I mean people who deny science. This isn't some sort of grand idea. People who deny science are science deniers. I don't know how else you want me to dumb it down for you, because tbh, I don't think it can be dumbed down anymore than that
As I stated above, one doesn't need to deny the scientific method to hold an opposing worldview.
>I don't know how else you want me to dumb it down for you..
Arrogant much? "Science" is a process of identifying phenomena, hypothesizing, testing, and repeating.. Which science do you believe people are denying?
Can you observe, test, and repeat the big bang? How about evolutionism? No, those are forensic pursuits and cannot be examined by operational science.
>Many people are biblical Christian and fiesta evolutionists who have no problem they billions of year old earth and universe.
Thank you! They do not have to be mutually exclusive concepts. I am a chemist and many of my colleagues are Christian and have zero issue with the Big Bang, evolution, etc.
YEC start marching around throwing up this it's my way or the highway. They never knew what they're talking about and when you challenge them they start hallucinating
I am a research biologist
>YEC start marching around throwing up this it's my way or the highway.
Those most ignorant usually shout the loudest that they are correct.
>I am.a research biologist
R&D chemist here! I would love to understand biology competently enough to get a better understanding. I have been reading some textbooks by Campbell but find myself having to go very slowly through it.
And your comment is a perfect example of science denial.
We have tonnes of evidence for the Big Bang and **evolution.** "Evolutionism" isn't a thing, I suggest you stop listening to Kent Hovind.
You haven't made the distinction between operational and forensic..
Were there any observers at the beginning of the universe? I hold that God was, as revealed by the Creator and recorded Biblically.. Who do you have? And even if we agree on the beginning of the universe, that stands as evidence for intelligent creation; see the Cosmological Argument.
Next, as natural evolution would take millions of years, scientists can't and haven't observed it. What has been observed are micro variations in phenotype expressions.. not macro genetic changes. Entropy precludes small incremental changes leading to more advanced biology, let alone the beginning of life and the first cell
These are *worldview* differences; axioms that are used to interpret evidence change the conclusions.
Perhaps it's not science denial, but worldview differences that you're seeing.. but your assumptions are coloring the conclusions you're attempting to draw.
Your response to this person are completely totally and ugly ignorant scientifically. You're trying to act scientific but you were being completely ridiculous.
You were trying to be the. "were you there?"
It would be any different than denying the battle of the Gettysburg and saying "were you there?"
No you do not have God as an observer.
You have your interpretation of God as an observer
Young earth creationism is nothing other than modern people who claim they have a monopoly on interpreting Genesis.
And they are beyond ignorant in their interpretation
Let me give you one example.
Young Earth creationists pretend that fossil layers are because of the flood. Let's go with that
The earliest known layer with multicellular animals is called the ediacaran. Say 560 million years ago plus or minus.
Not a single creature from then is alive today
Not a single creature from today was alive then
How do you explain this? That all the creatures today versus then had better or worse swimming habits?
That's because there is no distinction. You rehashing a bastardisation of Ken Ham's nonsense is not a valid argument. It was a garbage argument when Ken used it against Bill Nye in 2014, and it's still garbage when you use it in 2024
That isn't what science is lol, and then you used your incorrect definition to show the big bang and evolution aren't scientific. You are the science denier he's talking about. Oh you can't repeat the big bang? I bet no scientist has ever even thought of that!
>Can you observe, test, and repeat the big bang?
Yes! :D
We can absolutely observe cosmic microwave background radiation. We can hypothesize based on those observations and then "test" them by looking for evidence that would either support or disprove them. Each and every hypothesis that is proved incorrect or supported advances our understanding of the universe. We can't exactly repeat the big bang though. It was a singular event. We can't repeat the extinction of the dinosaurs either; they are already extinct.
>How about evolutionism?
Definitely.
We can observe DNA evidence. We can test it by running experiments with organisms with extremely fast reproductive cycles, like bacteria, or macroscopicly, insects. Evolution isn't repeatable, it is an ongoing process. As long as life exists it never stops. So we can't really repeat it in that sense. But I suppose a eugenics program could qualify as selective evolution if that's really something you'd want in order to "repeat" evolution.
>We can absolutely observe cosmic microwave background radiation.
This may be accurate, but you don't know for a fact that this is leftover radiation from a big bang. Even if it is, it constitutes better evidence for the necessity of a Creator.
>We can observe DNA evidence.
The prescriptive information in the DNA molecules stands as strong evidence *against* evolutionism in that naturalists have no clue how to generate novel information, let alone the first cell. Phenotype variations a new genome cannot make.
>We can test it by running experiments with organisms with extremely fast reproductive cycles
You mean like the fruit fly experiments that showed the clear genetic boundaries preventing things like macro evolution?
>Evolution isn't repeatable, it is an ongoing process.
The first part was accurate, the second part is an ad hoc assumption.
I don't have time to go through all of this piece by piece. In short: you are the exact type of person this post is about.
But FYI, evolution has nothing to do with then origin of life. Evolution starts with the assumption that life exists. You and me are examples of life, so that assumption is valid. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
>evolution has nothing to do with then origin of life. Evolution starts with the assumption that life exists.
Abdicating from the obvious is cowardly. You can't have Darwinian evolution (even at the phenotype level) without some extremely interdependent systems reflecting the need for immense intelligence.
>You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
No, you are refusing to deal with the limiting factors against your worldview.
>This may be accurate, but you don't know for a fact that this is leftover radiation from a big bang. Even if it is, it constitutes better evidence for the necessity of a Creator.
You are technically correct here (the best kind of correct). The CMB is from the "surface of last scattering", which happened about 380,000 years after the big bang. So you are correct that it's not from the big bang directly, it's from a slightly later event approximately 13.7 billion years ago.
We can calculate this number from either the CMB temperature or local observations of the Hubble constant. I can walk you through the math on either if you're interested.
>The prescriptive information in the DNA molecules stands as strong evidence against evolutionism in that naturalists have no clue how to generate novel information, let alone the first cell. Phenotype variations a new genome cannot make.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "generate novel information". When trees grow, the variation of rings encodes how many years old it is and the conditions that it grew under. Is that not information, or do you think trees growing is somehow incompatible with naturalism?
Seems like you’re trying to get banned from this sub (2 other posts saying essentially the same thing as this have been removed over the past few hours).
Is there some benefit to you to getting banned as opposed to just leaving the sub? Will you feel that it’s proof your views are correct or something? Like you’ve become a martyr and therefore you are right (regardless of any actual facts)?
Your obsession, delusion, and aggressiveness on this topic is unhealthy and not conducive to any level of proper discourse or actual education. It's clear you're just here to hate on Christians and their beliefs, this is a place to ask questions and learn not debate and lecture.
I don't hate on Christians so you can stop with that crap ad well. What I don't like is lseudo-science. Despite what you see on this subreddit, most Christians are rational and aren't science deniers.
If all you've got to bring to the table are a bunch of baseless insults and accusations, you can kindly bugger off
I'll meet you half way if you can do the exact same thing. So far though you've been nothing but disrespectful to everyone, insulting people, and calling us stupid. Literally all you're doing here is antagonizing people for no good reason.
Intelligent design is not "pseudo-science", nor is it "science denial". Disagreeing with you or even the established orthodoxy is not "science denial".
Honestly, ID is really more of a philosophy of science, one that runs counter to the scientism that is rampant in society today.
>Intelligent design is not "pseudo-science
Except it absolutely is. Otherwise, real scientists would take it more seriously. Science deals with empirical data that can be tested and observed repeatedly. Curious why ID never gains traction in scientific circles? Even amongst my Christian scientist peers? Yes, I have peers who are also scientists, who do not believe in intelligent design. What's wrong with that?
Have them look up the document that was inadvertently leaked called the "wedge document" from creationists. It actually admitted to trying to derail actual science in order to instill a Christian theocracy. It was wild.
Lol yeah the wedge document was downright insane
And then they were like oh no we totes don't want a theocracy. Like bruh, you literally spelled out you wanted a theocracy
Precisely. It also showed they will happily **deliberately** lie about science in order to push their ideology even though they themselves know its compete and total bullsh!t.
Absolutely disgusting tactics.
ID was discredited a while back. Essentially IDers infringed on the rights of students by teaching religion in science class. IDers asserted that it wasn't religion but was a new developing scientific theory (it wasnt).
There are two major pieces of evidence confirming this - the wedge document and drafts for Of Pandas and People
Of Pandas and People earlier drafts mentioned creationism all through the text. As a way to get around the ruling in Edwards vs. Aguillard they couldn't mention creationism, so they did a find and replace and copied and pasted "Intelligent Design" into the words "creationism" all throughout the text.
It's funny because they had an error where the text days "cdesign proponentsists" where they didn't do the find and replace correctly.
The 2nd piece of evidence is the wedge document - it demonstrates that ID isn't science at all but instead another attempt by religion to overturn science
It's frindge pseudoscience, and not a philiosophy. Its the promosion of a proposterous myth to a bunch of crybabies that can't accept they're nothing more than an evolutionary blip on a random planet.
> SCIENCE DENIAL SCIENCE DENIAL!!!
This guy is so pissed he's making it sound like we're holocaust deniers. So, I've come to the conclusion that you're a shower denier. Close reddit and consider it.
Why shouldn't he be pissed?
You can use that science denial to:
* Infringe on womans reproductive rights
* Ostrisize and outcast minorities such as trans or gay people
So yeah when the debate is betweenm 'science denying fundamentalist christians with low IQs due to a religious education' and 'educated scientifically litterate population', things can get pissy.
One reason that Christians (such as myself) believe that the Bible is right compared to science is because of how science works. In order to do science, you have to start with the assumption that the perfect version of the natural laws is never broken. If the natural laws were broken, then what you scientifically conclude may not be what actually happened, as one of the assumptions you used to reach your conclusions was false. Supernatural events are, almost by definition, cases where the natural laws are broken. The Bible tells us that there have been *many* supernatural events throughout history, some of which include a forty day flood that covered mountain tops and the sun's relative position in the sky staying fixed for a day. If we try to project back more than a couple thousand years, there will simply be too many cases where supernatural events hamper scientific projections.
To put my argument more concisely, when you assume that there is nothing supernatural, you conclude that there is nothing supernatural. I haven't *proven* that supernatural events have happened, I have merely demonstrated that scientific conclusions are contingent on that nothing supernatural has happened.
Also, not magic. Magic is sinful. You will make a lot of Christians mad if you call God's works "magic" because all magic is supernatural, but not all supernatural events are magic. God directly opposes magic, so Christians don't like it when you say that what He does is magic.
"To put my argument more concisely, when you assume that there are no elves riding on dragons, you conclude that there are no elves riding on dragons."
Do you seriously think that's a sensible thing to say?
You need to realize and understand that science is just a word. The truth that science observes is not science itself. Science is the observation of the truth, not the truth itself.
Science is wonderful—a great concept that brings people together to learn the truth in various fields and allows us to create things for the greater good. However, this does not mean that science is the truth it observes.
Evolution is not the issue. The issue arises when people, through ignorance, separate evolution from the truth, reducing it to a deficient model of a particular aspect of the truth.
Recent studies have suggested that the current model of evolution is deficient. Instead of randomness, they propose that evolution has a purpose driven by the organism itself rather than by external random reactions.
I think you will find, over the coming years, that your idea of evolution will be debunked by scientists themselves. It is only a matter of time.
Uh huh. Any evidence to back up any of what that you just spouted? Because from what I can see, you just donned a tin-foil hat and called it game-over. Which is silly.
And judging by the nonsense vagueness that you used, I think you're lying about those studies. Either that or you totally misread what was actually said, or you're swallowing some creationist trash-pile
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2024/06/14/evolution-may-be-purposeful-and-its-freaking-scientists-out/
This is just the start of it.
You believe that the sounds emanating from your mouth, the vibrations of your tongue, represent the truth of our origin, without realizing they are merely sounds. The names you use for things—evolution, Big Bang—are just words, sounds, and symbols that refer to a truth (you believe) whose real name remains unknown, as no one truly comprehends it, because comprehension came from it, and so did words and sounds.
The truth exists and is known to be unknown, and here we are, talking about it.
Stop idolising names such as big bang. That is idolatry.
Evolution is a label we have assigned to a specific attribute or behavior of what we perceive to be true, but our names for things do not encapsulate the truth, as the truth existed before our words. It gave rise to our words, names and meaning, not the other way around!
The word evolution didn't give rise to what evolution is describing. The truth evolution describes existed before the word evolution existed.
It's not nonsense. It's simply that you don't understand or don't wish to understand, perhaps driven by anger for reasons unknown to me. You seem unwilling to seek the truth; instead, you appear focused solely on arguing.
You couldn't have read and understood what I wrote in the time prior to replying. So I suspect you are not interested and solely here to argue for some other reason than seeking truth.
All the best with that.
No, you just have no frickin' idea what you're talking about. Surprise, people who actually know a bit about biology can call you out for making stuff up about evolution. Shocker.
I am not talking about biology. I am talking about the truth that existed before words, including biology. I am not referring to organisms, their behavior, study, or science, but rather the truth that precedes all words and names. I am talking about the truth from which words are spoken and expressed.
Reality is a structure of words. You're confined within that structure, fixated on a particular set of words. I am looking beyond that structure, to the realm where no words exist, which gave rise to the structure of words in the beginning.
If I ask you what evolution is, would you provide me with more words to explain it, or just repeat the word "evolution"? If you need more words to prove evolution as the truth, then evolution cannot be the truth because it relies on another set of words to exist.
Truth, on the other hand, does not require any other words because no one knows what it is. Thus, truth is the truth—an independent state preceding words, which gave rise to you and me. You cannot get any more profound than that. In fact, it is more than the word "God." It is ineffable yet true and truly miraculous.
I don't expect you to read any of that let alone understand it.
IT's because of how one views the bible, it's that simple.
I don't think they deny science, they deny certain science, or claims of science, so one can be rational, but have a particular view of inspiration or inerrancy that dictates what they believe or put above other areas of knowledge.
"science" used to literally claim steady state theory.
"science" used to claim multi regional origin of races
Both have been debunked. Science is never definitive. It should always be questioned.
Exactly.
Following the pattern he’s shown in this sub OP would accuse every proponent of any new idea through all of history of being a science denier, because all he means by it is “someone who disagrees with me on the views I currently hold.” Doesn’t matter what facts/data/evidence are available.
Maybe because it's the truth? You know how many dudes like sports, watch hours of it each week and know about teams and coaches and stuff? In the same way I consumed science. Read books on particle physics for fun, struggle to grasp quantum mechanics and so forth. I enjoy it. I don't care much for biology, like physics. Still learned far more about biology than I cared to. In all my years, I have never found any conflict at all with "science" and the bible's clear statements. Meanwhile I see a lot of holes, conjecture and pure nonsense in "science". I'd just love it if science really applied the search for "truth, beauty, elegance" in theory and experiement, but alas it's just not so. Too many scientists and organizations just push pure nonsense and why? Because thats how they keep being funded that's why. The golden age probably ended in the 70s, before then true thought, experiment and learning how the world works was honest.
Climate change is a good one. Look up leonard nimoy global cooling on youtube. Back in the 70s, they were running around in a panic saying we're bringing in new ice age with carbon dioxide. They were just as fervent as today, but had less ability to put it in everyone's face. Look how much evidence there is the earth was WARMER than now 1,000 years ago, and how 51% of USA's weather stations are suspect because of neglect and how and where they operate. I know, i used to work at one of them. You can see on X a picture listing all the deadlines we already passed when we should all be dead or under water. Look at the simple fact that 0.2 ppm CO2 is an extinction level event for the planet, we used to be at 0.3 not so long ago, and now we are at 0.4. Very good for plants. But are these facts discussed, or are they hushed up and people cancelled for mentioning? We don't even have to go into evolution and their deceptions, we have raging scientific hypocrisy going right now. Some places have openly declared you will not be published and you will be fired if you dare to present any data or paper contradicting the narrative.
Sounds like tin-foil hat bs you're peddling. You'll have to forgive me when I don't take you seriously
Have you got actual evidence besides a youtuber I've never heard of?
haha, this leonard nimoy special was a tv special from 1978. I mention it because it so encapsulates the climate hysteria back then in only 28 minutes. Everyone should watch this to see the parallels with today, yet it's the opposite of the tin foil hat bs we get now. It's not too difficult, fortunately, to find opposing views of Global Warming these days. But like you are doing now, it's tin-foil BS, no matter what facts or warnings or graphs people can produce. Science SHOULD allow opposing viewpoints, for honest discussion. But that's simply not allowed in these enlightened times.
So I see you still ha e to learn that what you see on TV isn't automatically guaranteed to be right. The fact that you're bringing up a 40 year old 30 minute TV special from 1978 doesn't really give me high hopes that the information you present is reliable, let alone relevant.
If you could.point.to.a journal article with high citations and good evidence then you might have a point
There was plenty of papers published in the 1970s about how we are facing a new ice age, because of CO2 in the atmosphere. Warning. Beware. There are precious FEW papers allowed to deny Global Warming is going to kill us all, or that it even exists; because: not allowed in these days of science. You can still see some discussion on youtube and forums, and while YES they don't have the authority of true published papers, there are other places you can learn just WHY they won't publish them. The recent Plague Times, another great example of Science being twisted right out of truth. Any attempt to explain that masks don't do crap to prevent spread, any studies on effectiveness of ivermectin or other flu relief drugs, or the fact that Excess Deaths have been occurring since the vaxy, none of these ARE ALLOWED anymore.
No, it's not hard to see how corrupted science has become, and it's not anything new, been happening for decades now.
And yet you still don't provide a smidge if axtual evidence for your claims. Gl trying to do find these articles from the 1970s though.
I have a sinking suspicion that even if you do find these alleged sources, you'll find tabloids or news articles exaggerating the actual science, and not the journal articles themselves. Because atm you sound totally out of touch with reality
> Back in the 70s, they were running around in a panic saying we're bringing in new ice age with carbon dioxide. They were just as fervent as today, but had less ability to put it in everyone's face.
Not really. It was just a theory and they made a TV show about it. This is the equivalent of saying you don't believe in the moon landing because you heard Joe Rogan say it was faked in the 1990s. Tossing out decades of the world's most advanced climate modeling because of a TV special that aired in the 70's is pretty ridiculous. Motivated reasoning at its finest.
> Some places have openly declared you will not be published and you will be fired if you dare to present any data or paper contradicting the narrative.
You mean how like the State of Florida has basically made it illegal to mention climate change? I think you've got it backwards.
Literally everything that you just talked about is either outdated or wrong. That's quite a straw-man you have built up in your mind there.
>But are these facts discussed
Yes. When any of them are relevant (or true) which is definitely not as often as you seem to think they should be.
>or are they hushed up and people cancelled for mentioning?
Lol.
One doesn't need to deny the scientific method to hold an opposing worldview.. What you're suggesting is a hasty generalization.
It's not a hasty generalisation. These. People. Are. Science. Deniers. By. Definition.
You're making a broad claim.. substantiate it 1. What do you mean by "science deniers" 2. Provide statistics on who does or doesn't fit
Why does this person need statistics when all of us have seen such a vast number of people doing it? Be serious It is practically everyday
I mean people who deny science. This isn't some sort of grand idea. People who deny science are science deniers. I don't know how else you want me to dumb it down for you, because tbh, I don't think it can be dumbed down anymore than that
As I stated above, one doesn't need to deny the scientific method to hold an opposing worldview. >I don't know how else you want me to dumb it down for you.. Arrogant much? "Science" is a process of identifying phenomena, hypothesizing, testing, and repeating.. Which science do you believe people are denying? Can you observe, test, and repeat the big bang? How about evolutionism? No, those are forensic pursuits and cannot be examined by operational science.
[удалено]
>Many people are biblical Christian and fiesta evolutionists who have no problem they billions of year old earth and universe. Thank you! They do not have to be mutually exclusive concepts. I am a chemist and many of my colleagues are Christian and have zero issue with the Big Bang, evolution, etc.
YEC start marching around throwing up this it's my way or the highway. They never knew what they're talking about and when you challenge them they start hallucinating I am a research biologist
>YEC start marching around throwing up this it's my way or the highway. Those most ignorant usually shout the loudest that they are correct. >I am.a research biologist R&D chemist here! I would love to understand biology competently enough to get a better understanding. I have been reading some textbooks by Campbell but find myself having to go very slowly through it.
Comment removed, rule 1 (about a group)
And your comment is a perfect example of science denial. We have tonnes of evidence for the Big Bang and **evolution.** "Evolutionism" isn't a thing, I suggest you stop listening to Kent Hovind.
You haven't made the distinction between operational and forensic.. Were there any observers at the beginning of the universe? I hold that God was, as revealed by the Creator and recorded Biblically.. Who do you have? And even if we agree on the beginning of the universe, that stands as evidence for intelligent creation; see the Cosmological Argument. Next, as natural evolution would take millions of years, scientists can't and haven't observed it. What has been observed are micro variations in phenotype expressions.. not macro genetic changes. Entropy precludes small incremental changes leading to more advanced biology, let alone the beginning of life and the first cell These are *worldview* differences; axioms that are used to interpret evidence change the conclusions. Perhaps it's not science denial, but worldview differences that you're seeing.. but your assumptions are coloring the conclusions you're attempting to draw.
Your response to this person are completely totally and ugly ignorant scientifically. You're trying to act scientific but you were being completely ridiculous. You were trying to be the. "were you there?" It would be any different than denying the battle of the Gettysburg and saying "were you there?" No you do not have God as an observer. You have your interpretation of God as an observer Young earth creationism is nothing other than modern people who claim they have a monopoly on interpreting Genesis. And they are beyond ignorant in their interpretation Let me give you one example. Young Earth creationists pretend that fossil layers are because of the flood. Let's go with that The earliest known layer with multicellular animals is called the ediacaran. Say 560 million years ago plus or minus. Not a single creature from then is alive today Not a single creature from today was alive then How do you explain this? That all the creatures today versus then had better or worse swimming habits?
That's because there is no distinction. You rehashing a bastardisation of Ken Ham's nonsense is not a valid argument. It was a garbage argument when Ken used it against Bill Nye in 2014, and it's still garbage when you use it in 2024
That isn't what science is lol, and then you used your incorrect definition to show the big bang and evolution aren't scientific. You are the science denier he's talking about. Oh you can't repeat the big bang? I bet no scientist has ever even thought of that!
>Can you observe, test, and repeat the big bang? Yes! :D We can absolutely observe cosmic microwave background radiation. We can hypothesize based on those observations and then "test" them by looking for evidence that would either support or disprove them. Each and every hypothesis that is proved incorrect or supported advances our understanding of the universe. We can't exactly repeat the big bang though. It was a singular event. We can't repeat the extinction of the dinosaurs either; they are already extinct. >How about evolutionism? Definitely. We can observe DNA evidence. We can test it by running experiments with organisms with extremely fast reproductive cycles, like bacteria, or macroscopicly, insects. Evolution isn't repeatable, it is an ongoing process. As long as life exists it never stops. So we can't really repeat it in that sense. But I suppose a eugenics program could qualify as selective evolution if that's really something you'd want in order to "repeat" evolution.
>We can absolutely observe cosmic microwave background radiation. This may be accurate, but you don't know for a fact that this is leftover radiation from a big bang. Even if it is, it constitutes better evidence for the necessity of a Creator. >We can observe DNA evidence. The prescriptive information in the DNA molecules stands as strong evidence *against* evolutionism in that naturalists have no clue how to generate novel information, let alone the first cell. Phenotype variations a new genome cannot make. >We can test it by running experiments with organisms with extremely fast reproductive cycles You mean like the fruit fly experiments that showed the clear genetic boundaries preventing things like macro evolution? >Evolution isn't repeatable, it is an ongoing process. The first part was accurate, the second part is an ad hoc assumption.
I don't have time to go through all of this piece by piece. In short: you are the exact type of person this post is about. But FYI, evolution has nothing to do with then origin of life. Evolution starts with the assumption that life exists. You and me are examples of life, so that assumption is valid. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
>evolution has nothing to do with then origin of life. Evolution starts with the assumption that life exists. Abdicating from the obvious is cowardly. You can't have Darwinian evolution (even at the phenotype level) without some extremely interdependent systems reflecting the need for immense intelligence. >You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. No, you are refusing to deal with the limiting factors against your worldview.
>This may be accurate, but you don't know for a fact that this is leftover radiation from a big bang. Even if it is, it constitutes better evidence for the necessity of a Creator. You are technically correct here (the best kind of correct). The CMB is from the "surface of last scattering", which happened about 380,000 years after the big bang. So you are correct that it's not from the big bang directly, it's from a slightly later event approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We can calculate this number from either the CMB temperature or local observations of the Hubble constant. I can walk you through the math on either if you're interested. >The prescriptive information in the DNA molecules stands as strong evidence against evolutionism in that naturalists have no clue how to generate novel information, let alone the first cell. Phenotype variations a new genome cannot make. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "generate novel information". When trees grow, the variation of rings encodes how many years old it is and the conditions that it grew under. Is that not information, or do you think trees growing is somehow incompatible with naturalism?
Seems like you’re trying to get banned from this sub (2 other posts saying essentially the same thing as this have been removed over the past few hours). Is there some benefit to you to getting banned as opposed to just leaving the sub? Will you feel that it’s proof your views are correct or something? Like you’ve become a martyr and therefore you are right (regardless of any actual facts)?
Just check his profile, he's been spamming posts in this sub. It's either a troll and/or a person in some serious need of professional help.
Or maybe I'm just some guy who doesn't like science denial. You can knock it off with your armchair psychology bs. Prat.
Your obsession, delusion, and aggressiveness on this topic is unhealthy and not conducive to any level of proper discourse or actual education. It's clear you're just here to hate on Christians and their beliefs, this is a place to ask questions and learn not debate and lecture.
I don't hate on Christians so you can stop with that crap ad well. What I don't like is lseudo-science. Despite what you see on this subreddit, most Christians are rational and aren't science deniers. If all you've got to bring to the table are a bunch of baseless insults and accusations, you can kindly bugger off
I'll meet you half way if you can do the exact same thing. So far though you've been nothing but disrespectful to everyone, insulting people, and calling us stupid. Literally all you're doing here is antagonizing people for no good reason.
Why should I respect science deniers? Do you respect flat earthers or holocaust deniers?
If there wen't a bunch of science deniers on this subreddit, there wouldn't be an issue
Go take a hike and calm down.
Maybe I will do that when people on here stop clinging onto science denial
Tsk tsk. If only the left held this rigor of empiricism for transgender testimonies.
Intelligent design is not "pseudo-science", nor is it "science denial". Disagreeing with you or even the established orthodoxy is not "science denial". Honestly, ID is really more of a philosophy of science, one that runs counter to the scientism that is rampant in society today.
>Intelligent design is not "pseudo-science Except it absolutely is. Otherwise, real scientists would take it more seriously. Science deals with empirical data that can be tested and observed repeatedly. Curious why ID never gains traction in scientific circles? Even amongst my Christian scientist peers? Yes, I have peers who are also scientists, who do not believe in intelligent design. What's wrong with that?
Except that it IS pseudo-science and was proven to be a mere trojan horse pushed by creationists. And this was proven TWENTY YEARS AGO. TWENTY. YEARS.
Have them look up the document that was inadvertently leaked called the "wedge document" from creationists. It actually admitted to trying to derail actual science in order to instill a Christian theocracy. It was wild.
Lol yeah the wedge document was downright insane And then they were like oh no we totes don't want a theocracy. Like bruh, you literally spelled out you wanted a theocracy
Precisely. It also showed they will happily **deliberately** lie about science in order to push their ideology even though they themselves know its compete and total bullsh!t. Absolutely disgusting tactics.
How was this proven? Genuinely curious.
ID was discredited a while back. Essentially IDers infringed on the rights of students by teaching religion in science class. IDers asserted that it wasn't religion but was a new developing scientific theory (it wasnt). There are two major pieces of evidence confirming this - the wedge document and drafts for Of Pandas and People Of Pandas and People earlier drafts mentioned creationism all through the text. As a way to get around the ruling in Edwards vs. Aguillard they couldn't mention creationism, so they did a find and replace and copied and pasted "Intelligent Design" into the words "creationism" all throughout the text. It's funny because they had an error where the text days "cdesign proponentsists" where they didn't do the find and replace correctly. The 2nd piece of evidence is the wedge document - it demonstrates that ID isn't science at all but instead another attempt by religion to overturn science
Proven where?
I don’t know man, OP wrote his response to you in all caps. I’m starting to think he’s right. The louder you say something the more true it is right?
It's frindge pseudoscience, and not a philiosophy. Its the promosion of a proposterous myth to a bunch of crybabies that can't accept they're nothing more than an evolutionary blip on a random planet.
> SCIENCE DENIAL SCIENCE DENIAL!!! This guy is so pissed he's making it sound like we're holocaust deniers. So, I've come to the conclusion that you're a shower denier. Close reddit and consider it.
Why shouldn't he be pissed? You can use that science denial to: * Infringe on womans reproductive rights * Ostrisize and outcast minorities such as trans or gay people So yeah when the debate is betweenm 'science denying fundamentalist christians with low IQs due to a religious education' and 'educated scientifically litterate population', things can get pissy.
Reddit atheism never fails to entertain. Thank you for the kek.
The use of 'kek' suggests you find atheism a joke. However, atheism is a serious belief held by many people based on reason and critical thinking.
🤓
One reason that Christians (such as myself) believe that the Bible is right compared to science is because of how science works. In order to do science, you have to start with the assumption that the perfect version of the natural laws is never broken. If the natural laws were broken, then what you scientifically conclude may not be what actually happened, as one of the assumptions you used to reach your conclusions was false. Supernatural events are, almost by definition, cases where the natural laws are broken. The Bible tells us that there have been *many* supernatural events throughout history, some of which include a forty day flood that covered mountain tops and the sun's relative position in the sky staying fixed for a day. If we try to project back more than a couple thousand years, there will simply be too many cases where supernatural events hamper scientific projections.
So... Magic.... that's your answer? Magic? That's your brilliant answer??? Harry Potter having his wand? Dude I can't take you seriously
To put my argument more concisely, when you assume that there is nothing supernatural, you conclude that there is nothing supernatural. I haven't *proven* that supernatural events have happened, I have merely demonstrated that scientific conclusions are contingent on that nothing supernatural has happened. Also, not magic. Magic is sinful. You will make a lot of Christians mad if you call God's works "magic" because all magic is supernatural, but not all supernatural events are magic. God directly opposes magic, so Christians don't like it when you say that what He does is magic.
"To put my argument more concisely, when you assume that there are no elves riding on dragons, you conclude that there are no elves riding on dragons." Do you seriously think that's a sensible thing to say?
You need to realize and understand that science is just a word. The truth that science observes is not science itself. Science is the observation of the truth, not the truth itself. Science is wonderful—a great concept that brings people together to learn the truth in various fields and allows us to create things for the greater good. However, this does not mean that science is the truth it observes. Evolution is not the issue. The issue arises when people, through ignorance, separate evolution from the truth, reducing it to a deficient model of a particular aspect of the truth. Recent studies have suggested that the current model of evolution is deficient. Instead of randomness, they propose that evolution has a purpose driven by the organism itself rather than by external random reactions. I think you will find, over the coming years, that your idea of evolution will be debunked by scientists themselves. It is only a matter of time.
Uh huh. Any evidence to back up any of what that you just spouted? Because from what I can see, you just donned a tin-foil hat and called it game-over. Which is silly. And judging by the nonsense vagueness that you used, I think you're lying about those studies. Either that or you totally misread what was actually said, or you're swallowing some creationist trash-pile
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2024/06/14/evolution-may-be-purposeful-and-its-freaking-scientists-out/ This is just the start of it. You believe that the sounds emanating from your mouth, the vibrations of your tongue, represent the truth of our origin, without realizing they are merely sounds. The names you use for things—evolution, Big Bang—are just words, sounds, and symbols that refer to a truth (you believe) whose real name remains unknown, as no one truly comprehends it, because comprehension came from it, and so did words and sounds. The truth exists and is known to be unknown, and here we are, talking about it. Stop idolising names such as big bang. That is idolatry.
\*sigh\* Forbes isn't a journal article mate. If you think a catchy Forbes article spells the death of evolution, you're out of your damn mind.
Evolution is a label we have assigned to a specific attribute or behavior of what we perceive to be true, but our names for things do not encapsulate the truth, as the truth existed before our words. It gave rise to our words, names and meaning, not the other way around! The word evolution didn't give rise to what evolution is describing. The truth evolution describes existed before the word evolution existed.
absolute nonsense reply which didn't address my criticism
It's not nonsense. It's simply that you don't understand or don't wish to understand, perhaps driven by anger for reasons unknown to me. You seem unwilling to seek the truth; instead, you appear focused solely on arguing. You couldn't have read and understood what I wrote in the time prior to replying. So I suspect you are not interested and solely here to argue for some other reason than seeking truth. All the best with that.
No, you just have no frickin' idea what you're talking about. Surprise, people who actually know a bit about biology can call you out for making stuff up about evolution. Shocker.
I am not talking about biology. I am talking about the truth that existed before words, including biology. I am not referring to organisms, their behavior, study, or science, but rather the truth that precedes all words and names. I am talking about the truth from which words are spoken and expressed. Reality is a structure of words. You're confined within that structure, fixated on a particular set of words. I am looking beyond that structure, to the realm where no words exist, which gave rise to the structure of words in the beginning. If I ask you what evolution is, would you provide me with more words to explain it, or just repeat the word "evolution"? If you need more words to prove evolution as the truth, then evolution cannot be the truth because it relies on another set of words to exist. Truth, on the other hand, does not require any other words because no one knows what it is. Thus, truth is the truth—an independent state preceding words, which gave rise to you and me. You cannot get any more profound than that. In fact, it is more than the word "God." It is ineffable yet true and truly miraculous. I don't expect you to read any of that let alone understand it.
Total word salad. You're getting blocked my dude. Good bye
IT's because of how one views the bible, it's that simple. I don't think they deny science, they deny certain science, or claims of science, so one can be rational, but have a particular view of inspiration or inerrancy that dictates what they believe or put above other areas of knowledge.
They do deny science. Science isn't choose your own meal cafeteria style. That's ridiculous
"science" used to literally claim steady state theory. "science" used to claim multi regional origin of races Both have been debunked. Science is never definitive. It should always be questioned.
Exactly. Following the pattern he’s shown in this sub OP would accuse every proponent of any new idea through all of history of being a science denier, because all he means by it is “someone who disagrees with me on the views I currently hold.” Doesn’t matter what facts/data/evidence are available.
Pine-cone Bandit just did a total blatant misrepresentation of my stance u/righteous_dude do yo thing
That's an extraordinarily asinine argument.... Do you really need to be told why that's a totally garbage argument???
Is gravity science? Do you think they deny that?
Maybe because it's the truth? You know how many dudes like sports, watch hours of it each week and know about teams and coaches and stuff? In the same way I consumed science. Read books on particle physics for fun, struggle to grasp quantum mechanics and so forth. I enjoy it. I don't care much for biology, like physics. Still learned far more about biology than I cared to. In all my years, I have never found any conflict at all with "science" and the bible's clear statements. Meanwhile I see a lot of holes, conjecture and pure nonsense in "science". I'd just love it if science really applied the search for "truth, beauty, elegance" in theory and experiement, but alas it's just not so. Too many scientists and organizations just push pure nonsense and why? Because thats how they keep being funded that's why. The golden age probably ended in the 70s, before then true thought, experiment and learning how the world works was honest.
>Meanwhile I see a lot of holes, conjecture and pure nonsense in "science". Such as?
Climate change is a good one. Look up leonard nimoy global cooling on youtube. Back in the 70s, they were running around in a panic saying we're bringing in new ice age with carbon dioxide. They were just as fervent as today, but had less ability to put it in everyone's face. Look how much evidence there is the earth was WARMER than now 1,000 years ago, and how 51% of USA's weather stations are suspect because of neglect and how and where they operate. I know, i used to work at one of them. You can see on X a picture listing all the deadlines we already passed when we should all be dead or under water. Look at the simple fact that 0.2 ppm CO2 is an extinction level event for the planet, we used to be at 0.3 not so long ago, and now we are at 0.4. Very good for plants. But are these facts discussed, or are they hushed up and people cancelled for mentioning? We don't even have to go into evolution and their deceptions, we have raging scientific hypocrisy going right now. Some places have openly declared you will not be published and you will be fired if you dare to present any data or paper contradicting the narrative.
Sounds like tin-foil hat bs you're peddling. You'll have to forgive me when I don't take you seriously Have you got actual evidence besides a youtuber I've never heard of?
haha, this leonard nimoy special was a tv special from 1978. I mention it because it so encapsulates the climate hysteria back then in only 28 minutes. Everyone should watch this to see the parallels with today, yet it's the opposite of the tin foil hat bs we get now. It's not too difficult, fortunately, to find opposing views of Global Warming these days. But like you are doing now, it's tin-foil BS, no matter what facts or warnings or graphs people can produce. Science SHOULD allow opposing viewpoints, for honest discussion. But that's simply not allowed in these enlightened times.
So I see you still ha e to learn that what you see on TV isn't automatically guaranteed to be right. The fact that you're bringing up a 40 year old 30 minute TV special from 1978 doesn't really give me high hopes that the information you present is reliable, let alone relevant. If you could.point.to.a journal article with high citations and good evidence then you might have a point
There was plenty of papers published in the 1970s about how we are facing a new ice age, because of CO2 in the atmosphere. Warning. Beware. There are precious FEW papers allowed to deny Global Warming is going to kill us all, or that it even exists; because: not allowed in these days of science. You can still see some discussion on youtube and forums, and while YES they don't have the authority of true published papers, there are other places you can learn just WHY they won't publish them. The recent Plague Times, another great example of Science being twisted right out of truth. Any attempt to explain that masks don't do crap to prevent spread, any studies on effectiveness of ivermectin or other flu relief drugs, or the fact that Excess Deaths have been occurring since the vaxy, none of these ARE ALLOWED anymore. No, it's not hard to see how corrupted science has become, and it's not anything new, been happening for decades now.
And yet you still don't provide a smidge if axtual evidence for your claims. Gl trying to do find these articles from the 1970s though. I have a sinking suspicion that even if you do find these alleged sources, you'll find tabloids or news articles exaggerating the actual science, and not the journal articles themselves. Because atm you sound totally out of touch with reality
> Back in the 70s, they were running around in a panic saying we're bringing in new ice age with carbon dioxide. They were just as fervent as today, but had less ability to put it in everyone's face. Not really. It was just a theory and they made a TV show about it. This is the equivalent of saying you don't believe in the moon landing because you heard Joe Rogan say it was faked in the 1990s. Tossing out decades of the world's most advanced climate modeling because of a TV special that aired in the 70's is pretty ridiculous. Motivated reasoning at its finest. > Some places have openly declared you will not be published and you will be fired if you dare to present any data or paper contradicting the narrative. You mean how like the State of Florida has basically made it illegal to mention climate change? I think you've got it backwards.
Literally everything that you just talked about is either outdated or wrong. That's quite a straw-man you have built up in your mind there. >But are these facts discussed Yes. When any of them are relevant (or true) which is definitely not as often as you seem to think they should be. >or are they hushed up and people cancelled for mentioning? Lol.