Ken Ham's Ark

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting these college prepared kids did not read their textbooks in depth and yet were able to pass the college readiness standard (most likely SAT or ACT)?

I said most High school students (9th to 12th grade). 40% is not most, and that was 40% of those that

1. Made it to 12th grade

2. Didn't drop out.

3. took the SAT or ACT, a significant number of students don't take the SAT or ACT. 

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_g12_2013/#/preparedness

Which means I am right. 

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

No it does not. That is a "No True Scotsman Fallacy".

the word "interested" is ambiguous, I already explained what I mean by "interested" 

For the love of Brahama, let's just change the word to "hobby" "passion" "hard work" "research in the library"

Edited August 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

the word "interested" is ambiguous, I already explained what I mean by "interested" 

For the love of Brahama, let's just change the word to "hobby" "passion" "hard work" "research in the library"

If a word is ambiguous stop using it. There are some 3,000,000 words in the English language to choose from.

synonyms:

attentive, intent, absorbed, engrossed, fascinated, riveted, gripped, captivated, rapt, agog; intrigued, inquisitive, curious; keen, eager; informalall ears, nosy, snoopy "an interested crowd"

Edited August 25, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

45 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

If a word is ambiguous stop using it. There are some 3,000,000 words in the English language to choose from.

I will, but Kemara is going to accuse me of changing goals posts, he likes to get into semantics.

I said from the beginning that most Americans are not very interested in Science, which is clear what I meant! so let's change it to  most Americans "don't study Science" and "don't donate to Scientific research" or simply "don't care enough about Science" Do you disagree with that? 

The data I presented also proves most High Schools students don't study their textbooks, that is why the average reading level is low compared to other countries. Do you disagree with that? 

Edited August 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I agree with your concluding statement. 

I will ask you for the third time, how do the statistics you provided show whether or not American high school students read their text books? Let me help you...they don't. For crying out loud one of your discussion points was in relation to Finland, another was in relation to high school academic ability transitioning to university. You refused to respond because there is no response except to admit that you charged into a discussion without knowing the context of the topic. Just admit it bcuz, its no big deal admitting being wrong after being shown why you are wrong three times.

You have been told what the context of the discussion was twice now, you have been told twice now why your stats and discussion points are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What has your response been? An absolute refusal to acknowledge anything and a doubling down in your insistence that your stats have relevance. Well done bcuz, bravo!

Have fun with your pot shots, its all you have and you know it.

[Kemara]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

No, being truly interested in Science means you dedicate some time to study it! or at least make contributions to independent scientific research. 

Why? Because you say so? Come on Skeptic, for the umpteenth time, explain why. Perhaps you can start by answering the following question which I present to you for the fifth...yes that is right, I have now asked you this question five times. Don't you think its about time you actually dealt with your claim?

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.

Then please explain why interest necessarily requires study and contribution. Don't just keep on saying it over and over again, explain why it has to be that way and why that way is the only acceptable way. Surely if it has to be that way you can explain why?

Then please explain why you are able to specify exactly, with a single and specific set of parameters, something that you have stated is ambiguous? You cant have it both ways, you cant hide behind the ambiguity of the word but then demand that specificity exists and that it exists on your terms.

 

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

When you go to a job interview ask the employer what it means to be "interested" in working in the company.  

What has this got to do with anything? The context is entirely foreign to our discussion and you are once again demanding specificity for something that is ambiguous. Good grief Skeptic.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I will, but Kemara is going to accuse me of changing goals posts, he likes to get into semantics.

I said from the beginning that most Americans are not very interested in Science, which is clear what I meant! so let's change it to  most Americans "don't study Science" and "don't donate to Scientific research" or simply "don't care enough about Science" Do you disagree with that? 

The data I presented also proves most High Schools students don't study their textbooks, that is why the average reading level is low compared to other countries. Do you disagree with that? 

But Skeptic is definitely the weirdest.

[bcuzbcuz]

24 minutes ago, Kemara said:

I will ask you for the third time, how do the statistics you provided show whether or not American high school students read their text books? Let me help you...they don't. For crying out loud one of your discussion points was in relation to Finland, another was in relation to high school academic ability transitioning to university. You refused to respond because there is no response except to admit that you charged into a discussion without knowing the context of the topic. Just admit it bcuz, its no big deal admitting being wrong after being shown why you are wrong three times.

You have been told what the context of the discussion was twice now, you have been told twice now why your stats and discussion points are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What has your response been? An absolute refusal to acknowledge anything and a doubling down in your insistence that your stats have relevance. Well done bcuz, bravo!

Have fun with your pot shots, its all you have and you know it.

I taught senior English composition in Secondary School, (Canada). I encouraged students to read, read a lot. I also made sure they composed an essay every week. Those who avoided the reading assignments performed poorly. those who read profusely did well.

I also taught sciences for grades 9, 10 and 11 a few other years. Those who read the texts did better than those who did not. 

Canada placed consistantly higher in reading literacy, math literacy and science literacy than the States in the PISA results. Poor reading comprehension will influence even grades in maths and science.

I also taught in Sweden, back in the day when Sweden had good, very good results, in the PISA tests. Swedes read very well. It has t do with a language where every letter saids its name.

The stats do matter. Americans, as shown in numerous polls, believe more in pseudo science than they do in real science.

And no, I seldom engage in discussions that merely argue from locked positions.

[Kemara]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'll say this slowly.

You might have to say it slower because I just don't see how the stats show that most American high school students don't read their text books, the data simply does not speak to the subject at hand.

 

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The USA school system does not produce an educational product that is above the average, in fact, as my data shows the US falls squarely in the lower half of the OECD countries. In Maths, the US comes 36th out of 40 (or 36th out of 70, if you want to include non OECD countries)

THe PISA scores also showed that to the question whether students are happy with their education, the US falls below the average. So students perform poorly and they seem aware of the fact.

The US ranked 32nd and well below the average, in sciences.

 

Ok, great, wonderful, awesome and a fine example of a strawman.

Please explain how this data shows whether American high school students read their textbooks or not. Don't just keep repeating the data, show why it means that American high school students don't read their textbooks. If you have to draw inference from the data then please show that this is the only possible explanation and why the inference must logically follow. Good luck with that.

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'm assuming my need to repeat these stats are that you are a product of the US system.

Well you know what they say about assumption don't you?

Do you know what they say about people who feel the need to repeatedly share stats that are irrelevant to the actual topic of conversation, give no explanation as to why they address the topic yet insist they are meaningful and have won the day and repeat the same strawman argument?

[TheSkepticChristian]

26 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I taught senior English composition in Secondary School, (Canada). I encouraged students to read, read a lot. I also made sure they composed an essay every week. Those who avoided the reading assignments performed poorly. those who read profusely did well.

I also taught sciences for grades 9, 10 and 11 a few other years. Those who read the texts did better than those who did not. 

Canada placed consistantly higher in reading literacy, math literacy and science literacy than the States in the PISA results. Poor reading comprehension will influence even grades in maths and science.

thumbs up! 

but Kerama thinks reading the Title or some summary is enough. 

Edited August 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

11 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I taught senior English composition in Secondary School, (Canada). I encouraged students to read, read a lot. I also made sure they composed an essay every week. Those who avoided the reading assignments performed poorly. those who read profusely did well.

Sigh...I would expect and hope for better from a professional educator. I am not arguing that the stats don't show this or something similar to this. My position is, as I have clearly and succinctly explained to you on a number of occasions, is that the stats do not show whether or not American high school students read their text books. The stats you provided do not speak to this point, even your discussion does not speak to this point. Academic ability isn't in question, do you understand that? Academic ability is irrelevantly to the topic at hand, do you understand that?

Did your students who avoided their reading assignments never read their text books? Did the students discussed in your stats never read their text books? The level of text book is irrelevant, comprehension, retention, frequency and volume are irrelevant to the context of the discussion.

25 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The stats do matter. Americans, as shown in numerous polls, believe more in pseudo science than they do in real science.

So? Pseudo science, out dated science, good science, bad science, so what? How does this have any bearing on whether or not American high achool students read their text books or not?

 

35 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

And no, I seldom engage in discussions that merely argue from locked positions.

So this is one of those seldom occasions then.

[TheSkepticChristian]

10 minutes ago, Kemara said:

Did your students who avoided their reading assignments never read their text books?

you are shifting goal posts, no one said "never"  

I admit most students do read the Title of the book, and sometimes even a paragraph. 

You keep pointing at irrelevancies. 

Edited August 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

5 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I said most High school students (9th to 12th grade). 40% is not most, and that was 40% of those that

1. Made it to 12th grade

2. Didn't drop out.

3. took the SAT or ACT, a significant number of students don't take the SAT or ACT. 

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_g12_2013/#/preparedness

Which means I am right. 

No it does not, it doesn't even address your claim let alone support it, let alone affirm it. If 100% of American high school students failed math and science this still doesn't show or mean that they didn't read their text books. It could mean they were not good readers, it could also mean they didn't read much, but the stats do not show that all, most or a minority did or did not read the text book. No stats that have been presented by you or bcuzbcuz address the matter of whether or not American high school students read their text books.

[Kemara]

39 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but Kerama thinks reading the Title or some summary is enough. 

CFR...which reminds me, you have outstanding CFR's and not just from me. Now get to it.

[Kemara]

42 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

thumbs up! 

but Kerama thinks reading the Title or some summary is enough. 

Ill ask you what I asked bcuz...how does this show whether or not American high school students read their text books or not? I have asked you this a couple of times now,why wont you answer this very simple question? The truth is that I know why you wont and so does everyone else.

[Kemara]

41 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

you are shifting goal posts, no one said "never"  

 

Skeptic, Skeptic, Skeptic, why 'o why do you keep doing this to yourself and why do you make it so easy.

No I am not shifting the goal posts, as per usual it is you who has continually shifted the goal posts. I know I have already pointed this out but I will do so again:

This is what you actually said, this was your original claim:

On ‎23‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 5:59 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

  2. Most high school students don't read their books. 

Please note that there is no way that this can mean what you are now claiming. You specifically said "....don't read their books". That is a definite position not an ambiguous one.

So, bcuz, please answer the question as posed and ignore Skeptics desperate attempt at shifting the goal posts unnoticed.

[TheSkepticChristian]

56 minutes ago, Kemara said:

Ill ask you what I asked bcuz...how does this show whether or not American high school students read their text books or not? I have asked you this a couple of times now,why wont you answer this very simple question? The truth is that I know why you wont and so does everyone else.

1. I was in high school 

2. Poor average reading levels and test scores suggest most students don't read. 

3. did you go to high school? when? 

2 hours ago, Kemara said:

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?

I won't respond to any of that, it is absolutely hilarious that you keep bringing up the TV! 

Here are more stats that prove most Americans are not interested in Scientific progress 

  

 

 

and being against Human cloning for medical research is anti-science.  

" Although several scientific roadblocks remain unsolved, the medical benefits that could be gained from treatments based on therapeutic cloning outweigh the ethical dilemma and calls for further improvements to be clinically applicable. In sum, therapeutic cloning features great potential as a histocompatible method for cell replacement therapy to restore motility following paralysis, counteract senescence, and repair damages done by stroke, myocardial infarction, liver cirrhosis, severe burns and osteoporosis to name a few" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323472/

July 2016 was the warmest month ever (recorded history), but most Americans don't care about climate science. 

SERIOUSLY! MOST AMERICANS DON'T GIVE A RATS ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE . THAT IS BULL ! 

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I will, but Kemara is going to accuse me of changing goals posts, he likes to get into semantics.

Well of course I am because that is exactly what you are doing. I am not worried about semantics but I will keep you honest and in context, two things which you have no problem repeatedly violating. I know you hate me doing it because it forces you to defend your positions with more than "it is because I say it is" but you will just have to live with that.

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

so let's change it to  most Americans "don't study Science" and "don't donate to Scientific research"...

I agree with this, but that still doesn't address the issue of interest. One simply does not have to study science to be interested in science, one simply does not have to donate to scientific research to be interested in science., To equate these behaviours to interest is a misnomer. 

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

... or simply "don't care enough about Science" Do you disagree with that? 

I do not agree with this. There are numerous real world examples of the general populace becoming involved and taking an interest in science issues. I have provided a few examples, there are many more. You would have to show that this huge groundswell of interest in science issues that affect the general populace personally (e.g. environment, ecology, climate change, organics, renewables etc etc) are a figment of my imagination. How many theists do you know that have a position one way or the other regarding climate change / global warming? I would assume that the majority, if not the greater majority, have a position. It doesn't matter what the position is, it doesn't matter if they believe or disbelieve in global warming they still have an interest in this science issue.

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The data I presented also proves most High Schools students don't study their textbooks, that is why the average reading level is low compared to other countries. Do you disagree with that? 

I don't agree, simply because the data you have shared does not speak to whether or not most American high school students read their text books. Comparing reading ability to other nations does not speak to the question either. What it speaks is....tadatada....how American high school students compare in reading ability to other countries. That's it and that all, anything else and you are reading into the statistics something that is simply not there.

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

the word "interested" is ambiguous, I already explained what I mean by "interested" 

What YOU mean by "interested" is meaningless and irrelevant, you cannot with any sense of credibility or appearance of logic or validity decide what the word "interested" means. Hang on a second, I am going to decide that the word "interested" actually means "someone who speaks the word"...yeah, that will do....if you speak the word "science" even just once in your life then that means your interested. That means that all theists are interested in science! It means that because I say it means that and no amount of evidence, logic, Oxford dictionary definitions or real world events are going to deter me from holding my definition. So how do you like that Skeptic, I have just proven that all theists are interested in science, yahooooo!!! 

Of course, my definition and my application of this definition to matter at hand is as ridiculous as yours. This fact is made even more evident when your definition is compared to the definition provided by the Oxford dictionary. 

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

For the love of Brahama, let's just change the word to "hobby" "passion" "hard work" "research in the library"

Sure we can do that but of course that would mean you have to concede that your original position regarding "interest" is untenable and you were wrong. I mean that is what this has come to isn't it. You can no longer hold to your original position which is why you now have to change it to something else. Of course I find this particularly amusing. Initially you were all about the word "interest". Then I took you to task on it and you couldn't defend the position and therefore hid behind the fact that the word is ambiguous....remember what you said to me straight after I dismantled your argument?

 

On ‎23‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 2:47 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

No, that is simply your point of view. The word "interested" is ambiguous. 

So you hid behind the words ambiguity when it suited you. Now you are celebrating the words ambiguity and using it as a reason to change your position from "interest" to hobby, passion, hard work and research in the library. For one, you will have no more luck with defending the position of "passion" than you did with "interest" and for the same reasons, so its probably best if you drop that one.

In any case, I have just proven that all theists are "interested" in science according to my definition of the word "interested" lol .......just following your example Skeptic.

Hey, don't forget those CFR's lol.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Kemara

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

1. I was in high school  

 

So what, that is meaningless. You are required to provide a reference, now get to it right now.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

2. Poor average reading levels and test scores suggest most students don't read.  

 

 

Ohhhhh I see, you have gone back on your original position that most students don't read and have shifted the goals post to the stats "suggest" most students don't read. Nice attempted dodge, but you need to do better. Let me ask you a really simple question. How do the persons who collected the statistical data know that the students average reading levels were poor? How does one test for that? And still, this does not speak to whether or not the students read their text books. Sure, they read them poorly, but nowhere in your stats does it show they don't read.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I won't respond to any of that, it is absolutely hilarious that you keep bringing up the TV!  

 

What I find hilarious is that you have refused to answer a simple little question and to defend your position as to why TV activity cannot be used as an indication of interest. I think everyone knows why you refuse to defend or explain it, its imply because there is no defence and no logical or reasonable explanation.

 

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

Here are more stats that prove most Americans are not interested in Scientific progress 

Awesome! Where are they? I don't see any stats which discuss the interest of anybody in science. 

 

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

SERIOUSLY! MOST AMERICANS DON'T GIVE A RATS ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE . THAT IS BULL ! 

 

Against all expectation and all experience you actually provided something interesting, however I doubt you understand the implications of this data correctly. If the answers to the questions that are similar to "Do you believe climate change is not a very serious problem" or "Climate change is not harming people now" or "Not concerned that climate change will harm me personally", were included in these stats what do you think the results would look like? If we added up the numbers of both sets of questions what do you think the statistics would look like? It is irrelevant to the issue of interest if what these people believe is correct or not, all that we need to establish is do they have a position. If they have a position then they have interest in a science issue. Just because most Americans are not concerned with climate change doesn't mean they are not aware or not interested. 97% of Americans are aware of the climate change issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country  

It is also interesting that more recent statistics paint a different picture than you older statistics. From an article titled "U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High", 64% of Americans are worried a great deal / fair amount about global warming. From the article:

"Americans' clear shift toward belief in global warming follows a winter that most described in the same poll as being unusually warm. Sixty-three percent say they experienced an unusually warm winter, and the majority of this group ascribes the warm weather pattern to human-caused climate change."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

Interesting article.

You need to keep up to speed on these things Skeptic. The groundswell of interest among the general populace in science issues, which I have referred to a few times in this thread, is growing all the time.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Kemara

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

I do not agree with this. There are numerous real world examples of the general populace becoming involved and taking an interest in science issues. I have provided a few examples, there are many more.

No you didn't! 

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

I agree with this, but that still doesn't address the issue of interest. One simply does not have to study science to be interested in science, one simply does not have to donate to scientific research to be interested in science., To equate these behaviours to interest is a misnomer. 

You agree, so the debate is over! I won! I already told you what I meant by "interest" in Science. 

 

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

That means that all theists are interested in science! It means that because I say it means that and no amount of evidence, logic, Oxford dictionary definitions or real world events are going to deter me from holding my definition

LOL you keep pointing to irrelevancies! I agree with the Oxford Dictionary "A feeling of wanting to know or learn about (something):"

Science - "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

Do most Americans really want to learn Science?  Debate over. 

Your view of "interested" means nothing to me. 

I will stop reading, you are wasting my time. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[ksfisher]

[Kemara]

6 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

No you didn't! 

 

Lololol oh Skeptic you really are great for a laugh. So you are saying that I didn't refer to the general populations interest in the space program, marching in protest regarding the environment, a groundswell in interest regarding organics, ecology, climate change etc.? You are saying I didn't provide these real world examples?

 

13 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You agree, so the debate is over! I won! I already told you what I meant by "interest" in Science. 

You are a funny guy, you lost before we even started because your position is untenable. Sure I agree with this point but not your position and as I clearly stated this point did not support your position. What you mean by "interest" is completely irrelevant, particularly because what you meant by the word mysteriously changed over the course of the discussion, coincidentally this change occurred whenever you couldn't defend the accepted definition e.g. Oxford dictionary.

21 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

LOL you keep pointing to irrelevancies! I agree with the Oxford Dictionary "A feeling of wanting to know or learn about (something):"

 

You agree with it but refuse to use it preferring instead to use your definition which is at odds with the Oxford and worse still 7s that you want to force everyone else to accept and use your definition. Ridiculous.

 

26 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Do most Americans really want to learn Science?  Debate over. 

But that is not the question nor is it your position but if you want to claim victory on the foundation of a strawman, knock yourself out funny guy.

30 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Your view of "interested" means nothing to me. 

 

And it shouldn't mean anything to you in light of the definition provided by Oxford dictionary, just like your view of "interested" is meaningless self serving dribble.

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I will stop reading, you are wasting my time. 

I think that would be in your best interest, you simply cant handle it, its beyond your ability.

Have a happy day!

[TheSkepticChristian]

25 minutes ago, Kemara said:

You are a funny guy, you lost before we even started because your position is untenable. Sure I agree with this point but not your position and as I clearly stated this point did not support your position. What you mean by "interest" is completely irrelevant, particularly because what you meant by the word mysteriously changed over the course of the discussion, coincidentally this change occurred whenever you couldn't defend the accepted definition e.g. Oxford dictionary

LOL No it didn't! I said from the beginning that most Americans are not very interested in Science, especially because most Americans 1. Don't know basic Science. 2. Don't read Science books 3. Don't donate to scientific research .

25 minutes ago, Kemara said:

Lololol oh Skeptic you really are great for a laugh. So you are saying that I didn't refer to the general populations interest in the space program, marching in protest regarding the environment, a groundswell in interest regarding organics, ecology, climate change etc.? You are saying I didn't provide these real world examples?

 Most Americans are not activists on the environment. 

Quote

in light of the definition provided by Oxford dictionary, just like your view of "interested" is meaningless self serving dribble.

I agree with the Oxford Dictionary "A feeling of wanting to know or learn about (something):" Science - "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" Do most Americans really want to learn Science? Debate over. To be interested in Science by definition means you want to learn Science, so are most Americans interested in Science? 

Game over! 

Edited August 26, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

14 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

LOL No it didn't! I said from the beginning that most Americans are not very interested in Science, especially because most Americans 1. Don't know basic Science. 2. Don't read Science books 3. Don't donate to scientific research . 

 

No matter how many times you repeat yourself you still wont be right. Let me ask you yet again, why does a person's interest determined by level of knowledge, reading habits and donations? I have asked you to defend and justify this position more times than I care to count, you haven't even made an attempt to do so.

 

20 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 Most Americans are not activists on the environment. 

Activism does not equate to interest, as such this point is as moot as all your other points.

22 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I agree with the Oxford Dictionary "A feeling of wanting to know or learn about (something):" Science - "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" Do most Americans really want to learn Science? Debate over. To be interested in Science by definition means you want to learn Science, so are most Americans interested in Science? 

Oh goodness me, this is hilarious, this is your best one yet. You have defined the words "interest" and "science" and then erroneously conflated the two. A person does not have to want study science in order to be interested in science they must merely have an interest in the "study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."   They don't have to do it themselves to be interested in it, lololol this is almost too ridiculous to be true. Tell me Skeptic, are you really and anti-sceptic who is trying to give real sceptics a bad name? If you are you are doing a fantastic job with that piece of mumbo jumbo.

36 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

Game over! 

Over? It never even began.

You are out of your depth Skeptic, why don't you do as you said and stop reading me and run along like a good boy. Lol

[TheSkepticChristian]

10 hours ago, Kemara said:

Activism does not equate to interest, as such this point is as moot as all your other points.

Dude, you keep pointing to the march in NYC (activists), so I responded by saying that most Americans are not activists .

10 hours ago, Kemara said:

No matter how many times you repeat yourself you still wont be right. Let me ask you yet again, why does a person's interest determined by level of knowledge, reading habits and donations? I have asked you to defend and justify this position more times than I care to count, you haven't even made an attempt to do so.

I don't want to have a boring and irrelevant debate with you about the word "interest". You presented no evidence, just the moon walk on TV. Watching TV is not science.

It is a sad reality that most Americans (Theists) don't care enough about science because 1. Most don't read science books 2. Most don't know basic science 3. Most don't donate to scientific research. 

You agree with those three points, so the debate is over .I have nothing else to say. 

[Kemara]

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It is a sad reality that most Americans (Theists) don't care enough about science because 1. Most don't read science books 2. Most don't know basic science 3. Most don't donate to scientific research. 

You keep on repeating this over and over again, while refusing to support it with any evidence, logic, reasoning or statistics over and over again, while ignoring real word examples, logic, reasoning, statistical data and the fact that your arguments have been soundly refuted over and over again.

Your refusal to acknowledge when you are refuted (e.g. Americans awareness and belief in climate change) is nothing less than an admission on your part of being incorrect. Your refusal to deal with my real world examples, logic, reasoning, stats and systematic dismantling of your position clearly shows that you do not have the capacity, skill or ability to debate any issue...you are simply in over your head, you are out of your depth and don't belong in this situation.

 

12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Dude, you keep pointing to the march in NYC (activists), so I responded by saying that most Americans are not activists .

Totally irrelevant which is yet another example of you being in over your head. 

12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I don't want to have a boring and irrelevant debate with you about the word "interest". You presented no evidence, just the moon walk on TV. Watching TV is not science.

 

Yet it is a clear example of interest in science which is just one of a number of real world examples that refutes your position.

12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You agree with those three points,

CFR.

I clearly disagree that the three points have any relevance to your soundly refuted position.

12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I have nothing else to say. 

You have said nothing anyway, nothing that didn't amount to "it is because I say it is."

Much earlier in this thread Calm gave you some very sage and kind advise.

On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 1:10 PM, Calm said:

I would suggest taking a psychology research class in order to learn what you can and cannot extrapolate from data. SC.

There is even a free one here:  https://alison.com/courses/RESEARCH-METHODS-IN-PSYCHOLOGY

Have no clue how good it is though.  I will take a look at it if I get tempted to see if another course that I am interested in is worth it.  Maybe even take it to refresh my memory of my psych research classes I took too long ago.

 If you do decide to take it, you might want to take the other psychology courses too.  Time investment is probably a lot less than you spend on the board.

Take Calm's advise, it could prove incredibly helpful to you because you demonstrably have no clue how to use data in an appropriate and academically acceptable manner. If you did know then you wouldn't come off looking so foolish and out of your depth.

Good luck.