Science > Abortion > Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature)
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2006 01:17:03 AM |
| Object: |
Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
Web Posted: July 25, 1998
study in today's edition of the prestigious science journal "Nature"
reveals that members of the scientific community are "more likely than
ever to reject God and immortality," discloses Britain's Daily
Telegraph.
That claim is based on another study which repeats a historic
survey first made in 1916 by Dr. James Leuba of Bryn Mawr University.
It revealed that over eight decades ago, only about 40% of the
scientists surveyed expressed belief in any supreme being. Leuba
predicted that advances in education and technology would further
erode faith in religious claims.
In 1997, Edward Larson of the University of Georgia decided to
revisit Leuba's study and evaluate the prediction that religious
belief was disappearing, at least in the scientific community. Author
of the book "Summer for the God's" and a professor of science law and
history, Larson said that Leuba's original survey raised "good
questions."
"They provoke responses and give much more insight into how people
think than the vague Gallup poll question, 'Do you believe in God?'"
he told a writer from Research Reporter.
Larson closely followed Leuba's methodology, repeating the same
questions and attempting to find a representative sample which met the
original survey profile. "I had no idea how it would turn out," Larson
said.
60% responded, a figure considered high for any surveys. Of those,
40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not. Larson's
survey also discovered that physicists were less likely to have such
faith, while mathematicians were significantly more likely to believe
in a supreme being, as defined by Leuba.
"NATURE" SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of
belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517
members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When
queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the
affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8%
expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human
immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in
1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet,
compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism"
on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement.
Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among
mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the
life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.
THE GLASS IS EMPTIER...
Dr. Larson, in commenting on his 1997 replication of the 1916
study, noted that as with Leuba's report, his revelations elicited
wildly different accounts in the news media. "It's being spun in
different ways," Larson observed. "The Christian Science Monitor ran
an editorial exhorting the fact that scientists still do believe --
despite the fact that well less than half of the scientists in my
survey believed in God -- while the Journal of Humanism ran a piece
proclaiming that they do not."
"Is the glass half empty or half full?," Larson asked.
It would be difficult to interpret the figures reported in
"Nature," though, as suggesting that belief within the scientific
community is gaining popularity, or even holding its own. The "belief
in a person god" category suggests a precipitous drop, from about 40%
in Larson's survey to 7% in the "Nature" study.
CHANGING VIEWS OF SCIENCE, RELIGION, GOD
While Leuba and his study were historic curiosities when Dr.
Larson and co-researcher Larry Witham decided to revisit the findings,
during its time the 1916 survey ignited considerable controversy. Paul
Karr of Research Reporter noted that Leuba's findings "touched off an
anti-evolutionary movement that would culminate in the historic Scopes
trial where science and Darwinism faced off against Christianity and
creationism for the mind and soul of the American schoolchild."
Indeed, just nine years after the Leuba findings, high school biology
teacher John T. Scopes (1900-1970) was in the middle of a legal
controversy, accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act which forbade
the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools. The trial
drew worldwide publicity, and was soon dubbed the Monkey Trial due to
popular misconceptions about evolutionary findings -- that "people
came from monkeys."
Criminal attorney Clarence Darrow faced off against the
prosecution's most illustrious witness, former U.S. Secretary of State
William Jennings Bryan, a populist known for his famous "Cross of
Gold" oration. Darrow conceded "the facts of the case," that Scopes
had indeed violated the Butler Act -- but he also argued for the
scientific validity of evolution. Scopes was convicted and fined $100,
but the state supreme court later overturned the verdict on technical
grounds; meanwhile, the Butler Act remained on the books in Tennessee
until 1967.
But William Jennings Bryan, the consummate politician, also was
typical of the "amateur scientist" of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century. He was a member of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, but as described by Edward Davis in a review
of "Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science (James
Gilbert, University of Chicago Press, 1997), was also "representative
of an older, less abstract, way of understanding scientific knowledge,
a common sense Baconianism that eschewed speculative hypotheses (such
as evolution) and saw both science and religion as ways of glorifying
God."
The paradigm exemplified by Bryan -- the practical, "amateur
scientist" who understood the scientific enterprise as a reaffirmation
of the sacred -- may be even less represented today within the
academic community than when John Scopes went to trial in Dayton,
Tennessee nearly three-quarters-of-a-century ago. Evolution, a core
tenet of modern life sciences such as biology, was not a major point
of contention even among professional academicians then. It reflected
the tension between the "common sense" position of the "amateur
scientists" and the more rigorously trained professionals. Davis
argues that "Bryan's 'greatest mistake' was to assume that this view
of science was still operative among professional scientists in the
1920s. Because it was still part of the popular conception of science,
however, his actions leading up to the Scopes trial 'revealed a fault
line between popular and professional science.'"
Today, the fault line appears between the scientific community
which increasingly doubts supernatural or religion-based explanations
of how the universe operates, and the wider popular culture which is
in the midst of both a fundamentalist revival, and a disturbing
popularity of new age and related pseudo science beliefs. One example
could be the recent article in Newsweek Magazine, which suggests a
convergence of scientific opinion and more traditional religious
doctrines. The agreement may exist more in the news rooms of popular
magazines, than in the libraries, labs and observatories where
scientists actually do their work.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2209 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke loves to play
with little girls' nipples:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Soli Deo Gloria" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
16 Jan 2006 04:21:38 PM |
|
|
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "mr_antone mr_antone@" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
17 Jan 2006 06:52:27 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers. This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
mr_antone
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Soli Deo Gloria" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
17 Jan 2006 12:11:34 PM |
|
|
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers.
I think we'll have to ask the guy getting published why he's doing it.
Obviously it is supposed to be vetted before it is published in those
journals.
This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
The point is that you can't just use that it was published in a
"research journal" as proof that it's truth.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "mr_antone mr_antone@" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
17 Jan 2006 12:25:42 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers.
I think we'll have to ask the guy getting published why he's doing it.
Obviously it is supposed to be vetted before it is published in those
journals.
Oh I think there is some screening by the journal before publishing.
But it's published to be reviewed by peers.
This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
The point is that you can't just use that it was published in a
"research journal" as proof that it's truth.
Who said that?
mr_antone
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Soli Deo Gloria" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
17 Jan 2006 07:42:50 PM |
|
|
mr_antone wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers.
I think we'll have to ask the guy getting published why he's doing it.
Obviously it is supposed to be vetted before it is published in those
journals.
Oh I think there is some screening by the journal before publishing.
But it's published to be reviewed by peers.
It is called a peer reviewed journal because they send it out before
they publish it to be reviewed by the scientist's peers. Bad science can
get through, but this is most likely to happen if the person who is
writing the paper is being dishonest, fabricating data. If the reviewer
only has the data provided by the person who wrote the paper, he is
depending on the integrity of that scientist.
This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
The point is that you can't just use that it was published in a
"research journal" as proof that it's truth.
Who said that?
The argument was that a paperback wasn't worth reading because it wasn't
that fount of truth, the "research journal". I just provided an ironic
example of the journal being the poor source.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "mr_antone mr_antone@" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 07:22:47 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2006 02:42:50 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers.
I think we'll have to ask the guy getting published why he's doing it.
Obviously it is supposed to be vetted before it is published in those
journals.
Oh I think there is some screening by the journal before publishing.
But it's published to be reviewed by peers.
It is called a peer reviewed journal because they send it out before
they publish it to be reviewed by the scientist's peers. Bad science can
get through, but this is most likely to happen if the person who is
writing the paper is being dishonest, fabricating data. If the reviewer
only has the data provided by the person who wrote the paper, he is
depending on the integrity of that scientist.
Say what you will. The system worked.
This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
The point is that you can't just use that it was published in a
"research journal" as proof that it's truth.
Who said that?
The argument was that a paperback wasn't worth reading because it wasn't
that fount of truth, the "research journal". I just provided an ironic
example of the journal being the poor source.
No. You provided one example of the system working as intended.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
End of story.
mr_antone
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Soli Deo Gloria" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 11:41:07 AM |
|
|
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 02:42:50 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers.
I think we'll have to ask the guy getting published why he's doing it.
Obviously it is supposed to be vetted before it is published in those
journals.
Oh I think there is some screening by the journal before publishing.
But it's published to be reviewed by peers.
It is called a peer reviewed journal because they send it out before
they publish it to be reviewed by the scientist's peers. Bad science can
get through, but this is most likely to happen if the person who is
writing the paper is being dishonest, fabricating data. If the reviewer
only has the data provided by the person who wrote the paper, he is
depending on the integrity of that scientist.
Say what you will. The system worked.
That obviously was not the actual issue. You've changed what my point
was to try to defend against the fact that my point was exactly correct.
No amount of me explaining it will matter to you because you already
know I was right from the beginning.
This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
The point is that you can't just use that it was published in a
"research journal" as proof that it's truth.
Who said that?
The argument was that a paperback wasn't worth reading because it wasn't
that fount of truth, the "research journal". I just provided an ironic
example of the journal being the poor source.
No. You provided one example of the system working as intended.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
End of story.
What research, the stem cells in South Korea? I know that is bogus. I
never said otherwise. The claims were printed in the "research journal"
and they were false therefore someone looking in that "research journal"
would be getting wrong information. Isn't that true? Isn't that what you
and your little pals claimed about the paperback book the other dude
mentioned?
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "mr_antone mr_antone@" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 12:01:01 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2006 18:41:07 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 02:42:50 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers.
I think we'll have to ask the guy getting published why he's doing it.
Obviously it is supposed to be vetted before it is published in those
journals.
Oh I think there is some screening by the journal before publishing.
But it's published to be reviewed by peers.
It is called a peer reviewed journal because they send it out before
they publish it to be reviewed by the scientist's peers. Bad science can
get through, but this is most likely to happen if the person who is
writing the paper is being dishonest, fabricating data. If the reviewer
only has the data provided by the person who wrote the paper, he is
depending on the integrity of that scientist.
Say what you will. The system worked.
That obviously was not the actual issue. You've changed what my point
was to try to defend against the fact that my point was exactly correct.
No amount of me explaining it will matter to you because you already
know I was right from the beginning.
My point was very simple and clear, bondo.
The system worked.
If you want to declare yourself a winner, do it and run away.
This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
The point is that you can't just use that it was published in a
"research journal" as proof that it's truth.
Who said that?
The argument was that a paperback wasn't worth reading because it wasn't
that fount of truth, the "research journal". I just provided an ironic
example of the journal being the poor source.
No. You provided one example of the system working as intended.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
End of story.
What research, the stem cells in South Korea? I know that is bogus. I
never said otherwise. The claims were printed in the "research journal"
and they were false therefore someone looking in that "research journal"
would be getting wrong information.
It was put into the research journal for review. The peers who
reviewed it found it to be bogus and the author was called on it and
discredited. The system worked.
Isn't that true? Isn't that what you
and your little pals claimed about the paperback book the other dude
mentioned?
I didn't make any such claim, bondo.
But I will note publishing a book is a whole different animal then
publishing a research journal for review.
Something you seem to be unable to grasp.
mr_antone
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Soli Deo Gloria" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 12:53:55 PM |
|
|
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 18:41:07 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 02:42:50 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers.
I think we'll have to ask the guy getting published why he's doing it.
Obviously it is supposed to be vetted before it is published in those
journals.
Oh I think there is some screening by the journal before publishing.
But it's published to be reviewed by peers.
It is called a peer reviewed journal because they send it out before
they publish it to be reviewed by the scientist's peers. Bad science can
get through, but this is most likely to happen if the person who is
writing the paper is being dishonest, fabricating data. If the reviewer
only has the data provided by the person who wrote the paper, he is
depending on the integrity of that scientist.
Say what you will. The system worked.
That obviously was not the actual issue. You've changed what my point
was to try to defend against the fact that my point was exactly correct.
No amount of me explaining it will matter to you because you already
know I was right from the beginning.
My point was very simple and clear, bondo.
The system worked.
If you want to declare yourself a winner, do it and run away.
I didn't claim that the system didn't ferret out the guy making up the
data. I did say that it got published therefore just saying because it
is in a "reserach journal" it is therefore correct and paperback books
are not is not accurate.
This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
The point is that you can't just use that it was published in a
"research journal" as proof that it's truth.
Who said that?
The argument was that a paperback wasn't worth reading because it wasn't
that fount of truth, the "research journal". I just provided an ironic
example of the journal being the poor source.
No. You provided one example of the system working as intended.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
End of story.
What research, the stem cells in South Korea? I know that is bogus. I
never said otherwise. The claims were printed in the "research journal"
and they were false therefore someone looking in that "research journal"
would be getting wrong information.
It was put into the research journal for review. The peers who
reviewed it found it to be bogus and the author was called on it and
discredited. The system worked.
It passed the vetting to get into the journal. I don't know that he was
found out by his peers so much as bits of what he did leaked out and the
world figured it out kind of all at once.
Isn't that true? Isn't that what you
and your little pals claimed about the paperback book the other dude
mentioned?
I didn't make any such claim, bondo.
But I will note publishing a book is a whole different animal then
publishing a research journal for review.
Something you seem to be unable to grasp.
Publishing a book doesn't mean it's wrong. Publishing in a "reserach
journal" doesn't mean it is right.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "mr_antone mr_antone@" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 02:26:36 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2006 19:53:55 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 18:41:07 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 02:42:50 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers.
I think we'll have to ask the guy getting published why he's doing it.
Obviously it is supposed to be vetted before it is published in those
journals.
Oh I think there is some screening by the journal before publishing.
But it's published to be reviewed by peers.
It is called a peer reviewed journal because they send it out before
they publish it to be reviewed by the scientist's peers. Bad science can
get through, but this is most likely to happen if the person who is
writing the paper is being dishonest, fabricating data. If the reviewer
only has the data provided by the person who wrote the paper, he is
depending on the integrity of that scientist.
Say what you will. The system worked.
That obviously was not the actual issue. You've changed what my point
was to try to defend against the fact that my point was exactly correct.
No amount of me explaining it will matter to you because you already
know I was right from the beginning.
My point was very simple and clear, bondo.
The system worked.
If you want to declare yourself a winner, do it and run away.
I didn't claim that the system didn't ferret out the guy making up the
data. I did say that it got published therefore just saying because it
is in a "reserach journal" it is therefore correct and paperback books
are not is not accurate.
Where do you get this stuff, bondo?
I never said because it was in a research journal it is therefore
correct only that it's reviewed by peers.
Paperbacks don't get reviewed.
Too bad you can't see the difference.
This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
The point is that you can't just use that it was published in a
"research journal" as proof that it's truth.
Who said that?
The argument was that a paperback wasn't worth reading because it wasn't
that fount of truth, the "research journal". I just provided an ironic
example of the journal being the poor source.
No. You provided one example of the system working as intended.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
End of story.
What research, the stem cells in South Korea? I know that is bogus. I
never said otherwise. The claims were printed in the "research journal"
and they were false therefore someone looking in that "research journal"
would be getting wrong information.
It was put into the research journal for review. The peers who
reviewed it found it to be bogus and the author was called on it and
discredited. The system worked.
It passed the vetting to get into the journal. I don't know that he was
found out by his peers so much as bits of what he did leaked out and the
world figured it out kind of all at once.
The world figured it out?
Better go back and read up on who questioned the data.
It wasn't the world.
Isn't that true? Isn't that what you
and your little pals claimed about the paperback book the other dude
mentioned?
I didn't make any such claim, bondo.
But I will note publishing a book is a whole different animal then
publishing a research journal for review.
Something you seem to be unable to grasp.
Publishing a book doesn't mean it's wrong. Publishing in a "reserach
journal" doesn't mean it is right.
Publishing a book means it's up for sale and no independent
verification.
Publishing a research journal means it's up to be reviewed by peers.
Too bad you can't see the difference.
mr_antone
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
19 Jan 2006 11:26:50 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:26:36 -0600, mr_antone <mr_antone@> wrote:
Where do you get this stuff, bondo?
I never said because it was in a research journal it is therefore
correct only that it's reviewed by peers.
Paperbacks don't get reviewed.
Too bad you can't see the difference.
I suspect that his argument is a semantic one.
He is twisting "Non peer reviewed (Paperback) publication, is not to
be relied upon as supported fact", to mean, "ALL books, in Paperback
format, are inaccurate" .
This is clearly false, as just about every lab that I have ever been
into, in my life, and that is more than I care to remember, had
libraries full of "Paperback" editions, of the research data, tables,
etc, that they used, from first principals, onward.
All of it, peer reviewed, and accepted.
--
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mr_antone mr_antone@" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
19 Jan 2006 11:39:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:26:50 GMT, Puck Greenman
<sidhe@the.hollow.hills.fey> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:26:36 -0600, mr_antone <mr_antone@> wrote:
Where do you get this stuff, bondo?
I never said because it was in a research journal it is therefore
correct only that it's reviewed by peers.
Paperbacks don't get reviewed.
Too bad you can't see the difference.
I suspect that his argument is a semantic one.
He is twisting "Non peer reviewed (Paperback) publication, is not to
be relied upon as supported fact", to mean, "ALL books, in Paperback
format, are inaccurate" .
I don't think so. Read farther back in the thread.
The paperback referred to was "$12.99 paperback".
Not a research paper, but a plain published for sale book.
But welcome to the world of Bill Bonde.
This is clearly false, as just about every lab that I have ever been
into, in my life, and that is more than I care to remember, had
libraries full of "Paperback" editions, of the research data, tables,
etc, that they used, from first principals, onward.
All of it, peer reviewed, and accepted.
mr_antone
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Soli Deo Gloria" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 09:13:25 PM |
|
|
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 19:53:55 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 18:41:07 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 02:42:50 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, moron, there are not.
Yes, idiot, there are.
Cite ONE example of a person who was brain dead ever coming back to
life.
Idiot, the cases are in the link.
You're lying again, *****.
I guess you are so stupid you need it spelled out for you. Regardless,
you
will snip, run, and just throw out an insult..so this is for anyone else
following this thread.
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death,
Gotta get the plug in for the book first thing. Make sure that the
suckers will fork over their money for the new religion.
So you can't actually REFUTE the subject matter so you resort to ATTACKING
the messenger.
Coward.
(1) Anecdotes do not constitute evidence, a legitimate study would need
to be done
(2) If this had any scientific validity, it would be in a research
journal and not a $12.99 paperback
You mean like South Korean stem cell research?
Exactly like the South Korean stem cell research.
The system work.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
That was my point. The claim ( number 2 above) that something is valid
because it is published in a research journal and not a paperback book
was shown invalid by pointing out that the SK researcher was so
published and his data was made up.
The point of publishing a research paper is so it can be reviewed.
Not so with publishing a paperback book.
You really think so? Why would people who make up data want that data to
be vetted? Evidently they thought that they wouldn't be scrutinized all
that carefully.
I know so. The purpose of publishing a research paper is so it can be
reviewed by peers.
I think we'll have to ask the guy getting published why he's doing it.
Obviously it is supposed to be vetted before it is published in those
journals.
Oh I think there is some screening by the journal before publishing.
But it's published to be reviewed by peers.
It is called a peer reviewed journal because they send it out before
they publish it to be reviewed by the scientist's peers. Bad science can
get through, but this is most likely to happen if the person who is
writing the paper is being dishonest, fabricating data. If the reviewer
only has the data provided by the person who wrote the paper, he is
depending on the integrity of that scientist.
Say what you will. The system worked.
That obviously was not the actual issue. You've changed what my point
was to try to defend against the fact that my point was exactly correct.
No amount of me explaining it will matter to you because you already
know I was right from the beginning.
My point was very simple and clear, bondo.
The system worked.
If you want to declare yourself a winner, do it and run away.
I didn't claim that the system didn't ferret out the guy making up the
data. I did say that it got published therefore just saying because it
is in a "reserach journal" it is therefore correct and paperback books
are not is not accurate.
Where do you get this stuff, bondo?
I never said because it was in a research journal it is therefore
correct only that it's reviewed by peers.
Paperbacks don't get reviewed.
Too bad you can't see the difference.
Paperbacks may or may not be reviewed, they may or may not even be
vetted. You've changed the entire discussion for some reason. Isn't
because you can't address what the subject was?
This SK guy apparently thought he could get away
with this and was caught. The system worked.
The point is that you can't just use that it was published in a
"research journal" as proof that it's truth.
Who said that?
The argument was that a paperback wasn't worth reading because it wasn't
that fount of truth, the "research journal". I just provided an ironic
example of the journal being the poor source.
No. You provided one example of the system working as intended.
That particular research was found to be bogus and discredited.
End of story.
What research, the stem cells in South Korea? I know that is bogus. I
never said otherwise. The claims were printed in the "research journal"
and they were false therefore someone looking in that "research journal"
would be getting wrong information.
It was put into the research journal for review. The peers who
reviewed it found it to be bogus and the author was called on it and
discredited. The system worked.
It passed the vetting to get into the journal. I don't know that he was
found out by his peers so much as bits of what he did leaked out and the
world figured it out kind of all at once.
The world figured it out?
Better go back and read up on who questioned the data.
It wasn't the world.
It got past the vetters for the journal.
Isn't that true? Isn't that what you
and your little pals claimed about the paperback book the other dude
mentioned?
I didn't make any such claim, bondo.
But I will note publishing a book is a whole different animal then
publishing a research journal for review.
Something you seem to be unable to grasp.
Publishing a book doesn't mean it's wrong. Publishing in a "reserach
journal" doesn't mean it is right.
Publishing a book means it's up for sale and no independent
verification.
How do you know?
Publishing a research journal means it's up to be reviewed by peers.
Too bad you can't see the difference.
That doesn't make sense. You can review anything that is published. You
can even look into the verisimilitude of a paperback.
--
"He named his second child Jim after the horse that had brought him to
Washington. He caught his son one day writing 'James' on his lessons,
and he told the boy without raising his voice that if he had wanted to
name him 'James', that is what he would have done." -+Edward P. Jones,
"The Known World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "mr_antone mr_antone@" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
19 Jan 2006 07:57:39 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2006 04:13:25 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 19:53:55 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 18:41:07 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 02:42:50 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006 19:11:34 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 23:21:38 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 22:06:42 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
mr_antone wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006 20:35:46 +0100, "Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')"
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"Chris H. Fleming" wrote:
osprey wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43cbb575$0$58061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Here are some links for you:
Take note: There has been nothing science has been able to
offer
that
refutes these experiences. All they have are their own
opinions.
People will notice that all of these start with a pitch to sell
a
book
and none appear to have any independant verification.
Those who were brain dead and experienced NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
People See Verified Events
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
I found this next link interesting
Cases involving reincarnation
http://neardeath.home.comcast.net/reincarnation.html
People see what they want to see.
Oh, so you are suggesting that a person who is clinically brain
dead
can control what they see.
A person is clinically brain dead is dead and doesn't see
anything.
Yet, there are cases that suggest you are wrong.
No, | | | | | | | | | | | | |
