The_Metatron wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Yes, academic research. You don't work in a lab, you took all the content of your paper from other people's experimental research.

No experiments were done in that paper - prove me wrong.

The raw sequence data was itself downloaded. The analysis of it, and the pertinent observations made, were conducted according to the scientific method. There was no need for any labcoats, googles or reagents.

Yes, that's what I mean - this one, being the one you are now talking about, as opposed to the previous ones where you made precisely the same claim.

It will be nothing short of a tsunami.

And when it isn't, are you going to shut up and go away?

I think he is having too much fun winding people up on here.

I think so. Must be tough, writing all those papers and finding the time to do all this Internet forum bothering from underneath a bridge.

So Atheistoclast: I can understand your fear of letting us know which journal as you think there's a global-wide conspiracy out to get you... but how is it you keep talking about this Darwianasirianism Evolteroveringalism destroying paper without actually talking about the content? What's it about? You must have an abstract if you've sent if for publication already.

Spearthrower wrote:

As I have said: it's academic, not scientific. It's assuredly about a scientific topic, but you're not actually doing any experimentation, you're not observing anything - you're using other people's observations and commenting on them. There's nothing wrong with this, I am not suggesting that it's diminished because of it, but you're not actually conducting any scientific research. It's more like a book review.

You just don't understand. Thousands of scientific articles are written using NCBI database sequences as the raw data. I didn't have to actually sequence the genes I studied myself. Bioinformaticians are scientists who analyze the sequences but who do not obtain them by extracting DNA and sequencing it. You seem completely ignorant about this.

1) The observations I made on the sequences were my own.

2) The hypothesis I made was my own.

3) The tests I conducted were my own.

4)The results I obtained were my own.

Learn about science.

Spearthrower wrote:So Atheistoclast: I can understand your fear of letting us know which journal as you think there's a global-wide conspiracy out to get you... but how is it you keep talking about this Darwianasirianism Evolteroveringalism destroying paper without actually talking about the content? What's it about? You must have an abstract if you've sent if for publication already.

I will let you know when it is published online. It is a very old journal.

The_Metatron wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler: scribbling

Slap the retarded voters of Indiana in the face with the US Constitution. That's a start.

Yes, and you also think the bible is a good science book. Your judgment of what makes a good book is suspect.

[Reveal] Spoiler: scribbling

Where did I say the bible is a good science book? Are you trying to misrepresent me?

So, what are you saying? That the bible is NOT a good science book?

So, what is it, Lion IRC? Your bible either is or is not a good science book.

Your web of bullshit has trapped you. Either you admit the bible is not a good science book, and the creation story, also known is intelligent design, is not science, and has no place in public school science classes. Or, you admit it is a good science book, the rest of us have a laugh at your expense, and you retract that pathetic claim of misrepresentation.

Choose. You made your bed. Lie in it.

If you're going to set up a strawman, the least you can do is give him arms and legs.
Where did I say the bible is a good science book?

Lion IRC wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:
Where did I say the bible is a good science book? Are you trying to misrepresent me?

So, what are you saying? That the bible is NOT a good science book?

So, what is it, Lion IRC? Your bible either is or is not a good science book.

Your web of bullshit has trapped you. Either you admit the bible is not a good science book, and the creation story, also known is intelligent design, is not science, and has no place in public school science classes. Or, you admit it is a good science book, the rest of us have a laugh at your expense, and you retract that pathetic claim of misrepresentation.

Choose. You made your bed. Lie in it.

If you're going to set up a strawman, the least you can do is give him arms and legs.
Where did I say the bible is a good science book?

I'm drawing an inference based on the bullshit you say here.

So which is it? Is the bible, or is it not, a good science book? We can even narrow the scope down to the creation story, as told in the bible. Is it, or is it not, a good science text?

You are still stuck with the either/or scenario of stating the bible is a good science book, withdrawing your pathetic claim of misrepresentation, or you must admit your precious bible is not a good science text, and destroy your own argument in support of the jackasses in Indiana.

The_Metatron wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
So, what are you saying? That the bible is NOT a good science book?

So, what is it, Lion IRC? Your bible either is or is not a good science book.

Your web of bullshit has trapped you. Either you admit the bible is not a good science book, and the creation story, also known is intelligent design, is not science, and has no place in public school science classes. Or, you admit it is a good science book, the rest of us have a laugh at your expense, and you retract that pathetic claim of misrepresentation.

Choose. You made your bed. Lie in it.

If you're going to set up a strawman, the least you can do is give him arms and legs.
Where did I say the bible is a good science book?

I'm drawing an inference based on the bullshit you say here.

So which is it? Is the bible, or is it not, a good science book? We can even narrow the scope down to the creation story, as told in the bible. Is it, or is it not, a good science text?

You are still stuck with the either/or scenario of stating the bible is a good science book, withdrawing your pathetic claim of misrepresentation, or you must admit your precious bible is not a good science text, and destroy your own argument in support of the jackasses in Indiana.

...an inference from WHERE? Show me the post/quote. If you cant do that, just admit it and move on.
Your either/or (good/bad) is a false dilemma. And I'm pretty sure thats regarded as poor logic in these parts.

So...
A) I never said the bible is a GOOD science book.
B) That doesnt mean I think its a BAD science book.
C) Go and see how many times the word science appears in the bible.

Body swerve.

I asked you directly what your judgment was. Your refusal to reply coupled with your idea that you think creationism is acceptable to be taught in science classes in Indiana, creationism as you are referring to it coming from no other place than your bible, I infer you believe the bible to be a good science book.

You are, of course, welcome to overtly tell us that the bible is not a good science book, and I will admit happily that my inference was mistaken.

Jees you make me laff, Clastie. A tsunami. Comedy gold mate. I'm serious - I made a little water when I read that.

The_Metatron wrote:Body swerve.

I asked you directly what your judgment was. Your refusal to reply coupled with your idea that you think creationism is acceptable to be taught in science classes in Indiana, creationism as you are referring to it coming from no other place than your bible, I infer you believe the bible to be a good science book.

You are, of course, welcome to overtly tell us that the bible is not a good science book, and I will admit happily that my inference was mistaken.

So, nothing to support your erroneous claim that I regard the bible as a good science book.
The reason its neither a good science book nor a bad science book nor a mediocre science book is because it's NOT a science book AT ALL. You are the only one here asking what type of science book it is.

"...refusal to reply"

Yeah right!

Shrunk wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Body swerve.

I asked you directly what your judgment was. Your refusal to reply coupled with your idea that you think creationism is acceptable to be taught in science classes in Indiana, creationism as you are referring to it coming from no other place than your bible, I infer you believe the bible to be a good science book.

You are, of course, welcome to overtly tell us that the bible is not a good science book, and I will admit happily that my inference was mistaken.

So, nothing to support your erroneous claim that I regard the bible as a good science book.
The reason its neither a good science book nor a bad science book nor a mediocre science book is because it's NOT a science book AT ALL. You are the only one here asking what type of science book it is.

It's kind of strange, then, that you would say if voters think it's a science book, then it's a science book.

This thread is hilarious.

Shrunk wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Body swerve.

I asked you directly what your judgment was. Your refusal to reply coupled with your idea that you think creationism is acceptable to be taught in science classes in Indiana, creationism as you are referring to it coming from no other place than your bible, I infer you believe the bible to be a good science book.

You are, of course, welcome to overtly tell us that the bible is not a good science book, and I will admit happily that my inference was mistaken.

So, nothing to support your erroneous claim that I regard the bible as a good science book.
The reason its neither a good science book nor a bad science book nor a mediocre science book is because it's NOT a science book AT ALL. You are the only one here asking what type of science book it is.

It's kind of strange, then, that you would say if voters think it's a science book, then it's a science book.

Show me where I said - of the bible - that..."if voters think it's a science book, then it's a science book."

Man, if I verballed you like that I would be reported/suspended so fast!

Shrunk wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Show me where I said - of the bible - that..."if voters think it's a science book, then it's a science book."

As you wish:

Lion IRC wrote:Yes, thats pretty much the issue.
Is it science or not?
If The People deem that it's science, then it is allowed in schools.

I assume I don't have to walk you thru the logical steps by which this amounts to saying that, if the voters deem the Bible science, then it should be taught as science. But if you need me to, I can.

Or maybe you think things that aren't science should be required to be taught as science in science classes?

Yep. Thats what I thought. Just trying to put words into my mouth which I didnt say/write.

... Lion IRC said something a few days ago, which was kinda, sorta like, in a round about way - if you squint and only read every second word - and walk through a bunch of steps to get from A to B, then it sounded a bit like...

"...if voters think the bible is a science book, then it's a science book..."
"...the bible is a good science book..."

Those are not my views and I did not say either of those.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

As I have said: it's academic, not scientific. It's assuredly about a scientific topic, but you're not actually doing any experimentation, you're not observing anything - you're using other people's observations and commenting on them. There's nothing wrong with this, I am not suggesting that it's diminished because of it, but you're not actually conducting any scientific research. It's more like a book review.

You just don't understand. Thousands of scientific articles are written using NCBI database sequences as the raw data. I didn't have to actually sequence the genes I studied myself. Bioinformaticians are scientists who analyze the sequences but who do not obtain them by extracting DNA and sequencing it. You seem completely ignorant about this.

As I've said so many times here, I am not contesting that the content of your article is scientific, but rather that by writing a scientific article automatically lends you authority as a scientist: you don't practice the scientific method, you're not a scientist.

Atheistoclast wrote:1) The observations I made on the sequences were my own.

2) The hypothesis I made was my own.

3) The tests I conducted were my own.

4)The results I obtained were my own.

Learn about science.

You don't have a hypothesis. You didn't conduct any tests.

The last sentence is embarrassingly amusing. One of those things people say and everyone politely looks away so as not to shame the person who said something so manifestly idiotic.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:So Atheistoclast: I can understand your fear of letting us know which journal as you think there's a global-wide conspiracy out to get you... but how is it you keep talking about this Darwianasirianism Evolteroveringalism destroying paper without actually talking about the content? What's it about? You must have an abstract if you've sent if for publication already.

I will let you know when it is published online. It is a very old journal.

You can't even produce a summary for it? You can't even tell what the general topic is? Why, then, are you even talking about it?

Lion IRC wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Show me where I said - of the bible - that..."if voters think it's a science book, then it's a science book."

As you wish:

Lion IRC wrote:Yes, thats pretty much the issue.
Is it science or not?
If The People deem that it's science, then it is allowed in schools.

I assume I don't have to walk you thru the logical steps by which this amounts to saying that, if the voters deem the Bible science, then it should be taught as science. But if you need me to, I can.

Or maybe you think things that aren't science should be required to be taught as science in science classes?

Yep. Thats what I thought. Just trying to put words into my mouth which I didnt say/write.

... Lion IRC said something a few days ago, which was kinda, sorta like, in a round about way - if you squint and only read every second word - and walk through a bunch of steps to get from A to B, then it sounded a bit like...

"...if voters think the bible is a science book, then it's a science book..."
"...the bible is a good science book..."

Those are not my views and I did not say either of those.

So why is it that what the People (with capital P) deem to be science is automatically science, but if they think the Bible is science, it isn't automatically science? Your position doesn't appear to be consistent.