Christians are anti-science.

[IBDaMann]

Since science cannot give us truth, all scientific knowlege is probabilistic and provisional.

You apparently can't get it right even when I expressly state it for you. Science predicts nature. Math covers probabilities. Science won't help you at the crap tables.

I know how et al is used.

You do not. "Et. al." is for people. "Etc." is for things. The good news is that you're a Brit so you have an excuse. No one expects you to fully master the nuances of the English language.

Unlike you, I have published peer reviewed scientific reports.

In the future, get a non-Brit to "peer review" your documents.

What makes your reports "scientific"? Attach a copy to your response so I can take a look at it.

I can use the Latin et al however I see fit.

Of course you are free to butcher the English language all you want. It is well known how much you Brits all wish you would just switch to French.

You are obviously an ally of Christian biblical literalists

Is that what being an atheist means? What do you Brits mean by "ally"? There aren't any Christians that really think of me as, you know, ... being a Christian. I try to lull Christians into thinking I'm one of them but my atheism gets in the way virtually every time.

Learn science, ... and learn English while you're at it.

[Cypress]

You apparently can't get it right even when I expressly state it for you. Science predicts nature. Math covers probabilities. Science won't help you at the crap tables.


You do not. "Et. al." is for people. "Etc." is for things. The good news is that you're a Brit so you have an excuse. No one expects you to fully master the nuances of the English language.


In the future, get a non-Brit to "peer review" your documents.

What makes your reports "scientific"? Attach a copy to your response so I can take a look at it.


Of course you are free to butcher the English language all you want. It is well known how much you Brits all wish you would just switch to French.


Is that what being an atheist means? What do you Brits mean by "ally"? There aren't any Christians that really think of me as, you know, ... being a Christian. I try to lull Christians into thinking I'm one of them but my atheism gets in the way virtually every time.

Learn science, ... and learn English while you're at it.

You are shooting blanks in your flaccid attempt to compose a "gotcha!" post.

Google Translate:

Latin: et alia (et al.)

English translation: "and other"

The fact you knew exactly what I meant when I used et al colloquially as a placeholder for other examples of scientific knowlege demonstrates the effectiveness with which it was used.

I leave you to your relentless bible thumping, and science denying

[gfm7175]

It's religious pseudoscience akin to locking up Galileo for claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...used-of-heresy
Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

Creationism is not even pseudoscience... It is quite simply not science at all. It is a religious belief. While I believe the theory to be true, I don't go around pretending that it is a theory of science... I don't go around attempting to prove the theory either... It's just one of many theories, but one that I happen to accept on a faith basis as true. Others reject the theory, and others quite simply don't hold any opinion about the theory.

[IBDaMann]

Creationism is not even pseudoscience... It is quite simply not science at all. It is a religious belief. While I believe the theory to be true, I don't go around pretending that it is a theory of science... I don't go around attempting to prove the theory either... It's just one of many theories, but one that I happen to accept on a faith basis as true. Others reject the theory, and others quite simply don't hold any opinion about the theory.

Well said. The Christian-bashers on this site don't know how to respond to reason. They envy you because you enjoy all of the benefits and privileges of having a religion that is consistent with science, whereas their religious indoctrination reamed into them the belief that their religion is thettled thieth and is somehow not a religion. This totally ffukks them up to no end, and then to add insult to injury, they see you perfectly able to be happy and spiritual while they are forced to wallow in apprehensive misery. They ask themselves "What does gfm7175 have that we don't?" Sigh ...

[IBDaMann]

You are shooting blanks in your flaccid attempt to compose a "gotcha!" post.

I was helping you out. You are being extremely defensive over a minor grammatical error. Just write "etc." when it's a list of things and "et. al." when it's a list of people ... or just be a Brit and get it wrong, I don't care.

I leave you to your relentless bible thumping, and science denying

Don't I have to first start at some point in order to be "relentless"? ... or is "relentless" another one of those words with which you aren't familiar?

[Cypress]

I was helping you out. You are being extremely defensive over a minor grammatical error. Just write "etc." when it's a list of things and "et. al." when it's a list of people ... or just be a Brit and get it wrong, I don't care.


Don't I have to first start at some point in order to be "relentless"? ... or is "relentless" another one of those words with which you aren't familiar?

I accept your tacit admission that the English translation of et al simply means "and other".

Period. End of story.

The fact it is used by convention in scientific publications does not prevent its use in other contexts.

Your education level is clearly lower than mine...high school graduate I presume? You can save any advice you attempt to give to your intellectual superiors. I am not going to post anything I published, but one of my friends here has seen my peer reviewed publucations and can confirm if he runs across this thread.

Your problem is that any knowlege of science you have acquired comes from parroting what you read on obscure rightwing blogs. That is no substitute for investing four, six, or eight years earning a degree in a scientific discipline at a reputable university

[gfm7175]

Want some good old fashioned Wisconsin cheese with your whine, Cypress??

[Doc Dutch]

Creationism is not even pseudoscience... It is quite simply not science at all. It is a religious belief. While I believe the theory to be true, I don't go around pretending that it is a theory of science... I don't go around attempting to prove the theory either... It's just one of many theories, but one that I happen to accept on a faith basis as true. Others reject the theory, and others quite simply don't hold any opinion about the theory.

Well said. The Christian-bashers on this site don't know how to respond to reason. They envy you because you enjoy all of the benefits and privileges of having a religion that is consistent with science, whereas their religious indoctrination reamed into them the belief that their religion is thettled thieth and is somehow not a religion. This totally ffukks them up to no end, and then to add insult to injury, they see you perfectly able to be happy and spiritual while they are forced to wallow in apprehensive misery. They ask themselves "What does gfm7175 have that we don't?" Sigh ...

How sweet of you two to have each other's backs about teaching pseudoscience and myth in public schools. Sad, but still sweet.

[Into the Night]

https://apple.news/A5ABUKVGbRXuOL48rX0d_og

In May, a poll by the University of Chicago Divinity School and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed 43% of evangelical Protestants, a group I’d identified as when both a Southern Baptist and charismatic believer, say they think COVID-19 is a message from God. Not that God caused it, but that he is using it to tell the world to change.
More than that, 55% of all believers feel God will protect them from the virus.

So...you are assigning your fear mongering to God now?

[Into the Night]

We cannot go back in time to see the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs, or the rise of homo sapiens in East Africa.

People who are smarter than you, and have years of training in scientific inquiry are able to develop hypotheses, lines of evidences, and predictions which they can test.

Science isn't a casino. It does not use any supporting evidence. It does not use proxies for data. Only religions do that. Void proof fallacy.

[Into the Night]

A tepid attempt to rescue "Into the Night" and to try to explain what she really meant.

Wrong gender, dude. Argument of the stone fallacy.

In your flaccid attempt to elevate Christian biblical literalism over science,

He is not trying to elevate Christian anything. You are hallucinating again. Put down the bong, dude.

you demand science live up to an impossible standard: to time travel back to observe the Big Bang, the asteroid strike at the end of the Curvaceous et al.

Not at all. The Theory of the Big Bang is not science. It is a religion.

Neither you nor any scientist has ever actually directly observed quarks, electrons, Higgs bosons.

Correct. However, we have observed their effects. Theories of science explain these effects. They are theories. They are not a proof. They are not a Universal Truth.

But the standard model of particle physics has been tested and confirmed so bloody often, we have extremely high scientific confidence these particles exist.

Science is not a 'confidence'. Science uses no supporting evidence. There is no such thing as a 'standard model' in science. There is no elite group deciding any standards at all.

Science is probabilistic in nature.

Science isn't a casino. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Most of what we are ever going to know about physical reality

Define 'reality'.

and the natural world is going to come from inductive reasoning, experimentation, testing predictions.

No. The natural world is already here. It didn't come from anywhere. Science didn't create the natural world.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Denial of mathematics (probability, random number math).

[Cypress]

Science isn't a casino. It does not use any supporting evidence. It does not use proxies for data. Only religions do that. Void proof fallacy.

The obscure rightwing blogs you have bookmarked to support your anti-evolution claims do not cut the mustard.

As an antidote to your ignorance, I am linking you to a reputable science article on evolution from a reputable and unimpeachable source:

How Scientists Discovered the Staggering Complexity of Human Evolution

Darwin would be delighted by the story his successors have revealed

Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...man-evolution/

[Into the Night]

Since science cannot give us truth, all scientific knowlege is probabilistic and provisional.

Science isn't a proof. Science is not knowledge. Science is not a casino. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory is ever proven True.

I know how et al is used.

Semantics fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.

Unlike you, I have published peer reviewed scientific reports.

Science is not a peer group. There are no elite voting bodies in science. Science is not a report, paper, book, magazine, or web site.

Et al is Latin for "and others". Other examples of knowlege through scientific inductive reasoning being the rise of homo sapiens in Africa, the Permo-Triassic extinction event, et al. Since I am writing colloquially and informally on an obscure message board I can use the Latin et al however I see fit.

Irrelevance fallacy. Semantics fallacy.

You are obviously an ally of Christian biblical literalists, young earthers, intelligent designers" becasuse you wear your science denial and scientific ignorance like a badge of honor

Non-sequitur fallacy. Inversion fallacy.


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Semantics fallacy. Redefinition fallacies. Conflation of science with religion.

[Nordberg]

You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

Fundamentally, believing in an invisible sky fairy who impacts your life is illogical and shows susceptibility to religious propaganda. These fantastic stories have been honed to psychological near perfection over 2000 years. The fear of hell was a brilliant idea that was made up as time went along. Once they found the power it had, they had contests among the church elite think up scarier and scarier hells. My fav was the fires of hell do not furnish light. All that pain and suffering and you will suffer in the dark.

[Into the Night]

You are shooting blanks in your flaccid attempt to compose a "gotcha!" post.


The fact you knew exactly what I meant when I used et al colloquially as a placeholder for other examples of scientific knowlege demonstrates the effectiveness with which it was used.

I leave you to your relentless bible thumping, and science denying

What bible is he thumping?? He knows science far better than you do.