Faith is not "without evidence" argument

[IBDaMann]

Someone never took a course in statistics.

... probably because statistics isn't covered in Deaf Studies.

You should take statistics.

[AProudLefty]

... probably because statistics isn't covered in Deaf Studies.

You should take statistics.

What is Deaf Studies?

[AProudLefty]

Thank you for fully supporting my claim labeled "First off" within my Post #467. As I said within that post, two different ways of wording a question about the very same topic can and will quite easily yield two completely different results. Ergo, polling is essentially nothing more than random numbers. Once again, THANK YOU for AGREEING with my claim.


Projection. The English illiteracy issue belongs to YOU, not to me.


You are completely illiterate in basic set theory. Ask me how I know.


No, your "start with this one" actually wholly supported my Post #467. It beautifully shows why polling is essentially nothing more than random numbers.

How can it be random numbers if they polled people?

[AProudLefty]

The null hypothesis is premised on finding no evidence.

Lack of evidence is sufficient to make educated preliminary guesses.

Many reputable PhD level astronomers and astrobiologists currently believe life is rare in the galaxy, based on a range of observed factors. So I really don't think it is fair to call it absurd as an educated guess.


But things could change as our technology improves and we get more evidence

There is currently no way to determine if life is rare and unique. We are finding more and more exoplanets which makes Earth like planets seem more probable.

[IBDaMann]

What is Deaf Studies?

I'd shout it louder but you still wouldn't be able to hear me.

[AProudLefty]

I'd shout it louder but you still wouldn't be able to hear me.

So you were trying to troll me. Maybe you need to go back and retake Dumb Studies because you are failing miserably, Sybil.

[gfm7175]

How can it be random numbers if they polled people?

RQAA. See my post #467 for the answer.

[AProudLefty]

RQAA. See my post #467 for the answer.

The numbers are not random if they are polled. The numbers will remain consistent over areas.

[Into the Night]

The null hypothesis is premised on finding no evidence.

No, it isn't. It is based on finding conflicting evidence.

Lack of evidence is sufficient to make educated preliminary guesses.

No, it is just an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean is doesn't exist.

Many reputable PhD level astronomers and astrobiologists currently believe life is rare in the galaxy, based on a range of observed factors.

Consensus is not used in science.

So I really don't think it is fair to call it absurd as an educated guess.

No, it's just an argument of ignorance fallacy.

[Doc Dutch]

Mantra 50 "public masturbation"

Mantra 47 Bum Fuckery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

[Doc Dutch]

No, it isn't. It is based on finding conflicting evidence.

No, it is just an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean is doesn't exist.

Consensus is not used in science.

No, it's just an argument of ignorance fallacy.

Mantra 41 Idiocracy

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

[Doc Dutch]

RQAA. See my post #467 for the answer.

Mantra 51 Public Acronym Abuse

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

[Into the Night]

Would you mind explaining for my edification why no expandiverses can open up in your universe?

First, it is not MY universe. Second, I have already answered this question.

What prevents that from happening?

I have already answered this question too.

Nothing seemed to stop the expandiverse in which we find ourselves from opening up in the universe, right?

What 'expandiverse'?

I'm confused on this point because obviously at least one expandiverse opened up and we can observe it because we are in it. You are indicating that it can't happen. How should I understand this?

I have already answered this question.

Stars only have finite usable energy to perform work over a finite time. Given sufficient time, any star dies.

I think you should look at the various things that can happen when a star 'dies'. The material can easily form a new star or even a black hole.

If the universe were infinitely old, all the stars would have infinitely long-since died and all matter in the universe would be lumped together in huge black holes. This is what gravity would produce.

No, it isn't. New stars can form out of old stars.

What am I missing?

The answers I've already given you.

[AProudLefty]

First, it is not MY universe. Second, I have already answered this question.

I have already answered this question too.

What 'expandiverse'?

I have already answered this question.

I think you should look at the various things that can happen when a star 'dies'. The material can easily form a new star or even a black hole.

No, it isn't. New stars can form out of old stars.

The answers I've already given you.

It's cute to watch Sybil talking to himself.

[Doc Dutch]

I'd shout it louder but you still wouldn't be able to hear me.

Mantra 46 Horse Assery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.