Why don't Republican officials accept science? 3 examples..

[Heisenberg]

Heisenberg,
Yep, you got me. I get paid to polish college essays in all subjects. Not one paper got less than an A. People come to me when they cannot understand why their writings recieve Cs, or worse. That's incompetence. I'm done with this thread.

Exactly what we expect from someone inside the bubble. Sarcasm and pseudo-qualifications. We have never seen your school work. All we can judge you by is the words you have written here, which demonstrate that you are quite ignorant on scientific subjects, and quite arrogant and undignified to go along with it.

"If an outsider perceives 'something wrong' with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask 'what mistake am I making?' before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong." - David Brin

 

[Padawanbater2]

Heisenberg,
Yep, you got me. I get paid to polish college essays in all subjects. Not one paper got less than an A. People come to me when they cannot understand why their writings recieve Cs, or worse. That's incompetence. I'm done with this thread.

If you decide to remain unexplained, that's fine. No hard feelings.

But you should know, your refusal to defend your claims is a candid admission of defeat, and personally, it does nothing but strengthen the arguments presented against you.

If you could defend the claims you've made, you would. Tucking tail and running says more than staying and learning ever could. You don't want to learn, you don't care if your claims are wrong, they're your claims.


Forget everything else. Answer those three points I made. How can you explain any of that?

How do you explain vaccines, which rely on mutation, an evolutionary mechanism. How do you explain medicine, which relies on evolutionary adaptation? How do you explain the discovery of animals fossilized in rocks at the exact age the theory of evolution predicts?

Please, answer those three questions.

I doubt it means anything, but I apologize for offending you. Stay and defend the claims you made, and tell me why evolution is a lie.

I'm willing to stand by my claims and defend them, are you? If you're not, what does that say about their validity?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Pad,
I tried. I asked you a question. You made a flippant response,"It means you're ignorant of science." No, the answer is set theory. Evolution categorizes and thusly can be put in sets. You got your chance, later.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

run away . . . . . .. lol

bad science

 

[Padawanbater2]

Fine.

But again, you should know, anyone that could defend their beliefs, would.

Your refusal to do so speaks louder than words anyway.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

You don't let me. All you do is say I'm ignorant of X. How can I and why should I when I make attempts, you don't answer my questions which explain my beliefs that are separate from my understanding concepts I don't agree with. That's what's insulting.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

well . . .CS if your unable to have your assertions stand up to scrutiny then id say , your just a troll in disguise as a cute bunny avatar, but i dont think so

of course he might pick at what you think, just as when he asserts a thought it is up for debate and discussion and even ridicule . . . . .come on now . .

 

[Heisenberg]

Pad,
I tried. I asked you a question. You made a flippant response,"It means you're ignorant of science." No, the answer is set theory. Evolution categorizes and thusly can be put in sets. You got your chance, later.

You said evolution is a lie. You didn't say evolution gets some things wrong, evolution is incomplete, or there are parts of evolution you don't agree with. You said it was a lie, meaning a purposeful non-truth perpetuated by the scientific establishment, and implied the rest of us are fools for believing it. You like to spout off that line "evolution is a lie" because it makes you seem smart, like you have figured out more than 150 years of evolutionary science. Problem is, in these forums, you are talking to people who are actually more educated than you and so do not fall for your double speak and hand-waiving dismissals. To us it's clear that you have never bothered to verify that your opinion is an informed one. With nearly every post addressed to you, you ignore relevant points, let questions go unanswered, and attempt to fall back on your anti-science diatribe.

If you are tired of being called ignorant, well there is only one person who can fix that.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I have no ability to restrict your explanations.

The 'rebuttals' to the questions being asked are off topic and irrelevant. Answer the questions posed and stop avoiding them. I've asked you 3 completely relevant questions and you've avoided them.

Why do you believe evolution is a lie?

 

[Heisenberg]

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity.
- Richard Dawkins

Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?
- E. O. Wilson

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Ridicule me one more time, I'm really out. You can't expect a person to answer you if you do, and instead lash out. You all also have no idea how educated, or lack there of, I really am.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Evolution purports itself to be fact.Nothing is fact except the past. That's arrogant,just as much as a bible thumper claiming 9k year old Earth.Both are a belief.One may be better and the best we got.So that makes it a lie.No matter how small the chance.

 

[Heisenberg]

Ridicule me one more time, I'm really out. You can't expect a person to answer you if you do, and instead lash out. You all also have no idea how educated, or lack there of, I really am.

No one is lashing out at you. We have no idea what you are like aside from what you have chosen to show us. What you have shown is not education, but ignorance, which is not an insult, we are all ignorant about many things, but you respond with arrogance and name calling. Saying something like "evolution is a lie" invites challenge. Calling those who challenge you "cock sucker" invites ridicule. You have ignored my points and questions since this exchange started 20 pages ago, responding only to that which you felt you had a ready answer for and ignoring what you didn't feel like addressing, yet you still want your opinion to be seen as valid.

If you are unable to defend or even adequately describe your view, the only person you should be mad at is yourself.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Ridicule me one more time, I'm really out. You can't expect a person to answer you if you do, and instead lash out. You all also have no idea how educated, or lack there of, I really am.

Nobody is 'ridiculing' you. You're being overly offended by things no one said, and being completely defensive about it.

We believe you're ignorant of the theory of evolution because you've demonstrated as much. That's not our fault, but your own.


I expect you don't answer those three simple questions because you can't, not because you choose not to because you feel offended someone would question your reasoning.

You have demonstrated how educated you are discussing these subjects. Mutation, adaptation, you have no real experience in studying either of these two subjects, yet you speak about them as an expert. Whose portraying competence?

And you still have yet to explain everything presented against you, and dismiss it on "personal attacks" when no such attack has been executed against you.


The victim card is well played out by now and well understood, not only by the opposition, but by the bystanders. So if you're attempting to win the argument by default, you will be sorely disappointed.


In the 21st century, facts prevail. Failure to convince independent free thinkers with the ability to fact check your claims will undoubtedly result in your failure to win hearts and minds. I heed you to reconsider your tactics as well as your logic and reasoning.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

What about mutation and adaptation? What do you want to know? Like phenotype?

 

[Heisenberg]

Evolution purports itself to be fact.Nothing is fact except the past. That's arrogant,just as much as a bible thumper claiming 9k year old Earth.Both are a belief.One may be better and the best we got.So that makes it a lie.No matter how small the chance.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. If you see it as fact, that is your fault. Evolution is only a model of explanation and all scientific answers come with error bars at the end, always. There are no absolute answers, which means you must see the entire world as a lie if your standard is that anything with a chance of error is wrong. This seems like an unreasonable position.

Science is the first to stand up and say there are no hard facts, just approximations of the truth. Science shows all it's work with evolution, it is a transparent process that is available for challenge, but saying it's a lie is not a rebuttal of that work, it is not a challenge, it's an excuse for you to have a superior opinion. Problem is, you can't back up that opinion when asked for the simplest of answers because you have never taken the time to think it through.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Padwan said it was a fact. Dawkins you quote says it's fact. I'm not saying it's fact and there may be another explanation or one yet to be found.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What about mutation and adaptation? What do you want to know? Like phenotype?

Mutation regarding vaccines. Why would we need to get a shot every few years of the same vaccine if the virus didn't mutate?

Adaptation regarding medicine. Why would we need to update medicinal practices if viruses didn't adapt to new medical practices developed to combat them?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Padwan said it was a fact. Dawkins you quote says it's fact. I'm not saying it's fact and there may be another explanation or one yet to be found.

I believe I said it is as much a fact as anything else in science. If I said anything other than that, I apologize for seeming misleading. I mentioned early on in this thread "nothing is absolutely certain, but evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, etc.". Again, 'fact' doesn't mean the same to the layman as it does to the scientist.

 

[Heisenberg]

Padwan said it was a fact. Dawkins you quote says it's fact. I'm not saying it's fact and there may be another explanation or one yet to be found.

The idea that evolution is happening is a fact, the explanations behind the mechanisms and influences are the theory. Pay attention to nuance and subtleties. Facts are observable. Theories are the framework that connect the facts and make sense of them. You are attacking the theory of evolution, which has never tried to be a fact. As a theory, it is as verified as the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.

When you say evolution is a lie, you imply that you are an expert. That you have studied the theory and all aspects of evidence an concluded that it is a hoax. It took about 2 posts to start realizing that this wasn't the case. It would be better for you to say, 'Based on my limited exposure and understanding of evolution, I conclude it's a lie". This is much different than assuming the entire scientific community is in on a conspiracy. Afterall, you made the mistake of thinking evolution wants to be a fact, when the mistake was yours for not understanding the difference between fact and theory. What other mistakes might you have made? Why do you trust your own brain more than the collective work of thousands of great minds, minds that work under the concept of extremely careful and fastidious principals.