TheSkepticChristian Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kemara said: No, the stats that I have asked you to provide repeatedly on this thread. That most Theists don't read science books? I already presented stats that most Americans don't know basic science, what else do you want? Why is Theistic religion not giving us more scientists? Only 7% of NAS scientists believe in a personal God. 1 hour ago, Kemara said: Good grief, you are a complete joke. why the personal attack? Edited August 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 They start here: This is for your information, I am not able to engage in any discussion at the moment. Need to spend my free time proofing a transcription. However, it relates to your discussion with Kemara so if you want, you can respond as if he posted them and not me.
Kemara Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 34 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: That most Theists don't read science books? I already presented stats that most Americans don't know basic science, what else do you want? I want the stats that I asked you to provide. I never asked for anything regarding reading habits or science knowledge, now please get to it and stop playing games. 37 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: why the personal attack? Just get on with it Skeptic, stop avoiding Calms posts, there is no way that even you can miss them.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kemara said: I want the stats that I asked you to provide. I never asked for anything regarding reading habits or science knowledge, now please get to it and stop playing games. I am not playing games. I already presented enough evidence that most American Theists are not very interested in Science, that was my original claim. Someone that is very interested at least reads some Science books and knows the basics. Edited August 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 35 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I am not playing games. I already presented enough evidence that most American Theists are not very interested in Science, that was my original claim. Someone that is very interested at least reads some Science books and knows the basics. More silly little games. Your claims are false, the stats you used do not show what you claimed they showed and you know it, hence your obfuscation and silly little games. Unsurprisingly you still have not responded to Calm's posts. What a joke.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kemara said: More silly little games. Your claims are false, the stats you used do not show what you claimed they showed and you know it, hence your obfuscation and silly little games LOL I am not playing games, I did present evidence. It is true there are probably no direct stats, but logic tells us that if most Americans (94%) don't know basic science, that means most American Theists don't know basic science. p → q Americans are American Theists! Non-Theists are not a significant number. Pew said, "Nearly one-in-ten U.S. adults overall (9%) now say they do not believe in God" How is that a significant number? If most Americans don't know basic science, it means they are not very interested. Please study some logic http://www.math.illinois.edu/~ajh/347.summer14/logic.pdf Only 33% of AAAS scientists believe in God, and only 7% of NAS scientists believe in a personal God. 1 hour ago, Kemara said: Unsurprisingly you still have not responded to Calm's posts. What a joke. because I am talking about Americans! I won't respond to the "there were exceptions" claim. "there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan" Religious about what? Theism? Edited August 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: It is true there are probably no direct stats... Thank you for finally admitting this and for finally telling the truth. 4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: ...but logic tells us that if most Americans (94%) don't know basic science, that means most American Theists don't know basic science. p → q Yes I agree with this. 4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: If most Americans don't know basic science, it means they are not very interested. This is where you fall flat on your face. Not knowing basic science does in no way mean that one has no interest in science or science progression. The logic simply does not follow. Do you know what event produced the largest ever American television audience in terms of percentage? Not knowing basic science did not diminish the interest of 93% of the American television audience (125 million in total) in science progression. 4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Please study some logic Do you even know what the word "logic" means?
bcuzbcuz Posted August 22, 2016 Author Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kemara said: Do you know what event produced the largest ever American television audience in terms of percentage? Not knowing basic science did not diminish the interest of 93% of the American television audience (125 million in total) in science progression. You are obviously trying to make a point. Whether that point is salient or not is beyond me, since you do not give any additional information as to what you are talking about. What television audience? When? Regarding what interest in science "progression"? You overall "tone" in your posts, in your effort to elicit a response, is however, crude and rude, including personal attacks. I would greatly appreciate it if you turned down your aggressiveness a notch and tried to conduct your argument in more polite terms. Edited August 22, 2016 by bcuzbcuz Grammar
Calm Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/07/17/moonwalk-draws-125-million-viewers-cbs-and-cronkite-win-big/ Quote The moonwalk broadcast had a combined 93 share. A man is going to be walking on the moon for the first time, and 7% of the people were watching something else! (Although note that for New York, the broadcast was measured at a 100 share).
bcuzbcuz Posted August 22, 2016 Author Posted August 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Calm said: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/07/17/moonwalk-draws-125-million-viewers-cbs-and-cronkite-win-big/ Oh, I thought you meant this one:
bcuzbcuz Posted August 22, 2016 Author Posted August 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Calm said: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/07/17/moonwalk-draws-125-million-viewers-cbs-and-cronkite-win-big/ I see your point, although I would not equate viewer percentages as having any realtionship to viewer scientific knowledge. Millions watched out of curiosity akin to watching Usain Bolt running 100 meters. Most Americans don't even know how long 100 meters is, nor do they know how far away the moon is nor how the moon's gravity effects the earth. 10 years after Neil Armstrong walked the moon, the whole NASA moon project program was cancelled due to lack of interest.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 4 hours ago, Kemara said: This is where you fall flat on your face. Not knowing basic science does in no way mean that one has no interest in science or science progression. The logic simply does not follow. No, that is simply your point of view. The word "interested" is ambiguous.
thesometimesaint Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I am not playing games. I already presented enough evidence that most American Theists are not very interested in Science, that was my original claim. Someone that is very interested at least reads some Science books and knows the basics. False. SEE
Kemara Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 15 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: No, that is simply your point of view. The word "interested" is ambiguous. Ambiguous? Then why on earth are you making specific claims about the word "interested"? How can you claim to "clearly" know how to judge a groups interest when, as you say, interest is ambiguous? You just refuted your own argument, you cannot possibly know what you are claiming you know. Well done! .
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: 10 years after Neil Armstrong walked the moon, the whole NASA moon project program was cancelled due to lack of interest. and not a lot of Americans are donating to SETI or other independent scientific organizations. Americans are mostly donating to religion, not to scientific research. Religion is a charity according to the IRS. 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: False. SEE What is false? That most American Theists don't read science books? Edited August 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: You are obviously trying to make a point. Whether that point is salient or not is beyond me, since you do not give any additional information as to what you are talking about. What television audience? When? Regarding what interest in science "progression"? This was directed at the Skeptic in the form of a question so why would I provide the answers to the very question I asked? 9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: You overall "tone" in your posts, in your effort to elicit a response, is however, crude and rude, including personal attacks. I would greatly appreciate it if you turned down your aggressiveness a notch and tried to conduct your argument in more polite terms. If you feel so strongly about it may I suggest that instead of being a board nanny that you use the report feature. By the way, wouldn't you consider calling someone rude and crude a personal attack? Just saying.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Kemara said: Ambiguous? Then why on earth are you making specific claims about the word "interested"? How can you claim to "clearly" know how to judge a groups interest when, as you say, interest is ambiguous? You just refuted your own argument, you cannot possibly know what you are claiming you know. Well done! LOL Do most American Theists read at least some science books? Quote and not a lot of Americans are donating to SETI or other independent scientific organizations. Americans are mostly donating to religion, not to scientific research. Religion is a charity according to the IRS Edited August 23, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: and not a lot of Americans are donating to SETI or other independent scientific organizations. Americans are mostly donating to religion, not to scientific research. Religion is a charity according to the IRS. What is false? That most American Theists don't read science books? Most Americans do read science books. Nearly every American grew up in attending schools that had science books in their course materials. The most commonly owned and least read book in American homes is the Christian Bible. On average adult Americans read less than one book of any type per month. Please tell us who Francis Collins is. No peeking. Edited August 23, 2016 by thesometimesaint
Kemara Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: LOL Do most American Theists read at least some science books? Good grief, what on earth does this have to do with your self-refuted claims concerning interest in science and/or science progression? Reading books does not equate to interest no matter how much you want it too. 125 million Americans were interested enough in science progression to watch the moon landing, how many of them read science books? Furthermore, how on earth are you continuing to try and make the case that reading books clearly equates to interest and not reading books clearly equates to a lack of interest when you have plainly and unreservedly stated that interest is ambiguous? If interest is ambiguous then no single interpretation can be correct. Since you have a single interpretation it is impossible for you to be correct. Simple logic Skeptic, simple logic. You need to stop trying to lasso the wind.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kemara said: 125 million Americans were interested enough in science progression to watch the moon landing, how many of them read science books? that was 50 years ago! and watching TV is not enough! Can Science be a hobby just by watching one event on TV? It is clear Atheists and Agnostics have a greater interest in Science, just look at the data 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Most Americans do read science books. Nearly every American grew up in attending schools that had science books in their course materials. 1. I didn't say "didn't read" I said don't read" 2. Most high school students don't read their books. Edited August 23, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 11 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: that was 50 years ago! What has that got to do with anything? Are you saying that this group of people and there demonstrable interest in science progression is not representative of a segment of America now? How many people watched the Space Shuttle Columbia return to earth? Or is that too long ago? How many people have watched 'Through The Wormhole' or is 490,000 people per week not enough? 36 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: watching TV is not enough! Why exactly is TV not enough to demonstrate interest? What logical reason could there possibly be to preclude TV? Are you the sole authority for setting the only acceptable parameters of what is enough? If not you then who or what is this all powerful authority on what is enough. 38 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Can Science be a hobby just by watching one event on TV? The goal post is "interest" not "hobby", no more shifting please. In your view what is the minimum number of acts of interest that are required before they qualify as sufficiently interested and why should this parameter be accepted as the requirement and not some other parameter? 45 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: It is clear Atheists and Agnostics have a greater interest in Science, just look at the data I have looked at the data you provided it says absolutely nothing concerning interest in science or science progression. You yourself have admitted that there are probably no direct stats so why are you presenting this data like it means anything relevant in relation to the ambiguous issue of interest? The leap you take from what the data actually says and what you want it to say is unsupportable. Read the following again, read it slowly, read it over and over again, read it until it sinks in. 2 hours ago, Kemara said: If interest is ambiguous then no single interpretation can be correct. Since you have a single interpretation it is impossible for you to be correct. Simple logic Skeptic, simple logic. Put the lasso down Skeptic.
bcuzbcuz Posted August 23, 2016 Author Posted August 23, 2016 16 hours ago, Kemara said: This was directed at the Skeptic in the form of a question so why would I provide the answers to the very question I asked? If you feel so strongly about it may I suggest that instead of being a board nanny that you use the report feature. By the way, wouldn't you consider calling someone rude and crude a personal attack? Just saying. I said your tone was rude and crude. Tone does not define the person, it is a charaacteristic, one of many. You saying, as you did, "You are a complete joke" is, however, a personal attack. And why didn't I press the report button? Because I have no desire to close down the complete topic merely because you choose to make a personal attack.
thesometimesaint Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: that was 50 years ago! and watching TV is not enough! Can Science be a hobby just by watching one event on TV? It is clear Atheists and Agnostics have a greater interest in Science, just look at the data 1. I didn't say "didn't read" I said don't read" 2. Most high school students don't read their books. It is kinda hard to pass Elementary School let alone High School classes and not read books. Even the internet still has millions of books to read online. BTW I don't believe any science. I just accept them as the best explanation of any given observation we have to date. My science has to be Agnostic, my religion is sectarian LDS Theism. Ps; You still haven't told us who Francis Collins is. No peeking Edited August 23, 2016 by thesometimesaint
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 8 hours ago, Kemara said: What has that got to do with anything? Are you saying that this group of people and there demonstrable interest in science progression is not representative of a segment of America now? the Cold War is over. 8 hours ago, Kemara said: Why exactly is TV not enough to demonstrate interest? Are most Americans interested in learning and doing Science? Not knowing basic science = Not interested in Science. 8 hours ago, Kemara said: The goal post is "interest" not "hobby", no more shifting please. It's the same thing! A hobby is something that you are very interested in
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: It is kinda hard to pass Elementary School let alone High School classes and not read books. Even the internet still has millions of books to read online. not really. Perhaps some generations ago, but that is no longer true. I guess it also depends on the High School. Trust me, there are plenty of High Schools out-there that are worth nothing. "You still haven't told us who Francis Collins is. No peeking" I read his book the language of God some years ago, he contributed to my conversion to Evolution. When I was a young teenager I didn't believe in Evolution, I started to open my eyes at age 16. Edited August 23, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Recommended Posts