Another try, I give … Another try, I give you another chance to react upon this.
Your claim:
“If something fails when properly tested it most likely doesn’t work.”
Ok. Lets test an geneticist “properly”. Give him the genetic endowment of a person. If he doesn’t predict psychopatic behaviour, genetics “most likely doesn’t work”.
Don’t you see the mistake in your argumantation? In fact, your argumentation is RIDICULOUS.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
LAUGHING OUT VERY … LAUGHING OUT VERY LOUD!
1. Didn’t claim it cant be tested (dude, just read precisly, a start to question your intelligence!)
2. I knew you would come up with this, though you are the one WHO CONSTANTLY REFUSES TO DISCUSS THE POINTS I MAKE, BEST EXAMPLE “THE RESEARCH” I DID.
3. This Point makes no sense in itself
4. If none yet did adequat studies, how can I cite them?
5. Simply not true.
6. Its a fact that there are peolpe in “the science world” who are anything but objektive in this case.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
ZoeMarks:
You are doing what … You are doing what EVERY astrologer does. Here are the rules of astrology:
1. Claim it can’t be tested but then claim it is accurate
2. Divert the debate to something else when the going gets tough
3. Parallel astrology with real scientific studies to make it sound credible
4. Fail to cite any studies to support the claims
5. Quote endless anecdotes about astrology as if they were facts
6. ume there is a conspiracy by the scientific community against astrology
Wow, you have nailed them all!
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
…he fails, query … …he fails, query GENETICS AS A WHOLE. That is what you are doing with astrology. To say it in your words:
“If Genetics can’t tell a serial killer from a green grocer, it can’t be good for much.”
LOL
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
“Those who research … “Those who research it scientifically” are either interested in discrediting astrology, or simple doesn’t have a clue about this subject, or both. Genetics, who do the research for their discipline, know what they are doing, cause they are specialists. So let the astrologers do their research, because they are specialists in their discipline.
No one would ever get the idea to give an geneticist the genetic endowment of a person, expecting him to find out a “psychopatic behaviour”, and when…
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
ZoeMarks:
The basis of … The basis of genetics can be traced and there is an explanation for all findings.
Astrology is based on some system developed by the ancients, no one has explained how the symbolism was derived, & if you bothered to research the several dozen scientific tests done on astrology you’d see there is NO basis for its claims. Like I said before it is strange how astrologers get the opposite results to those who research it scientifically.
I don’t know whether astrologers understand the term fraud.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
ZoeMarks:
Genetics is based … Genetics is based on sound scientific studies. The molecular structure of DNA and related substances are examined and reported in scientific journals with peer review a key aspect. If someone proposes something with genetics and it is tested and fails to stand scrutiny it will be discarded.
Whereas astrology isn’t scientific in its approach, refuses to be blind tested, isn’t given serious consideration in any science journals and is based on a faith system.
Wow, what difference.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
“Even if … “Even if astrologers fail at a blind test, that doesn’t say anything about the substance of astrology.”
I proved this claim the comments before, just read them.
I say its fails, when its been “blind testes”, SAME AS GENETICS WOULD FAIL, BECAUSE ASTROLOGY AND GENETICS BOTH HANDLE ABOUT THE SAME THING: THE COMPLEX HUMAN BEEING.
“If something fails when properly tested it most likely doesn’t work.”
So when genetics would be tested this way, and would fail, it doesn’t work? LOL
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
You didn’t get the … You didn’t get the point. Thanks by the way for explaining genetics to me, you proved yourself how similar it is to astrology in many ways: “Genes encode the information necessary for synthesizing proteins, !that play a large role in influencing, although, in many instances, do not completely determine, the final phenotype of an organism! Astrologers say the same about planets in certain constellations, the influcence our character, though they don’t completely determine.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
ZoeMarks:
Your quote: “Even … Your quote: “Even if astrologers fail at a blind test, that doesn’t say anything about the substance of astrology.”
That is absolutely priceless. You not only don’t understand proper testing methods now you’re saying that if astrology does fail when tested it still passes.
How far have you got your head buried in the sand?
If something fails when properly tested it most likely doesn’t work.
When a magician says the box is empty, then you know it isn’t. At least magicians call them tricks.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
ZoeMarks:
Let’s get this … Let’s get this straight.
Genetics is the science of genes, heredity, & variation of organisms, by studying organisms and genetic information generally carried in chromosomes, where it is represented in the chemical structure of particular DNA molecules. Genes encode the information necessary for synthesizing proteins, that play a large role in influencing, although, in many instances, do not completely determine, the final phenotype of an organism.
Whereas astrology is nothing scientific. LOL
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
Bottom line:
Even … Bottom line:
Even if astrologers fail at a blind test, that doesn’t say anything about the substance of astrology. You should just accept it, if you fail to understand, ZoeMarks.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
All right, then … All right, then call it “research”, if its the right word for what I did a few days ago. But even if I called it “research” I bet you would continue to ignore my “research” too.
I tell you now a blind test like you want it is not possible, like its not possible to do such a “blind test” in genetics.
The comparisioin from astrology to genetics is anything else then irrelevant, in fact genetics is discipline which comes the closest to astrology, as I explained you already.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
ZoeMarks:
What you’re saying … What you’re saying is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. When looking to find a relationship between a set of human conditions and the genetic makeup then it is not a test, it is research.
I’m asking you to do a test, not research. But as you have demonstrated clearly you don’t have the gonads to do it properly lest you fail.
So go on and bring in all the irrelevant diversions and cop out as I predicted you would. You are proving to be no better than the rest of you clan.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
Part 2
…It only … Part 2
…It only means, that these people have a higher AFFINITY to crime. Epigenetic prooved also, that the genotype of a person can change, iniciated through certain experiences. Thats just the same thing modern astrologers tell you. Every person got individual Talents/possibilities, he/she can deploy best for him/herself, is she(he likes to.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
Part1
ZoeMarks, … Part1
ZoeMarks, you seem so obsessed with this “blind testing” Ask an genetecist, do predict “psychopathic behaviour” when looking at the human genetical predispoition. They surely couldn’t! But that fact doesn’t disprove genetics. Same as certain constellations in an astrological birth chart, genes represent “possibilities and talents”. Geneticists have found certain genes in felons more often than in “common people”. That doesn’t mean, that everybody who has this gene, becomes a felon…
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
bryarworship:
I miss bill nye I miss bill nye
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
CapnOrdinary:
Anyone who believes … Anyone who believes that the sun’s apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of their birth somehow affects their personality needs to have their heads checked.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
ZoeMarks:
Quote regarding … Quote regarding James Randi’s book, Flim Flam!
He’s done several experiments disproving astrology. One of the more humorous ones involves asking astrologers to cast the horoscope of a serial killer (without telling them who the person is, of course). Without fail, the astrologers never predict the psychopathic behavior. If astrology can’t tell a serial killer from a green grocer, it can’t be good for much.
See what I mean? Blind testing and the astrologers get it wrong. Bingo!
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
p101James:
BTW-
The last … BTW-
The last comment referred to a serial killer who was unbeknownst to me. He was not the Boston Strangler. Beside’s it is now widely believed that the Boston Strangler- Albert DiSalvo was “not” the real Boston Strangler. He was, nevertheless, a burglar, but they believed he wanted the fame and attention, and was somewhat mentally handicapped. We may never know.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
p101James:
constructivecritism … constructivecritism-
I know exactly what you mean.
Back when I was just 19, in my astrology class, I remember a guest putting up 5 horoscopes on the wall. We had to guess what kind of people they were. One was a serial killer. I guessed that one when I saw Mars and a number of planets in the 8th House in Taurus, opposed to 2nd House positions in Scorpio. I not only got the right chart- but asked if his victims were all women which he choked to death. I was absolutely right. No surprise there.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
Brutalmouse1:
I love this man, in … I love this man, in a non-homosexual way.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
It’s really not … It’s really not that hard to understand. If it was all coincidence, and you took a prefarable high amount of of both “sericl killer charts” and “common people charts”, and count these aspects, its so clear there couldn’t be much of a difference. Hope you guys get it finally? If the rate of men and women in a croud 50/50 , and I would pick randomly people out, the more people I pick, THE MORE THE AMOUNT OF MEN AND WOMAN WOULD EQUAL. To show you a good compromise.
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
Thats why I did … Thats why I did another test. And there is really no problem with it, when I, before I pick the charts, constitute certain critical aspects, that astrologically indicate possible frustration/aggression. And then, I pick a possibly high amount of “serial killer charts” and “common people charts”. IF MY CLAIM WAS NOT TRUE, THEN THE AMOUNT OF THESE ASPECTS IN THE “SERIAL KILLER CHARTS” and “COMMON PEOPLE CHARTS” MUST EQUAL, THE MORE CHARTS YOU TAKE. THIS IS AN STATISTIC FACT!
September 29th, 2008 | 5:18 pm
constructivecritism:
1.
Yes I … 1.
Yes I understand what you mean, zzytrewq. You know, this test can’t be done by myself, I would need someone to give me different birth charts.
Bill Nye on Astrology from his show the Eye of Nye
Another try, I give …
Another try, I give you another chance to react upon this.
Your claim:
“If something fails when properly tested it most likely doesn’t work.”
Ok. Lets test an geneticist “properly”. Give him the genetic endowment of a person. If he doesn’t predict psychopatic behaviour, genetics “most likely doesn’t work”.
Don’t you see the mistake in your argumantation? In fact, your argumentation is RIDICULOUS.
LAUGHING OUT VERY …
LAUGHING OUT VERY LOUD!
1. Didn’t claim it cant be tested (dude, just read precisly, a start to question your intelligence!)
2. I knew you would come up with this, though you are the one WHO CONSTANTLY REFUSES TO DISCUSS THE POINTS I MAKE, BEST EXAMPLE “THE RESEARCH” I DID.
3. This Point makes no sense in itself
4. If none yet did adequat studies, how can I cite them?
5. Simply not true.
6. Its a fact that there are peolpe in “the science world” who are anything but objektive in this case.
You are doing what …
You are doing what EVERY astrologer does. Here are the rules of astrology:
1. Claim it can’t be tested but then claim it is accurate
2. Divert the debate to something else when the going gets tough
3. Parallel astrology with real scientific studies to make it sound credible
4. Fail to cite any studies to support the claims
5. Quote endless anecdotes about astrology as if they were facts
6. ume there is a conspiracy by the scientific community against astrology
Wow, you have nailed them all!
…he fails, query …
…he fails, query GENETICS AS A WHOLE. That is what you are doing with astrology. To say it in your words:
“If Genetics can’t tell a serial killer from a green grocer, it can’t be good for much.”
LOL
“Those who research …
“Those who research it scientifically” are either interested in discrediting astrology, or simple doesn’t have a clue about this subject, or both. Genetics, who do the research for their discipline, know what they are doing, cause they are specialists. So let the astrologers do their research, because they are specialists in their discipline.
No one would ever get the idea to give an geneticist the genetic endowment of a person, expecting him to find out a “psychopatic behaviour”, and when…
The basis of …
The basis of genetics can be traced and there is an explanation for all findings.
Astrology is based on some system developed by the ancients, no one has explained how the symbolism was derived, & if you bothered to research the several dozen scientific tests done on astrology you’d see there is NO basis for its claims. Like I said before it is strange how astrologers get the opposite results to those who research it scientifically.
I don’t know whether astrologers understand the term fraud.
Genetics is based …
Genetics is based on sound scientific studies. The molecular structure of DNA and related substances are examined and reported in scientific journals with peer review a key aspect. If someone proposes something with genetics and it is tested and fails to stand scrutiny it will be discarded.
Whereas astrology isn’t scientific in its approach, refuses to be blind tested, isn’t given serious consideration in any science journals and is based on a faith system.
Wow, what difference.
“Even if …
“Even if astrologers fail at a blind test, that doesn’t say anything about the substance of astrology.”
I proved this claim the comments before, just read them.
I say its fails, when its been “blind testes”, SAME AS GENETICS WOULD FAIL, BECAUSE ASTROLOGY AND GENETICS BOTH HANDLE ABOUT THE SAME THING: THE COMPLEX HUMAN BEEING.
“If something fails when properly tested it most likely doesn’t work.”
So when genetics would be tested this way, and would fail, it doesn’t work? LOL
You didn’t get the …
You didn’t get the point. Thanks by the way for explaining genetics to me, you proved yourself how similar it is to astrology in many ways: “Genes encode the information necessary for synthesizing proteins, !that play a large role in influencing, although, in many instances, do not completely determine, the final phenotype of an organism! Astrologers say the same about planets in certain constellations, the influcence our character, though they don’t completely determine.
Your quote: “Even …
Your quote: “Even if astrologers fail at a blind test, that doesn’t say anything about the substance of astrology.”
That is absolutely priceless. You not only don’t understand proper testing methods now you’re saying that if astrology does fail when tested it still passes.
How far have you got your head buried in the sand?
If something fails when properly tested it most likely doesn’t work.
When a magician says the box is empty, then you know it isn’t. At least magicians call them tricks.
Let’s get this …
Let’s get this straight.
Genetics is the science of genes, heredity, & variation of organisms, by studying organisms and genetic information generally carried in chromosomes, where it is represented in the chemical structure of particular DNA molecules. Genes encode the information necessary for synthesizing proteins, that play a large role in influencing, although, in many instances, do not completely determine, the final phenotype of an organism.
Whereas astrology is nothing scientific. LOL
Bottom line:
Even …
Bottom line:
Even if astrologers fail at a blind test, that doesn’t say anything about the substance of astrology. You should just accept it, if you fail to understand, ZoeMarks.
All right, then …
All right, then call it “research”, if its the right word for what I did a few days ago. But even if I called it “research” I bet you would continue to ignore my “research” too.
I tell you now a blind test like you want it is not possible, like its not possible to do such a “blind test” in genetics.
The comparisioin from astrology to genetics is anything else then irrelevant, in fact genetics is discipline which comes the closest to astrology, as I explained you already.
What you’re saying …
What you’re saying is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. When looking to find a relationship between a set of human conditions and the genetic makeup then it is not a test, it is research.
I’m asking you to do a test, not research. But as you have demonstrated clearly you don’t have the gonads to do it properly lest you fail.
So go on and bring in all the irrelevant diversions and cop out as I predicted you would. You are proving to be no better than the rest of you clan.
Part 2
…It only …
Part 2
…It only means, that these people have a higher AFFINITY to crime. Epigenetic prooved also, that the genotype of a person can change, iniciated through certain experiences. Thats just the same thing modern astrologers tell you. Every person got individual Talents/possibilities, he/she can deploy best for him/herself, is she(he likes to.
Part1
ZoeMarks, …
Part1
ZoeMarks, you seem so obsessed with this “blind testing” Ask an genetecist, do predict “psychopathic behaviour” when looking at the human genetical predispoition. They surely couldn’t! But that fact doesn’t disprove genetics. Same as certain constellations in an astrological birth chart, genes represent “possibilities and talents”. Geneticists have found certain genes in felons more often than in “common people”. That doesn’t mean, that everybody who has this gene, becomes a felon…
I miss bill nye
I miss bill nye
Anyone who believes …
Anyone who believes that the sun’s apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of their birth somehow affects their personality needs to have their heads checked.
Quote regarding …
Quote regarding James Randi’s book, Flim Flam!
He’s done several experiments disproving astrology. One of the more humorous ones involves asking astrologers to cast the horoscope of a serial killer (without telling them who the person is, of course). Without fail, the astrologers never predict the psychopathic behavior. If astrology can’t tell a serial killer from a green grocer, it can’t be good for much.
See what I mean? Blind testing and the astrologers get it wrong. Bingo!
BTW-
The last …
BTW-
The last comment referred to a serial killer who was unbeknownst to me. He was not the Boston Strangler. Beside’s it is now widely believed that the Boston Strangler- Albert DiSalvo was “not” the real Boston Strangler. He was, nevertheless, a burglar, but they believed he wanted the fame and attention, and was somewhat mentally handicapped. We may never know.
constructivecritism …
constructivecritism-
I know exactly what you mean.
Back when I was just 19, in my astrology class, I remember a guest putting up 5 horoscopes on the wall. We had to guess what kind of people they were. One was a serial killer. I guessed that one when I saw Mars and a number of planets in the 8th House in Taurus, opposed to 2nd House positions in Scorpio. I not only got the right chart- but asked if his victims were all women which he choked to death. I was absolutely right. No surprise there.
I love this man, in …
I love this man, in a non-homosexual way.
It’s really not …
It’s really not that hard to understand. If it was all coincidence, and you took a prefarable high amount of of both “sericl killer charts” and “common people charts”, and count these aspects, its so clear there couldn’t be much of a difference. Hope you guys get it finally? If the rate of men and women in a croud 50/50 , and I would pick randomly people out, the more people I pick, THE MORE THE AMOUNT OF MEN AND WOMAN WOULD EQUAL. To show you a good compromise.
Thats why I did …
Thats why I did another test. And there is really no problem with it, when I, before I pick the charts, constitute certain critical aspects, that astrologically indicate possible frustration/aggression. And then, I pick a possibly high amount of “serial killer charts” and “common people charts”. IF MY CLAIM WAS NOT TRUE, THEN THE AMOUNT OF THESE ASPECTS IN THE “SERIAL KILLER CHARTS” and “COMMON PEOPLE CHARTS” MUST EQUAL, THE MORE CHARTS YOU TAKE. THIS IS AN STATISTIC FACT!
1.
Yes I …
1.
Yes I understand what you mean, zzytrewq. You know, this test can’t be done by myself, I would need someone to give me different birth charts.