nerdgerl@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) writes:

David Vestal wrote in message ...

It is as I predicted. At this point, you have made all sorts of
assertions as to the efficacy of prayer, and when asked to support

them,

produced "studies" that ten minutes worth of research would have told

you

were deeply flawed and useless as evidence.

They were not DEEPLY flawed. Some of the WORDING in the report was
flawed. If the wording is accurate, then the report is suspect.

Some of the wording was flawed? The "flawed wording" pertained to the
research methodolgy and conclusions. They show that the research was not
conducted in anything resembilng a remotely professional fashion and that
the results are not supported by the research.

Yes, the studies were "Deeply Flawed", and the third article wasn't even a
"study", it was a string of baseless assertions without any cited
evidence.

When I compiled a report of
the extensive, pervasive, and debilitating flaws in these studies

that

many other people have found, you admit there were "some" flaws, and
persist in your belief despite the fact that all the support you

provided

for it was cut away without difficulty.

No, your reply is flawed. You find a few flaws and (again) throw the
baby out with the bathwater.

He pointed out exactly what was wrong with the studies. You see fit to
dismiss his criticisms, however, without even a cursory examination of the
flaws that he explained. What is wrong with his conclusions that the
studes are "deeply flawed"? Cite specifically the points that he raised
and explain why he is wrong to conclude as he did. Thus far, you're
dismissing his arguments out of hand, and that does not speak well of your
intellectual honesty.

You also fail to see how you emulate the
same flaws in communication. Now that's entertainment! Watch:

This demonstrates, once again,

Once Again? I need an exact number please. Otherwise, your reply is
flawed.

Perhaps if you had been paying attention, you wouldn't need to ask for an
exact number. He was specific with the flaws that he pointed out. If you
go back to the beginning, start at "one" where he points out the first
flaw and add one each time another is exposed, you would be able to add
one more when he says "once again" to get the current number.

Your mindless semantic evasion of the issue is duly noted.

that a person who wishes to believe whatever outlandish theory

Is outlandish measurable? Please supply the data that indicates these
reports are measurably outlandish.

They make an assertion that they fail to support with evidence, yet claim
to have conclusive results anyway. That's not the full definition of
"outlandish", but it's suitable for this situation.

he or she
may wish

MAY wish? May is not a fact. Why are you not speaking with facts? I
only accept facts.

You're really reaching. He wasn't claiming to be presenting the results
of a study, he was offering his personal opinion on the matter. Your
attack here is immature, childish and desperate.

to believe will do so with or without evidence for it.

With or Without? That is inconclusive. I can't believe anything you
say has any credibility unless you can speak in concrete terms.

Yet again, your attack is meaningless nonsense. You fail to explain
exactly where he went wrong in his reasoning on why the studies were
flawed. This is mindless distraction, clearly you're too weak-minded to
bring yourself to admit that you supported an assertion with deeply flawed
"evidence".

[snip]

See how easily that's done? See how easily I diminished your replies
and exposed it's flaws without regarding its content what-so-ever.
That's exactly what you're doing.

He was not presenting the results of a study. You were. He was pointing
out why the studies that you offered were flawed. Your "counter-argument"
is comparing apples to oranges.

He did address the content of the studies. Specifically, he pointed out
how the content of the studies revealed that the studies were conducted
with very poor methodolgy and that the conclusions of the studies did not
arise logically from the results. You, however, seem to think that you
can "prove" yourself right by playing semantic games and diverting
attention away from the fact that the studies that you cited were
ultimately nonscientific and so poorly conducted as to be worthless.

--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Christopher Byron (cbyron@nypost.com) thinks that a video game is
"10,000 times worse" than child molestation: http://tinyurl.com/37j8f
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29