Quote from stu:
What a load of rubbish.
ID creationist codswallop to deny fact as if doing so was some sort of basis for wild speculation to assume a magic creator.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I don't know that the scientist is right in his opinion, or wrong in his opinion.
I don't feel he is right, nor wrong in his opinion. I do think that he doesn't have sufficient information to reach his conclusion...but that's only because he doesn't have all the facts.
Quote from stu:
I told you no such thing. I said you were purposely misinforming and therefore a fraud and a liar. You ignored your error and repeated posting an incomplete quote to misguide.
Nothing to do with context.
Quote from jem:
let me guess. you also have no idea what the facts are that he might not have... or even if they exist.
so you are really saying you feeeeeeeeeel he could not be right, but you have no concrete facts to say why.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
No, I don't know his facts or methodology...and I doubt you know the facts or the methodology.
I doubt either one of us are at his particular level to offer a peer review of his work.
I have no feeling if he is right or wrong. My analysis is that he is a scientist who has an opinion.
If his theory passes peer review and is supported sufficiently, then his actual scientific work will have that peer review endorsement. His scientific work though, is not the same as his personal opinion.
Does peer review or other awards mean anything as far as his actual scientific work being right or wrong, or his conclusions being right or wrong in his opinions?
Does Obama being the President of the United States, a Harvard Law Review lawyer, a winner of the Nobel Peace prize mean that he is right with his legal opinions compared to a goober from Podunk Georgia?
Quote from jem:
so basically when you state there is no evidence of a creator...
you are making that statement from a purposefully ignorant standpoint.... enforced by a methodology which allows you to disregard any contrary opinions you do not like instead of investigating the information which caused a noble prize winner to make a statement contrary to your preferred view.
or...
more simply we can say you remain purposefully uninformed and unenlightened by nobel prize winners on the subject.
Quote from jem:
what fraud... what mis posting what misinforming.
I had a quote....
you said it was out of context...
I now put it back in context.
why don't you give us a link to the context you claim...
you are the only one who lies here.
contrary to you, I value credibility if I am wrong, I will admit it.
I've heard the same argument from flat earthers .Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I see no visible or empirical evidence to convince me on a purely intellectual dualistic logical level of either design or non design.
Do I think that all knowledge comes only from empirical data and dualistic logic grounded in empirical data?
No, I side with the rationalists on that one.
Quote from stu:
You copied half the quote from a religious apologetics website to imply the opposite of what the quote actually said.
Compounding your deceit by asking for a link to your own post.
Now you are lying about your own credibility too.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I see no visible or empirical evidence to convince me on a purely intellectual dualistic logical level of either design or non design.
Do I think that all knowledge comes only from empirical data and dualistic logic grounded in empirical data?
No, I side with the rationalists on that one.
Sadly jem, you actually might believe you are informed and equipped to evaluate the work of the scientists you quote...I don't agree that you are at a level to truly evaluate their work, opinions, etc.
You can say my view is purposefully ignorant, and I can say the same thing about you.
What is the point of that?
You have hoisted up a Nobel prize winner's opinion as some truth to follow, not every truly understanding what the science actually is.
I'll re-post the question again, because you did not answer it:
"Does Obama being the President of the United States, a Harvard Law Review lawyer, a winner of the Nobel Peace prize mean that he is right with his legal opinions compared to a goober from Podunk Georgia?"