My Aliens challenge

[Mr Laurier]

After how much fidgeting with the data?

none.

 

[AV1611VET]

none.

Maybe that's the problem then?

 

[Kylie]

I'm sure we would.

Anyone who believes Jesus walked on water deserves to fail any exam, don't they?

Anyone who accepts a claim without any scientific support deserves to fail a science exam.

 

[Astrid]

Anyone who accepts a claim without any scientific support deserves to fail a science exam.

They'll fail a lot more than that

 

[Kylie]

After how much fidgeting with the data?

If something is real, why would you need to fidget with the data to make the data show it?

 

[Astrid]

If something is real, why would you need to fidget with the data to make the data show it?

Data falsifying is really dishonest

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone who accepts a claim without any scientific support deserves to fail a science exam.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

If something is real, why would you need to fidget with the data to make the data show it?

Oh, I don't know.

Rate of moondust falling on the moon comes to mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Data falsifying is really dishonest.

How do you determine if it's false or not?

Wait for it to blow up on liftoff? collapse on some cars? produce a generation of disfigured children? sink to the bottom of the ocean? cause a city to glow in the dark? line the Gulf Coast with oil?

 

[Kylie]

Oh, I don't know.

Rate of moondust falling on the moon comes to mind.

Care to provide a source that shows the data was fudged to create a more accurate result?

 

[Kylie]

How do you determine if it's false or not?

Wait for it to blow up on liftoff? collapse on some cars? produce a generation of disfigured children? sink to the bottom of the ocean? cause a city to glow in the dark? line the Gulf Coast with oil?

Are you really trying to claim that Challenger exploded because some guy altered the data?

 

[AV1611VET]

Care to provide a source that shows the data was fudged to create a more accurate result?

QV please:

Looks like NASA got a reality check when the depth of the moondust failed to return a deeptime scenario.

Evidently they had to readjust the amount of average yearly dustfall to accommodate this new discovery.

50 x 4 = 200, but if the product is found to be only 100, then it looks like one of the factors is going to have to be halved: either the 50 to 25, or the 4 to 2.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you really trying to claim that Challenger exploded because some guy altered the data?

IN MY OPINION, when someone tried to stop the liftoff, and they over-rode him and said it was safe to launch, that is falsifying the data.

 

[Kylie]

QV please:

That's nowhere near good enough.

You showing me that you've made the same claim before does not count as supporting that claim.

 

[Kylie]

IN MY OPINION, when someone tried to stop the liftoff, and they over-rode him and said it was safe to launch, that is falsifying the data.

No it isn't. People can be wrong without falsifying data, you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's nowhere near good enough.

You showing me that you've made the same claim before does not count as supporting that claim.

Looks like you're SOL then.

(Short On Luck)

 

[Kylie]

Looks like you're SOL then.

(Short On Luck)

Not a problem for me. I'm not the one making claims that I can't provide any support for.

 

[Tolworth John]

The articles were written by Andrew Snelling. He is a hypocrite. He publishes creationist literature saying that there are rock formations that are 1.8 billion years old, and he also publishes young earth creationist material.

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

And in a science magerzine he would get a honest, fair peer review if he presented an artical with young earth dates in it.

How gulliable you are.

 

[Tolworth John]

The point is that as a scientist if he had verifiable evidence he would be able to publish it in a peer reviewed journal and scientists could point out the specific flaws or not.

That he only publishes in a location with a financial and philosophical connection to a specific answer is suspicious.

All christian scientist publish in secular journals etc, but to do so they have to adjust there articles to complie with the ruling, never to be questioned theory of evolutio.

 

[Tolworth John]

No it doesn't. But it most definitely disqualifies one from any scientific endeavour if one starts with the answer and then looks for corroboration to confirm it. Which is what those at creation.com do (the clue is in the name).

Yes, Yes Yes I agree,ruling out the possibility of the supernatural aproi disqualifies every atheist scientist.

Grow up, everyone has a bias, it is how one makes allowance for that bias that counts.