Faith is not "without evidence" argument
- Thread starter Into Тhe Night
- Start date
I doubt Sybil has ever set foot on a college campus.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
You masturbate to your socks.
Pending additional evidence, the conservative assumption is that life is rare.
We haven't spotted the finest tangible evidence of life in this solar system.
And after five decades of investigation, we have never detected any tangible evidence of an artificial signal in the cosmic electromagnetic radio and microwave spectrum.
So far, there has been very limited evidence of rocky exoplanets in the habitable zones of stars conducive to the evolution of life.
That could change with the aquisition of more evidence and better technology.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I don't believe you.
Guess how far claims of "credentials" get you on an anonymous online forum such as this one... Yup, that's right... absolutely nowhere.
You have proven you have no knowledge of the subject matter.
Of course, you could "show me up" by immediately teaching me and the rest of this forum about how polling works and how it can somehow hold any sort of meaning beyond what I have already explained in a prior comment.
Of course, you won't (because you can't). So long as you won't (because you can't), it seems that we're done here.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
You're confusing me with Dutch/Cypress.
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
Let's start with this one, shall we? The two questions, "Do you support the legalization of access to safe and effective abortion services?" and "Do you support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime nor expressed any desire to die?", are vastly different. It is a sign that you have not take a course in English either, or perhaps failed it.
Most people know what abortion means and it is not "killing of living humans who have not committed any crime nor expressed any desire".
So that right there destroyed the rest of your drivel.
Into the Night
Verified User
You asked two questions, and I will answer them separately.
In statistical mathematics, it is required to use unbiased raw data. That data must also be published. Selection from that raw data must be by randN (same type of random number as drawing a card from a deck). In other words, if an element is picked, it cannot be picked again.
It is also required to declare the range of possible variance and to justify that variance. This value is used to calculate the margin of error value, which is required for any statistical summary. A mean or an average value is meaningless without the margin of error value accompanying it.
The problem with polls is that you don't know who was polled, or even the questions asked much of the time. You don't know how many were polled. You don't have any information to determine a total possible variance.
Without this, you don't have any way to determine if the raw data is biased or not. Such questioning and even the order of questioning can introduce bias in the raw data. Most polling companies do NOT produce any raw data nor even attempt to describe how any bias was eliminated.
Because of this, polls just don't mean anything more than random numbers of type randU (numbers made up in someone's head or an algorithm created in someone's head). No statistical summary was ever performed. Just some randU conclusion that is mostly used to try to determine opinion, not measure it.
You will find I have a higher standard for accepting numbers as 'data'. Among my requirements is that the raw data MUST be published, the method of collecting it must be published, the time the data was collected and where must be published, and if the data is to be used for a statistical analysis, that raw data MUST be collected in a manner that eliminates bias, and that method must also be published. If instrumentation was used to collect the data, I must also know what the instrumentation is, the method used to calibrate it, and often when it was last calibrated.
I just don't accept any numbers found on the internet as 'data', particularly when those numbers appear to be from a so-called 'statistical summary' (but it doesn't contain any margin of error value or they don't show their work).
You should also be aware that statistical mathematics does NOT have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to the importation of random numbers. A different summary run on the SAME data will produce a different result.
Does statistical mathematics have value? Of course! It's a way to estimate population size from a partial census, for example.
Governments push 'data' crap most of all. They do it to justify some program of theirs. Polling agencies are typically run by Democrat owned newspapers or subsidiaries. They have an agenda in trying to push opinion using a 'poll' rather than measuring opinion.
Too many people just throw around numbers and too many people just accept them without question. I don't.
On another forum, I started a thread called The Data Mine. In that thread I stated my requirements to even begin considering 'data' as actual data. I stated a couple of them here. You can see the OP in that thread at https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/26/original-rules-data-mine. I still hold to these rules.
To suggest that in the absence of evidence of life elsewhere...the assumption should be that life is rare...is absurd, Cypress.
We have no idea of how much life is present in our galaxy...and we do not know what "rare" would mean in a area as big as our galaxy.
Not sure why you want to be there, but if it makes you happy, fine with me. I just do not consider it any more appropriate and assumption than the assumption that life is abundant.
Into the Night
Verified User
Now to answer your 2nd question:
Your assumption happens to be correct in that I am a Christian. However, I have also openly stated the Bible (English versions) contains errors. I have described the source of some of these errors. The include:
* The fact that the Bible is essentially a 'Readers Digest Condensed' version of many books written by many prophets, and therefore have omissions.
* Translations are fine and good, but idioms do not translate across languages. Many of the so-called 'conflicts' are people adding their OWN idioms and never realizing the idioms used in the source language.
* Over the years, people have intentionally cut out or added to scripture to distort it. The message contained in the Bible still survives, however, in that God exists, his Son Jesus Christ exists, and the promise of resurrection of the dead exists. The Bible also still contains many good councils on how best to conduct your life. Christ and God council making choices that increase your freedom to make choices. Satan councils no choice, but rather compulsion.
So the Bible does have some problems, particularly the English version. As people create new English versions, they introduce still more distortions.
The Bible uses a lot of similes, colorful descriptions, and frankly some incomplete stories. It is not a piece of legalese that you can analyze every word. Indeed, Christ had real problems with the Pharisees, which were the lawyers and priests of the time. They often tried to trap Christ by twisting meanings of words or introducing 'meaning' that wasn't there, just like many lawyers do today.
Is it scripture? Yes. It comes to us out of the depths of time. It's frankly a miracle that we have what we have today to hold in our hand and read.
But, God is not dead. Neither is Christ. This scripture is not the end of it. To treat it like that is all there is and there will never be any more scripture is literally saying that God and Christ have abandoned the world.
Into the Night
Verified User
This is just an argument of ignorance fallacy.
Just because nothing has been found YET doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Remember our range of observation is quite limited.
The null hypothesis is premised on finding no evidence.
Lack of evidence is sufficient to make educated preliminary guesses.
Many reputable PhD level astronomers and astrobiologists currently believe life is rare in the galaxy, based on a range of observed factors. So I really don't think it is fair to call it absurd as an educated guess.
But things could change as our technology improves and we get more evidence
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Thank you for fully supporting my claim labeled "First off" within my Post #467. As I said within that post, two different ways of wording a question about the very same topic can and will quite easily yield two completely different results. Ergo, polling is essentially nothing more than random numbers. Once again, THANK YOU for AGREEING with my claim.
Projection. The English illiteracy issue belongs to YOU, not to me.
You are completely illiterate in basic set theory. Ask me how I know.
No, your "start with this one" actually wholly supported my Post #467. It beautifully shows why polling is essentially nothing more than random numbers.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Would you mind explaining for my edification why no expandiverses can open up in your universe? What prevents that from happening? Nothing seemed to stop the expandiverse in which we find ourselves from opening up in the universe, right? I'm confused on this point because obviously at least one expandiverse opened up and we can observe it because we are in it. You are indicating that it can't happen. How should I understand this?
Stars only have finite usable energy to perform work over a finite time. Given sufficient time, any star dies. If the universe were infinitely old, all the stars would have infinitely long-since died and all matter in the universe would be lumped together in huge black holes. This is what gravity would produce.
What am I missing?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
... probably because statistics isn't covered in Deaf Studies.
You should take statistics.
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
What is Deaf Studies?
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
How can it be random numbers if they polled people?
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
There is currently no way to determine if life is rare and unique. We are finding more and more exoplanets which makes Earth like planets seem more probable.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I'd shout it louder but you still wouldn't be able to hear me.