Search results

Questions for you to avoid dodging on: Do you accept the forensic technique that can use degraded DNA to identify the family of the perpetrator? Do you accept that DNA similarity between species reflect how related they are?

Sounds like a dodge.

Also this: https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps#:~:text=Human%20and%20chimp%20DNA%20is,generation%20to%20generation%2C%20changed%20too. Why would an intelligent designer do that?

We should pivot back to evidence and see who dodges. There is solid evidence that Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor...

So, what? Are we to ignore obvious correlations and potentially helpful short-cuts because a method of discerning truth has limitations? Yes. But, factual evidence can be complex and require much experience to understand. Understanding the difference between a novice and an expert is our...

You are not being logical or practical. If a random drunk at a bar claimed something and a renowned expert in a field of study claimed something else, it would make sense to regard the drunk's credibility as suspect and hold her claim up to greater scrutiny. While the point that consensus is...

An alternative hypothesis is that the poster is actually delusional. I am leaning toward this explanation. Input from the perpetrator should be interesting if not helpful.

How do you explain the obvious correlation?

Okay. How so?

Your thought disorder is acting up. Is it that time of the month?

So, you think empty overused statements are a great resource for generating hypotheses? Are trite platitudes as bad as repetitive redundancies? BTW, the benefits and limits of intuition is a hot research area in social science. So, it's not trite in any way. Work on word choice.

That's interesting. You sound more like a necromancer than a scientist.

These are actually luke warm results. I would have hoped to see at least a 70% with clear disapproval of Trump's actions.

Intuition is a great resource for creating hypotheses, but an inadequate basis for conclusions.

I do not need to do anything. If anyone wants clarification on anything I say, I am happy to provide it. I simply mean those who value the empirical method. This, of course, include scientists. It is helpful to note that upwards of 59% of scientists do not believe in a deity as compared 15% of...

Belief in an afterlife is itself on a continuum. People have varying degrees of certainty in the belief. A higher percentage of scientists are skeptical.

The word tendency acknowledges that the proposed correlation is not categorical, not absolute. Yorshik has pointed out that one difference between the right and the left is belief in absolutes. Belief in absolutes creates dichotomies by definition.

I explicitly used the language of continuum. YOU perceive only dichotomies. That is your main problem.

They have a higher tendency to do so, than scientifically minded folks.

I heard she will be rebooting The Apprentice.