Things to Do When Science Fails...

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

they are the progeny of Adam and Eve.

Please explain how mythical beings can have real progeny who walk the Earth. Not that I am expecting an answer from you.

[Jack by the hedge]

The link in the OP ambiguously claims belief in God rises with age, and conflates two different meanings of that claim: 1) that belief has decreased over recent generations and 2) that belief increases as we age.

Most of the survey seems to support 1). Today's youth are less likely to believe than today's elderly.

Just one page deals with 2) and shows that significant numbers have come to believe in some former communist countries while belief has plummeted in Western Europe. I don't expect anyone will be surprised by that. It doesn't show any general trend to begin to believe as we age.

Either way, this appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the title of the thread, which remains an epix mystery.

[epix]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

The link in the OP ambiguously claims belief in God rises with age, and conflates two different meanings of that claim: 1) that belief has decreased over recent generations and 2) that belief increases as we age.

And where does that alleged conflation occur within the text of the article? Quote it so we can see how it looks like when science fails.

[Mister Earl]

Posted that by prayer and not science, did you?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

And where does that alleged conflation occur within the text of the article? Quote it so we can see how it looks like when science fails.

Give us some examples of science failing, rather than refining itself.

[Polaris]

When science fails, try again and make note of all the things you learned by accident from the mistakes. When Jonas Saulk discovered the polio vaccine, he didn't know he was going to when he woke up that morning after all.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by geni

The availible data strongly suggests otherwise.

Link or it never happened.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by epix

And where does that alleged conflation occur within the text of the article? Quote it so we can see how it looks like when science fails.

As soon as you provide evidence for your supernatural claims that Adam and Even existed, that they were both created from nothing by magic, and that snakes talk, we can move forward.

[wollery]

What to do when Epix fails?









Whatever you were going to do anyway.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Good Lt

As soon as you provide evidence for your supernatural claims that Adam and Even existed, that they were both created from nothing by magic, and that snakes talk, we can move forward.

When it comes to describing reality religion falls at the first hurdle.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by wollery

What to do when Epix fails?









Whatever you were going to do anyway.

And wait for the next epix fail thread, they're like buses, they'll be another one along in a minute.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by dafydd

And wait for the next epix fail thread, they're like buses, they'll be another one along in a minute.

This seems more like and epix flail since he's beating on a dead horse.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

The link in the OP ambiguously claims belief in God rises with age, and conflates two different meanings of that claim: 1) that belief has decreased over recent generations and 2) that belief increases as we age......

I was looking for a way to word this, I like the way you did. I'm pretty sure without further investigating this claim, it is the former.

[epix]

Originally Posted by Good Lt

As soon as you provide evidence for your supernatural claims that Adam and Even existed, that they were both created from nothing by magic, and that snakes talk, we can move forward.

I would provide the evidence via plagiarism so it would sound scientifically enough.

Quote:

In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of modern humans. In other words, she was the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

When the academic brass proves its claim supporting the existence of Adam and Eve, I will follow suit.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by epix

I would provide the evidence via plagiarism so it would sound scientifically enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

When the academic brass proves its claim supporting the existence of Adam and Eve, I will follow suit.

Proverbs 18:2

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

When the academic brass proves its claim supporting the existence of Adam and Eve, I will follow suit.

Its just a name they gave to one of our real ancestors, as you very well know. The DNA evidence is there. You have no evidence of the existence of the biblical Adam and Eve, hence your blatant dodge. Epix fail.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by epix

And where does that alleged conflation occur within the text of the article? Quote it so we can see how it looks like when science fails.

Sure;

Quote:

Belief in God rises with age...
[...]
belief in God is higher among older people
[...]
Belief in God grows with age
[...]
Many sociologists who have studied people's beliefs in God over time contend that there is a cohort effect; young people who are more likely to doubt God's existence carry their disbelief with them as they age, meaning that societies as a whole are tending to become more secular. But the NORC study suggests it's possible instead that people change their beliefs over time.

“Looking at differences among age groups, the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older. This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality,” Smith said.

Is that ambiguous enough for you?

The trouble with this is that the report itself says it "showed little clear indication overall of either ageing or cohort effects". It goes on to remark that "a comparison was also carried out of changes across time with cohort". It claims this suggests there might be an effect of people turning to religion as they grow old, but oddly that data isn't actually in the report.

[epix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by epix
And where does that alleged conflation occur within the text of the article? Quote it so we can see how it looks like when science fails.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Sure;

Quote:

Belief in God rises with age...
[...]
belief in God is higher among older people
[...]
Belief in God grows with age
[...]
Many sociologists who have studied people's beliefs in God over time contend that there is a cohort effect; young people who are more likely to doubt God's existence carry their disbelief with them as they age, meaning that societies as a whole are tending to become more secular. But the NORC study suggests it's possible instead that people change their beliefs over time.

“Looking at differences among age groups, the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older. This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality,” Smith said.

Is that ambiguous enough for you?

You didn't answer my question. Just highlight the part(s) where the alleged conflation occurs. The whole quoted text that you replied with is not a case of conflation.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by epix

I would provide the evidence via plagiarism so it would sound scientifically enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

When the academic brass proves its claim supporting the existence of Adam and Eve, I will follow suit.

So...no evidence, then?

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by epix

I would provide the evidence via plagiarism so it would sound scientifically enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

When the academic brass proves its claim supporting the existence of Adam and Eve, I will follow suit.

Now epix, old boy, even assuming that you haven't twigged to the fact that everyone alive today must inevitably have a common ancestor at some point whatever your beliefs about creation, evolution and that whole shebang, and even assuming that you can't tell the difference between "most recent common ancestor" and "naked man and woman magically created by God in a garden containing talking snakes and a tempting but off-limits tree"...

Even assuming all that, didn't you notice the detail in your own quote that the so-called Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived thousands of years apart?

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by epix

It shows the consequence and confirms the long suspected. The atheists can't argue a point without shooting an unfavorable topic with ad hominem.

epix, I'm sorry you thought my reply was an ad hominem. I was simply honestly gob-smacked you'd think that study was conclusive of anything at all.

Originally Posted by epix

I would provide the evidence via plagiarism so it would sound scientifically enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

When the academic brass proves its claim supporting the existence of Adam and Eve, I will follow suit.

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

...
Even assuming all that, didn't you notice the detail in your own quote that the so-called Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived thousands of years apart?

Ninja'd.
Always ninja'd.

epix, did you really not understand why they were named 'Adam and 'Eve'' in your quoted source?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by epix

You didn't answer my question. Just highlight the part(s) where the alleged conflation occurs. The whole quoted text that you replied with is not a case of conflation.

OK. Let me shave it down to just one.

"...the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older. This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups."

The data presented in the report showing variations with age cohorts does not show changes over time, it shows differences now between generations. Data showing changes over time is alluded to but not presented. The survey information which is actually presented only shows that today's older people are generally more religious than today's young people.

Happy now?

[epix]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

Even assuming all that, didn't you notice the detail in your own quote that the so-called Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived thousands of years apart?

Mother Teresa and Euclid also lived some two thousand years apart, but that doesn't affect the question of their existence. I was asked to prove the existence of Adam and Eve. You should improve your comprehending skills and quit the Sunday school run by the literal creationists.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

I was asked to prove the existence of Adam and Eve. .

When are you going to do that?

[epix]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

OK. Let me shave it down to just one.

"...the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older. This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups."

Still can't see any conflation, because the highlighted text doesn't satisfy the definition of conflation applicable to this particular case. The highlighted text comprises two sentences (the first is incomplete). Both sentences are structurally identical to the premise and to the conclusion. But the premise doesn't treat two distinct concepts as one, therefore the conclusion doesn't suffer from ambiguity. Maybe you think it does, and in that case, you should highlight the two or more conflated terms in the premise.

Quote:

The data presented in the report showing variations with age cohorts does not show changes over time, it shows differences now between generations. Data showing changes over time is alluded to but not presented. The survey information which is actually presented only shows that today's older people are generally more religious than today's young people.

Well, maybe those who commissioned the study didn't see much relevancy in this trend. It is possible that the particular age-related conversion from atheism to theism was more frequent in the past and it is diminishing, but the opposite can be true as well. The absence of this measure is not a fault on the part of the researchers. Maybe it was included in the study, but the article didn't mention it. This comparison-based observation over a period of time has been done though.

Quote:

“Belief in God has decreased in most countries, but the declines are quite modest especially when calculated on a per annum basis,” Smith said.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by epix

Mother Teresa and Euclid also lived some two thousand years apart, but that doesn't affect the question of their existence.

No, congratulations. But leaving aside from the other flaws in your argument which I pointed out and you ignored, that substantial gap does mean that they're not "Adam and Eve" as described in the Bible.

Originally Posted by epix

I was asked to prove the existence of Adam and Eve. You should improve your comprehending skills and quit the Sunday school run by the literal creationists.

Says the person who claims to be able to prove that Adam and Eve existed.

What do you think people mean by "Adam and Eve"? Do you think they mean two people who happened to have those names? The meaning is perfectly obvious, and your obfuscation and is noted.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

Says the person who claims to be able to prove that Adam and Eve existed.

Claiming it and actually doing it are two different things.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Claiming it and actually doing it are two different things.

Indeed, as we've seen, but it's an unlikely source for criticisms of "literal creationists".

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

A horse race? It looks to me like a bus race...

http://osocio.org/images/uploads/ath...gn-1_thumb.jpg

http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/wp-cont...us-ads-001.jpg

What's your point?

[epix]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

No, congratulations. But leaving aside from the other flaws in your argument which I pointed out and you ignored, that substantial gap does mean that they're not "Adam and Eve" as described in the Bible.

You didn't point out anything worth to think about.

Quote:

Says the person who claims to be able to prove that Adam and Eve existed.

I did't claim anything like that. That's another case of a poor comprehensive skill.

Quote:

What do you think people mean by "Adam and Eve"? Do you think they mean two people who happened to have those names? The meaning is perfectly obvious, and your obfuscation and is noted.

I don't obfuscate anything. You just have problems with understanding of what is written.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

I did't claim anything like that. That's another case of a poor comprehensive skill.

Do you agree that the biblical Adam and Eve never existed?

[maximara]

Originally Posted by eight bits

I looked over the report itself, which is here:

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/Beliefs_about_God_Report.pdf

It's a bit thin, don't you think? The narrative is at best equivocal between "cohort effects" (people who were born two generations ago may be living representatives of attitudes towards religion in the WW II era - or before, since some of the surveys are themselves old) and "aging effects" (OMG I am going to die someday! - so if I suck up to Jesus, I won't?).

The surveys find some indication for both kinds of effect. OK. But there is nothing here, not one damned thing, that supports any speculation about why, if there is an aging effect, it favors belief in God. Lots of thing happen as you age besides using up whatever time you have on-planet. None of those things are controlled for in this study.

So, we end up with yet another bikini bathing suit. As the old joke about a bikini goes, "What it reveals is interesting, but what it conceals is crucial."

Thanks for providing the paper itself as it shows some fundamental problems with the study.

1) While Deists believe in a God it is a hands off impersonal kind of god. One Deist equated the situation to intelligent microbes praying to the 'god scientist in the sky' - the scale is so great that there is no chance of any meaningful relationship. Yet based on what was provided Deists of all stripes would get thrown into the 'I know God exists' camp.

2) The study doesn't define God--are we talking traditional Judeo-Christian God or some Star Trek meets Erich von Däniken god here? Clarke's Law and all that.

3) Statistically speaking there are interesting pieces either missing or hard to find--how large were the sample sizes, how random was the sample, what were the exact questions asked, and so on.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

PS: the thing to do when science fails is do more science.

Yep, it's no use praying to an imaginary being for help.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Yep, it's no use praying to an imaginary being for help.

Or all of them!

[Mister Earl]

You still didn't mention, epix, whether you were posting by prayer or via the tools and product of science.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by epix

Mother Teresa and Euclid also lived some two thousand years apart, but that doesn't affect the question of their existence. I was asked to prove the existence of Adam and Eve. You should improve your comprehending skills and quit the Sunday school run by the literal creationists.

So...

1. Do you believe that the Mitochondrial Eve, as described in the Wikipedia article you linked to, actually existed?
2. What other properties of this person, the Mitochondrial Eve, do you know to be true? Her name perhaps? Did she have a mother? Was her mother a human? Did she have a father? Was her father human?
3. Do you believe that the Y-chromosomal Adam, as described in the Wikipedia article you linked to, actually existed?
4. What other properties of this person, the Y-chromosomal Adam, do you know to be true? His name perhaps? Did he have a mother? Was his mother a human? Did he have a father? Was his father human?
5. Did Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam have children with each other?
6. Do you believe that the person described by Genesis under the name "Eve" actually existed?
7. What other properties of this person, the biblical Eve, do you know to be true? Her name perhaps? Did she have a mother? Was her mother a human? Did she have a father? Was her father human?
8. Do you believe that the person described by Genesis under the name "Adam" actually existed?
9. What other properties of this person, the biblical Adam, do you know to be true? His name perhaps? Did he have a mother? Was his mother a human? Did he have a father? Was his father human?
10. Did biblical Eve and biblical Adam have children with each other?
11. Is biblical Eve the same person as Mitochondrial Eve?
12. Is biblical Adam the same person as Y-chromosomal Adam?
13. Do you think you proved with your Wiki-links to Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam that biblical Eve and biblical Adam existed?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by epix

...
It looks like a conversion from atheism to theism is primarily caused by the sense/instinct of self-preservation. That makes sense, because we have evolved from animals, and animals are very instinctive creatures.



But what about those atheists who stick with their principal belief all the way to the cemetery? Well, they are no longer guided by animalistic instincts, and that's because they have never evolved from animals - they are the progeny of Adam and Eve.

Originally Posted by chillzero

Hang on.
Did you just say that people who are atheist in old age were not evolved from animals .... but those who convert are following natural instincts of self-preservation - based on their evolution from animals?


Adam and Eve bred atheists (or rather, people who are atheist at a particular laet stage of life, during a particular monitored period), and everyone else evolved?

^^^^
This!

It struck me immediately that epix claims that humans, depending on the development if their beliefs, evolved, with animal instincts, or were created, without animal instincts.
As if we actually represent two disjoint trees of life!

[Cuddles]

Let's try to stick on topic please. As a reminder, the topic is neither the definition of logical fallacies or pictures of farmyard animals.

Posted By:Cuddles

[The Norseman]

The thing to do when science fails is to do more science.

[bruto]

I suppose then, that the first thing here is to demonstrate whether science has failed yet. Otherwise it's no less speculation than saying what you would do if tomorrow morning the sun doesn't come up, or saying my car has failed because it did not make my breakfast.

Has science failed? Or are we just saying it doesn't do religion's job of making up answers to impossible questions?