As America Grows More Polarized, Conservatives Increasingly Reject Science and Ration

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Perhaps that is the point Stupidmankenneth is attempting to make, but it is not representative of the vast majority of the scientific community.

Well, the vast majority of the scientific community didn't post this thread I'm responding to, kenny did.

You're reading too much into it. I do not believe in god because there is zero evidence to support its existence. That said, god cannot be disproven, and I've never claimed to the contrary. The only point I've made is that I do not believe any god could be benevolent and allow such a grotesque world to carry on with its affairs. If someone stood idly by as a child was raped and had the power to stop it, would you consider that person to be benevolent? So why is god?

I agree, there is no physical evidence of a supernatural entity. Is there supposed to be? Why does God have to exist as you imagine God must? Why does God have to conform to what you believe he should? I think it is YOU who is reading too much into it, as you are trying to apply your own standards and criteria to God, and then claim he must not exist since he doesn't conform to your understanding.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Conservatives aren't civilized. They want to break us off into tiny individuals, destroys society, and then eat us up one by one. We need a revolution to prevent this from happening, to prevent the end of civilization, and put a roadblock into the goal of conservatives everywhere, to reduce us into ignorant animals, to destroy the 2000 year history of western civilization. I am the true conservative, those who call themselves "conservatives" are lying, they are radicals that radically diverge from the western tradition and want to destroy us.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're already a tiny individual who is an ignorant animal, so it won't be that hard.

 

[Disillusioned]

[BAs America Grows More Polarized, Conservatives Increasingly Reject Science and Ration

While some people just reject grammar.

 

[apple0154]

Commondreams.org is a 501(c)3 nonprofit U.S. based progressive news website. (aka: propaganda outlet for liberals)

Just so you are aware, every click to their website, helps to contribute to their continued success on the Internet.
I encourage all my fellow conservatives, to avoid clicking through to such links, as they totally don't need our support.

Thank you.

Do not, under any circumstances, do anything that might increase your education/knowledge.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Believing in God is not "rejection of science." Trying to argue that Science proves God doesn't exist, is a contradiction of the scientific method.

The man who mapped the human genome claims, "We have revealed one of God's secrets."

Evolution has never explained origin, or refuted the 'creationist' theory in any way.

What a silly argument Dixie. No one said believing in God was a rejection of science. Rejecting science is a rejection of science. DUH! Talk about strawmen. Name one scientist who tries to prove God does not exist? Show me one peer reviewed publication that does so. You can't. You know why? Cause science has nothing to say about God. Whether God exists or does not exist is completely outside the scope of science.

As for evolution never explaing origins. No shit Dick Tracey. More Scientific illiteracy. Biological evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life and if you were honestly discussing this topic you'd recognize that fact. Biological evolution models speciation, not the origins of life. So please get your facts straight. As for evolution refuting creationist theory, your right. It has not. It doesn't have to. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATIONIST THEORY!! At least not in any meaninful scientific sense or context.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Palin Claimed Dinosaurs And People Coexisted




Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.


After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.


Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said.


When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger...


The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Another good article

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/18-2

It essentially outlined the scientific method: observation and data collection, formulation of hypotheses, experiments designed to test hypotheses and elevation of these hypotheses to theories when data consistently supported them.

It is quite funny listening to those on the far left mock those on the far right for ignoring science when convenient. Because both sides choose to ignore science when it suits them. For some on the far right it is evolution that they question. At least they have the excuse of centuries of indoctrination of their families with religious beliefs. What is the left's excuse? Oh yeah, they don't have one. On the left, countless rubes will continue to ignore genetics so that they may dehumanize an unborn child for the sole purpose of having the 'choice' to kill the child. On the left, they scream consensus with regards to global warming in a manner similar to those that demanded that the earth was indeed flat and the center of the universe centuries ago. They want to ignore the scientific method the author mentions so that they may pound their chests like neanderthals and scream to the world that they are positive man is the main factor in global warming (now climate change, because well that can provide them cover for when we have a decade of stagnation in global temps). The far left nuts proclaim that we are having more 'severe' weather than ever before and that the world is warmer than ever before (and by ever, they mean the last 120 years or so, because, well, that is how old the Earth is to the far left nuts).

Pollution is a problem. It needs to be resolved as fast as we can. That said, global warming models have been blowing up consistently. To declare a consensus as so many on the left do and proclaim the matter resolved is moronic at best. At least the far right has indoctrination as an excuse for ignoring science... what again is the left's reason?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It is quite funny listening to those on the far left mock those on the far right for ignoring science when convenient. Because both sides choose to ignore science when it suits them. For some on the far right it is evolution that they question. At least they have the excuse of centuries of indoctrination of their families with religious beliefs. What is the left's excuse? Oh yeah, they don't have one. On the left, countless rubes will continue to ignore genetics so that they may dehumanize an unborn child for the sole purpose of having the 'choice' to kill the child. On the left, they scream consensus with regards to global warming in a manner similar to those that demanded that the earth was indeed flat and the center of the universe centuries ago. They want to ignore the scientific method the author mentions so that they may pound their chests like neanderthals and scream to the world that they are positive man is the main factor in global warming (now climate change, because well that can provide them cover for when we have a decade of stagnation in global temps). The far left nuts proclaim that we are having more 'severe' weather than ever before and that the world is warmer than ever before (and by ever, they mean the last 120 years or so, because, well, that is how old the Earth is to the far left nuts).

Pollution is a problem. It needs to be resolved as fast as we can. That said, global warming models have been blowing up consistently. To declare a consensus as so many on the left do and proclaim the matter resolved is moronic at best. At least the far right has indoctrination as an excuse for ignoring science... what again is the left's reason?

That's not what I'm observing. When I was a grad student most of the PhD level scientist I knew were Republicans. Now they are overwhelmingly Democrats. Why is that? Why are only 6% of Scientist Republicans?

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's not what I'm observing. When I was a grad student most of the PhD level scientist I knew were Republicans. Now they are overwhelmingly Democrats. Why is that? Why are only 6% of Scientist Republicans?

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

What the hell are you talking about? Who cares what party the Scientists are a part of?

It is the general public ignoring Science that I stated. (well, some so called 'climate scientists' also ignore the scientific method as well)

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What the hell are you talking about? Who cares what party the Scientists are a part of?

It is the general public ignoring Science that I stated. (well, some so called 'climate scientists' also ignore the scientific method as well)

As a scientist (albeit at the Masters degree level) I do. You're missing the point. It's not the general public that is ignoring science. It is by far and large less educated conservatives who are ignoring science, that's the point. You're point is nothing but a strawman. You completely ignore the consensus of the scientific community about anthropogenic climage change and conflate that with your own pro-capitalist political ideology while utterly ignoring the fact that all scientific consensus are tenative in nature which contradicts your conclusion entirely (which is understandable considering you're a lay person) and identifying anyone who disagrees with your nonsense as being anti-capitalist. The fact is, your view isn't driven by an objective analysis of the facts but is driven by your political and economic ideology and what's funny is everyone sees that but you.

 

[Granule]

So are the Vedas, it all depends where you were born and how you were raised.

Tell me what you know about the "Vedas".

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As a scientist (albeit at the Masters degree level) I do. You're missing the point. It's not the general public that is ignoring science. It is by far and large less educated conservatives who are ignoring science, that's the point.

Wrong... it is both the left and the right that selectively embrace and ignore Science when it suits them. Just start a thread on abortion and watch how fast the left wing nuts start trying to dehumanize the child.

You're point is nothing but a strawman. You completely ignore the consensus of the scientific community about anthropogenic climage change and conflate that with your own pro-capitalist political ideology while utterly ignoring the fact that all scientific consensus are tenative in nature which contradicts your conclusion entirely (which is understandable considering you're a lay person) and identifying anyone who disagrees with your nonsense as being anti-capitalist. The fact is, your view isn't driven by an objective analysis of the facts but is driven by your political and economic ideology and what's funny is everyone sees that but you.

1) I have presented no straw man... do you even know what one is? You should, you use them all the time...
2) I am not ignoring the proclamations of 'consensus', I am mocking those who shout it and declare the 'debate is over'.
3) I have never, not once, declared that someone who disagrees is anti-capitalist...THAT is a straw man
4) I am most certainly looking at the facts... it is you that ignores the scientific method. If their theory was valid, why are their models blowing up regarding their proclaimed relationship between CO2 and continuing warming?
5) Again, the party affiliation of scientists is irrelevant to my point that the left and right both selectively ignore Science when it suits them.
6) Anthropogenic climate change? So now it isn't even AGW any more? Funny how that shifted. The climate has and always will be changing. The claims that CO2 is the driving force are falling apart. If you truly believe that a consensus claim is 'tentative' then why bother trying to shout people down with the claim? You ignore the critics because it suits you. You create straw men like 'they all for big oil' or 'they aren't real scientists' etc... just like the buffoon Cypress did.

7) It is not by and large the right that ignores Science. As I stated, it depends on the topic. If the topic is evolution, you are correct. If the topic is abortion, you are 100% wrong.

 

[Rationalist]

7) It is not by and large the right that ignores Science. As I stated, it depends on the topic. If the topic is evolution, you are correct.

Rejecting the theory of evolution is equivalent to believing in a flat earth. There is no comparison to the abortion debate.

 

[Howey]

Careful, tree worshiper. The Bible is a tome of scripture. It's also an excellent guide for one's search for the Almighty.

Actually, I'm quite religious in a Jewish sort of way.

Like I said, I use the Bible as a guide, not a rulebook. For instance, I won't show hatred and bigotry towards someone, then go to church and demand forgiveness so I can do it all over again. The Bible guides me to not hate, not to hate.

To quote the Bible in order to support hatred and bigotry is blasphemy in it's purest form.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Rejecting the theory of evolution is equivalent to believing in a flat earth. There is no comparison to the abortion debate.

Rejecting the fact that an unborn child is both alive and human is equivalent to believing in a flat earth. I would say that is a very good comparison.

genetics proves it is human. That is 100% verifiable FACT. If it wasn't alive, then it would spontaneously abort. There would be no abortion 'argument'.

Pro-abortionists simply wish to dehumanize the child (which goes completely against scientific fact) so that they can feel better if they 'choose' to kill it.

 

[Phantasmal]

Tell me what you know about the "Vedas".

Why? Are your expanding your mind? Are you going outside your box?

 

[Phantasmal]

Commondreams.org is a 501(c)3 nonprofit U.S. based progressive news website. (aka: propaganda outlet for liberals)

Just so you are aware, every click to their website, helps to contribute to their continued success on the Internet.
I encourage all my fellow conservatives, to avoid clicking through to such links, as they totally don't need our support.

Thank you.

So much for being open...

 

[Phantasmal]

What do you expect from intolerant knuckledragging neanderthals who are ignorantly closed-minded and refuse to acknowledge mankind's spirituality?

Ah, the wonders of chemistry. It is no hocus pocus, it is all natural! I still experience awe, it just isn't connected to some supernatural being. It could just be a more advanced being.

 

[Phantasmal]

What a silly argument Dixie. No one said believing in God was a rejection of science. Rejecting science is a rejection of science. DUH! Talk about strawmen. Name one scientist who tries to prove God does not exist? Show me one peer reviewed publication that does so. You can't. You know why? Cause science has nothing to say about God. Whether God exists or does not exist is completely outside the scope of science.

As for evolution never explaing origins. No shit Dick Tracey. More Scientific illiteracy. Biological evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life and if you were honestly discussing this topic you'd recognize that fact. Biological evolution models speciation, not the origins of life. So please get your facts straight. As for evolution refuting creationist theory, your right. It has not. It doesn't have to. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATIONIST THEORY!! At least not in any meaninful scientific sense or context.

Oh, stop, you are just making too much sense for Dixie!