Christians are anti-science.

[Into the Night]

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

Wrong gender, dude. Argument of the stone fallacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science is probabilistic in nature.

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

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

Define 'reality'.

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

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

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

 

[Cypress]

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

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

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

How Scientists Discovered the Staggering Complexity of Human Evolution

Darwin would be delighted by the story his successors have revealed

Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...the-staggering-complexity-of-human-evolution/

 

[Into the Night]

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

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

I know how et al is used.

Semantics fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.

Unlike you, I have published peer reviewed scientific reports.

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

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

Irrelevance fallacy. Semantics fallacy.

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

Non-sequitur fallacy. Inversion fallacy.


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

 

[Nordberg]

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

Nobel prizes:

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

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?

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

 

[Into the Night]

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


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

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

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

 

[Into the Night]

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

Period. End of story.

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

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

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

Science is not a degree, license, or credential. It is not a government agency or university.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Parroting.

 

[Cypress]

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

Semantics fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.

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

Irrelevance fallacy. Semantics fallacy.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Inversion fallacy.


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

"Into the Night": literally wrong all the bloody time >

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...stians-are-anti-science&p=3901887#post3901887

 

[Into the Night]

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

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

Buzzword fallacy. Define 'obscure rightwing blog'. I am not trying to prove the Theory of Evolution false. It simply is not a theory of science.
Science isn't a magazine. It is not 'Scientific American'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[gfm7175]

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

Don't worry... I have your back against the wall too, buddy!

 

[Into the Night]

Fundamentally, believing in an invisible sky fairy who impacts your life is illogical

Prove that invisible sky fairies do not exist. Please show your work.

and shows susceptibility to religious propaganda.

Religion isn't propaganda. Propaganda is propaganda. Religion is not a proof. I does not deny logic. You, however, do.

All religions are based on some fundamental circular argument. That is not a fallacy. That is simply what religions are. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'.
You are trying to prove a circular argument. You are trying to prove your religion that there is no god or gods. That is the circular argument fallacy. It is what a fundamentalist does.

These fantastic stories have been honed to psychological near perfection over 2000 years.

The Church of the Invisible Sky Fairy has been around for 2000 years? Tell me, since you seem to know so much about the Invisible Sky Fairy, where do they meet? How do you know she even exists?

The fear of hell was a brilliant idea that was made up as time went along.

You are making shit up again. The fear of hell existed as long as anything like a hell has been described. You don't have to manufacture a fear of hell.

Once they found the power it had, they had contests among the church elite think up scarier and scarier hells.

Please describe these contests that took place in the Church of the Invisible Sky Fairy. You seem to know a lot about this religion. I've never heard of it.

My fav was the fires of hell do not furnish light. All that pain and suffering and you will suffer in the dark.

Fires that do not furnish light? What feeds these fires? Wood? Some magick fuel?

 

[Into the Night]

"Into the Night": literally wrong all the bloody time >

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

The obscure rightwing blogs

Buzzword fallacy. Define 'obscure rightwing blog'.

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

I am not arguing against the Theory of Evolution. It is simply not a theory of science.

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

Science isn't a magazine or a Holy Link.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Don't worry... I have your back against the wall too, buddy!

I have no doubt you fantasize about that late at night when you are alone in your bed.

 

[IBDaMann]

Your education level is clearly lower than mine.

Too funny.

You can save any advice you attempt to give to your intellectual superiors.

I was just giving advice to you.

... but one of my friends here has seen my peer reviewed publucations and can confirm if he runs across this thread.

i.e. You haven't written any papers of which you aren't ashamed.

Your problem is that any knowlege of science you have acquired comes from parroting what you read on obscure rightwing blogs.

For example?

That is no substitute for investing four, six, or eight years earning a degree in a scientific discipline at a reputable university

It would appear then that you have no valid excuse for being the scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron that you are. You need to be corrected by Christians.

 

[IBDaMann]

Fundamentally, believing in an invisible sky fairy who impacts your life is illogical and shows susceptibility to religious propaganda.

I couldn't agree more, and now I understand what happened to you. You allowed yourself to become manipulated by Marxists and indoctrinated into the cult of Global Warming. You were then instructed to believe in the invisible Climate goddess in the sky who centrally plans the weather. You believe that She punishes humanity for carbon sins.

Your religion is pretty WACKY and, as you point out, illogical. I thought you and I were going to butt heads over this but I'm glad we see eye-to-eye.

These fantastic stories have been honed to psychological near perfection over 2000 years.

Tell me about it. When Climate is angry, so the story goes, she reduces precipitation where it would be very bad, like in California so they will have droughts, ... and she increases precipitation where that would be very bad, like Asia so they will have floods, because it always has to be a punishment. I get it. W A C K Y !

The fear of hell was a brilliant idea that was made up as time went along.

The fear of catastrophic climate change was a brilliant idea that was made up and constantly revised for political expediency, made possible by the susceptibility to religious propaganda of the indoctrinated warmizombies.

Once they found the power it had, they had contests among the church elite think up scarier and scarier hells.

Once they found the power it had, they began to hold annual Climate conferences to establish new "Climate Ground Zeroes" and to hold contests among the Marxist elite to think up scarier and scarier reasons to tax the shit out of the peasantry ... you know ... the gullible and now paranoid warmizombies who truly believe that all the world's problems will just go away if only the government has enough of their money.

My fav was the fires of hell do not furnish light. All that pain and suffering and you will suffer in the dark.

My absolute fav is telling warmizombies every single month for years that the previous month was the warmest month the earth has experienced E-VAHH ... and the warmizombies never picking up on the pattern. Too funny.

 

[IBDaMann]

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

Like I said, it ffukks with the likes of you to no end, and yes, that is sweet.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Like I said, it ffukks with the likes of you to no end, and yes, that is sweet.

It's spelled "fucks", son. Disagreed. It proves you are "off" even on a good day.

 

[IBDaMann]

It's spelled "fucks", son.

That's just a test verifying that it is still effectively ffukking with you to no end.

Disagreed.

Too late. You just agreed above. Wait two weeks and resubmit your grievance for final disapproval.

 

[Cypress]

Too funny.


I was just giving advice to you.


i.e. You haven't written any papers of which you aren't ashamed.


For example?


It would appear then that you have no valid excuse for being the scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron that you are. You need to be corrected by Christians.

No, you weren't 'just giving advice'

You ASSumed you caught me in a "gotcha" blunder, until it blew up in your face.

You were the one to attempt to nit pick grammar, not me.


The burden is on you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked.

 

[Into the Night]

No, you weren't 'just giving advice'

You ASSumed you caught me in a "gotcha" blunder, until it blew up in your face.

You were the one to attempt to nit pick grammar, not me.

Assumption of victory fallacy. He actually did an excellent job of showing off your poor education.

The burden is on you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked.

RQAA. The Theory of Natural Selection is not a theory. It's a paradox.