Bad Science Journalism: The Underdog Story

[thaumaturgy]

Rorschach is hardly used by psychologists nowadays as it is believed to have a very low validity.
[/size][/font]

But don't the evil psychologists use it to ferret out True Believers in Christ Jesus? That way they can be tagged, imprinted with the number of the beast, and locked away in a dungeon for torture!

Bwahahahaha!

Oh, yes, and

hahahahaha.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not from the field, but from what I can gather about the test, you'll be diagnosed delusional for seeing anything in the inkblot other than a very narrow range of description. Seeing religious symbolism will no doubt be amongst the many things that do not fit the description.

Rorschach is hardly used by psychologists nowadays as it is believed to have a very low validity.
[/size][/font]

Okay, thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

More evidence that an IQ in the genius range isn't correlated with, well, anything really.

I totally agree --- in the words of my wife - (about me) ---

• Your lights are on, but no one's home ---

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I totally agree --- in the words of my wife - (about me) ---

• Your lights are on, but no one's home ---

I agree only to a certain extent, because I'm pretty sure that there was somebody home at one point in your life, but then you decided to throw him out.

 

[TheManeki]

I'm an ex-computer [mainframe] operator with an AA degree in Business Administration. I graduated summa cum laude in 1978, can play chess blindfolded, know PI to the 20[sup]th[/sup], and have an IQ of 176.

That reminds me of a little cartoon lemmings introduced me to...

 

[Molal]

Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally, and so do [should] I [we].

Where?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where?

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

 

[Molal]

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

Is this the beginning of God creating everything or the beginning of God creating man?

What is the definition of beginning - beginning of everything?, beginning of the next creation episode, the beginning of the next day? how long does the beginning cover - one second, one day, tens day, fifteen years?

In the six literal days of creation - when was man created? Was it literally at the beginning of creation?

 

[TheManeki]

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

Um, AV...where are you getting that Jesus took it literally?

Remember, Jesus knew of the power of metaphorical language, hence his use of parables. Jesus could have made the same point regarding divorce by citing the creation account as metaphor, and not literal reportage of fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

Um, AV...where are you getting that Jesus took it literally?

Remember, Jesus knew of the power of metaphorical language, hence his use of parables. Jesus could have made the same point regarding divorce by citing the creation account as metaphor, and not literal reportage of fact.

I'm not going to go through the history of allegorical thought as it applies to the Scriptures, but for the record, the genealogies would make no sense if the Scriptures were allegorical. Especially for a nation that used genealogical records to ascertain tribal lineage and judgments concerning inheritance.

[bible]Ezra 2:59[/bible]
[bible]Nehemiah 7:61[/bible]

Note also what Jude says ---

[bible]Jude 1:14[/bible]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

So what? The beginning of creation could have been 13.5 billion years ago too.

 

[Loudmouth]

Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally, and so do [should] I [we].

Then Jesus did not know how the Earth was formed. Hence, Jesus was not the son of the creator of the earth, or at least the two were not talking to each other.

 

[lemmings]

Offtopic:

Maneki, thank you for reposting that comic! I reformated my computer and the bookmarks wheren't saved so I lost it.

 

[Nitron]

How the did this:

I just finished reading over this interesting essay by Michael White called "Bad Science Journalism and the Myth of the Oppressed Underdog."It caught my eye in that it reminds me of how many creationists view the scientific process:

Any ideas on what we can do (short of writing letters or guest essays in the newspaper responding to creationist jeremiads) to correct this misperception of how science operates?

Turn into this:

Then Jesus did not know how the Earth was formed. Hence, Jesus was not the son of the creator of the earth, or at least the two were not talking to each other.

 

[TheManeki]

I'm not going to go through the history of allegorical thought as it applies to the Scriptures, but for the record, the genealogies would make no sense if the Scriptures were allegorical. Especially for a nation that used genealogical records to ascertain tribal lineage and judgments concerning inheritance.

I love how you cite "the history of allegorical thought as it applies to the Scriptures," yet you ignore writings like St. Augustine's Literal Meaning of Genesis.

[bible]Ezra 2:59[/bible]
[bible]Nehemiah 7:61[/bible]

Are you afraid that accepting some parts of the Bible as metaphorical turns everything into a metaphor? So, Jesus' parables, Psalms, Lamentations -- you take those to be literal fact, because otherwise you would be forced to believe the entire Bible to be metaphor? How sad. Although, as a old-school computer guy, I can see how you'd be more comfortable with things either being ones or zeroes -- totally either one thing or another, with no space in between.

Note also what Jude says ---

[bible]Jude 1:14[/bible]

Wow. And I can quote Shakespeare. Doesn't mean Hamlet existed, even though the play contains many truths about human nature.

 

[TheManeki]

Offtopic:

Maneki, thank you for reposting that comic! I reformated my computer and the bookmarks wheren't saved so I lost it.

Thanks for bringing this gem to my attention!

The comic website is http://cectic.com/

The actual url for the strip is http://cectic.com/comics/069.png

 

[FightForFamily]

I love how you cite "the history of allegorical thought as it applies to the Scriptures," yet you ignore writings like St. Augustine's Literal Meaning of Genesis.

[bible]Ezra 2:59[/bible]
[bible]Nehemiah 7:61[/bible]

Are you afraid that accepting some parts of the Bible as metaphorical turns everything into a metaphor? So, Jesus' parables, Psalms, Lamentations -- you take those to be literal fact, because otherwise you would be forced to believe the entire Bible to be metaphor? How sad. Although, as a old-school computer guy, I can see how you'd be more comfortable with things either being ones or zeroes -- totally either one thing or another, with no space in between.

Wow. And I can quote Shakespeare. Doesn't mean Hamlet existed, even though the play contains many truths about human nature.

So you read the Bible like a Dr. Seuss book?

How disrespectful.

 

[TheManeki]

So you read the Bible like a Dr. Seuss book?

How disrespectful.

Only the metaphorical parts.

You mean you read all of it like the Wall Street Journal? How disrespectful.

 

[FightForFamily]

Only the metaphorical parts.

You mean you read all of it like the Wall Street Journal? How disrespectful.

The Wall Street Journal is sub-Islamic propaganda.

 

[Molal]

So you read the Bible like a Dr. Seuss book?

How disrespectful.

I don't see how it is disrespectful. I can see how it might be disrespectful to your biblical interpretation; however, how do you know your interpretation is correct? How do you know your interpretation is not seuss-esque?