You said:
In response to:
In reference to:
Thus I said that there existed a gradient of human intelligence, and you rejected the existence of a gradient of human intelligence. No gradient of human intelligence is equivalent to saying that all humans have equal intelligence.
So yes, you actually did say that all humans have equal intelligence. Your inability to follow the conversation is your problem, not mine.
Alternatively, you might consider being charitable and test the hypothesis that your writing is not nearly as clear as you think it is.
FYI, this is not just a low quality journal, itâs a predatory one with essentially no real peer review. Journals like this are so unreliable and untrusted that academics on the tenure track at most institutions would not just not get to count these articles toward tenure, they would actually count against them. My institution, while respectable with a growing reputation, is hardly a top-tier R1 and someone in our department published in an MDPI journal and it caused serious problems at multiple levels of tenure review.
And if youâre not aware of the phenomenon of predatory journals, read this:
And for full disclosure, I fell for this once as well. It was 12 years ago, in the early days of this phenomenon and and Iâd never heard of predatory journals and it was just a short opinion piece, but still. Egg on my face, lesson learned, and I certainly donât broadcast that publication. But I wanted to be honest about it in this discussion.
Ok, so letâs test it. I think you are dead wrong about my clarity. But letâs put it to a vote. If others here will vote honestly, I think you may find that you are the minority.
Did I make my premise clear in the article? This is not a vote to agree with my premise or my conclusions. Did I make myself clear?
YES or NO.
Too little evidence for me to base a yes or no as I havenât read many comments of yours.
Your write-up ran the gamut from wrong to not-even-wrong, with regions that were simply unintelligible.
NO. It was so much psychobabble tossed in a well mixed word salad.
I canât back up your remarks. First, they are not on your Predatory List, second âstrange anticsâ does not make them predatory, third, when someone asks me to make up my own mind, I am immediately suspect that their real intent to make up mind my for me hoping against hope I will not double-check the sources.
I canât back up your remarks.
I can back up @NLENTS remarks. That looks like a predatory journal, but the situation is complex. This article is pretty good:
Ultimately, just because it is published doesnât mean an article is correct.
Thatâs fine. Do whatever you want, but when you bolster your position using sources that scientists donât find credible, they wonât find you credible either. But by all means, it is totally your choice if you want to keep spending your time this way.
Correct is besides the point.
Credible is besides the point.
This paragraph is an opinion by a working scientist. He is entitled to his opinion just as much as you two are. Further, I am entitled to MINE. And my opinion in the forgoing discussion was to fully agree with his. Neither correct nor credible are applicable terms here.
The above is DARN good stuff and opinions such as these need to be announced and heard and taken to heart!
Opinions are irrelevant, unless they provoke discussion. His didnât.
Youâre entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to anyone caring what that opinion is.
"
It is certainly true that neither term can be applied to anything youâve written.
No, it isnât. Hey, look, an opinion from a âworking scientistâ. Clearly you should hold that in high regard.
Yikes. Perhaps it the overuse of big jargon words that makes this sound impressive to you, but I assure you this paragraph makes very little sense. Honestly, some of the words arenât even used correctly and many of the sentences are pure word salads. This ainât it, man, and the more you point to stuff like this, the more you show how little you understand what youâre trying to talk about.
Are you spinning this a certain way on purpose? I almost have to say yes because every single line makes perfect sense to any reasonable kind of person, whether creationist or evolutionist. What are you doing?
Okay dude. Go right ahead and keep spitting out this nonsense, but donât say that we didnât warn you when no one with any relevant expertise takes you seriously. It makes our job easier when creationists insist on dunking on themselves like this.
A lot of people have written about complexity. Cool. Good so far.
He just accused everyone of faking their results, or he is being incomprehensible. Neither is a good option.
There are no âintrusionsâ from ID, because ID is bad science. And if it is good science, I donât want to stop it from intruding!
Word salad
Yikes.
Double yikes.
This one I understand, itâs just wrong.
True.
This is an insane non sequitur with no relevance.
I vote NO based on the above statement referencing your post. It seems disjointed and illogical. I agree with @NLENTS and I think he is being quite kind in his assessment of the writing. I am not a scientist, but I know enough to understand the broken patterns and illogical statements. Sorry to be so blunt, but its not just your debate opponents that see the disconnect. Trying to bring some clarity here out of kindness, not attacking.
This dude is quite used to it here. So your threats add nothing to what I have already experienced. It just comes with the territory when one like me opposes your paradigm.
You are confusing my article with the paragraph I cited from a paper not related to my article but which came up only later in discussion. The points here in the cited paragraph are intelligible and there can be no mistake about the meaning and the warning the author intended to convey:
Sorry to be so blunt back, but it seems that, though you claim Christianity, I find that you take up the chorus of the crowd here far too often. Since they said the paragraph was unintelligible, you found it also to be so? The language is just too clear for you to come away with that view and be settled about it.
I suggest you find âpeaceâ with this group in your own way, but do not use the clear language from this paragraph which rightly chides them for âpurposeful steering of iterations toward desired productsâ in their computer simulations as that âpeacefulâ point of contact. The shoe fits them too well to ignore. Their computer games and simulations have now replaced authentic science in their paradigm. Then they turn around to the public and announce âEvolution is provenâ based on computer simulations. This is not honest science. Try to find your peace with them a more honest way than that.
I have peace with all of you, I value truth, not one side or another, good luck with your work.