Customer Discussions > Science forum

Abiogenesis be Manned- There is no evidence for life having started naturally on Earth.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 5851-5875 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:18:07 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
(Google sorts based on your past searches....)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:41:30 AM PDT
David Félix says:
"(Google sorts based on your past searches....)"

OH SNAP!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 8:14:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 8:42:03 AM PDT
RK: "Nope...I'm Number 2.

IL: "Nope, not on my browser. Still #12."

RK: I don't know why I am even bickering over such representative trivia with someone I consider to be a know compulsive liar in debate here. First of all, I am using English IE 8 with Japanese Windows XP Home Edition SP3.

When I type in "naturalistic intelligent design" into Google.com's search box, I come up as the second reported link. When I remove the quotes and use those three words still with a space in between each of them, I come up as Number 1.

When I type in "naturalisticintelligentdesign" (in quotes), all 6 supplied links (with Google reporting it excluding repeated and similar links) are mine. Removing the quotes and still typing it is as one compound word supplies my links as #s 1 through 4.

Do you know how to tell what are my assets or not? With methodologically inexpert evolution proponents, I have to ask such a basic question. How are you defining my links and the broader research problem, and just how are YOU conducting your investigation into this matter?

Once more, why do you even hold your obviously bated breath? There is very little validity and reliability to be found in internet searches such as this one. Your reports mean next to nothing. Yet you brought such Google hits as results up after having kept insisting on getting information to relocate my site.

ALL TO CHANGE THE TOPIC TO GET THE FOCUS OFF ANALYSES AND EVALUTATIONS OF YOUR MISHANDLING ID EVIDENTIARY MATTERS HERE, RIGHT? Don't expect any further responses to requests unless you explain this one more objectively. Otherwise, I'll just consider your voiced concerns and requests/accusations here pure imagination, impressions, manipulations, or taunts from now on. You sure deserve it the way you abuse and contort information for debate/positional concerns.

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 8:41:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 9:21:48 AM PDT
IL,

Actually, why do you even care about internet searches as a reflection of credibility, respect, or legitimacy? Or is it something else you see with your internet searching? What do you take Google searches to reflect and stand for (and please support whatever that is). Do you have any credible purpose you can give for using them? If there is nothing that you can affirm objectively here about it, then it must be so you can just insult someone with some semblence or assurance of seeming legitimacy. THAT WOULD BE MORE LIKE YOU, I THINK.

Who actualy cares what links you find, or can't...I didn't turn any one's heads to look for them now. You did yourself, soliciting my help. I gave it. For what? To show what? Whatever you find at random - just like you appraise empirical evidence impressionistically, AND REJECT IT - SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF CHOICES ABOUT ITS GENERAL APPLICATION (without supplying sufficient rationale or formulaic basis for support for your doing any such thing)?

And just WHY DO YOU EVEN NEED EVIDENCE OR RANKED SITES TO DO THAT? HAVE YOU JUSTIFIED USING GOOGLE AND NOT YAHOO OR SOME OTHER SITE; ON WHAT BASIS AND GROUNDS? JUST TO HAVE SOMETHING YOU YOURSELF CAN SPECULATIVELY AND IMPRESSIONISTICALLY ATTACK and nothing more!!! That's not warrant enough. You have just mishandled evidence. Are you merely doing this as a cover up and ploy to divert from that recent discovery?

Haven't you got any methods at all to use and explicate here other than to point to your personal, unnamed B(R)OWSER (all you have done as far as I can see things)? FRAU, BROW WOW! You make no point. Is this simply a self-apparent browser show and tell to you?

If your browser isn't actually your only basis for inference, then prove you have something more. Show you have objectifiable scientific standards that you are using in considerations here. Oh, don't know any? Can't you LINK of(f) any such checklist items, bullet list including specified, detailed criteria, areas and recommendations thru citations, or particular expert comments and references right now? If not, why are you even using your b(r)owser? Database searches are much more professional and a little more scientifically valid.

Where have all the evolutionist textbooks gone? Long time passing...

YOU CLEARLY MISHANDLE AND INCONSISTENTLY DEFINE EVIDENCE YOU HANDLE. SO MALICIOUS CRAP FIGUR(ILLO)S, huh? That's what I think is the ca(u)se here.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 9:45:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 10:00:26 AM PDT
PG: "(Google sorts based on your past searches....)"

Are you saying that Google reports its search results/links back in an order that is strongly influenced or constrained by the searching individual's own past searches (track record in the search box) or their click-to-view records (accumulated linking activities and/or preferences) in the browser? THAT WOULD MAKE THEM HIGHLY INDIVIDUALIZED AND THUS UNRELIABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAWING ANY SYSTEMATIC OR OBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS FROM, WOULDN'T IT?

I told Prof. Janis before and IL just now that I considered Google searches to be invalid for the purpose of drawing reasonable and reliable conclusions about anything other than the internet itself and current internet links. They are not representative of content or scientific credibility in any way, that is, outside of the internet. Even about the internet itself, I would serious doubt their validity. At a bare minimum, the largest quantity of clicks on a site influence the site rankings with Google. Quantity does so by moving the most frequently visited links upwards, I think. Even though that isn't the only process they rely on for ranking and ordering sites, wasn't that still the most salient principle Google rankings were originally founded on?

Yet somehow, these two ladies continue to think that what they are doing with Google and what the resultant lists of hits reflect supply us with something scientifically valid and reflective of reality in a more general and professional sense. LIKE I KEEP SAYING, EVOLUTION PROPONENTS HERE TYPICALLY LACK METHODOLOGICAL SAVY AND ANY REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TRAINING IN METHODS APPLICABLE TO CONSIDERATIONS OF THE TOE. Here appears to be more evidence supporting such a view.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 9:59:36 AM PDT
Bill M. says:
>>"Nope...I'm Number 2.

I thought I was "number two", since as RK likes to point out, my initials are "BM". :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:01:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 10:04:59 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:02:11 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
I means that for purposes of determining your blog's overall popularity there search are more reliable than yours.

Google's exact algorithm is proprietary, but has something to do with past search.

You can see the results of this simply by goggling a lot of one type of object, say Pokemon, and then Google one with an ambiguous name. Google will guess that you mean the Pokemon not what ever else you could mean. It will do the same thing with "beetle" if you have a bunch of search for cars.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:13:33 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 10:21:10 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:15:54 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Shouting wont help. Since your history reflects your blog, naturally Google will assume that is what you are looking for.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:24:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 10:31:17 AM PDT
I'm not trying to help you. I use all caps for highlights.

And since Irish's history almost completely fails to reflect visits to my blog, Google will naturally assume that she is not interested in looking for it, right? Even when she posts topic requests for such in the search box, eh? Quite the contrary. I think not. Content is considered.

I think you are being too simplistic in your consideration of this matter. Her lack of frequenting the blog is not a valid guide to Google for anything substantive; only order of reports. And that makes her order as well as mine idiosyncratic.

The algorithm is more complex than you are making things out to be, I think. But thanks anyway for your observations on it.

Oh, sorry about my shouting "I"s there. I really meant to make I loud!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:35:32 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
I think you missed my point. Google shifts results based on what users have been looking for in the past. The competition of where your blog appears in various search is pointless because it is entirely based on you respective histories.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 8:44:15 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Is that right? Hmmm... that's interesting.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 8:46:02 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"RK: I don't know why I am even bickering over such representative trivia"

You brought it up, Dick; not me. I actually checked my who-cares-o-meter and your ranking didn't register.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 8:46:50 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Actually, why do you even care about internet searches as a reflection of credibility, respect, or legitimacy?"

Again, Dick, it was not _I_ who brought it up; it was you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 8:48:54 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Um... er... uh... RK's infantile obsessions about are not high on my list of things to think about.

Posted on Jun 29, 2012 10:34:29 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 29, 2012 5:56:07 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 11:21:06 AM PDT
Interesting analogy - I look at it a little differently but with the same skepticism. Creationists ignore evidence in favor of literal truth from a book. This adherance to dogma and inflexibility of thought would be a major problem in a physician, I think. They might be perfectly competent at diagnosing and treating ailments that agree with their "biblical text", i.e. Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy or something similar. But what if the paradigm shifts, new information and treatments come to light, or they encounter something not in their precious innerrant reference book? I would venture that the same inelastic mentality that is required to be a creationist would also make them ineffective as a physician....just my $0.02

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 4:14:22 PM PDT
PG: "I think you missed my point. Google shifts results based on what users have been looking for in the past. The competition of where your blog appears in various search is pointless because it is entirely based on you respective histories."

I got your point and advanced well beyond it. I think that's what you don't see. In fact, I commented and moved up one level in generality from it, and I think you may have not seen that.

If what you say is true here for me, it is also true of others in terms of site-visiting history and can be seen and understood in more general terms. You only spoke of it, however, in terms of an application to me. And that is what is clearly suspect. Was it in order to skew and positionally taint the discussion here? Are your choices relative to the matter of reporting math subconsciously biased, too?

Whatever, you miss my own point, I believe. Your truism here (i.e., of individual's own history of visits/nonvisits effecting the outcome of the search), is true only to a limited and identifiable degree. It affects only order of the links reported, not the actual selection of the actual links in question. And it affects prior nonvisitors' output with respect to those sites as well as visitors' output. If you have proof otherwise, demonstrate such.

What you are talking about here (I'll refer to it as particular-site usage) is not only in terms of directional applicability and output alone. Failure to visit said sites affects the outcome, also. And visits to related and similar sites/topical areas affect it, too. I think you indicated to the contrary, i.e., that the mathematical applicability and use of the term was not global. But non-use AND past related searches (at minimum) are being factored in to mathematical transforms concominantly.

You have not demonstrated a severely limited aspect of the actual URLs' own applicability for purposes of use in the algorithm yet. Even so, THAT WOULD NOT MAKE THE OUTCOME ANY MORE RELIABLE TO IRISH THAN TO ME (OR ANYONE ELSE). YOU STATED THAT, BUT DID NOT SUPPORT IT OR REPLY TO THAT POINT OF MINE.

When people don't reply to directed criticism and questions, or otherwise seem to 'get it,' my highlights turn into shouting. Take my state(d) capitals any way you like.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 4:25:17 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 29, 2012 7:09:31 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 3:07:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 4:24:42 AM PDT
RK: I don't know why I am even bickering over such representative trivia"

IL: "You brought it up, Dick; not me. I actually checked my who-cares-o-meter and your ranking didn't register.

RK: Actually, that's a lie. You mentioned first both my blog and its ranking on Google (12th) from your viewpoint first. Prove otherwise with direct quotes. These were both only your concerns. You brought them up as topics for discussions here, not me. I gave you the search term to use to find it. Of course, you now claim you didn't do any of that, SO YOU OSTENSIBLY DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THEM - by trying to shove the responsibility for the blog discussion and rankings off one me. The latter were what I was discussing. Perhaps you might be able to do so in some vague, out-of-date, or very general sense. Take for instance what I think is your ploy now: referring to my help in you finding my blog after you lamenting repeatedly you couldn't do so on your own, though you accessed it and mentioned its details previously in this forum. But that would be dissuasion and diversion from the fact that I have been referring to your mention of the blog and rankings and having done so first, not referring to my provision of your means of finding it. A switch of topic on your part to wiggle out of blame.

So you want to switch from those subjects to cut the discussion short apparently or simply end it with a personal disclaimer? Do so without a lie about your own lack of responsibility next time, thank you!

I've said twice that's what I'm referring to. YOU'VE CONSPICUOUSLY AVOIDED BEING SPECIFIC. If you are not referring to the same thing that I was, make that clear here. What else could YOU be referring to? Do you even want readers to know what you are disallowing? I think you want things kept ambiguous so you can typically deride without bearing any accountability for it. Aren't you switching subjects being referred to in the middle of a conversation; at least from what I have referred to? If so, where's your accountability. Could it be you're doing so in order to evade personal responsibility for your ridicule? Oh, is it that from you again? Only bald ridicule?

From you it again appears then: Claims, but no support. Typical from someone anonymous, too... Count coup, divide and evade discussion by only crying out it's not your fault generally in your reply. Then you say it is mine, eh? Only in that I helped you. That appears to be the lie in summary here. Of course, you are free to show otherwise.

RK:"Actually, why do you even care about internet searches as a reflection of credibility, respect, or legitimacy?"

IL: "Again, Dick, it was not _I_ who brought it up; it was you."

"It", huh. Being nondescript again when questioned. To what end, anonymous? I did not bring up internet rankings relative to my blog and the blog itself as topics in any recent posts. You did so with both. I did neither first. I merely responded with requested help, counters, and explanations of cause (the latter: along with Physics Geek) to your mentions.

You jumped in here. And do you mean that you can't even distinguish statements on the basis of assertion and counter assertion? That would be the natural implication... Can you even FOLLOW SCIENTIFIC DIALOG? If merely malicious ridicule, I doubt not... Remember, you said twice here that you were only pulling my chain generally in posts to get a reaction from me. That shows no concern about taking responsibility for your statements at all. The end must justify the means; end of conversation with you, right?

You brought up my blog (and couldn't find it) and comparisons in the form of ranks by saying my blog registered 12th. Then you contended about the matter. Physics Geek jumped in. Correct that if it is in error, using posts or citations to demonstrate you are right in what you are saying to the contrary.

I did not mention rankings or ratings first. You did. Show evidence otherwise or be caught in the act of deliberately making a falsehood. Actually, I doubt you will even try since you typically only appear to heckle here. No support or responsibility; then no science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 3:57:48 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 4:10:06 AM PDT
IL: "Um... er... uh... RK's infantile obsessions about are not high on my list of things to think about."

You and others here have referred to my posts repeatedly as word salad? Here it looks like you toss only word crap yourself.

Posted on Jun 30, 2012 4:12:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 4:54:19 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 4:43:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 5:15:43 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 6:33:15 AM PDT
"Let her post under her real name here if she wants to merely libel me and claim no responsibility for doing so. "

Is that the reason why it was OK for you to libel *me* (for completely random, imaginary reasons), because you're posting under your real name?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  112
Total posts:  6982
Initial post:  Jan 30, 2012
Latest post:  May 13, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions