Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

... and failing.

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#461  Postby Scar » Jun 30, 2016 4:24 am

My studies have clearly shown kyrani's posts to be full of insane shit. I've a master's of science degree, so that must be pretty convincing.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#462  Postby BlackBart » Jun 30, 2016 6:34 am

kyrani99 wrote:And how surprising the lead author is only a master of arts!


So, if appeals to authority (Or lack thereof) are suddenly valid reasoning tools - where's Kyrani's list of qualifications? :ask:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12199
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#463  Postby Fenrir » Jun 30, 2016 7:19 am

Professor of Imaginopathic Science and Sustainable Ectoplasmic Research?
I.e a Ghostbluster?
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3608
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#464  Postby kyrani99 » Jun 30, 2016 1:11 pm

Shrunk wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
I did not call fallible "bad".


You criticized her:

What you want to do is to slam me.... This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason


Which is what you denied doing. If your response was "You're right, I forgot about that. Sorry," then maybe it's an honest mistake. Your continued transparent denial, however, moves this into an outright lie. This is not complicated.


Criticism you're complaining off. So what are you doing?


I'm criticizing you. Difference is, I never denied doing so. You did. Can you follow that?


when did I deny criticizing? There is a big difference between criticizing and calling someone bad.

You are the one making it up as you go along.
back on this page
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/paran ... -1860.html
post 1879 you cut my sentence in half and just made it up.
I had said: As a psychiatrist he knows that people recall emotionally charged events with stuff overlapping but he chose to call it deceit.
You chopped it to "As a psychiatrist he knows" and turned it into "Ah. So you admit psychiatrists know stuff." That is a general suggestion, hence meaningless! What's stuff? Could be anything.
Then you used the rest of my sentence: "that people recall emotionally charged events with stuff overlapping but he chose to call it deceit."
And you claimed: "Ah. So admit your reporting of the story was inaccurate because of your emotional state. We should just ignore it, then. Thank you. That takes care of that."

It is consistent I guess with what psychiatrists do. No need for evidence, just make it up. Now you want to pin your insincerity on me.

An experience may undergo changes each time it is remembered. This is not something unique to me. It is seen in all people's recollections. In fact eyewitness accounts that are very recent, even in terms of days, can have differences to the original experience. My experience is between 40 and 50 years ago! There are differences. When I had more time to think about it I remembered more and I realized I wrote what had first come to mind. You are calling my experience "the story" and then you are labeling it with "inaccurate" and justifying yourself to say "we should just ignore it". Can YOU follow that?
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#465  Postby kyrani99 » Jun 30, 2016 1:18 pm

BlackBart wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:And how surprising the lead author is only a master of arts!


So, if appeals to authority (Or lack thereof) are suddenly valid reasoning tools - where's Kyrani's list of qualifications? :ask:


Who's appealing to authority. This is a study.. a government study, in which the key person has by a LONG LONG way far, far less credentials than the others involved. Why is the psychiatrist or one of the doctors or PhDs not heading the research? It is like the boy Friday leading the boardroom meeting. What is the psychiatrists there for? Window dressing! Then again maybe the MA has more integrity. :lol:
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#466  Postby THWOTH » Jun 30, 2016 1:20 pm

"And lo, on the turning of page 20 it did come to pass, that they fell to arguing about how they had argued, forsaking all reason." -- Book Of Idiots, 12:3.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 55

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#467  Postby Shrunk » Jun 30, 2016 1:34 pm

kyrani99 wrote:when did I deny criticizing?


Right here:

kyrani99 wrote:Whether I had remembered things in a jumble or not the fact is I reacted to a paranormal experience of possible danger. I haven't criticized anyone for pointing out any inconsistencies. I haven't called anyone bad for their comments. So why the animosity?


:naughty:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#468  Postby Shrunk » Jun 30, 2016 1:37 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:And how surprising the lead author is only a master of arts!


So, if appeals to authority (Or lack thereof) are suddenly valid reasoning tools - where's Kyrani's list of qualifications? :ask:


Who's appealing to authority. This is a study.. a government study, in which the key person has by a LONG LONG way far, far less credentials than the others involved. Why is the psychiatrist or one of the doctors or PhDs not heading the research? It is like the boy Friday leading the boardroom meeting. What is the psychiatrists there for? Window dressing! Then again maybe the MA has more integrity. :lol:


So you have no idea how academic research is done. Boy, your ignorance really knows no bounds.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#469  Postby tolman » Jun 30, 2016 1:47 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:And how surprising the lead author is only a master of arts!


So, if appeals to authority (Or lack thereof) are suddenly valid reasoning tools - where's Kyrani's list of qualifications? :ask:


Who's appealing to authority. This is a study.. a government study, in which the key person has by a LONG LONG way far, far less credentials than the others involved. Why is the psychiatrist or one of the doctors or PhDs not heading the research? It is like the boy Friday leading the boardroom meeting. What is the psychiatrists there for? Window dressing! Then again maybe the MA has more integrity. :lol:

Evidently, you don't understand the basic point or methods of the study, which was essentially looking at data and analysing it.

Leaving aside the obvious issue of actual experience post-qualification, the study wasn't something an MD necessarily provided better 'taught qualifications' for than various other, 'lesser' qualifications would.

For someone with such a downer on the medical profession as a whole, you seem to have an odd case of doctor-worship.

(Additionally, while absolutely not wanting to suggest anything with regard to this particular study, the organisation of which I don't know anything about, there is a general point worth making that the order of names on a paper isn't necessarily a perfectly objective guide to who did how much, or, indeed, a perfectly accurate guide who did anything at all.)
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#470  Postby kyrani99 » Jun 30, 2016 3:00 pm

tolman wrote:

Even when it comes to medical research studies, an 'MD' certainly wouldn't mean someone was necessarily the better-qualified person for much of the study work.

How much medical education does a MA (a master of arts) have that make them better suited to medical research than an MD.. errr excluding psychiatrists of course. They get together in conferences, and while sipping the best French champagne provided by big pharma, vote mental disorders into existence or "tweak" the errrr "boundary conditions" to increase the numbers of people, who suddenly now have a mental disorder and need to be medicated so drug sales go up.

Your reasoning sounds like you'd go to a historian to have by-pass surgery....... surely with the historian it would "bye.. pass" surgery! :lol:
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#471  Postby Sendraks » Jun 30, 2016 3:28 pm

kyrani99 wrote: They get together in conferences, and while sipping the best French champagne provided by big pharma, vote mental disorders into existence or "tweak" the errrr "boundary conditions" to increase the numbers of people, who suddenly now have a mental disorder and need to be medicated so drug sales go up.

Ahhh, more unevidenced conspiracy theory BS from Kyranni.

kyrani99 wrote:Your reasoning sounds like you'd go to a historian to have by-pass surgery....... surely with the historian it would "bye.. pass" surgery! :lol:

And a strawman argument to boot!
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#472  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Jun 30, 2016 3:32 pm

What medical training do you need to study the statistics of when diagnosed people where born? Are birthdates a secret math only taught to MDs?
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 34
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#473  Postby tolman » Jun 30, 2016 4:10 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
tolman wrote:Even when it comes to medical research studies, an 'MD' certainly wouldn't mean someone was necessarily the better-qualified person for much of the study work.

How much medical education does a MA (a master of arts) have that make them better suited to medical research than an MD.. errr excluding psychiatrists of course.

Given that you don't seem to have any clue what the MA in question refers to, or the subsequent working experience of the person in question, you do rather risk looking like a sour and profoundly ignorant old bigot by going on about it the way you are.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#474  Postby kyrani99 » Jun 30, 2016 4:41 pm

tolman wrote:
Evidently, you don't understand the basic point or methods of the study, which was essentially looking at data and analysing it.

the order of names on a paper isn't necessarily a perfectly objective guide to who did how much, or, indeed, a perfectly accurate guide who did anything at all.)


This is not simply about "looking at data and analyzing it". The data needed to be collected, which means the researcher needs to understand ADHD, understand what conditions are relevant and need to be examined and thus what data needs to be collected before the analyzing is done.

I have worked on many research programs (purely as an employee working for academics), partly to put myself through university and partly to have a lot of experience by the time I graduated. I worked as an researcher assistant on research teams in biochemistry, biology, physics and chemistry and I never once found that the person leading the research team had the lesser credentials.

He has done other papers but they were meta analysis or assessing data but this doesn't seem to be in the same category. Here, "lead author Richard L. Morrow, MA, from the Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, and Therapeutics at the University of British Columbia" http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759900#vp_1 and from his picture he looks like late 20s early 30s. Maybe he's used to do the leg work and the others then check his work but that doesn't make for a lead author. Sounds a bit sus to me, especially when others, who are senior and more authority on the subject are brought in to discredit the work as for example Dr. Wolraich.

Only where the names are in alphabetical order then the lead researcher's name is not the first one.
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#475  Postby kyrani99 » Jun 30, 2016 4:41 pm

DarthHelmet86 wrote:What medical training do you need to study the statistics of when diagnosed people where born? Are birthdates a secret math only taught to MDs?


birthdates were only one parameter.
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#476  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Jun 30, 2016 4:46 pm

So can you name the exact one that you think needs medical knowledge? Cause "which means the researcher needs to understand ADHD, understand what conditions are relevant and need to be examined and thus what data needs to be collected before the analyzing is done. " needs no medical knowledge. Like none, zero, nill, nada, zip.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 34
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#477  Postby Shrunk » Jun 30, 2016 5:38 pm

kyrani99 wrote: I have worked on many research programs (purely as an employee working for academics), partly to put myself through university and partly to have a lot of experience by the time I graduated. I worked as an researcher assistant on research teams in biochemistry, biology, physics and chemistry and I never once found that the person leading the research team had the lesser credentials.


But the person "leading the research team" is not necessarily the first author on every publication that comes out of the research. Just look at the list of publications from Lenski's group:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSear ... p=complete
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#478  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Jun 30, 2016 5:43 pm

Shrunk wrote:
But the person "leading the research team" is not necessarily the first author on every publication that comes out of the research. Just look at the list of publications from Lenski's group:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSear ... p=complete

This is an important point. I've been first author on a number of papers that also included PhDs. I don't have a PhD. The first author is not necessarily the person involved in the project with the highest set of qualifications. They can be, but that isn't, traditionally, what determines first-authorship.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#479  Postby tolman » Jun 30, 2016 6:20 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
tolman wrote:
Evidently, you don't understand the basic point or methods of the study, which was essentially looking at data and analysing it.

the order of names on a paper isn't necessarily a perfectly objective guide to who did how much, or, indeed, a perfectly accurate guide who did anything at all.)


This is not simply about "looking at data and analyzing it". The data needed to be collected, which means the researcher needs to understand ADHD, understand what conditions are relevant and need to be examined and thus what data needs to be collected before the analyzing is done.

It's not clear that what knowledge of ADHD was needed beyond knowing how a diagnosis would be recorded in the medical records examined.

kyrani99 wrote:I have worked on many research programs (purely as an employee working for academics), partly to put myself through university and partly to have a lot of experience by the time I graduated. I worked as an researcher assistant on research teams in biochemistry, biology, physics and chemistry and I never once found that the person leading the research team had the lesser credentials.

Well, in my experience of research, I've certainly found that relevant skills for a given project were more useful than qualification or status willy-waving, and that the person doing the most work and/or writing the paper and/or being the lead author on a paper isn't necessarily the 'senior' person.
If status had been everything, I'd never have ended up as a lead author myself, given the people I was working with and for.

I still can't see why you have such apparent bitterness towards someone who was evidently of importance with regard to a study you seem to approve of having taken place.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#480  Postby THWOTH » Jun 30, 2016 8:43 pm

DarthHelmet86 wrote:What medical training do you need to study the statistics of when diagnosed people where born? Are birthdates a secret math only taught to MDs?

Typical Capricorn.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 55

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest