Welcome to Gaia! ::

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius. 0.12738853503185 12.7% [ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant! 0.28343949044586 28.3% [ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis. 0.063694267515924 6.4% [ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore. 0.14649681528662 14.6% [ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball. 0.37898089171975 37.9% [ 119 ]
Total Votes:[ 314 ]
<< < 1 2 ... 55 56 57 58 >
Piltdown
Shokushu
Piltdown

Science Contributors
Between the year of 1994-2004, 6,741,866 total scientific papers were written by the top 10 contributors to science. Here are the numbers:
America: 2,832,621/6,741,866= 42%
Japan: 759,449/6,741,866= 11.3%
Not included on the graph of countries accepting evolution, but those who make the top ten:
Canada: 376,897/6,741,866= 5.6%
Australia: 228,773/6,741,866= 3.4%

Note that both Canada and Australia combined contribute less than 10% and both fall short of the top 5. It should be of no surprise that the 2 countries included on the list are also the two largest non-European scientific contributors. Further, your insistence that Canada be included leads me to think you must be Canadian, as from what I can see, there is no significant reason that Canada should as it contributes 5.6%. I would also like to note that your statistics on Canada only makes the US citizens look worse as more people from Canada (who publishes ~6%) accept evolution than people form the United States(who is top on the list at 42%).

Nope, not Canadian.

Edit: And that link won't work for me.




I am afraid I did not understand your earlier point, if you have retracted it since, then ignore this. I just double checked the link and it is working fine. If you need another way, type in "top countries in science in 1994-2004" into google. Here is an un-titled link to it: http://in-cites.com/research/2005/march_21_2005-1.html. If you still have problems it may be your browser as a few people have tried it already and told me it works fine. Further, my linking the graph was not meant to be decieving as the button at the top and bottom said back to article (which at the time worked fine for me) and if there were any problems for anyone else it would take just a few moments in a google search by typing in the name of the graph to show the contex. It should be even more obvious that I did not attempt to hide the links as I provided them to Dr Sparticle when he asked and all of the links supported what I was saying even further. I even said a few key points of the article including the reference to Turkey's religiosity.

Ya, the link works for me now too.

There is sufficient information about the graph now that I have no opposition to it.
Shokushu
Piltdown
Shokushu
Piltdown

Science Contributors
Between the year of 1994-2004, 6,741,866 total scientific papers were written by the top 10 contributors to science. Here are the numbers:
America: 2,832,621/6,741,866= 42%
Japan: 759,449/6,741,866= 11.3%
Not included on the graph of countries accepting evolution, but those who make the top ten:
Canada: 376,897/6,741,866= 5.6%
Australia: 228,773/6,741,866= 3.4%

Note that both Canada and Australia combined contribute less than 10% and both fall short of the top 5. It should be of no surprise that the 2 countries included on the list are also the two largest non-European scientific contributors. Further, your insistence that Canada be included leads me to think you must be Canadian, as from what I can see, there is no significant reason that Canada should as it contributes 5.6%. I would also like to note that your statistics on Canada only makes the US citizens look worse as more people from Canada (who publishes ~6%) accept evolution than people form the United States(who is top on the list at 42%).

Nope, not Canadian.

Edit: And that link won't work for me.




I am afraid I did not understand your earlier point, if you have retracted it since, then ignore this. I just double checked the link and it is working fine. If you need another way, type in "top countries in science in 1994-2004" into google. Here is an un-titled link to it: http://in-cites.com/research/2005/march_21_2005-1.html. If you still have problems it may be your browser as a few people have tried it already and told me it works fine. Further, my linking the graph was not meant to be decieving as the button at the top and bottom said back to article (which at the time worked fine for me) and if there were any problems for anyone else it would take just a few moments in a google search by typing in the name of the graph to show the contex. It should be even more obvious that I did not attempt to hide the links as I provided them to Dr Sparticle when he asked and all of the links supported what I was saying even further. I even said a few key points of the article including the reference to Turkey's religiosity.

Ya, the link works for me now too.

There is sufficient information about the graph now that I have no opposition to it.

Well, now that we are all on the same page, back to the real issues. I will try to provide side links for people in the future in case their are issues, though I do not like to baby people by doing so. :S
Piltdown
Shokushu
Piltdown
Shokushu
Piltdown

Science Contributors
Between the year of 1994-2004, 6,741,866 total scientific papers were written by the top 10 contributors to science. Here are the numbers:
America: 2,832,621/6,741,866= 42%
Japan: 759,449/6,741,866= 11.3%
Not included on the graph of countries accepting evolution, but those who make the top ten:
Canada: 376,897/6,741,866= 5.6%
Australia: 228,773/6,741,866= 3.4%

Note that both Canada and Australia combined contribute less than 10% and both fall short of the top 5. It should be of no surprise that the 2 countries included on the list are also the two largest non-European scientific contributors. Further, your insistence that Canada be included leads me to think you must be Canadian, as from what I can see, there is no significant reason that Canada should as it contributes 5.6%. I would also like to note that your statistics on Canada only makes the US citizens look worse as more people from Canada (who publishes ~6%) accept evolution than people form the United States(who is top on the list at 42%).

Nope, not Canadian.

Edit: And that link won't work for me.




I am afraid I did not understand your earlier point, if you have retracted it since, then ignore this. I just double checked the link and it is working fine. If you need another way, type in "top countries in science in 1994-2004" into google. Here is an un-titled link to it: http://in-cites.com/research/2005/march_21_2005-1.html. If you still have problems it may be your browser as a few people have tried it already and told me it works fine. Further, my linking the graph was not meant to be decieving as the button at the top and bottom said back to article (which at the time worked fine for me) and if there were any problems for anyone else it would take just a few moments in a google search by typing in the name of the graph to show the contex. It should be even more obvious that I did not attempt to hide the links as I provided them to Dr Sparticle when he asked and all of the links supported what I was saying even further. I even said a few key points of the article including the reference to Turkey's religiosity.

Ya, the link works for me now too.

There is sufficient information about the graph now that I have no opposition to it.

Well, now that we are all on the same page, back to the real issues. I will try to provide side links for people in the future in case their are issues, though I do not like to baby people by doing so. :S

What'shisface really blew things out of proportion. I chose a kind of stupid first thing to say but he seems pretty convinced that everything I've said is equally stupid.
Shokushu
Piltdown
Shokushu
Piltdown
Shokushu
Piltdown

Science Contributors
Between the year of 1994-2004, 6,741,866 total scientific papers were written by the top 10 contributors to science. Here are the numbers:
America: 2,832,621/6,741,866= 42%
Japan: 759,449/6,741,866= 11.3%
Not included on the graph of countries accepting evolution, but those who make the top ten:
Canada: 376,897/6,741,866= 5.6%
Australia: 228,773/6,741,866= 3.4%

Note that both Canada and Australia combined contribute less than 10% and both fall short of the top 5. It should be of no surprise that the 2 countries included on the list are also the two largest non-European scientific contributors. Further, your insistence that Canada be included leads me to think you must be Canadian, as from what I can see, there is no significant reason that Canada should as it contributes 5.6%. I would also like to note that your statistics on Canada only makes the US citizens look worse as more people from Canada (who publishes ~6%) accept evolution than people form the United States(who is top on the list at 42%).

Nope, not Canadian.

Edit: And that link won't work for me.




I am afraid I did not understand your earlier point, if you have retracted it since, then ignore this. I just double checked the link and it is working fine. If you need another way, type in "top countries in science in 1994-2004" into google. Here is an un-titled link to it: http://in-cites.com/research/2005/march_21_2005-1.html. If you still have problems it may be your browser as a few people have tried it already and told me it works fine. Further, my linking the graph was not meant to be decieving as the button at the top and bottom said back to article (which at the time worked fine for me) and if there were any problems for anyone else it would take just a few moments in a google search by typing in the name of the graph to show the contex. It should be even more obvious that I did not attempt to hide the links as I provided them to Dr Sparticle when he asked and all of the links supported what I was saying even further. I even said a few key points of the article including the reference to Turkey's religiosity.

Ya, the link works for me now too.

There is sufficient information about the graph now that I have no opposition to it.

Well, now that we are all on the same page, back to the real issues. I will try to provide side links for people in the future in case their are issues, though I do not like to baby people by doing so. :S

What'shisface really blew things out of proportion. I chose a kind of stupid first thing to say but he seems pretty convinced that everything I've said is equally stupid.


Not everything, just most of it. In any case, let's move on to the more important conversations at hand.
Shokushu
Piltdown
Shokushu
Piltdown
Shokushu
Piltdown

Science Contributors
Between the year of 1994-2004, 6,741,866 total scientific papers were written by the top 10 contributors to science. Here are the numbers:
America: 2,832,621/6,741,866= 42%
Japan: 759,449/6,741,866= 11.3%
Not included on the graph of countries accepting evolution, but those who make the top ten:
Canada: 376,897/6,741,866= 5.6%
Australia: 228,773/6,741,866= 3.4%

Note that both Canada and Australia combined contribute less than 10% and both fall short of the top 5. It should be of no surprise that the 2 countries included on the list are also the two largest non-European scientific contributors. Further, your insistence that Canada be included leads me to think you must be Canadian, as from what I can see, there is no significant reason that Canada should as it contributes 5.6%. I would also like to note that your statistics on Canada only makes the US citizens look worse as more people from Canada (who publishes ~6%) accept evolution than people form the United States(who is top on the list at 42%).

Nope, not Canadian.

Edit: And that link won't work for me.




I am afraid I did not understand your earlier point, if you have retracted it since, then ignore this. I just double checked the link and it is working fine. If you need another way, type in "top countries in science in 1994-2004" into google. Here is an un-titled link to it: http://in-cites.com/research/2005/march_21_2005-1.html. If you still have problems it may be your browser as a few people have tried it already and told me it works fine. Further, my linking the graph was not meant to be decieving as the button at the top and bottom said back to article (which at the time worked fine for me) and if there were any problems for anyone else it would take just a few moments in a google search by typing in the name of the graph to show the contex. It should be even more obvious that I did not attempt to hide the links as I provided them to Dr Sparticle when he asked and all of the links supported what I was saying even further. I even said a few key points of the article including the reference to Turkey's religiosity.

Ya, the link works for me now too.

There is sufficient information about the graph now that I have no opposition to it.

Well, now that we are all on the same page, back to the real issues. I will try to provide side links for people in the future in case their are issues, though I do not like to baby people by doing so. :S

What'shisface really blew things out of proportion. I chose a kind of stupid first thing to say but he seems pretty convinced that everything I've said is equally stupid.

To be honest, I thought what you were saying was kind of unfounded as well considering the information on the graph was fairly easy to find. However, the misunderstanding is understandable. I think it mainly arose out of expectations of academic integrity and responsibility. Though this is simply beating a dead horse and I think we should move on.
I haven't seen the documentary yet, but I'd like too.

Although, some of the things I've heard about it so far kind of annoy me. Like the term "Darwinism." That's not the correct term. Darwinism takes Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution and applies it to the human race, i.e., "survival of the fittest" when it comes to class, jobs, etc. That distinction is important in a nation that's so easily swayed by compelling generalizations.

Also, I don't know. Maybe I'm biased because I don't believe in Intelligent Design is a viable theory for creation, but... The whole Intelligent Design thing bugs me a bit. Evolution is so widely taught because there has been endless amounts of evidence supporting the theory. And no one is saying that it's law except for people who aren't as educated as they should be on the issue. I would support Intelligent Design if there was proof. But that's the thing! You can't prove an intelligent Creator started life.

Darwin didn't say where life came from. He just said how different creatures changed over time to fit their surroundings. The origin of life is still a huge mystery, and people need to accept that. I don't care if you believe in God or not... I jut don't like all the stupid arguing about this by people who know a few facts and think they understand the entire issue.

-deep breath- Okay. That's all I have to say for now. xD
Franquita del Mar
Although, some of the things I've heard about it so far kind of annoy me. Like the term "Darwinism." That's not the correct term. Darwinism takes Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution and applies it to the human race, i.e., "survival of the fittest" when it comes to class, jobs, etc. That distinction is important in a nation that's so easily swayed by compelling generalizations.

No, that's social Darwinism. Darwinism is a type of evolutionary theory, which was opposed early on by Lamarckism, another type of evolutionary theory. Darwinism itself led to neo-Darwinism, which eventually brought us to the modern evolutionary synthesis. Further refinement of the theory continues, but the basic ideas of natural selection and the heritability of favourable genetic traits have never been seriously challenged.
What the hell did I miss?
Piltdown

To be honest, I thought what you were saying was kind of unfounded as well considering the information on the graph was fairly easy to find. However, the misunderstanding is understandable. I think it mainly arose out of expectations of academic integrity and responsibility. Though this is simply beating a dead horse and I think we should move on.

And the reason Richard Sternberg was kicked from that magazine are pretty easy to find too but that doesn't mean the average person watching Expelled is going to look into the issue. Most people will assume they've seen everything they need to.
Shokushu
Piltdown

What'shisface really blew things out of proportion. I chose a kind of stupid first thing to say but he seems pretty convinced that everything I've said is equally stupid.

To be honest, I thought what you were saying was kind of unfounded as well considering the information on the graph was fairly easy to find. However, the misunderstanding is understandable. I think it mainly arose out of expectations of academic integrity and responsibility. Though this is simply beating a dead horse and I think we should move on.

Quote:
And the reason Richard Sternberg was kicked from that magazine are pretty easy to find too but that doesn't mean the average person watching Expelled is going to look into the issue. Most people will assume they've seen everything they need to.
Hence why I did provide several links, I simply did not realize it was necissary to provide sub links for the links. However, for the most part, the citing is not necissary for people who do not do their own research as they are unlikely to even click the links when given to them with a spoonfull of sugar. To those who do care about context, it would be in their best interest to do their own quick google search of it instead of giving the fallacious ultimatum of "provide links or you are a liar."
------
For those who do not know why this is a fallacy, it is called denying the antecedent and it follows this format:
P -> Q.
~P.
|- ~Q.

The logic being:
People who provide sources are telling the truth,
You did not provide sources,
Therefore you are not telling the truth.


The only way to make this a valid argument would be through modus tollens which follows the format:
P -> Q.
~Q.
|- ~P.

People who tell the truth provide sources,
You did not provide sources,
Therefore you are not telling the truth.

However, as the premis is not true (P->Q is not true), the argument is invalid. An example of this would be Kent Hovind, who consistently provided sources and yet was distorting what those sources said. It is also possible to give sources that have little to nothing to do with the argument, or false sources. One providing such dummy links could hardly be said to be honest by doing so.
Was the movie good.?
Reniefuwa's avatar

Dapper Dabbler

2,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • First step to fame 200
  • Ultimate Player 200
kimgofelements
Was the movie good.?


Better question: was the movie entertaining? 'Cuz that's what movies are supposed to do, entertain people.
Piltdown
Hence why I did provide several links, I simply did not realize it was necissary to provide sub links for the links. However, for the most part, the citing is not necissary for people who do not do their own research as they are unlikely to even click the links when given to them with a spoonfull of sugar. To those who do care about context, it would be in their best interest to do their own quick google search of it instead of giving the fallacious ultimatum of "provide links or you are a liar."
------
For those who do not know why this is a fallacy, it is called denying the antecedent and it follows this format:
P -> Q.
~P.
|- ~Q.

The logic being:
People who provide sources are telling the truth,
You did not provide sources,
Therefore you are not telling the truth.


The only way to make this a valid argument would be through modus tollens which follows the format:
P -> Q.
~Q.
|- ~P.

People who tell the truth provide sources,
You did not provide sources,
Therefore you are not telling the truth.

However, as the premis is not true (P->Q is not true), the argument is invalid. An example of this would be Kent Hovind, who consistently provided sources and yet was distorting what those sources said. It is also possible to give sources that have little to nothing to do with the argument, or false sources. One providing such dummy links could hardly be said to be honest by doing so.

There's a big difference between saying "you are a liar" and "It's hard to tell if there's a liar involved here." I haven't even made as strong a statement as that though.
Shokushu
Piltdown
Hence why I did provide several links, I simply did not realize it was necissary to provide sub links for the links. However, for the most part, the citing is not necissary for people who do not do their own research as they are unlikely to even click the links when given to them with a spoonfull of sugar. To those who do care about context, it would be in their best interest to do their own quick google search of it instead of giving the fallacious ultimatum of "provide links or you are a liar."
------
For those who do not know why this is a fallacy, it is called denying the antecedent and it follows this format:
P -> Q.
~P.
|- ~Q.

The logic being:
People who provide sources are telling the truth,
You did not provide sources,
Therefore you are not telling the truth.


The only way to make this a valid argument would be through modus tollens which follows the format:
P -> Q.
~Q.
|- ~P.

People who tell the truth provide sources,
You did not provide sources,
Therefore you are not telling the truth.

However, as the premis is not true (P->Q is not true), the argument is invalid. An example of this would be Kent Hovind, who consistently provided sources and yet was distorting what those sources said. It is also possible to give sources that have little to nothing to do with the argument, or false sources. One providing such dummy links could hardly be said to be honest by doing so.

There's a big difference between saying "you are a liar" and "It's hard to tell if there's a liar involved here." I haven't even made as strong a statement as that though.

No, not you, the person I had to post the graph to initially said "post sources or stop making stuff up," which is a fallacy.
Piltdown
Shokushu
Piltdown
Hence why I did provide several links, I simply did not realize it was necissary to provide sub links for the links. However, for the most part, the citing is not necissary for people who do not do their own research as they are unlikely to even click the links when given to them with a spoonfull of sugar. To those who do care about context, it would be in their best interest to do their own quick google search of it instead of giving the fallacious ultimatum of "provide links or you are a liar."
------
For those who do not know why this is a fallacy, it is called denying the antecedent and it follows this format:
P -> Q.
~P.
|- ~Q.

The logic being:
People who provide sources are telling the truth,
You did not provide sources,
Therefore you are not telling the truth.


The only way to make this a valid argument would be through modus tollens which follows the format:
P -> Q.
~Q.
|- ~P.

People who tell the truth provide sources,
You did not provide sources,
Therefore you are not telling the truth.

However, as the premis is not true (P->Q is not true), the argument is invalid. An example of this would be Kent Hovind, who consistently provided sources and yet was distorting what those sources said. It is also possible to give sources that have little to nothing to do with the argument, or false sources. One providing such dummy links could hardly be said to be honest by doing so.

There's a big difference between saying "you are a liar" and "It's hard to tell if there's a liar involved here." I haven't even made as strong a statement as that though.

No, not you, the person I had to post the graph to initially said "post sources or stop making stuff up," which is a fallacy.

Ohhhh.
I've pretty much forgotten what was going on before take the thread over for a day or two.
Or maybe I completely skipped over it in the first place.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games