increase the likelyhood of me responding, keep it to one post. Make it the best you can and as condensed as possible. I wont respond to ten posts, plus the others who have posted.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, I need sources.

Sources you shall recieve then.

NDERF Home Page

Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experience by Jeffrey Long, MD with Paul Perry

Atheist (before NDE) | NDE Stories

These sources are extensive data. The NDE is universal. Atheists also have these experiences. There are key consistencies in the experience. Jeffrey long lists 9 evidences of the NDE. Veridical NDEs are powerful evidence.

Is it possible I can get a timestamp? I'll try look at the whole thing.

Not entirely correct. The atheist does not necessarily think intelligent design is an illusion. They think it does not exist,

Illusion means not exist.

In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”, then proceeds to argue that they were not.

but, if it did, it doesn't infer a personal god. That would require another logical argument. See, one of the problems with intelligent design is that it strongly emphasises examples. So, the watch maker or the builder, etc. However, we all see how they make these things, how it's done, and we can even do it ourselves. Yet, there is no such example for anything intelligent design proponents want to demonstrate. Every analogy intelligent design gives is false.

We have no proven examples of blind unguided forces creating order, complexity and information. In our experience, we only know of intelligence building complex structures and creating information.

So, we INFER an actual designer from the "appearence" of design. Thats that leap, the inference.

You however INFER no intelligence.

As an example of how ID can be seen incorrectly or have the illusion of appearing so, I went to Giant's Causeway - Wikipedia a while ago. There, there was a myth generated around these hexagonal stones. The natives thought giants did it. However, as our scientific knowledge grew and our understanding of the world, of course the giant tale was incorrect.

I see what your getting at, but even still, despite giants not making the hexigonal shapes, God still made the laws that create the order in the universe.

i tried looking for this topic in the scientific literature. I couldn't find any. Then I saw this Jessica Utts - Wikipedia where one of her co-workers said how she is biasing the data, "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."

This is common in any field, including the sciences, which is why replicability is vital. None of her remote viewing studies has been successfully replicated, as far as I can tell. I checked any scientific literature on parapsychology and there is very little traction. There was was one meta-analyses in 2010 that showed 1 out of 3 different types of tests showed significant result but it had a small effect size. However, this and other parapsychology studies are criticised for its methodology and mixed results. Here's one such study that tried to replicate the parapsychological studies and they were failures http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/galak2012.pdf This field is a far cry away from being taken seriously. Though, for arguments sake, I don't think you appreciate the disparity here. For these studies you need guess 1 correct answer out of 4. Their best results among participants found 30-34%(25% being random) chance of guessing the correct answer. Now, even though that is significant, in terms of statistics, I have no idea how you relate this to,"extra sensory knowledge experiences and apparitions." Assuming there are no flaws in the study, an objective person will see what it is: slightly above average chance of getting the correct answer. There can be numerous interpretations of the data, as seen in this OP alone. Yet, the person who’s motivated by ulterior reasons and is biased will look at only one explanation. So, from this, you’ve assumed people have psychic powers and even inferred god exists. Do you see the confirmation bias in this?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjALegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2n-pYbKOF-9nwVP21PBIaI

Theres the science article. Jessica utts concludes ESP is real. Ray hayman admits an anomoly, but wont conclude ESP and the american scienxe institute concludes more research needs to be done.

I dont see confirmation bias in me because in my own history ive had a few ESP experiences myself. So, i know from experience that its real. But, apart from that, its interesting to see that jessica logged that hits wer above chance.

Plus you have veridical NDEs. Thats ESP within a NDE. Thats incredable.

Actually, I have a question for you. Can you be wrong about the existence of God?

Yes, i can be wrong. But, am i? Its unlikely due to the overwhelming evidence.

Now, let me ask you the same question. Can you be wrong about God not existing?

All scientific stuff, which atheists love, is fallible and prone to error, which is why it has to be rigorous, debated, tested and so forth, but this is also why it's so accurate. When a scientific theory has very little/obscure evidence then it's in a state of flux, so the scientific minded have to be open minded to change. However, for theists I notice they cannot give the same amount of scepticism. If you cannot admit your fallibility, then there's very little point talking about god from my perspective. It's basically a conversation where one person is talking with the person while the other is talking at the person. One cannot change.

Actually this can go both ways. Ive noticed atheists talking at me many times. And many theists love and DO science thenselves.

 

[charlie sc]

Sources you shall recieve then.

NDERF Home Page

Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experience by Jeffrey Long, MD with Paul Perry

Atheist (before NDE) | NDE Stories

These sources are extensive data. The NDE is universal. Atheists also have these experiences. There are key consistencies in the experience. Jeffrey long lists 9 evidences of the NDE. Veridical NDEs are powerful evidence.

Perhaps you can source one or two studies rather than some book with long winded reviews about Jesus and God lol, blog archives and a whole website. I found some of the sites you linked really difficult to read, as if they want to give people a headache.
I don't mind critiquing this kind of material but in small quantities and there needs to be something specific in mind or a specific goal. You mentioned, "Jeffrey's long list of 9 evidences." If it's in the scientific literature, I can examine it.

Illusion means not exist.

In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”, then proceeds to argue that they were not.

Illusion does not necessarily mean not exist, but it can also mean deceptive appearance. One could argue that the appearance of the object does not exist. However, saying does not exist does not mean illusion. My point before was that an atheist may not necessarily consider ID as an illusion, because they may not notice/comprehend/consider something complex/intelligent outside real examples as ID. They may also see it as just incorrect and not consider how other people see it.
I'll give an example. When I went to Giant's Causeway, I did not know there was a story behind it nor did I in any way think there was an ID element or intelligence. Only after going there did I learn about the myth. I did not think these hexagonal stones had some kind of intelligent design to begin with but other people did, especially in the past. Therefore, for them, it gives an illusory appearance of intelligence.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjALegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2n-pYbKOF-9nwVP21PBIaI

Theres the science article. Jessica utts concludes ESP is real. Ray hayman admits an anomoly, but wont conclude ESP and the american scienxe institute concludes more research needs to be done.

So, ummm, that research article was not peer reviewed nor does it seem to be written by Jessica Utts. It seems as if she was in the review panel and, yes, I'm sure she thinks it's real and it looks like she argued with the other reviewer. I checked Web of Science - Please Sign In to Access Web of Science and it doesn't exist. You can check a free research search engine like Home - PubMed - NCBI but it's not there either. It doesn't have a DOI number, so it's certainly not peer reviewed. Btw, I noticed a spelling mistake, I think they wrote it in haste: they said meat-analysis I wouldn't put much faith into that piece of literature and it seems as if it was written for the CIA, I dunno. I don't know why you posted this if you wanted to show support for remote viewing. In fact, the whole article concludes time and time again that parapsychology is a waste of resources. I'm curious if you see the confirmation bias here? You gave me a link that shows how pointless remote viewing is, and it seems as if you didn't read it but thought it sounded as if it supported your case.


they conclude in chapter 5 -

"In summary, two clear-out conclusion emerge from our examination of the operational component of the current program. First, as stated above, evidence for the operational value of remote viewing is not available, even after a decade of attempts. Second, it is unlikely that remote viewing—as currently understood—even if existence can be unequivocally demonstrated, will prove of any use in intelligence gathering due to the conditions and constraints applying in intelligence operations and the suspected characteristics of the phenomenon. We conclude that: Chapter Five: Conclusions American Institutes for Research 5-5 · Continued support for the operational component of the current program is not justified."

dont see confirmation bias in me because in my own history ive had a few ESP experiences myself.

I think this is what's really going on and why you're convinced. Sure.

Yes, i can be wrong. But, am i? Its unlikely due to the overwhelming evidence.

Now, let me ask you the same question. Can you be wrong about God not existing?

I can be wrong. For all I know any god(s) exist and an afterlife exists.

What I found interesting about your answer is that you needed to defend your original belief, as if just saying it will be detrimental for you.

Can you actually just say, "yes, I can be wrong," without immediately returning and defending your belief?

Actually this can go both ways. Ive noticed atheists talking at me many times. And many theists love and DO science thenselves.

Yes, it goes both ways.

 

[charlie sc]

I made a similar observation to another member of this forum in a different thread.

There are indeed people who post links to articles they believe will support their position because of the title of the article. In many cases the opposite is true. Often, as you pointed out, the poster really has not read the article himself. Part of the "strategy" is their hope that no one else actually does follow up and reads the article.

It happened again. That link is Jelly Bear posted is harshly critical of parapsychology. They actually conclude it would be a waste of resources to research this field anymore lol

 

[ecco]

You gave me way too many posts. I dont have time to respond to it all.

So, ill respond to one post of yours. Pick what one youd like me to respond too? Number of the post.

Just for future reference, if you want to increase the likelyhood of me responding, keep it to one post. Make it the best you can and as condensed as possible. I wont respond to ten posts, plus the others who have posted.

I responded to your massive post by breaking it down into smaller, easier to manage, subsections. Respond, or not, as you will.

 

[Audie]

It happened again. That link is Jelly Bear posted is harshly critical of parapsychology. They actually conclude it would be a waste of resources to research this field anymore lol

Quelle surprise!
And here I had just been taking note of that
shallow and careless sort of investigation.

 

[ecco]

Sources you shall recieve then.

NDERF Home Page

Digging into the site there is a reference to some articles. From one of them taken at random...

In the present report the author presents: 1) anecdotal evidence of the out-of-body experiences of Mr. M as observed and entered into a diary by the author herself (the accounts were compiled by the author over the past 25 years); 2) first-person descriptions of out-of-body experiences delivered by the experiencer himself. Apart from presenting the results of the author‟s own exploration and investigation of the OBE accounts of the subject, the report presents the case for studying out-of-body experiences based on first-hand experience as delivered by Mr. M. Consequently, it mostly relies on observations which are subjective in their nature.
​

No rational person would accept that that evidence for OBE or NDE.

Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experience by Jeffrey Long, MD with Paul Perry

You show no evidences. This site is essentially a promo site for Long to sell his book.

However, did you know that the review on this site says...

To date, no convincing medical, parapsychological or psychiatric explanation for NDEs has been generally accepted.​

Evidence for Long's bias is obvious from comments like...

Best of all, the Being of Light (interpreted as God, Jesus, or an appropriate Buddhist or Hindu entity) floods the soul with love and warmth and acceptance beyond words.​

Atheist (before NDE) | NDE Stories

A series of anecdotes posted on a webpage from people who may or may not be real is evidence only that the people promoting NDE have many ways to advertise and sell their wares. Follow the money.





All in all you posted three links with not one shred of evidence to support NDEs. They do provide evidence that there are people who make a lot of money promoting NDE to the gullible. Long's book sells for $35.

 

[charlie sc]

A series of anecdotes posted on a webpage from people who may or may not be real is evidence only that the people promoting NDE have many ways to advertise and sell their wares. Follow the money.

Not that these blog posts matter in any way, shape or form to infer the supernatural, because there are natural explanations with evidence, but I was curious who these people were to see if there is a conflict of interest. I went to NDE Stories | NDE Stories and then I saw one of them was a doctor - Dr. Eben Alexander - so I went to is profile page on the top right. humorously but not entirely surprisingly, he's been sued for malpractice, banned from hospitals and needs ethical training to keep his licence - Eben Alexander (author) - Wikipedia. The irony is very funny, especially because you said their focus in money.

I'm not sure how Jollybear can recover from this criticism. I appreciate it's 3vs1, but what we're saying is logical, honest and objective. I'm not sure if we'll get an answer back.

 

[Jollybear]

Not that these blog posts matter in any way, shape or form to infer the supernatural, because there are natural explanations with evidence, but I was curious who these people were. I went to NDE Stories | NDE Stories and then I saw one of them was a doctor - Dr. Eben Alexander - so I went to is profile page on the top right. I was just curious who these people were, not that is mattered, and since he's a surgeon there might be info who he is so I see if there's a conflict of interest. humorously but not entirely surprisingly, he's been sued for malpractice, banned from hospitals and needs ethical training to keep his licence - Eben Alexander (author) - Wikipedia. The irony is very funny, especially because you said their focus in money.

I'm not sure how Jollybear can recover from this criticism. I appreciate it's 3vs1, but what we're saying is logical, honest and objective. I'm not sure if we'll get an answer back.

Oh, youl defenately get an answer back, you can stake your lives on it. Youl cant say all this nonsense and think oh jollybear is gonna letcha all get away with it that easy now, do ya?

 

[charlie sc]

Oh, youl defenately get an answer back, you can stake your lives on it. Youl cant say all this nonsense and think oh jollybear is gonna letcha all get away with it that easy now, do ya?

Ok

 

[Jollybear]

I suppose I should be less critical of you, and
take cultural differences into account. You are
much less well educated, so you become confused
on what it or is not science, what is intellectual
dishonesty, how research is done, or what
constitutes scientific evidence.

How do you know what im educated on or not?

This seams to be the tactic, if someone does not agree with evolution, then they are either attacked as well informed and smart but dishonest, or there honest and smart but ignorent, or there informed and honest but severely stupid.

Its not possible that the other option, that your wrong, is the correct option. You cannot even entertain it for a second. So, you and eco MUST keep pushing the ad hominum arguments.

Its an insecurity approuch, thats all it is.

We are taught to quickly see when someone knows
more than we do, and to learn from them, not
look foolish trying to argue.

I am taught to question everything, aspeasally that which dont make sense too me. And to question it despite authority. So if that makes me LOOK foolish, i dont care because appearences are shallow.

You were not taught to take personal
responsibility for your failures.

So, saying sorry i missed your link and realizong it was a real mistake, thats not taking responsibility for my mistake?

Tip everything upside down why dontcha. Not only did i own the mistake, im gonna try not to make it again. But, yea, i dont take responsibility. Ok then. I cant promise i wont be human though. But hey, ill certainly promise to try my best.

We are taught to be relentlessly self critical, and
that it is shameful to make excuses or try to
put the blame for our failures on others, that the
most shameful failure is when we do not even try.

Do you abd eco not realize that intelligent design, young earth/old earth and global/local flood its truth or falsehoods have no bearing on me, you or eco or charlie? The subject isnt about me, k wise, stephen myer, jeffery long, the list goes on. Its about whether the subject is true and whether it has or has not arguments and evidence.

Why is this so hard to get?

You seem to like to reinforce your mistakes.

We learn that to make an apology, it must be
simple and sincere, not "if you feel that I..."
or any other half way and insincere apology.

Ok, well, ill let you believe im not sincere.

Your apology was good until the excuses
and finger pointing began.

My finger pointing is just pointing out that you and eco love to ad hom k wise.

If i wer an old earth creationist i would still not ad hom k wise. And im not a young earther either and im not calling him dishonest.

You did not learn better, so, I now know not
to expect it of you.

Well learning takes understanding so why dont you make me understand.

i do not do ad hom, You are making that up.

You better come up with a REAL example
or take that back with another apology for
false accusation.

That, and "oversimplify" are things you like to
say to people, for lack of anything real to say.
Cut it out, it is stupid and tiresome.

No, im not taking it back. Ever hear the saying "if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, flaps like a duck, then it must be a duck? Therefore call it what it is. Its ad hominum and when i say something is oversimplified, thats another of saying a strawman argument has been erected and knocked down.

How do I know you dont know what you are talking about?
By what you say! Two lines after asking, you already
provided another example! (science / proof)

By what i say? Why not show via demonstration that what im saying is flawed rather then just say i dont know what im talking about because i disagree with your position.

But, its kinda funny, i dont even disagree or agree perse with your position on earths age, yet you say i dont know what im talking about.

And of course you should not learn "simply" by
accepting what you are told. That is for religious
dogma. Check for yourself, if it makes sense,
adapt.

I have checked, checking is an ongoing thing, its not something you arive at and say no more checking! Im convinced intelligent design is real from my checking.

From my checking of earths age, im still undecided. Mayby you can tip me over.

Perhaps you are only accustomed to just
listening and memorizing for class, with no
understanding. We've seen this before.

That seams to be all school is good for. Questioning is what leads to me understanding.

So no! Do not just accept what I say.
Question everything. But you only go maybe
half way. You question (disbelieve) but, you
do not check. We have seen that before.

Seen it before? This discussion isnt even over, barely even begun and your saying i only go half way. Thats incredable ghat you do this and keep making it about me.

No, you might (might) ask yourself, "Why
does Audie say that?"

Ok, why does Audie say all this?

A few keystrokes on google and you will find
that, no, science does not do proof. But you
will not understand why, unless your study a bit
more.

You act like science has a mouth and eyes and a nose. It doesent. People, as in individual scientists give science its voice. Some scientists will want to prove, some wont care to prove.

But, YOU tell me, why do YOU as a geologist scientist choose to not prove your views?

You didnt do that, did you? You just disagreed
like I dont know what I am talking about, and try
to counter argue. With no idea what you are
talking about!

Do you not think that before weve had this discussion, that ive not had years of reading about this stuff, and watching videos and listening to youtube debates from experts and yada yada? Come on. You and eco have got to seriously stop making the subject about me.

Oh and one more thing. I did not say K Wise is
dishonest. I said he is intellectually dishonest.
Do try to figure out the difference. You do not
seem to know what intellectual dishonesty is.

You did not bother to look it up, did you?

Wow....ok, tell me the difference between dishonest and intellectual dishonest, THEN ill tell you if i agree.

Looking something up should not be taken at face value. Are you one of these ones that think if google says it then it must be fact?