Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Darth Omar]

Dear captain moron, we are not scientists, you are not a scientist, this is not science. Some of what you wrote would be true IF you were a scientist DOING science, but since
you are a self identified retired unemployed nurse or something, consensus of science and appeals to authority are proper uses of rhetoric and persuasion on a retard Nazi leaning message board
while discussing the relative merits of science versus moronic god in the gaps sophistry.

And scientific 'dogma' aka scientific law better models the natural world than religious dogma.

Love

Another non scientist written while not doing anything approaching science.

cc: all you fucking religious suckers

In a word, I have to use faith.

[Doc Dutch]

I was the first one out of the gate acknowledging that anyone anticipating the scientific method was going to provide all the answers to all questions about the nature of reality was going to be sorely disappointed.

I am unaware of one educated and thoughtful person who does not think there are limits to human reason, nor that there is a ceiling to the cognitive capacity of our souped-up chimpanzee brains.

But that is not really what we are dealing with here.

We are dealing with a vast, unwashed multitude of Deplorables who outright reject credible scientific evidence and dismiss out of hand well supported and secure scientific theories and tenets

In this thread alone I believe you had bible thumpers denying carbon isotope dating, deny significance of the fossil record, and deny that anatomically modern homo sapiens evolved from archaic human subspecies and variants.

That all is firmly in the camp of Denialism, not healthy scientific skepticism.

Well thought out post and agreed.

You nailed it with the problem in the US of people how reject credible scientific evidence. Notice that those who reject scientific evidence are doing so for religious and/or political purposes and not using the brains God gave them.

2 months ago Trump said covid would fade in warm weather. Fake News Press laughed
Score is now Trump - 412. FNP - 000000000000000.

Weird how every time the press attacks trump for saying something stupid, we find out he was right.

HAHAHA. You gullible fool. The quacks are counting every death as a covid death. Who knows how many people actually died BECAUSE of covid.? It may be under a thou.

Meh, it’s way over that.

It’s just not the number they like to type so much and put in their sigs lol.

In CO the died *from* number is 23% lower. Subtract nursing home deaths from that number, and yeah—you get the idea.

Ok lol.

If/when chloroquine goes through clinical trials and a *final determination* is made on its efficacy vs COVID, I expect you to open a thread on it if turns out to be an effective treatment.

HCQ. LOL

Note that Darth had his infamous 61 thread closed out of embarrassment although he never apologized for the tons of manure he spread in that thread.

The vast majority of people who get it have mild [tempted to say flu-like] and even non-existent symptoms.

Facts and stuff.

You have a problem with Dr Birx lol? Never would have guessed it.

I guarantee it lol.

But why is the death toll so low? Could it be possible we’re dealing with a virus that is less lethal than the common flu?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...67#post3657367

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...63#post3538463

[Cypress]

If we accept that God is all powerful, all knowing and all merciful, then why couldn't God have created the Universe just as we find it? A Big Bang that expanded out to what we are experiencing now 13.8 Billion years later? God is eternal. The few billions of years of the Universe's existence is nothing in comparison.


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smith...ory-180949794/
It was cosmic microwave background radiation, a residue of the primordial explosion of energy and matter that suddenly gave rise to the universe some 13.8 billion years ago. The scientists had found evidence that would confirm the Big Bang theory, first proposed by Georges Lemaître in 1931.

“Until then, some cosmologists believed that the universe was in a steady state without a singular beginning,” says Wilson, now 78 and a senior scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “The finding helped rule that out.”

For sure.
I do not categorically rule out the possibility of providential design..

I am starting to have my doubts about the theist's claims on fine tuning, however.

And I do not think physicists have really done a good job articulating the uncertainties about the big bang theory.

We literally cannot observe time and creation past the veil of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which limits our direct observation of the observable universe at about 380,000 years after the big bang. It will be interesting to in the future if any experimental tests will be possible to infer the existence of a multiverse. Which would put us right back to what natural philosophers thought 200 years ago -- time and space are infinite.

[Cypress]

This is Newton's second law of motion.

College physics for me was >30 years ago, but I am sure a vector value and centripetal acceleration can be derived from Newtons law of gravitation and his second law of mechanics.

[Cypress]

You have a habit of going straight to the pejorative with the Bible thumper thing. It’s apparently not possible to be skeptical of some of what has essentially become dogma—even as science is founded on skepticism. Dogma has no place in science. Appeals to authority has no place in science. Story telling has no place in science and ‘consensus opinion’ has no place in science.

I don’t accept the evidence that man evolved from a subhuman ancestor because, I judge, the evidence for the claim to be weak. The ‘gaping chasm’ between our brains and our nearest putative hominid ancestor lacks an adequate explanation. I see the claim as a kind of dogma that exists mostly because the alternatives are philosophically unpalatable.

For me to accept the claim that our supposed ‘very much human like’ ancestors were actually different species requires an interfertility test. Since no one has a time machine we are deprived of that. Which means I have to accept it on faith.

I have better uses for faith.

Somebody in the rightwing media trotted out that fallacy of authority argument 20 years ago, and science deniers have been running with it ever since.

Expertise and scientific consensus matter.

And you put your faith in scientific consensus every time you go to the doctor, take a prescription drug, or give a blood sample.

You are your buddies on this thread have denied carbon isotope dating, denied evolution by natural selection, denied the evidence for evolution of anatomically modern homo sapiens from archaic human subspecies.

That is not healthy scientific skepticism. That is dogmatic denial.

And when painted into a corner you demand science offer you an impossible level of proof -aka, complete DNA samples from homo erectus.

There is enough evidence now to say with an extremely high level of confidence that homo sapiens evolved from anatomically archaic forms of hominids. It would easily pass muster in a court of law, even over your demands for a complete genome map of homo habilis.

[Cypress]

No, it doesn't. Denial of Newton's Law of Gravitation.

F is a force of acceleration vector defined by the product of mass and acceleration.

F in the universal law of gravitation can be replaced by ma. The small m's on either side of the equation cancel out, resulting in a direct calculation of gravitational acceleration, using the universal law of gravity and the second law of mechanics.

[Darth Omar]

Somebody in the rightwing media trotted out that fallacy of authority argument 20 years ago, and science deniers have been running with it ever since.

Expertise and scientific consensus matter.

And you put your faith in scientific consensus every time you go to the doctor, take a prescription drug, or give a blood sample.

You are your buddies on this thread have denied carbon isotope dating, denied evolution by natural selection, denied the evidence for evolution of anatomically modern homo sapiens from archaic human subspecies.

That is not healthy scientific skepticism. That is dogmatic denial.

And when painted into a corner you demand science offer you an impossible level of proof -aka, complete DNA samples from homo erectus.

There is enough evidence now to say with an extremely high level of confidence that homo sapiens evolved from anatomically archaic forms of hominids. It would easily pass muster in a court of law, even over your demands for a complete genome map of homo habilis.

Maybe in a civil suit where the standard of evidence is low. A competent trial lawyer would have a field day dismantling some of evolutions more ambitious claims.

And that’s a tired trope about denying science and science consensus as if all claims of science are created equal. We’ve already been through that and none of your fellow ‘believers’ would risk falling into the croc pit over ‘the high level of confidence’ in the hypothesis that man is descended from an anatomically inferior subhuman. They would tap dance, invoke off the wall theoretical physics analogies and do everything but answer a simple question.

Doesn’t say much for their confidence.

[Cypress]

Maybe in a civil suit where the standard of evidence is low. A competent trial lawyer would have a field day dismantling some of evolutions more ambitious claims.

And that’s a tired trope about denying science and science consensus as if all claims of science are created equal. We’ve already been through that and none of your fellow ‘believers’ would risk falling into the croc pit over ‘the high level of confidence’ in the hypothesis that man is descended from an anatomically inferior subhuman. They would tap dance, invoke off the wall theoretical physics analogies and do everything but answer a simple question.

Doesn’t say much for their confidence.

Your analogy of a civil lawsuit indicates you think it is less than 50 percent likely that anatomically modern homo sapiens evolved from archaic human species.

Wow.

That is a position only the most die hard science denier and Liberty University graduates would adopt.

Since you are talking odds now, what do you think the odds are that a providential creator created several dozen human species independently during a miraculous creation event and having no genetic evolutionary links bewtween them?

[BidenPresident]

But could robots ever reproduce? This, undoubtedly, forms a pillar of “life” as shared by all natural organisms. A team of researchers from the UK and the Netherlands have recently demonstrated a fully automated technology to allow physical robots to repeatedly breed, evolving their artificial genetic code over time to better adapt to their environment. Arguably, this amounts to artificial evolution. Child robots are created by mixing the digital “DNA” from two parent robots on a computer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ure-technology

[Micawber]

In a word, I have to use faith.

That's fine with me. Be faithful to your religion, leave it out of things like public schools where we all may have different
faiths or none at all. Science is not a religion, science is not a faith. Make all the skeptical snarky observations you would like.
I'd rather that not be a trojan horse to insert the cloud guy as a reasonable option for understanding the natural world.

Is there an "unnatural world" that interacts with this one? Who knows, but the scientific method doesn't shed light on that idea.
It certainly undermines those beliefs as time goes along since "the age of reason" on forward.

I won't ever say you don't have the right to say or think "God did that," unless you are in my kid's classroom.

[Micawber]

would risk falling into the croc pit over ‘the high level of confidence’ in the hypothesis that man is descended from an anatomically inferior subhuman.


Anatomically inferior? I'm not even sure I understand what that means. If you are an animal and alive, you are anatomically equal by Darwinian measure.

I sure fucking would, so long as there was an upside reason to do it. I'd do that for $20 or more. It's an absolute fact. .0000001 risk of getting eaten

[BidenPresident]

That's fine with me. Be faithful to your religion, leave it out of things like public schools where we all may have different
faiths or none at all. Science is not a religion, science is not a faith. Make all the skeptical snarky observations you would like.
I'd rather that not be a trojan horse to insert the cloud guy as a reasonable option for understanding the natural world.

Is there an "unnatural world" that interacts with this one? Who knows, but the scientific method doesn't shed light on that idea.
It certainly undermines those beliefs as time goes along since "the age of reason" on forward.

I won't ever say you don't have the right to say or think "God did that," unless you are in my kid's classroom.

Well said. Faith is just ignorance. Keep it to yourself where it can only harm yourself.

[Micawber]

Your analogy of a civil lawsuit indicates you think it is less than 50 percent likely that anatomically modern homo sapiens evolved from archaic human species.

Wow.

That is a position only the most die hard science denier and Liberty University graduates would adopt.

Since you are talking odds now, what do you think the odds are that a providential creator created several dozen human species independently during a miraculous creation event and having no genetic evolutionary links bewtween them?

or that a giant flood engulfed the earth and two of every fucking species lived on a boat a family made. Even Vegas doesn't take action that exotic.

[Micawber]

There is enough evidence now to say with an extremely high level of confidence that homo sapiens evolved from anatomically archaic forms of hominids. It would easily pass muster in a court of law, even over your demands for a complete genome map of homo habilis.

Hilarious, these modern day Homo Sapiens are ironically arguing Scopes 100 years later, thus proving they are indeed the missing links and we are evolution in action!

[Micawber]

Well said. Faith is just ignorance. Keep it to yourself where it can only harm yourself.

So true, faith is a lazy do-loop. Basically it's a coat check for your mind before entering the debate restaurant.
Sir, would you like to check your brain before sitting down for the meal? Why yes. Then just say I have faith in God, screw this evidence.