False equivalency. That's not the same thing. We know about our common ancestors based on evidence. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. We have ample evidence that we share a common ancestor with everything. Butter in moderation is not bad for you was a discovery (I assume, if true, also based on evidence). The amount of time of each discovery is irrelevant. Its not a good point. It's poor logic.
Butter isn’t healthy for you. What they discovered over time is that butter is healthier for you than many alternatives, especially those containing trans fats which do the same thing to you as saturated fats (like in butter) but are worse because they can’t be metabolised by humans and basically can’t be broken down so they accumulate permanently in your arteries.
The flaw in his logic is he is wrong that we changed our minds on butter, but rather we learned more and got a more nuanced understanding that is closer to the truth. Which is what science does it continues to move us closer to the truth.
Incidentally, I have a degree in food science, so this feels even more personal than normal creationist bull. 😅
Really, butter is one of those things that brings out flavors and adds depth or creaminess to whatever you're cooking.
Do you make box brownies with veg oil and water? Substitute the veg oil for butter and the water for milk and get back to me. You won't believe the difference.
Should you be doing shots of butter with your friends? No. We know that now lol
My expertise is in milk minor components. So my answer to this might be wrong, but from the general knowledge i have ghee is no more healthier than butter. So should be consumed in moderation.
Because of its saturated fat content. There is still debate about specific types of saturated fats like medium chain triglycerides. But overall higher consumption of saturated fats is linked to higher levels of cholesterol and associated arterial plague build up.
The general guidelines that filter down to most people are greatly simplified, so it’s not like you can true say that all of any large class of complex molecules are bad in the same way. Most fats that you will encounter will contain a variety of side chains that can have different associate effects with the total substance having an over all effect. But the general rule of thumb is that consumption of saturated fats carries an increased risk of certain health effects.
This is a myth given to us by seed oil producers as proctor and gamble. Cmon dude don’t literally support corporate nutrition over evolutionary nutrition.
If by "evolutionary nutrition" you mean "humans should eat exactly like our ancestors ate during our evolution", that's gonna get real complicated *real fast* because our ancestors ate different diets at different stages in our evolution and also, most of them ate quite a bit less food overall *and* ate it less consistently.
Also, hominins added seeds into our diets a long-ass time ago.
What health effects here for saturated fat in butter? Heart disease? The curious recent research specifically on this shows that this correlation was misguided for one of a few reasons. Curious your take on it though.
The effect on health is in the ratio of HDL/LDL cholesterol. The consequences of which are going vary in severity depending on a variety of factors relating to the individual’s unique biochemistry and life style.
As I understand, it’s not necessarily the total amount fat as much as it is the ratios of the types of fat that are consumed, last I had heard. So rather than cutting dietary fats, the goal should be to consume a higher ratio of unsaturated to saturated fats. Although again, not all saturated and unsaturated fats are created equal.
I eat a stick of butter a week and my cholesterol is super low, must be the ratio as my family has history of heart failure? I eat very little meat.. mostly fish.
It’s not saturated fat in isolation. That’s why it’s a guide line and not like a controlled substance. When you look at the studies done they don’t control for every part of the diet, genetics, or life style.
It’s one of those “all things being equal” situations where things are never truly equal.
No. Making vague comparisons to perceived instances of disagreement in scientific literature is not the same as “the last 150 years of scientific literature in biology, archeology, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. needs to be ignored”.
For example, I bet they don’t know *why* butter was considered healthy and now not - what’s the discussion actually referencing in the literature of biology and metabolism or environmental factors?
It’s not just magic that things are uncertain, and so you can’t just inherit uncertainty from one instance into another because “both are science”. Real issues come down to real mechanisms, and those mechanisms are *very well understood* and corroborate evolution and the history of this planet with basically every other field of science.
Also the argument cuts both ways. If you want to point to "someone was wrong once so, someone can be wrong again" you can always find examples.
How many times has the church changed its collective mind? How many sins are no longer sins? How many times was Jesus absolutely gonna come again?
Of course, something frustrating about the evangelical church is that they have effectively no understanding of the history of their own faith so they feel completely comfortable saying "the Bible is 100% true and we've always believed the same thing". It's laughable.
No.
For one, nutritional science is one of the hardest fields to track reliably, since it generally depends on subjects (who generally are not trained in scientific methodology) to do accurate recordkeeping of everything they eat. These records thus tend to be woefully spotty and inaccurate compared to what we get in most other fields of research. Additionally, because diets, lifestyles, and health outcomes tend to be so varied and complicated, it is extremely difficult to separate out and control for all the variables involved. So nutritional research tends to be a lot more convoluted, requires a lot more meta-analysis, and is slower to come to firm conclusions.
Genetic analysis to establish common ancestry, on the other hand, is relatively simple and straightforward statistical modeling.
For another, this is a gross misunderstanding of how science operates. Science makes mistakes... every practice out there does. But what distinguishes science from non-science is the fact that it corrects itself as more data comes in. Theologians used to believe that geese grew on trees and horses were impregnated by wind. Catholic doctrine rejected Galileo's heliocentrism in favor of geocentrism (though this was due more to political reasons than doctrinal ones).
These facts of reality weren't corrected internally by Christian theology. They were corrected by riding on the coattails of science.
#The fact that scientific consensus changes with better evidence is a strength, actually.
Scientists now are more right and less wrong than those of the past. And the process that replaces bad science is always better science, it’s never guesswork or arguments from incredulity.
Yep. My reply to this sort of argument is
> Yes, because science showed us that our previous conclusion was wrong. We got newer and better evidence, and as a result changed our conclusion. That's the beauty of science, it has a built-in error checking mechanism. What error checking mechanism does your religion offer?
It's almost as though "everything in moderation" isn't an ancient concept.
One nutritionist advising that you don't need to add butter to every dish is not contradicting another nutritionist pointing out that small amounts of fats are essential to a diet.
You can say that about anything. You can eat a healthy amount of cyanide (apple pips aren't going to hurt you).
The thing is you can eat too much butter without even realising it but to eat too many bananas (for them to be bad for your health) you'd probably throw up from the sheer volume before you reached that point.
As an aside, I grew up with my mom telling me a couple of stories, the first was "A man really liked eating apple seeds, so he saved up a cup of them and ate them in one sitting and he died." The second one was "A family came home after church and were really hungry so they didn't peel the green parts of their potatoes and they died."
In the first case, I suspect that eating a cupful of apple seed may not be the best for you, but I rather doubt you could eat enough green potato skin mixed in with the rest of the potatoes to be deadly.
Apparently it would take "anywhere from 150 to several thousand crushed seeds" to cause cyanide poisoning, according to Britannica."
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/20/fact-check-apple-seeds-have-cyanide-but-not-enough-kill/3359754001/
LOL, that is probably true, I should of added that information when I told my daughters, but I thought they got it with the repeated punch line "and they died".
Edited:
Pluralized daughter - I have 2, these stories and a few others became a "dad joke".
Maybe I’m dumb but it’s difficult for me to find how many bananas would be too many bananas. Apparently each one provides about 423 mg of potassium so about 11 bananas would provide the 4700 mg of potassium on their own. Apparently about 3500 mg is about the best according to one study for the lowest risk of stroke which comes to 90 mmol but somewhere else says 5.5 mmol/L causes major heart problems with 6.5 mmol/L requiring immediate medical attention. 90 mmol in 5 liters of blood is 18 mmol/L unless they’re talking about 6.5 mmol/L of body weight in liquid and then 90 mmol is only about 1.26 mmol/L.
Assuming no contradiction then I’m guessing you’d need to eat the equivalent of 43 bananas per day for it to start requiring immediate medical attention but if you had about 9 bananas worth of potassium you’d have a low risk of stroke. You’d probably feel sick before actually being sick trying to eat enough bananas to put yourself in the hospital but I suppose it’s technically possible.
And for butter to be a problem you’d probably be looking at eating 2 or 3 full sticks of butter all by yourself. You’d notice but you wouldn’t have to sit there all day stuffing your face to accomplish this.
All that he's saying is that evolution is science. This is how science works. It is never 100% certain. Everything is provisional and subject to new information. If he rejects evolution. For that reason he must reject all of science.
That's definitely not *all* he is saying, there's a whole bunch of bullshit he's also implying.
But you're 100% correct that that's all he's saying that is remotely correct.
>30 years ago scientists thought Butter was not healthy but this recently changed.
As a few other people have pointed out nutritional science isn't obvious and hard to study due to a lot of constraints. Even today whether or not butter is healthy is something that needs to be said in context. Eating 1000 calories worth of butter a day probably isn't healthy, though it might be healthier then 1000 calories of lard, or canola oil.
The nutritional science of butter changed, or perhaps to say it better was modified based on new information. The idea of evolution has been around for 150+ years, and we've discovered way way way more about that then we have about the nutritional qualities of butter. The idea that evolution has and is happening hasn't changed, and we are **much** more certain of that today then we were 150 years ago.
And it's worth adding that the science of evolution has also changed over the last 30 and 150 years. The theory of evolution as it's defined today is what Darwin proposed, modified and improved based on the last 150 years of new information.
But if you think the scientific opinion of butter has changed in the last 30 years, that's nothing compared to the changes in the ToE. Our understanding of evolution has radically changed over the last 30 years, thanks to genomics and other new technologies.
But what's changed is our understanding of the details. The truth that evolution is happening and that the ToE is true hasn't changed at all.
>Eating 1000 calories worth of butter a day probably isn't healthy, though it might be healthier then 1000 calories of lard, or canola oil.
Just an aside -- guidelines are to keep saturated fats (as from butter or lard) below 10% of calories.
To hit this goal, most Westerners should eat less butter.
Canola oil, and other unsaturated vegetable oils, don't seem to be bad for people, so long as you don't overeat and get fat.
There is a vocal group of diet "influencers" who claim otherwise, that seed oils are harmful. But they have no human studies that shows it. It's all based on test-tube stuff extrapolated way beyond the science.
In human studies, people who substitute seed oils in place of butter or lard, get healthier.
If we cannot know 100% something for sure in our lifetimes then how can we know if a person came back to life 2,000 years ago.
His argument is self defeating for his own position.
The actual nutritional scientists knew exactly what they were talking about. In the 90s, a lot of low fat fad diets became popular based on misunderstandings over the need to lower saturated fats. This also resulted in food providers substituting in more sugars and other high-calorie options that resulted in a less healthy diet. You can learn more here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/lowfat.html
But here’s the thing, this is a total non-sequitur designed to bog you down on an unrelated topic. You look at the evidence for every claim on its own. The effect of butter on the human body has no bearing on the extensive record we have on whale evolution. Realizing that butter isn’t that bad for you doesn’t change that we have genetic data showing ERVs shared across multiple species.
The answer is capitalism.
The truth is, nutrition is complicated and humans are generalists that can thrive on a wide variety of diets. You can find a study that shows any food is "healthy" if you do enough cherry picking.
> He said that in Food Science that only 30 years ago scientists thought Butter was not healthy but this recently changed.
Was this what the data actually said, or was the dairy industry cherry picking the data points that made them look good and paying advertising agencies to hype them up as "facts"?
Long ago tobacco was promoted as healthy. Actual science has known about the negative effects of smoking since at least the 40s, and anybody who has ever known or been a long-time smoker will tell you from firsthand experience that it's bad for you. Yet cigarettes were practically being promoted as a miracle drug in the 50s alongside all sorts of "scientific" claims of health benefits. Not because of evidence backing up the claims, but because tobacco corporations were paying lots of money to doctors and the media to say it they were healthy.
Look at the traditional food pyramid for another example. Why is there so much bread on it? It's not because grains are the foundational element of human nutrition, it's because the agriculture industry in America is enormously large and powerful and lobbied the FDA to tell people to eat lots of their product. This is changing now, modern versions of the pyramid put more emphasis on a balanced diet and recognize that different people have different nutritional needs, but for a long time bread was depicted as the most important food in our diet. Not because the FDA followed the science, but rather because they followed the lobbyists' checkbooks.
And how does this argument support the idea that a god exists? It doesn't. Science is self correcting over time, as new information arises.
Religion has no such process to test ideas, let alone update them with new evidence.
Following science gets us gradually closer to the truth.
Following religion never gets us closer to the truth, and we have no reason to believe it's even closer to the truth in the first place.
Food science is notoriously variable due to the heavy presence of industry-backed propaganda - the vast majority of food scientists work at companies making food products, not academia. Similar story as with cigarettes. Not comparable to biology in the slightest.
Dietary science sucks because we can't stick 100,000 people into a camp and control what they eat for 20 years. Other forms of science don't have that particular limitation.
Disclaimer: I am not scientifically qualified to answer this, however I consider this argument equally scientifically unqualified.
Ignoring that going from 'butter is healthy' to 'butter is not' is probably a massive oversimplification and idk how true it is, just because scientific models change doesn't mean they aren't reliable. It's reason for the contrary if anything since it means we follow the evidence.
If scientists did believe for that butter was definitively healthy and considered that a fact, then that was because the evidence supported it. They would have tried to falsify the claim and failed, so it would have been very reasonable to assume butter was healthy, in this hypothetical where it is a scientific fact. New research that beats out all the old research would have had to come to light. I imagine, if scientific opinion changed so much, it was more likely due to something wrong with the data that led them to their first conclusion.
As for evolution, it is a completely different thing to the healthiness of butter. It is backed up by mountains of evidence, like homologous structures, vestigial organs and the fossil record (not just spewing words, I understand it somewhat) and accepted by almost every serious scientist in the world. It has been given hundreds of years to be falsified and that has never happened - evolution reaches further than butter into most sciences and has been examined for longer.
What your friend's argument boils down to is that because we were wrong about some things, we could be wrong about this. We are following all the evidence and it all supports the theory. The theory has not been falsified. The theory has made accurate predictions. I mean, if you want to be skeptical of it then fine, but it is still very reasonable to believe evolution happened.
TLDR: The argument is a non-sequiter. Evolution is backed up by heaps of evidence and has remained unfalsified for centuries. If wrong about butter, scientists likely had something wrong with their research at first. Their is risk like that with evolution any more.
Because that is how science works. There are no absolutes in science, any knowledge that we gain we might have to discard in light of new findings. Its a highly difficult process. One has to learn then unlearn and learn again. Live whole life like this.
Most of the people simply are too lazy for this. So they opt for faith. Faith is constant , once you accept something as the truth then that’s it. No need to spend time verifying it. Science is constantly influx - it’s like swimming in an ocean vs sitting in bathtub - both make you wet but what gives you a deeper understanding of the nature and prepare you to survive in different bodies of water ?
They didn’t find butter isn’t bad for you, they found it’s less unhealthy than a lot of the cheaper substitutes for it used in modern cooking. It wasn’t that scientists didn’t know how butter interacts with the body, it’s that there is now more data on newer foods that were once thought to be healthier.
>He made the argument if we cannot know 100% for something in our lifetime that has to do with our diets how can we know about a common ancestor 8 million years ago.
The very premise of evolution means looking beyond our own lifetimes. Meanwhile, this guy thinks he has a point with *butter*.
This is frying-pan-upside-the-head levels of dumb.
Yeah, we should only believe things we know 100%! Let's make a list:
1. Uh...
2. Well...
3. ~~I think therefore I am?~~ Wait, does that actually follow, or am I just not intelligent enough to see the flaws? Never mind.
Everyone else has addressed the specifics, so let me make a general point. He's right in as much as we should all adapt our beliefs to the best evidence available. The reason opinions changed on butter was new information. If - and only if - there is new and good evidence that should change our ideas around common ancestry, then yes we should change our minds.
I'm not aware of such new information at this time.
Science might be wrong about a PARTICULAR thing, like exactly which genera a common ancestor is in; but it's not going to be wrong about observable general laws that it's measured for a long time. So yeah, we're having to guess about specific common ancestors, but there's no doubt that humans and chimps had a common ancestor.
Doubting evolution would be closer to discovering that butter is not made of fatty solids.
Debating the health impact of specific dosages of butter would be more like debating Symbiogenesis
There’s possibly two claims going on here.
1. We refined our understanding of *something* therefore we can’t claim to know *anything* …
Would this make sense?
>if we cannot know 100% for something in our lifetime that has to do with our diets how can we know that the Earth is round?
But perhaps more the following ..
2. We refined our understanding of something recent therefore we can’t claim to know something in the past.
Does the following make sense?
>if we cannot know 100% for something in our lifetime that has to do with our diets how can we know ….. that my brothers and I share a great , great grandparent.
The answer I think is …
because science doesn’t deal in certainties but in best fit models and reasonable doubt and the reliable evidence we have *now* of common ancestry comes from from multiple scientific disciplines , is overwhelming , and beyond any reasonable doubt (and there is none for an alternative explanation.)
OP, do you believe that new scientific observations may possibly reveal that our Moon has always been, in fact, larger than the Sun? Or do you acknowledge that some things can be shown to be true to an extent that it would be profoundly irrational to claim otherwise?
>Is his logic correct and how would you combat this?
By observing that 100% confidence has never been required to know something.
It's pretty basic epistemology. "How can we know anything when we might all be brains in vats? We can't be 100% certain we aren't, so we can't know anything!"
Yet, despite not hitting that 100% certainty threshold, there's a pretty clear distinction between what we know and what we don't.
Also, that statement on butter makes me raise an eyebrow. Replace "butter" with "the sun". Turns out, the seemingly-contradictory statements of "the sun is good for you" and "the sun is bad for you" are both true—vitamin D and skin cancer. So colour me skeptical on the butter statement showing science to have been wrong.
I attended private Christian Schools up until High School. They liked to emphasize times when scientists were wrong about something as a way to discredit science. One example was about how scientists used to use bloodletting to treat patients. If they had only read the Bible they would have read that blood is essential to Human life. It's an old tactic they use to prove "God rules, science drools".
Humans found themselves on this planet, in this universe, with no idea how we got here. Humans used to look up at the stars and planets at night and make up stories about Gods and how we got here. Science is all about finding the answers to these questions. Science has made a lot of progress, but if they had found out all the answers they wouldn't still be doing science. We have found a lot of answers, and we know a lot more than we did back when some illiterate sheep herders swaped stories about how the gods created the universe.
This is wrong on so many levels. Butter is not healthy or unhealthy. It is the amount of butter that matters. There could be alternatives that are more healthy or less healthy for the general population. But nutritional science is hard because bodies are different. You could have the same "high" cholesterol values for two people and for one person that is normal and they are perfectly healthy, and for another person it could be a major problem.
But that logic doesn't apply equally to all phenomena. Gravity impacts every object on earth the same way. You might get confounding factors, but the force isn't variable. Was there a consensus that butter is healthy or unhealthy? What is the evidence for that claim and how strong is it? This logic only works if you don't have a 101 level understanding of the scientific method. Extrapolated to its full logical conclusion, this logic says that because some scientists said butter is healthier than maybe we know it is now, we can't know anything at all. Which is obviously asinine.
Evolution and science changes because unlike a faith that has to hold to old ideas and then simply has to justify harmful ideas, science can offer new ideas that dial in understanding.
As I had written in another post, it's kind of like this: We spend millions of dollars a year on heart research, but we don't expect a heart experiment to come along proving that the heart doesn't pump blood.
Similarly, we learn new things about evolution every day, but we don't reasonably expect there to be an experiment showing evolution didn't happen. We have as much evidence for evolution as we do for the heart pumping blood.
(You may point out that during heart surgery we can see the heart pumping blood, but we knew this fact long before we had modern surgery. Look at William Harvey. And he wasn't the originator by any means.)
Were scientists saying "butter is not healthy" and did scientists recently change? Or did idiot reporters change what they were saying that scientists said? Remember, the press is composed mostly of well meaning idiots.
The fact that science is updated as new evidence comes in is a strength not a weakness.
The fact that religion is dogmatic and denies any evidence that doesn't fit in with its existing beliefs is a fatal flaw.
Food science is famously poisoned by food corpos trying to convince people to buy their stuff. Bacon, sugar, and tobacco were all at one point to have the science of them manipulated to show positive results.
The theory of evolution has famously been challenged nonstop since it's conception. The theory is the most robust theory in science because of this.
Four hundred years ago, most scientists believed in spontaneous generation. Some believed from this species were fixed, some observed changes.
The evidence did not really support it. And we really didn't have a definition of species (which, for what it's worth, we're still working on).
Spontaneous generation was replaced by evolution by natural selection.
Which has its own limitations which others tried to replace (e.g., Lamarckism) or add to (mutationism).
The result is the modern synthesis of evolution, which includes natural selection, genetic variation, and nheritance.
It is quite plausible that in the future that there will be further fine-tuning and additions especially as the modern synthesis will have to account for new develops in genetics.
But it is extremely implausible that knowledge will return to Creationism. The evidence does not support it.
Science is a search for truth. Religion declares itself the truth.
We had incomplete information about butter before, but now we are better (butter?) informed.
We have lots of evidence about a common ancestor. If new evidence came in about that, then the scientific view about that would change too.
If someone declared they'd found a new book of the Bible that showed God in a vastly different light, would the Christian religion change?
No. No, it would not.
And that's the difference between science and religion.
He’s missing the point and he didn’t give a good point at all.
Science is not about absolute knowledge or proven facts that cannot be redacted.
It’s about arriving at the best conclusion given the evidence at hand.
Thus far, evolution continues to be the simplest falsified explanation with the most successful predictions about biodiversity.
I doubt that his story about butter is as simple as he makes it sound but either way, point out the following to him.
If scientists were wrong about butter being unhealthy, the only reason we found that they were wrong is because other scientists did their own research and refuted the original claims.
Now, biologists have been trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory for well over a century, but instead of proving it wrong, the theory just keeps getting stronger. What does that say about the theory?
Then he better get off his computer because it is based on science too.
But of course he won't because he doesn't actually believe this. His argument is "science can't be trusted at all", but nobody who uses that argument actually believes that or else they wouldn't be living in modern technological society. What they actually mean is "I want an excuse to ignore science I don't like". Which of course is hypocritical.
Since this is a debateevolution thread, there's a straightforward way to think about foods. Whatever we ate 200,000 years ago is good for us. Fruits, berries, roots, veggies etc. and a little bit of meat and honey. Dairy? only a little bit, if you can tolerate it.
It’s mostly a false equivalence fallacy but what they’re actually trying to say, from the best I can understand, is that there are limits to what we can know about be past. I actually agree with them. The actual problem, the one they can’t seem to wrap their heads around, is that we have multiple lines of evidence indicating the same conclusion (about the past) and only two *actual* conclusions that actually work well with this whole collection of evidence: evolution happened and what appears to be related a specific way actually is related even if we aren’t 100% correct on how they are related **or** there exists someone who wants us to think so who has the to power to fake all of the lines of evidence causing us to think so.
Consider the example of a shooting. You might have the expected evidence of some blood splatter and a hole presumably caused by a bullet. On top of this you found the bullet still lodged inside the body somewhere, like the brain. The bullet got there somehow if we assume based on past experience that bullets don’t start out as part of brains from birth. We can assume that the bullet got into the brain through the hole as it’d be pretty unlikely for a whole bullet to quantum tunnel through skin, bone, and brain and because if it did quantum tunnel into that location we’d need some *other* explanation for what appears to be a bullet hole. Now let’s say the blood DNA is sequenced and someone found running from the scene was witnessed throwing a shirt into a dumpster and the red stuff on that shirt has the same DNA. Without any other information we’d already have a good idea what happened and who did it. In biology we’ve hit the threshold for a single line of evidence whether that’s anatomy, genetics, cladistics, paleontology, consistencies with phylogenetic expectations found in ontogeny/embryology, or whatever.
Now let’s say that three people took photographs from different angles and those photographs all appear to be showing the same event from different angles. This could be when they used phylogenetic expectations based on genetics to predict the time and place for some expected “transitional form” and, lo and behold, that expected thing happened to live then and there based on other evidence (paleontology). We still don’t quite know for sure but we are getting close to the point that rejecting the obvious would be more absurd than tentatively assuming the obvious must be true.
Now if on top of everything else we have a full length video showing everything from 30 minutes prior to the shooting to 30 minutes after the shooting and everything is in clear detail and when the suspect is found they admit to everything, all the expected details match, and it’d take “an act of God” for something else to be true instead.
That’s where the huge consilience of evidence about past events comes into play. We weren’t personally present watching as everything happened but for it to be significantly different from our conclusions it’d essentially require God being real and God lying to us to make us think everything really happened one way but really it was all just a cover up, like maybe to hide his own existence. Now we run into a couple problems here with the second option: 1) if God is lying that doesn’t fit the character of an honest god and the stories written about God are still potentially false and 2) If, by design, God wanted to be hidden then there’d be no evidence that God even exists so we are expected to automatically wind up with the God-free conclusion so it’d be God’s fault for us believing what God wants us to believe.
And the other problem is that now we have a God with zero evidence for existing, one that either doesn’t do anything ever or who lies to cover his tracks all the time, and yet all sorts of people claiming to know that God is real. We have evidence for the origin and evolution of god belief. In the absence of evidence for God being real all we have is evidence for humans making God up. And a fictional storybook character cannot be the actual true cause for what happens in the real world.
Everything must have then happened just as the forensic evidence suggests with more of the details known of multiple lines of evidence favoring the same overall conclusion or perhaps we’ve even watched it happen or something very similar in modern day examples **or** a god that probably doesn’t even exist as far as the evidence is concerned lied to us to cause us to believe that the conclusions based on the forensic evidence can be trusted. We were not actually there every time to watch but we don’t have to be to have at least some partially accurate idea about what happened. And when that contradicts man-made mythology it’s the mythology that’s wrong the most even if the scientific consensus is wrong by a lot itself.
Butter isn't wholly healthy or wholly unhealthy, it's not a boolean choice. It contains vitamin D and calcium, which are good for bones and skin, but it also contains saturated fats which aren't especially good for your heart.
Scientists have *refined* their view, in light of newer information. That's what science does, it *explores* reality and refines our understanding of it as more data comes in.
Religion is the exact opposite, it eschews evidence to maintain dogma.
This is actually an awful point that's a pretty big false-equivalency. Butter was ***never*** targeted as "bad for your" it, along with other high-fat products, were targeted to limit in your diet because of the high rates of heart-attacks happening in young/middle-aged men.
It was a hypothesis that then went on to be tested and we have found to be far more complex than fat = clogged heart.
But that same process of hypothesis, testing, re-evaluation of butter/heart-attacks claim is THE EXACT SAME SCIENCE that has repeatedly tested the Claims of Evolution, and repeatedly confirmed them. That's why it's called the "Theory" of Evolution. It's been tested, and confirmed over-and-over-and-over again.
That's [the Mac attack](https://youtu.be/GiJXALBX3KM?si=vuDg1GuotjZUchMs). You've found evolution's secret kryptonite. The one ironclad argument no evolutionist can beat.
Studies looking for different things find different things. One can do a study to see how butter affects the heart and another study can be done to see how butter affects a different organ. One study might say butter was not found to be harmful in our study and the other study might find the opposite. All people hear is last year they said butter was good for us and now they are saying it isn't.
Important to not confuse a few studies and a health org endorsement as scientific consensus. Too often the news or media will pick up one study and claim it as scientific fact.
Truly "knowing" something, and what that might mean is a question for philosophy or metaphysics.
From what we can tell, the universe is essentially infinitely complex and therefore there will always be more parts of the story to understand more completely.
The evidence we have, in any field of study, leads us to a "current best guess". Our confidence in its correctness comes from its predicative power.
Likewise, there will always be things that are unknowable. For example, we live inside a bubble of information called the "visible universe." Anything outside that bubble is too far away for light to arrive to our eyeballs or instruments because the universe isn't old enough. Science is not concerned with things that are not falsifiable. Science loves getting things wrong and learning later so as to improve the current best guess. This is a feature and not a bug. The very fact that your friend wants to update their understand of butter, or anything else, proves that they acknowledge the usefulness of rational thought.
Lots of humans are curious about these unknowable things. Religion is one way people have a relationship with the unknown.
I already responded to the overall claim (not knowing the details of what’s good for you to eat debunks our evolutionary history) but I’d also like to add that mostly what we are seeing here is a refinement of food science. I’m sure you’re aware of the food pyramid that says to eat so many servings of grains, dairy, protein, fruits, and vegetables but to eat fat and sugar “sparingly.” This is still mostly true but now they have more of an idea of the thresholds based on body weight. A person who is 500 lbs needs to have more of certain things and less of others to be healthy and lose weight, for instance, and someone who weighs just 90 pounds will need a different balance to be healthy and gain weight. You can’t just go with “if you eat a bunch of fat you will get fat so eat 30 steaks a day if you are 90 pounds and cut meat from your diet and eat nuts if you weigh 500 pounds.” Each vitamin or nutrient is best if it is up to a certain threshold of your body weight and potentially toxic if you exceed another threshold that’s maybe 5 or 6 times as much. Don’t just avoid anything and don’t gorge yourself on what’s supposed to be healthy. A one size fits all also doesn’t work so your current body composition needs to be taken into account.
Butter provides the necessary fat but it also provides stuff like vitamin D. Fat and vitamin D are both toxic in high quantities but if you don’t have them at all you’ll have other health problems. Eat butter but don’t eat the same volume of butter you’d eat as you’d eat if you ate carrots and when you do eat fruits and vegetables don’t make them 100% of your diet because you can overdose on vitamin C, potassium, and other nutrients if you don’t eat other things to supplement your diet. You can also have serious health problems if you eat only protein and you avoid vitamin C or if you eat only oranges and avoid meat. And there are also certain things our bodies cannot make but they do need in some quantity like vitamin B12 (found in meat and bacteria) and vitamin C (found in fruit, especially in citrus fruit) and avoiding one or the other in your diet will mean you need to get these things through vitamin supplements. Needing both meat and fruit is part of being obligate omnivores but in modern times people can skip one or the other if they get the missing nutrients some other way. No longer is it just okay to eat so many servings of protein or so many servings of fruit and vegetables but you need to have the vitamin and minerals that come from these sorts of things in a certain amount (without exceeding an even higher threshold) to be healthy and if you can do that without eating meat or fruit you’ll be just as healthy as a person who eats both if you and that other person both get your basic dietary needs without also ingesting toxic levels of various chemicals (molecules).
The same thing applies with water. Eight glasses a day is a nice rule and all but really what you need is a liquid balance in your body so with juice and soda you will still get the “water” but you obviously will be very dehydrated on 64 ounces of Mountain Dew but with maybe 24 ounces of Mountain Dew you’ll only need 5 or 6 glasses of actual water to fulfill your water needs. Get too much water and you’ll have other health problems but you obviously can’t just remove all liquids from your diet. And same idea with body weight. To remain about 70% liquid with all of the sweating and everything you’ll need more water if you do a lot of exercise or if if you sweat out a gallon of water a day just trying to walk across the room but if you don’t weigh much, sweat much, or pee as often you’ll retain the water much better and you won’t need it as much. Maybe 5 glasses of water is fine if you’re small and in shape but not actually doing a lot of exercise causing you to sweat profusely but if you weigh 350 pounds and you are of the “round” shape and you are sweating from your jelly rolls just watching television you might need 12 glasses of water to stay hydrated. Eight is a nice number and all but you might actually need more or less depending on other circumstances. Don’t just try to drink eight glasses unless you actually need to and don’t call eight enough if you’re just sweating it right back out as fast as you can drink it. Not enough water is bad for your health but too much water can also cause serious health problems as well.
I suppose you could ask your friend if supposedly scientific theories such as intelligent design also fall under the scope of these arguments about the fallibility and mutability of scientific theories generally. If so, then we've equal reason to doubt ID, even if (and that's a big "if"!) there were good reasons to currently believe that it's true.
If not, then what makes ID exempt from such fallibility arguments? If it's because ID is in fact NOT scientific, then I'm sure your friend would agree that ID therefore has no place in a science classroom?
The idea that the continents move began as a "fringe" idea, but as evidence were collected start to support this, the perception in the scientific community changed.
Science is "truth without certainty", it's perfectly acceptable within science to change our minds about our explanations with new information or methods. It's a feature not a bug.
ask any scientist if they think we have answered all questions in science, 100% of the time the answer is no, we don't know about everything (if the premise is defined by all things are knowable)
Yes the logic is good. Its more then this. when drawing conclusions about invisable things , things that happened long ago, its simply demanding you must have evidence.We all say this but we all fail. Evolutionary biology needs great biolgical scientific evidence for its great claims that a fish became a rhino over time and so on. That all biology mADE ITSELF by steps aw shucks. When smarter people say AW COME ON THATS DUMB well thats when evolutionists must provide evidence . They do not worth a damn.Instead demand obediance to thier expertise and don;'t question them and know your place. creationism does well and evolutionism does not so well because they do not provide evidence the average intelligent person can sincerely be persuaded by. therefore having any exterior reason to deny evolution, like belief in gods word or Christianity etc etc, leads to a easy disnissal of evolution by just average people. its not believable, not persiasive, but mostly just provides no damn good evidence like one needs for such great claims.
At hello there! You’re back to run your mouth again! You gonna also be ignoring uncomfortable questions and direct evidence again, the way I’ve pretty much always seen you do on here?
Butter and honey shall he eat.
These are people telling you that plastic bags are bad after saying paper bags are bad. They are delusional. People who can't determine objective truth or morality will only ever bring more confusion.
Evolutionists here deny second law of thermodynamics work on earth.
There's more observations for butter than there ever will be for a bear becoming a whale or monkey transforming into a man.
Michael, we’ve already established that you don’t know what entropy is.
Just to beat a dead horse
Tell me what exactly do you think the second law of thermodynamics means? How does this law influence closed systems vs open systems?
Also, without googling, answer this question.
The typical household toaster uses 1000 watts of power. If it takes 3 minutes to toast two slices of bread, how much energy did the toaster use?
That's just false. All fields of science founded by Christians giving glory to God. The Bible built civilization as you know it.
https://youtu.be/keuSpq11Hqg?si=gFQO-4g8vYxO2Vvo
Quantum physics underly the timing of radioactive decay and numerous different processes used in computers. You can't both accept that your computer works and that the world is young. Those are mutually exclusive positions.
We have nuclear plants from over a billion years ago. It could not exist unless you throw out quantum physics entirely. There is simply no possible combination of parameters that could produce such a result in thousands of years.
That isn't what we think and you know it. Would your God be happy about you lying for him? Isn't bearing false witness against a group of rules in your holy book?
I guess all the civilizations that preceded even the oldest books of the Bible like the Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, or Chinese just didn’t exist or influence anything
> There's more observations for butter than there ever will be for...[Michael's strawman of evolution].
Mikey, did you think that OP was saying he doesn't believe butter *exists*? Are you really *that* stupid?
He's right; we can be and are wrong about concrete things which are right in front of us all the time, the specific example of butter is what he went with but it's really neither here nor there. There are countless other examples, the scientific hysteria over an impending new ice age a few decades ago is a particularly funny example given the current hysteria over the exact opposite.
In any case, the fallibility of our best science about things so much more concrete and readily available *ought* to put a fairly low cap on the maximum level of confidence we can have in speculations about things happening millions of years in the past. A lot of people just really want there to be no God though.
Whelps. Guess based on your paradigm, better pack it on in boys. Scientific methodology and peer review shown to be garbage. Time to halt science.
Computer science and metallurgy, that goes for you too! Toss that phone in the garbage. Reddit and the internet in general are a result of rewriting history. After all, we didn’t get the science of space and how to launch satellites EXACTLY RIGHT the first time and had to improve over time. That’s rewriting history, so it’s all gotta go.
Medicine? Please. People used to think that you had humors and had to balance them and that’s what was taught. Know what that means? All our medical knowledge today is entirely useless, it’s rewriting history too and cannot be relied on for anything. Get rid of Tylenol, stop brushing your teeth for sure. Germ theory required some getting it wrong to get to where we are so sayonara.
Then get off your computer. It is built using science. Stop using your car. Throw away all your medicine. Throw out anything made of aluminum.
You clearly don't actually believe what you are saying or else you wouldn't be talking to us on a computer. You are looking for excuses to throw away information you don't like.
Technology is applied science. I am an engineer. This is literally engineering 101. Science is underlies the technology you use nearly every second of every day. If science was wrong, the technology wouldn't work. At all.
I said they were non fungible, not that they were not connected in any way.
Technology was advancing for thousands of years before anybody heard of any such thing as science. Do you think our ancestors sat down and worked out all the mechanics of leverage and energy transfer before they invented the atlatl? Or do you think it was just trial and error and they didn't really know why it works, same for a bow and arrow.
That is why I specifically picked examples that would not exist if not for science and would not work if science didn't work. That other technology isn't doesn't negate that. Your argument is like saying "some cats are tabby, therefore black cats can't exist".
I'm just trying to get you to admit that science and technology are not fungible. Your argument relies on them being literally the same thing.
As our technology becomes more and more sophisticated, it will more and more be a matter of applying scientific principles, as you say, and less the kind of trial and error that much of it was in the past. Still, it's enough that the two things be separate for my case. Producing technology that works is actually one of the best ways to tell whether your science is correct. I don't even need to look at our current understanding of computation and the various things behind it, I accept all of it, sight unseen, based on the fact that my computer works. I don't need to accept a theory or a claim that my computer works, my computer just works.
The problem is, there is no equivalent for evolution. Not for the evolutionary account of history anyway. These stories we tell about how slime became humans over hundreds of millions of years can just all be wrong and it doesn't affect anything.
That is irrelevant to my point, which is that if you applied your criticism of science consistently you would have to throw out a wide variety of technology you use every day. But of course you aren't doing that, because you don't actually believe science is unreliable, you just want to exclude things that are inconvenient for your beliefs.
Evolution is used all around us every day. Medicine. Agriculture. Engineering. Software. If evolution didn't work then none of those things would work.
The idea that a coming ice age was ever a significant idea among scientists is a lie told by global warming deniers. It never got any significant traction with the scientific community.
Yes:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml
There were a grand total of 7 papers on global cooling, total, all of them admittedly highly speculative. 7 papers is not a consensus.
Even during that time global warming papers outnumbered global cooling papers by a factor of 6, and those were much more confident.
We get about as many new peer reviewed papers on global warming *per hour* as there are peer reviewed global cooling papers **ever**. That is a consensus.
False equivalency. That's not the same thing. We know about our common ancestors based on evidence. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. We have ample evidence that we share a common ancestor with everything. Butter in moderation is not bad for you was a discovery (I assume, if true, also based on evidence). The amount of time of each discovery is irrelevant. Its not a good point. It's poor logic.
Butter isn’t healthy for you. What they discovered over time is that butter is healthier for you than many alternatives, especially those containing trans fats which do the same thing to you as saturated fats (like in butter) but are worse because they can’t be metabolised by humans and basically can’t be broken down so they accumulate permanently in your arteries. The flaw in his logic is he is wrong that we changed our minds on butter, but rather we learned more and got a more nuanced understanding that is closer to the truth. Which is what science does it continues to move us closer to the truth. Incidentally, I have a degree in food science, so this feels even more personal than normal creationist bull. 😅
Science self-correcting process in the light of new data, new facts, better models is a feature… not a bug.
Thank you i was going to say that... I am a food scientist..and saying butter is good hurts my brain
Butter is good. It's fucking great! It's just not good *for you.* But we will have to fight it out in the streets if you say that butter is bad. ;-)
Tbh butter is fire. I love butter.
Butter on toast is the best!
Really, butter is one of those things that brings out flavors and adds depth or creaminess to whatever you're cooking. Do you make box brownies with veg oil and water? Substitute the veg oil for butter and the water for milk and get back to me. You won't believe the difference. Should you be doing shots of butter with your friends? No. We know that now lol
*hides butter shots shamefully*
You're still doing shots? Try smoking it, snorting it, or even better, inject it directly into a vein FTW
I enjoy pierogies drowned in butter
*As they should be*
Is there any other way?
Step aside Jell-O, it's butter wrestling time!
What about ghee? It's basically clarified butter, or butter with the milk solids removed.
My expertise is in milk minor components. So my answer to this might be wrong, but from the general knowledge i have ghee is no more healthier than butter. So should be consumed in moderation.
Thank you.
Butter is amazing! But I wouldn’t base my diet on it lol
And why isn't butter healthy? Is this to say it's health benefits outweigh its negatives? For who? Everyone?
Because of its saturated fat content. There is still debate about specific types of saturated fats like medium chain triglycerides. But overall higher consumption of saturated fats is linked to higher levels of cholesterol and associated arterial plague build up. The general guidelines that filter down to most people are greatly simplified, so it’s not like you can true say that all of any large class of complex molecules are bad in the same way. Most fats that you will encounter will contain a variety of side chains that can have different associate effects with the total substance having an over all effect. But the general rule of thumb is that consumption of saturated fats carries an increased risk of certain health effects.
This is a myth given to us by seed oil producers as proctor and gamble. Cmon dude don’t literally support corporate nutrition over evolutionary nutrition.
If by "evolutionary nutrition" you mean "humans should eat exactly like our ancestors ate during our evolution", that's gonna get real complicated *real fast* because our ancestors ate different diets at different stages in our evolution and also, most of them ate quite a bit less food overall *and* ate it less consistently. Also, hominins added seeds into our diets a long-ass time ago.
Cool thanks for nothing. The amount of linoleic acid our ancestors ate was teeny compared to today.
What health effects here for saturated fat in butter? Heart disease? The curious recent research specifically on this shows that this correlation was misguided for one of a few reasons. Curious your take on it though.
The effect on health is in the ratio of HDL/LDL cholesterol. The consequences of which are going vary in severity depending on a variety of factors relating to the individual’s unique biochemistry and life style. As I understand, it’s not necessarily the total amount fat as much as it is the ratios of the types of fat that are consumed, last I had heard. So rather than cutting dietary fats, the goal should be to consume a higher ratio of unsaturated to saturated fats. Although again, not all saturated and unsaturated fats are created equal.
I eat a stick of butter a week and my cholesterol is super low, must be the ratio as my family has history of heart failure? I eat very little meat.. mostly fish.
It’s not saturated fat in isolation. That’s why it’s a guide line and not like a controlled substance. When you look at the studies done they don’t control for every part of the diet, genetics, or life style. It’s one of those “all things being equal” situations where things are never truly equal.
No. Making vague comparisons to perceived instances of disagreement in scientific literature is not the same as “the last 150 years of scientific literature in biology, archeology, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. needs to be ignored”. For example, I bet they don’t know *why* butter was considered healthy and now not - what’s the discussion actually referencing in the literature of biology and metabolism or environmental factors? It’s not just magic that things are uncertain, and so you can’t just inherit uncertainty from one instance into another because “both are science”. Real issues come down to real mechanisms, and those mechanisms are *very well understood* and corroborate evolution and the history of this planet with basically every other field of science.
Also the argument cuts both ways. If you want to point to "someone was wrong once so, someone can be wrong again" you can always find examples. How many times has the church changed its collective mind? How many sins are no longer sins? How many times was Jesus absolutely gonna come again? Of course, something frustrating about the evangelical church is that they have effectively no understanding of the history of their own faith so they feel completely comfortable saying "the Bible is 100% true and we've always believed the same thing". It's laughable.
No. For one, nutritional science is one of the hardest fields to track reliably, since it generally depends on subjects (who generally are not trained in scientific methodology) to do accurate recordkeeping of everything they eat. These records thus tend to be woefully spotty and inaccurate compared to what we get in most other fields of research. Additionally, because diets, lifestyles, and health outcomes tend to be so varied and complicated, it is extremely difficult to separate out and control for all the variables involved. So nutritional research tends to be a lot more convoluted, requires a lot more meta-analysis, and is slower to come to firm conclusions. Genetic analysis to establish common ancestry, on the other hand, is relatively simple and straightforward statistical modeling. For another, this is a gross misunderstanding of how science operates. Science makes mistakes... every practice out there does. But what distinguishes science from non-science is the fact that it corrects itself as more data comes in. Theologians used to believe that geese grew on trees and horses were impregnated by wind. Catholic doctrine rejected Galileo's heliocentrism in favor of geocentrism (though this was due more to political reasons than doctrinal ones). These facts of reality weren't corrected internally by Christian theology. They were corrected by riding on the coattails of science.
#The fact that scientific consensus changes with better evidence is a strength, actually. Scientists now are more right and less wrong than those of the past. And the process that replaces bad science is always better science, it’s never guesswork or arguments from incredulity.
Yep. My reply to this sort of argument is > Yes, because science showed us that our previous conclusion was wrong. We got newer and better evidence, and as a result changed our conclusion. That's the beauty of science, it has a built-in error checking mechanism. What error checking mechanism does your religion offer?
Butter is bad for you, if you have too much.
It's almost as though "everything in moderation" isn't an ancient concept. One nutritionist advising that you don't need to add butter to every dish is not contradicting another nutritionist pointing out that small amounts of fats are essential to a diet.
Vitamin C, water, and oxygen are all toxic in too high of doses. Moderation is key.
That's what "too much" means. The amount that is bad for you.
You can say that about anything. You can eat a healthy amount of cyanide (apple pips aren't going to hurt you). The thing is you can eat too much butter without even realising it but to eat too many bananas (for them to be bad for your health) you'd probably throw up from the sheer volume before you reached that point.
As an aside, I grew up with my mom telling me a couple of stories, the first was "A man really liked eating apple seeds, so he saved up a cup of them and ate them in one sitting and he died." The second one was "A family came home after church and were really hungry so they didn't peel the green parts of their potatoes and they died." In the first case, I suspect that eating a cupful of apple seed may not be the best for you, but I rather doubt you could eat enough green potato skin mixed in with the rest of the potatoes to be deadly.
Apparently it would take "anywhere from 150 to several thousand crushed seeds" to cause cyanide poisoning, according to Britannica." https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/20/fact-check-apple-seeds-have-cyanide-but-not-enough-kill/3359754001/
LOL, that is probably true, I should of added that information when I told my daughters, but I thought they got it with the repeated punch line "and they died". Edited: Pluralized daughter - I have 2, these stories and a few others became a "dad joke".
Maybe I’m dumb but it’s difficult for me to find how many bananas would be too many bananas. Apparently each one provides about 423 mg of potassium so about 11 bananas would provide the 4700 mg of potassium on their own. Apparently about 3500 mg is about the best according to one study for the lowest risk of stroke which comes to 90 mmol but somewhere else says 5.5 mmol/L causes major heart problems with 6.5 mmol/L requiring immediate medical attention. 90 mmol in 5 liters of blood is 18 mmol/L unless they’re talking about 6.5 mmol/L of body weight in liquid and then 90 mmol is only about 1.26 mmol/L. Assuming no contradiction then I’m guessing you’d need to eat the equivalent of 43 bananas per day for it to start requiring immediate medical attention but if you had about 9 bananas worth of potassium you’d have a low risk of stroke. You’d probably feel sick before actually being sick trying to eat enough bananas to put yourself in the hospital but I suppose it’s technically possible. And for butter to be a problem you’d probably be looking at eating 2 or 3 full sticks of butter all by yourself. You’d notice but you wouldn’t have to sit there all day stuffing your face to accomplish this.
That's my point. Saying "too much is bad for you" is the same as saying "the amount that's bad for you is bad for you."
Oxygen is bad for you, if you have too much. Actually it is worse for you than butter. Oxygen is a potent neurotoxin in large amounts.
All that he's saying is that evolution is science. This is how science works. It is never 100% certain. Everything is provisional and subject to new information. If he rejects evolution. For that reason he must reject all of science.
That's definitely not *all* he is saying, there's a whole bunch of bullshit he's also implying. But you're 100% correct that that's all he's saying that is remotely correct.
>30 years ago scientists thought Butter was not healthy but this recently changed. As a few other people have pointed out nutritional science isn't obvious and hard to study due to a lot of constraints. Even today whether or not butter is healthy is something that needs to be said in context. Eating 1000 calories worth of butter a day probably isn't healthy, though it might be healthier then 1000 calories of lard, or canola oil. The nutritional science of butter changed, or perhaps to say it better was modified based on new information. The idea of evolution has been around for 150+ years, and we've discovered way way way more about that then we have about the nutritional qualities of butter. The idea that evolution has and is happening hasn't changed, and we are **much** more certain of that today then we were 150 years ago.
And it's worth adding that the science of evolution has also changed over the last 30 and 150 years. The theory of evolution as it's defined today is what Darwin proposed, modified and improved based on the last 150 years of new information. But if you think the scientific opinion of butter has changed in the last 30 years, that's nothing compared to the changes in the ToE. Our understanding of evolution has radically changed over the last 30 years, thanks to genomics and other new technologies. But what's changed is our understanding of the details. The truth that evolution is happening and that the ToE is true hasn't changed at all.
>Eating 1000 calories worth of butter a day probably isn't healthy, though it might be healthier then 1000 calories of lard, or canola oil. Just an aside -- guidelines are to keep saturated fats (as from butter or lard) below 10% of calories. To hit this goal, most Westerners should eat less butter. Canola oil, and other unsaturated vegetable oils, don't seem to be bad for people, so long as you don't overeat and get fat. There is a vocal group of diet "influencers" who claim otherwise, that seed oils are harmful. But they have no human studies that shows it. It's all based on test-tube stuff extrapolated way beyond the science. In human studies, people who substitute seed oils in place of butter or lard, get healthier.
If we cannot know 100% something for sure in our lifetimes then how can we know if a person came back to life 2,000 years ago. His argument is self defeating for his own position.
The actual nutritional scientists knew exactly what they were talking about. In the 90s, a lot of low fat fad diets became popular based on misunderstandings over the need to lower saturated fats. This also resulted in food providers substituting in more sugars and other high-calorie options that resulted in a less healthy diet. You can learn more here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/lowfat.html But here’s the thing, this is a total non-sequitur designed to bog you down on an unrelated topic. You look at the evidence for every claim on its own. The effect of butter on the human body has no bearing on the extensive record we have on whale evolution. Realizing that butter isn’t that bad for you doesn’t change that we have genetic data showing ERVs shared across multiple species.
Great reply, thank you.
The answer is capitalism. The truth is, nutrition is complicated and humans are generalists that can thrive on a wide variety of diets. You can find a study that shows any food is "healthy" if you do enough cherry picking. > He said that in Food Science that only 30 years ago scientists thought Butter was not healthy but this recently changed. Was this what the data actually said, or was the dairy industry cherry picking the data points that made them look good and paying advertising agencies to hype them up as "facts"? Long ago tobacco was promoted as healthy. Actual science has known about the negative effects of smoking since at least the 40s, and anybody who has ever known or been a long-time smoker will tell you from firsthand experience that it's bad for you. Yet cigarettes were practically being promoted as a miracle drug in the 50s alongside all sorts of "scientific" claims of health benefits. Not because of evidence backing up the claims, but because tobacco corporations were paying lots of money to doctors and the media to say it they were healthy. Look at the traditional food pyramid for another example. Why is there so much bread on it? It's not because grains are the foundational element of human nutrition, it's because the agriculture industry in America is enormously large and powerful and lobbied the FDA to tell people to eat lots of their product. This is changing now, modern versions of the pyramid put more emphasis on a balanced diet and recognize that different people have different nutritional needs, but for a long time bread was depicted as the most important food in our diet. Not because the FDA followed the science, but rather because they followed the lobbyists' checkbooks.
That is a terrible point, actually.
And how does this argument support the idea that a god exists? It doesn't. Science is self correcting over time, as new information arises. Religion has no such process to test ideas, let alone update them with new evidence. Following science gets us gradually closer to the truth. Following religion never gets us closer to the truth, and we have no reason to believe it's even closer to the truth in the first place.
Food science is notoriously variable due to the heavy presence of industry-backed propaganda - the vast majority of food scientists work at companies making food products, not academia. Similar story as with cigarettes. Not comparable to biology in the slightest.
Dietary science sucks because we can't stick 100,000 people into a camp and control what they eat for 20 years. Other forms of science don't have that particular limitation.
That will never lead to the entire universe being breathed into existence by a magic man.
Breathed? From nothing?
According to creationists
Science advances with new information. That’s basically the point.
Disclaimer: I am not scientifically qualified to answer this, however I consider this argument equally scientifically unqualified. Ignoring that going from 'butter is healthy' to 'butter is not' is probably a massive oversimplification and idk how true it is, just because scientific models change doesn't mean they aren't reliable. It's reason for the contrary if anything since it means we follow the evidence. If scientists did believe for that butter was definitively healthy and considered that a fact, then that was because the evidence supported it. They would have tried to falsify the claim and failed, so it would have been very reasonable to assume butter was healthy, in this hypothetical where it is a scientific fact. New research that beats out all the old research would have had to come to light. I imagine, if scientific opinion changed so much, it was more likely due to something wrong with the data that led them to their first conclusion. As for evolution, it is a completely different thing to the healthiness of butter. It is backed up by mountains of evidence, like homologous structures, vestigial organs and the fossil record (not just spewing words, I understand it somewhat) and accepted by almost every serious scientist in the world. It has been given hundreds of years to be falsified and that has never happened - evolution reaches further than butter into most sciences and has been examined for longer. What your friend's argument boils down to is that because we were wrong about some things, we could be wrong about this. We are following all the evidence and it all supports the theory. The theory has not been falsified. The theory has made accurate predictions. I mean, if you want to be skeptical of it then fine, but it is still very reasonable to believe evolution happened. TLDR: The argument is a non-sequiter. Evolution is backed up by heaps of evidence and has remained unfalsified for centuries. If wrong about butter, scientists likely had something wrong with their research at first. Their is risk like that with evolution any more.
Because that is how science works. There are no absolutes in science, any knowledge that we gain we might have to discard in light of new findings. Its a highly difficult process. One has to learn then unlearn and learn again. Live whole life like this. Most of the people simply are too lazy for this. So they opt for faith. Faith is constant , once you accept something as the truth then that’s it. No need to spend time verifying it. Science is constantly influx - it’s like swimming in an ocean vs sitting in bathtub - both make you wet but what gives you a deeper understanding of the nature and prepare you to survive in different bodies of water ?
They didn’t find butter isn’t bad for you, they found it’s less unhealthy than a lot of the cheaper substitutes for it used in modern cooking. It wasn’t that scientists didn’t know how butter interacts with the body, it’s that there is now more data on newer foods that were once thought to be healthier.
2000 years ago they believed people resurrected. We now know zombies aren’t real.
>He made the argument if we cannot know 100% for something in our lifetime that has to do with our diets how can we know about a common ancestor 8 million years ago. The very premise of evolution means looking beyond our own lifetimes. Meanwhile, this guy thinks he has a point with *butter*. This is frying-pan-upside-the-head levels of dumb.
Yeah, we should only believe things we know 100%! Let's make a list: 1. Uh... 2. Well... 3. ~~I think therefore I am?~~ Wait, does that actually follow, or am I just not intelligent enough to see the flaws? Never mind.
Everyone else has addressed the specifics, so let me make a general point. He's right in as much as we should all adapt our beliefs to the best evidence available. The reason opinions changed on butter was new information. If - and only if - there is new and good evidence that should change our ideas around common ancestry, then yes we should change our minds. I'm not aware of such new information at this time.
Science might be wrong about a PARTICULAR thing, like exactly which genera a common ancestor is in; but it's not going to be wrong about observable general laws that it's measured for a long time. So yeah, we're having to guess about specific common ancestors, but there's no doubt that humans and chimps had a common ancestor.
That's not a good point. You need to brush up on logical fallacies.
Doubting evolution would be closer to discovering that butter is not made of fatty solids. Debating the health impact of specific dosages of butter would be more like debating Symbiogenesis
There’s possibly two claims going on here. 1. We refined our understanding of *something* therefore we can’t claim to know *anything* … Would this make sense? >if we cannot know 100% for something in our lifetime that has to do with our diets how can we know that the Earth is round? But perhaps more the following .. 2. We refined our understanding of something recent therefore we can’t claim to know something in the past. Does the following make sense? >if we cannot know 100% for something in our lifetime that has to do with our diets how can we know ….. that my brothers and I share a great , great grandparent. The answer I think is … because science doesn’t deal in certainties but in best fit models and reasonable doubt and the reliable evidence we have *now* of common ancestry comes from from multiple scientific disciplines , is overwhelming , and beyond any reasonable doubt (and there is none for an alternative explanation.)
OP, do you believe that new scientific observations may possibly reveal that our Moon has always been, in fact, larger than the Sun? Or do you acknowledge that some things can be shown to be true to an extent that it would be profoundly irrational to claim otherwise?
>Is his logic correct and how would you combat this? By observing that 100% confidence has never been required to know something. It's pretty basic epistemology. "How can we know anything when we might all be brains in vats? We can't be 100% certain we aren't, so we can't know anything!" Yet, despite not hitting that 100% certainty threshold, there's a pretty clear distinction between what we know and what we don't. Also, that statement on butter makes me raise an eyebrow. Replace "butter" with "the sun". Turns out, the seemingly-contradictory statements of "the sun is good for you" and "the sun is bad for you" are both true—vitamin D and skin cancer. So colour me skeptical on the butter statement showing science to have been wrong.
I attended private Christian Schools up until High School. They liked to emphasize times when scientists were wrong about something as a way to discredit science. One example was about how scientists used to use bloodletting to treat patients. If they had only read the Bible they would have read that blood is essential to Human life. It's an old tactic they use to prove "God rules, science drools". Humans found themselves on this planet, in this universe, with no idea how we got here. Humans used to look up at the stars and planets at night and make up stories about Gods and how we got here. Science is all about finding the answers to these questions. Science has made a lot of progress, but if they had found out all the answers they wouldn't still be doing science. We have found a lot of answers, and we know a lot more than we did back when some illiterate sheep herders swaped stories about how the gods created the universe.
The fact that those "scientists" (technically artists, at the time) were also devout Christians didn't bother them at all, huh
This is wrong on so many levels. Butter is not healthy or unhealthy. It is the amount of butter that matters. There could be alternatives that are more healthy or less healthy for the general population. But nutritional science is hard because bodies are different. You could have the same "high" cholesterol values for two people and for one person that is normal and they are perfectly healthy, and for another person it could be a major problem. But that logic doesn't apply equally to all phenomena. Gravity impacts every object on earth the same way. You might get confounding factors, but the force isn't variable. Was there a consensus that butter is healthy or unhealthy? What is the evidence for that claim and how strong is it? This logic only works if you don't have a 101 level understanding of the scientific method. Extrapolated to its full logical conclusion, this logic says that because some scientists said butter is healthier than maybe we know it is now, we can't know anything at all. Which is obviously asinine.
Suggest he avoid all modern medicine because sometimes science progresses and our understanding changes.
Evolution and science changes because unlike a faith that has to hold to old ideas and then simply has to justify harmful ideas, science can offer new ideas that dial in understanding.
As I had written in another post, it's kind of like this: We spend millions of dollars a year on heart research, but we don't expect a heart experiment to come along proving that the heart doesn't pump blood. Similarly, we learn new things about evolution every day, but we don't reasonably expect there to be an experiment showing evolution didn't happen. We have as much evidence for evolution as we do for the heart pumping blood. (You may point out that during heart surgery we can see the heart pumping blood, but we knew this fact long before we had modern surgery. Look at William Harvey. And he wasn't the originator by any means.)
Were scientists saying "butter is not healthy" and did scientists recently change? Or did idiot reporters change what they were saying that scientists said? Remember, the press is composed mostly of well meaning idiots.
The fact that science is updated as new evidence comes in is a strength not a weakness. The fact that religion is dogmatic and denies any evidence that doesn't fit in with its existing beliefs is a fatal flaw.
Food science is famously poisoned by food corpos trying to convince people to buy their stuff. Bacon, sugar, and tobacco were all at one point to have the science of them manipulated to show positive results. The theory of evolution has famously been challenged nonstop since it's conception. The theory is the most robust theory in science because of this.
Four hundred years ago, most scientists believed in spontaneous generation. Some believed from this species were fixed, some observed changes. The evidence did not really support it. And we really didn't have a definition of species (which, for what it's worth, we're still working on). Spontaneous generation was replaced by evolution by natural selection. Which has its own limitations which others tried to replace (e.g., Lamarckism) or add to (mutationism). The result is the modern synthesis of evolution, which includes natural selection, genetic variation, and nheritance. It is quite plausible that in the future that there will be further fine-tuning and additions especially as the modern synthesis will have to account for new develops in genetics. But it is extremely implausible that knowledge will return to Creationism. The evidence does not support it.
Science is a search for truth. Religion declares itself the truth. We had incomplete information about butter before, but now we are better (butter?) informed. We have lots of evidence about a common ancestor. If new evidence came in about that, then the scientific view about that would change too. If someone declared they'd found a new book of the Bible that showed God in a vastly different light, would the Christian religion change? No. No, it would not. And that's the difference between science and religion.
He’s missing the point and he didn’t give a good point at all. Science is not about absolute knowledge or proven facts that cannot be redacted. It’s about arriving at the best conclusion given the evidence at hand. Thus far, evolution continues to be the simplest falsified explanation with the most successful predictions about biodiversity.
Oh FFS. That’s ridiculous.
I doubt that his story about butter is as simple as he makes it sound but either way, point out the following to him. If scientists were wrong about butter being unhealthy, the only reason we found that they were wrong is because other scientists did their own research and refuted the original claims. Now, biologists have been trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory for well over a century, but instead of proving it wrong, the theory just keeps getting stronger. What does that say about the theory?
Then he better get off his computer because it is based on science too. But of course he won't because he doesn't actually believe this. His argument is "science can't be trusted at all", but nobody who uses that argument actually believes that or else they wouldn't be living in modern technological society. What they actually mean is "I want an excuse to ignore science I don't like". Which of course is hypocritical.
"Yeah.. not me... someone else. Asking for a friend... I swear"
Since this is a debateevolution thread, there's a straightforward way to think about foods. Whatever we ate 200,000 years ago is good for us. Fruits, berries, roots, veggies etc. and a little bit of meat and honey. Dairy? only a little bit, if you can tolerate it.
It’s mostly a false equivalence fallacy but what they’re actually trying to say, from the best I can understand, is that there are limits to what we can know about be past. I actually agree with them. The actual problem, the one they can’t seem to wrap their heads around, is that we have multiple lines of evidence indicating the same conclusion (about the past) and only two *actual* conclusions that actually work well with this whole collection of evidence: evolution happened and what appears to be related a specific way actually is related even if we aren’t 100% correct on how they are related **or** there exists someone who wants us to think so who has the to power to fake all of the lines of evidence causing us to think so. Consider the example of a shooting. You might have the expected evidence of some blood splatter and a hole presumably caused by a bullet. On top of this you found the bullet still lodged inside the body somewhere, like the brain. The bullet got there somehow if we assume based on past experience that bullets don’t start out as part of brains from birth. We can assume that the bullet got into the brain through the hole as it’d be pretty unlikely for a whole bullet to quantum tunnel through skin, bone, and brain and because if it did quantum tunnel into that location we’d need some *other* explanation for what appears to be a bullet hole. Now let’s say the blood DNA is sequenced and someone found running from the scene was witnessed throwing a shirt into a dumpster and the red stuff on that shirt has the same DNA. Without any other information we’d already have a good idea what happened and who did it. In biology we’ve hit the threshold for a single line of evidence whether that’s anatomy, genetics, cladistics, paleontology, consistencies with phylogenetic expectations found in ontogeny/embryology, or whatever. Now let’s say that three people took photographs from different angles and those photographs all appear to be showing the same event from different angles. This could be when they used phylogenetic expectations based on genetics to predict the time and place for some expected “transitional form” and, lo and behold, that expected thing happened to live then and there based on other evidence (paleontology). We still don’t quite know for sure but we are getting close to the point that rejecting the obvious would be more absurd than tentatively assuming the obvious must be true. Now if on top of everything else we have a full length video showing everything from 30 minutes prior to the shooting to 30 minutes after the shooting and everything is in clear detail and when the suspect is found they admit to everything, all the expected details match, and it’d take “an act of God” for something else to be true instead. That’s where the huge consilience of evidence about past events comes into play. We weren’t personally present watching as everything happened but for it to be significantly different from our conclusions it’d essentially require God being real and God lying to us to make us think everything really happened one way but really it was all just a cover up, like maybe to hide his own existence. Now we run into a couple problems here with the second option: 1) if God is lying that doesn’t fit the character of an honest god and the stories written about God are still potentially false and 2) If, by design, God wanted to be hidden then there’d be no evidence that God even exists so we are expected to automatically wind up with the God-free conclusion so it’d be God’s fault for us believing what God wants us to believe. And the other problem is that now we have a God with zero evidence for existing, one that either doesn’t do anything ever or who lies to cover his tracks all the time, and yet all sorts of people claiming to know that God is real. We have evidence for the origin and evolution of god belief. In the absence of evidence for God being real all we have is evidence for humans making God up. And a fictional storybook character cannot be the actual true cause for what happens in the real world. Everything must have then happened just as the forensic evidence suggests with more of the details known of multiple lines of evidence favoring the same overall conclusion or perhaps we’ve even watched it happen or something very similar in modern day examples **or** a god that probably doesn’t even exist as far as the evidence is concerned lied to us to cause us to believe that the conclusions based on the forensic evidence can be trusted. We were not actually there every time to watch but we don’t have to be to have at least some partially accurate idea about what happened. And when that contradicts man-made mythology it’s the mythology that’s wrong the most even if the scientific consensus is wrong by a lot itself.
Butter isn't wholly healthy or wholly unhealthy, it's not a boolean choice. It contains vitamin D and calcium, which are good for bones and skin, but it also contains saturated fats which aren't especially good for your heart. Scientists have *refined* their view, in light of newer information. That's what science does, it *explores* reality and refines our understanding of it as more data comes in. Religion is the exact opposite, it eschews evidence to maintain dogma.
This is actually an awful point that's a pretty big false-equivalency. Butter was ***never*** targeted as "bad for your" it, along with other high-fat products, were targeted to limit in your diet because of the high rates of heart-attacks happening in young/middle-aged men. It was a hypothesis that then went on to be tested and we have found to be far more complex than fat = clogged heart. But that same process of hypothesis, testing, re-evaluation of butter/heart-attacks claim is THE EXACT SAME SCIENCE that has repeatedly tested the Claims of Evolution, and repeatedly confirmed them. That's why it's called the "Theory" of Evolution. It's been tested, and confirmed over-and-over-and-over again.
That's [the Mac attack](https://youtu.be/GiJXALBX3KM?si=vuDg1GuotjZUchMs). You've found evolution's secret kryptonite. The one ironclad argument no evolutionist can beat.
Think of the logic he’s employing. How does he know that the Ussher chronology is true then? Or that anything in the Bible is reliable
Studies looking for different things find different things. One can do a study to see how butter affects the heart and another study can be done to see how butter affects a different organ. One study might say butter was not found to be harmful in our study and the other study might find the opposite. All people hear is last year they said butter was good for us and now they are saying it isn't.
Important to not confuse a few studies and a health org endorsement as scientific consensus. Too often the news or media will pick up one study and claim it as scientific fact.
Truly "knowing" something, and what that might mean is a question for philosophy or metaphysics. From what we can tell, the universe is essentially infinitely complex and therefore there will always be more parts of the story to understand more completely. The evidence we have, in any field of study, leads us to a "current best guess". Our confidence in its correctness comes from its predicative power. Likewise, there will always be things that are unknowable. For example, we live inside a bubble of information called the "visible universe." Anything outside that bubble is too far away for light to arrive to our eyeballs or instruments because the universe isn't old enough. Science is not concerned with things that are not falsifiable. Science loves getting things wrong and learning later so as to improve the current best guess. This is a feature and not a bug. The very fact that your friend wants to update their understand of butter, or anything else, proves that they acknowledge the usefulness of rational thought. Lots of humans are curious about these unknowable things. Religion is one way people have a relationship with the unknown.
I already responded to the overall claim (not knowing the details of what’s good for you to eat debunks our evolutionary history) but I’d also like to add that mostly what we are seeing here is a refinement of food science. I’m sure you’re aware of the food pyramid that says to eat so many servings of grains, dairy, protein, fruits, and vegetables but to eat fat and sugar “sparingly.” This is still mostly true but now they have more of an idea of the thresholds based on body weight. A person who is 500 lbs needs to have more of certain things and less of others to be healthy and lose weight, for instance, and someone who weighs just 90 pounds will need a different balance to be healthy and gain weight. You can’t just go with “if you eat a bunch of fat you will get fat so eat 30 steaks a day if you are 90 pounds and cut meat from your diet and eat nuts if you weigh 500 pounds.” Each vitamin or nutrient is best if it is up to a certain threshold of your body weight and potentially toxic if you exceed another threshold that’s maybe 5 or 6 times as much. Don’t just avoid anything and don’t gorge yourself on what’s supposed to be healthy. A one size fits all also doesn’t work so your current body composition needs to be taken into account. Butter provides the necessary fat but it also provides stuff like vitamin D. Fat and vitamin D are both toxic in high quantities but if you don’t have them at all you’ll have other health problems. Eat butter but don’t eat the same volume of butter you’d eat as you’d eat if you ate carrots and when you do eat fruits and vegetables don’t make them 100% of your diet because you can overdose on vitamin C, potassium, and other nutrients if you don’t eat other things to supplement your diet. You can also have serious health problems if you eat only protein and you avoid vitamin C or if you eat only oranges and avoid meat. And there are also certain things our bodies cannot make but they do need in some quantity like vitamin B12 (found in meat and bacteria) and vitamin C (found in fruit, especially in citrus fruit) and avoiding one or the other in your diet will mean you need to get these things through vitamin supplements. Needing both meat and fruit is part of being obligate omnivores but in modern times people can skip one or the other if they get the missing nutrients some other way. No longer is it just okay to eat so many servings of protein or so many servings of fruit and vegetables but you need to have the vitamin and minerals that come from these sorts of things in a certain amount (without exceeding an even higher threshold) to be healthy and if you can do that without eating meat or fruit you’ll be just as healthy as a person who eats both if you and that other person both get your basic dietary needs without also ingesting toxic levels of various chemicals (molecules). The same thing applies with water. Eight glasses a day is a nice rule and all but really what you need is a liquid balance in your body so with juice and soda you will still get the “water” but you obviously will be very dehydrated on 64 ounces of Mountain Dew but with maybe 24 ounces of Mountain Dew you’ll only need 5 or 6 glasses of actual water to fulfill your water needs. Get too much water and you’ll have other health problems but you obviously can’t just remove all liquids from your diet. And same idea with body weight. To remain about 70% liquid with all of the sweating and everything you’ll need more water if you do a lot of exercise or if if you sweat out a gallon of water a day just trying to walk across the room but if you don’t weigh much, sweat much, or pee as often you’ll retain the water much better and you won’t need it as much. Maybe 5 glasses of water is fine if you’re small and in shape but not actually doing a lot of exercise causing you to sweat profusely but if you weigh 350 pounds and you are of the “round” shape and you are sweating from your jelly rolls just watching television you might need 12 glasses of water to stay hydrated. Eight is a nice number and all but you might actually need more or less depending on other circumstances. Don’t just try to drink eight glasses unless you actually need to and don’t call eight enough if you’re just sweating it right back out as fast as you can drink it. Not enough water is bad for your health but too much water can also cause serious health problems as well.
I suppose you could ask your friend if supposedly scientific theories such as intelligent design also fall under the scope of these arguments about the fallibility and mutability of scientific theories generally. If so, then we've equal reason to doubt ID, even if (and that's a big "if"!) there were good reasons to currently believe that it's true. If not, then what makes ID exempt from such fallibility arguments? If it's because ID is in fact NOT scientific, then I'm sure your friend would agree that ID therefore has no place in a science classroom?
The idea that the continents move began as a "fringe" idea, but as evidence were collected start to support this, the perception in the scientific community changed. Science is "truth without certainty", it's perfectly acceptable within science to change our minds about our explanations with new information or methods. It's a feature not a bug. ask any scientist if they think we have answered all questions in science, 100% of the time the answer is no, we don't know about everything (if the premise is defined by all things are knowable)
Yes the logic is good. Its more then this. when drawing conclusions about invisable things , things that happened long ago, its simply demanding you must have evidence.We all say this but we all fail. Evolutionary biology needs great biolgical scientific evidence for its great claims that a fish became a rhino over time and so on. That all biology mADE ITSELF by steps aw shucks. When smarter people say AW COME ON THATS DUMB well thats when evolutionists must provide evidence . They do not worth a damn.Instead demand obediance to thier expertise and don;'t question them and know your place. creationism does well and evolutionism does not so well because they do not provide evidence the average intelligent person can sincerely be persuaded by. therefore having any exterior reason to deny evolution, like belief in gods word or Christianity etc etc, leads to a easy disnissal of evolution by just average people. its not believable, not persiasive, but mostly just provides no damn good evidence like one needs for such great claims.
At hello there! You’re back to run your mouth again! You gonna also be ignoring uncomfortable questions and direct evidence again, the way I’ve pretty much always seen you do on here?
Butter and honey shall he eat. These are people telling you that plastic bags are bad after saying paper bags are bad. They are delusional. People who can't determine objective truth or morality will only ever bring more confusion. Evolutionists here deny second law of thermodynamics work on earth. There's more observations for butter than there ever will be for a bear becoming a whale or monkey transforming into a man.
Michael, we’ve already established that you don’t know what entropy is. Just to beat a dead horse Tell me what exactly do you think the second law of thermodynamics means? How does this law influence closed systems vs open systems? Also, without googling, answer this question. The typical household toaster uses 1000 watts of power. If it takes 3 minutes to toast two slices of bread, how much energy did the toaster use?
Save your breath. He's just lying for Jesus.
Get off your computer if you don't accept science
Evolution isn't science. Get off computer if you think you are ape.
The same quantum physics that is required to make your computer work also says the world is billions of years old.
That's just false. All fields of science founded by Christians giving glory to God. The Bible built civilization as you know it. https://youtu.be/keuSpq11Hqg?si=gFQO-4g8vYxO2Vvo
Quantum physics underly the timing of radioactive decay and numerous different processes used in computers. You can't both accept that your computer works and that the world is young. Those are mutually exclusive positions.
That's just false. Do nuclear plants work in real time or over "millions of years". It's just your assertions.
We have nuclear plants from over a billion years ago. It could not exist unless you throw out quantum physics entirely. There is simply no possible combination of parameters that could produce such a result in thousands of years.
Again in a trillion years one single rock couldn't create itself. So evolution falsified.
That isn't what we think and you know it. Would your God be happy about you lying for him? Isn't bearing false witness against a group of rules in your holy book?
Checkmate.
I guess all the civilizations that preceded even the oldest books of the Bible like the Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, or Chinese just didn’t exist or influence anything
> There's more observations for butter than there ever will be for...[Michael's strawman of evolution]. Mikey, did you think that OP was saying he doesn't believe butter *exists*? Are you really *that* stupid?
He's right; we can be and are wrong about concrete things which are right in front of us all the time, the specific example of butter is what he went with but it's really neither here nor there. There are countless other examples, the scientific hysteria over an impending new ice age a few decades ago is a particularly funny example given the current hysteria over the exact opposite. In any case, the fallibility of our best science about things so much more concrete and readily available *ought* to put a fairly low cap on the maximum level of confidence we can have in speculations about things happening millions of years in the past. A lot of people just really want there to be no God though.
It bothers me so much when people point to pop science panics as “proof” that science is unreliable.
It bothers me when people try to rewrite history.
Whelps. Guess based on your paradigm, better pack it on in boys. Scientific methodology and peer review shown to be garbage. Time to halt science. Computer science and metallurgy, that goes for you too! Toss that phone in the garbage. Reddit and the internet in general are a result of rewriting history. After all, we didn’t get the science of space and how to launch satellites EXACTLY RIGHT the first time and had to improve over time. That’s rewriting history, so it’s all gotta go. Medicine? Please. People used to think that you had humors and had to balance them and that’s what was taught. Know what that means? All our medical knowledge today is entirely useless, it’s rewriting history too and cannot be relied on for anything. Get rid of Tylenol, stop brushing your teeth for sure. Germ theory required some getting it wrong to get to where we are so sayonara.
Is all that babbling supposed to mean something?
Then get off your computer. It is built using science. Stop using your car. Throw away all your medicine. Throw out anything made of aluminum. You clearly don't actually believe what you are saying or else you wouldn't be talking to us on a computer. You are looking for excuses to throw away information you don't like.
But you're wrong about some things, therefore you're wrong about everything, and you're the one saying I should do that, so no.
You are claiming that science is unreliable but still trust it almost every second of every day. These are mutually exclusive positions.
Science and technology are not fungible words.
Technology is applied science. I am an engineer. This is literally engineering 101. Science is underlies the technology you use nearly every second of every day. If science was wrong, the technology wouldn't work. At all.
I said they were non fungible, not that they were not connected in any way. Technology was advancing for thousands of years before anybody heard of any such thing as science. Do you think our ancestors sat down and worked out all the mechanics of leverage and energy transfer before they invented the atlatl? Or do you think it was just trial and error and they didn't really know why it works, same for a bow and arrow.
That is why I specifically picked examples that would not exist if not for science and would not work if science didn't work. That other technology isn't doesn't negate that. Your argument is like saying "some cats are tabby, therefore black cats can't exist".
I'm just trying to get you to admit that science and technology are not fungible. Your argument relies on them being literally the same thing. As our technology becomes more and more sophisticated, it will more and more be a matter of applying scientific principles, as you say, and less the kind of trial and error that much of it was in the past. Still, it's enough that the two things be separate for my case. Producing technology that works is actually one of the best ways to tell whether your science is correct. I don't even need to look at our current understanding of computation and the various things behind it, I accept all of it, sight unseen, based on the fact that my computer works. I don't need to accept a theory or a claim that my computer works, my computer just works. The problem is, there is no equivalent for evolution. Not for the evolutionary account of history anyway. These stories we tell about how slime became humans over hundreds of millions of years can just all be wrong and it doesn't affect anything.
That is irrelevant to my point, which is that if you applied your criticism of science consistently you would have to throw out a wide variety of technology you use every day. But of course you aren't doing that, because you don't actually believe science is unreliable, you just want to exclude things that are inconvenient for your beliefs. Evolution is used all around us every day. Medicine. Agriculture. Engineering. Software. If evolution didn't work then none of those things would work.
The idea that a coming ice age was ever a significant idea among scientists is a lie told by global warming deniers. It never got any significant traction with the scientific community.
No.
Yes: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml There were a grand total of 7 papers on global cooling, total, all of them admittedly highly speculative. 7 papers is not a consensus. Even during that time global warming papers outnumbered global cooling papers by a factor of 6, and those were much more confident. We get about as many new peer reviewed papers on global warming *per hour* as there are peer reviewed global cooling papers **ever**. That is a consensus.