AI says God or No

[walterpthefirst]

I'm not looking for capitulation, Krowb.

 

I'm looking for justification of an argument.

 

Exactly the same criteria we ask of any Christian.

 

Nothing new happening here.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let's run the experiment first please before convicting the analyst...

The analyst has already stated that if the results of the experiment did not match his predetermined conclusion, he'd chuck the data entirely.  No one has to convict you, Ed.  Your own words have already done that.  

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The analyst has already stated that if the results of the experiment did not match his predetermined conclusion, he'd chuck the data entirely.  No one has to convict you, Ed.  Your own words have already done that.  

You never asked me how I would explain it to another person, did you.  Yeah, no.

 

To add, you do this all the time, via science.  Here is the tentative truth, in faith, (and sometimes not), that I'm giving you the best answer.  So don't stand too tall there cowboy....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Big words from a fat biologist...

[walterpthefirst]

36 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You never asked me how I would explain it to another person, did you.  Yeah, no.

 

To add, you do this all the time, via science.  Here is the tentative truth, in faith, (and sometimes not), that I'm giving you the best answer.  So don't stand too tall there cowboy....

 

Examples from bona fide science where a result is rejected because of the analyst's religious ideology?

 

?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You never asked me how I would explain it to another person, did you. 

I did; and you said that if the data supported your preconceived conclusion, you'd use it to explain/convert others.  But if the data did not support your preconceived conclusion, you'd ignore it and withhold it from others.  Deliberately deceitful.  You're welcome to lie to yourself, Ed; you're not welcome to lie to me.

 

40 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

To add, you do this all the time, via science.  Here is the tentative truth, in faith, (and sometimes not), that I'm giving you the best answer. 

Science does give us the best answer based on available data.  Faith is not required.  You'd know that if you would listen to Walt once in a while. 

[walterpthefirst]

35 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I did; and you said that if the data supported your preconceived conclusion, you'd use it to explain/convert others.  But if the data did not support your preconceived conclusion, you'd ignore it and withhold it from others.  Deliberately deceitful.  You're welcome to lie to yourself, Ed; you're not welcome to lie to me.

 

Science does give us the best answer based on available data.  Faith is not required.  You'd know that if you would listen to Walt once in a while. 

 

Ed's not going to listen to Walt, Prof.

 

First, because he's got me on ignore.

 

Second, because what I keep telling him about science doesn't fit with his preconceived notion of it.

 

And so, not only am I on ignore, but what I tell him about the way science works is on ignore too.

 

So as well as being deliberately deceitful it seems as if he's also deliberately ignorant.

 

The facts are all there for him to see, read, digest and learn from, but...

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ed's not going to listen to Walt, Prof.

 

First, because he's got me on ignore.

 

Second, because what I keep telling him about science doesn't fit with his preconceived notion of it.

 

And so, not only am I on ignore, but what I tell him about the way science works is on ignore too.

 

So as well as being deliberately deceitful it seems as if he's also deliberately ignorant.

 

The facts are all there for him to see, read, digest and learn from, but...

 

 

We could always quote you so he can see it.

 

DB