Democrats understand science, Republicans defy it

[NiftyNiblick]

The Republican string-pulling corporate oligarchs try to suppress science for their own financial benefit.

The 63,000,000 Trumpanzees who vote in DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THEIR OWN FINANCIAL BENEFIT couldn't begin to understand it.
We're talking serious mental deficiencies here.

 

[tinfoil]

It would behoove you to post your data source.

I'm past worrying about posting links for morons like you. You never follow or acknowledge the facts. It's pointless.

Here's a link to some proxys for temp. Notice the rate of warming that began about 10-12 thousand years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial#/media/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

 

[Micawber]

The whole creationism belief system thing does create quite the conundrum. At what point does their freedom
of expression and to raise their children as they see fit become a form of child abuse that must yield to the state's
interest in not having kid's brains trashed? Doesn't the state have an interest in protecting the young from
having their lives ruined? How do we protect the population from mass fraud and cults, from beliefs that absolutely
bar adherents from participating in the job market in society, one that sorely needs great minds in science.

If I had a job offering for an anthropologist and two applicants, a creationist and an ex convict with nazi tats all over his face,
I'd have to hire the convict. Creationist beliefs disqualify a person from participation in any field of biological sciences,
or frankly, any science. You can't understand basic physics, geology and astronomy and believe in a young earth. You are
excluded from participation in any science predicated on a natural existence longer than 6000 years. Isn't it child abuse to
teach your kids to be unemployable except as a low paid internet troll for right wing causes?

 

[tinfoil]

staight up question for one of you lib'rul idiots to answer......Does science tell us that we would not be experiencing global warming if it wasn't for human activity?.........

It's implicit in their blaming of all warming on humans. Their belief must be that climate does not change or they would have a specific figure for how much warming was due to natural causes.

 

[Micawber]

The Theory of Creation is not science. It is not falsifiable. We can't go back to see what actually happened. It is just like the Theory of Abiogenesis in that way. Science has no theories about past unobserved events for this reason. The only way to test the null hypothesis is to go back in time and actually see what happened.

You are a borderline solipsist.

Which of the following beliefs do you adopt:

1. we cannot know the speed of light because our eyes are insufficient to directly apprehend anything that fast
2. we can detect the speed of light using tools that reliably translate its speed of C into a form we can observe with our senses
3. although 2 is true, we cannot exclude infinite variables we cannot apprehend that interrupt the travel of light back to its source
at distances that exceed 6000 years because my retarded creationist exegesis insists that's when Jebus clicked his ruby slippers

The teachable moment here for you is that you can not reject the logical and rational extension of science because you can conjure
an interceding cause that might conceivably interrupt its application. If you do, it is you, not the rule or law, that is injecting an
invisible force.

 

[Truth Detector]

You're cute! Can I bat you around as a play toy? Thanks!

I'm a liberal. So was my dad, who was also a scientist. (As are two of my five kids). I'm also a retired health care professional who took university-level science and math classes to get her degree. My husband has a masters and spent his career in IT as a software engineer/systems architect. So yeah, I know math n science. I understand how science works, how to make observations over time, how to collect data, how to formulate a hypothesis, how to then use that data to formulate a theory. Oh, and yeah -- I know what a theory is as well. I'm just one of millions of other Americans, and even more millions of global citizens, who understand science and mathematics... and what "peer review" means. Unfortunately for you most educated ppl tend to skew to the left -- because we are educated and not prone to superstitious beliefs like Fox Knows Best. I'm afraid you're just a rabid raccoon barking up a dead tree, in a dying forest, where no one can hear you.

This is about all you can expect from self proclaimed intelligent leftist dumbasses.

 

[Truth Detector]

You get schooled everyday...and you're still stupid as a pile of shit.

And the moron thinks he wins too. Now THAT is damned funny.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The whole creationism belief system thing does create quite the conundrum. At what point does their freedom
of expression and to raise their children as they see fit become a form of child abuse that must yield to the state's
interest in not having kid's brains trashed? Doesn't the state have an interest in protecting the young from
having their lives ruined? How do we protect the population from mass fraud and cults, from beliefs that absolutely
bar adherents from participating in the job market in society, one that sorely needs great minds in science.

If I had a job offering for an anthropologist and two applicants, a creationist and an ex convict with nazi tats all over his face,
I'd have to hire the convict. Creationist beliefs disqualify a person from participation in any field of biological sciences,
or frankly, any science. You can't understand basic physics, geology and astronomy and believe in a young earth. You are
excluded from participation in any science predicated on a natural existence longer than 6000 years. Isn't it child abuse to
teach your kids to be unemployable except as a low paid internet troll for right wing causes?

As an adult student who has taken several college-level science courses, I have to agree with this. I have seen kids struggling in microbiology, biology, human A&P, and even in chemistry because they were told as kids that evolution is a wrongful "belief". Even in sociology, a fellow student became irate during a discussion of racism in which the textbook referenced racist beliefs that black people are closely related to apes, unlike the non-black superior white race. She wanted to know why there are still monkeys if humans evolved from the ape species. She appeared to be very offended that her religious belief in creationism was being unfairly attacked. *sigh*

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It's implicit in their blaming of all warming on humans. Their belief must be that climate does not change or they would have a specific figure for how much warming was due to natural causes.

their only belief was that they could use false science to bring about political change.......they lost because people realized their "science" was false......

 

[Into the Night]

You're cute! Can I bat you around as a play toy? Thanks!

I'm a liberal. So was my dad, who was also a scientist. (As are two of my five kids). I'm also a retired health care professional who took university-level science and math classes to get her degree. My husband has a masters and spent his career in IT as a software engineer/systems architect. So yeah, I know math n science. I understand how science works, how to make observations over time, how to collect data, how to formulate a hypothesis, how to then use that data to formulate a theory. Oh, and yeah -- I know what a theory is as well. I'm just one of millions of other Americans, and even more millions of global citizens, who understand science and mathematics... and what "peer review" means. Unfortunately for you most educated ppl tend to skew to the left -- because we are educated and not prone to superstitious beliefs like Fox Knows Best. I'm afraid you're just a rabid raccoon barking up a dead tree, in a dying forest, where no one can hear you.

I am a physicist. I own my own company. I build instrumentation for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. I am a conservative, like my father before me. There. Now we got that out of the way, I don't believe you just as you don't believe me.

You'll find that claims of credentials mean nothing on forums.

It means nothing to science either.

If you want to have a theory about something, you must first DEFINE that something. You can't define that something with itself (because it's not yet defined!). Define 'global warming' or 'climate change'. These are meaningless buzzwords. They can only be defined by themselves. No theory is possible based on a void argument.

Science isn't peer reviews. Science does not use consensus. It is not credentials. No university, government organization, academy, society, or any other political group owns science. There is no elite voting bloc in science. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

The mathematics denied by the Church of Global Warming are the branches of statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

Or just have that new sockpuppet

I see you are one of those that believe everyone that disagrees with you is a sock of someone else that disagrees with you.

explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury given their respective distances from the sun.

Because Venus has a very thick atmosphere, and Mercury doesn't. The atmosphere on Venus is far more effective at conducting heat from the surface into the atmosphere. It is so thick that despite the very long length of day on Venus, temperatures between the daytime and nighttime are virtually identical. Also, like any atmosphere, it is heated by the Sun directly.

I assume the jerk is trolling. Nobody can be that stupid. He is pretending to fail to know of the scientific basis for the
greenhouse effect.

There is no scientific basis for the so-called 'greenhouse effect'. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using the infrared light emitted from the Earth.

That or home schooled.

Ah...the usual bigotry against home schooling. No, I wasn't home schooled.

 

[Into the Night]

The whole creationism belief system thing does create quite the conundrum. At what point does their freedom
of expression and to raise their children as they see fit become a form of child abuse that must yield to the state's
interest in not having kid's brains trashed? Doesn't the state have an interest in protecting the young from
having their lives ruined? How do we protect the population from mass fraud and cults, from beliefs that absolutely
bar adherents from participating in the job market in society, one that sorely needs great minds in science.

So what is the difference between that and the child abuse by use for raising kids in your religion? (Yes...you are treating atheism as a fundamentalist religion)

If I had a job offering for an anthropologist and two applicants, a creationist and an ex convict with nazi tats all over his face,
I'd have to hire the convict.

Fine. Hope the creationist sues your lights out. Did you know what most places don't let you ask these kinds of questions during a job interview?

Creationist beliefs disqualify a person from participation in any field of biological sciences,

Biology existed long before Darwin. It has a lot of religious scientists working in it too.

or frankly, any science.
You can't understand basic physics,geology and astronomy

So you write off Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Heisnenberg, etc. as 'unqualified in physics or any science'. Nice job, dude. You have clearly shown your bigotry and religious fundamentalism in atheism.

and believe in a young earth.

Not all Christians believe in a young Earth. We have no idea how old the Earth is.

Isn't it child abuse to teach your kids to be unemployable except as a low paid internet troll for right wing causes?

As opposed to calling it child abuse to teach your kids to unemployable except as a low paid internet troll for left wing causes?

 

[Into the Night]

You are a borderline solipsist.

You think so? Not true. I just happen to understand the rules of logic, including that particular proof.

Which of the following beliefs do you adopt:

1. we cannot know the speed of light because our eyes are insufficient to directly apprehend anything that fast
2. we can detect the speed of light using tools that reliably translate its speed of C into a form we can observe with our senses
3. although 2 is true, we cannot exclude infinite variables we cannot apprehend that interrupt the travel of light back to its source
at distances that exceed 6000 years because my retarded creationist exegesis insists that's when Jebus clicked his ruby slippers

2, to a degree. Instruments are great at extending our own natural senses, but they are only so accurate. Fortunately, we can determine their tolerance as well.

The teachable moment here for you is that you can not reject the logical and rational extension of science because you can conjure
an interceding cause that might conceivably interrupt its application. If you do, it is you, not the rule or law, that is injecting an
invisible force.

I'm not trying to interrupt its application.

 

[Into the Night]

As an adult student who has taken several college-level science courses, I have to agree with this. I have seen kids struggling in microbiology, biology, human A&P, and even in chemistry because they were told as kids that evolution is a wrongful "belief". Even in sociology, a fellow student became irate during a discussion of racism in which the textbook referenced racist beliefs that black people are closely related to apes, unlike the non-black superior white race. She wanted to know why there are still monkeys if humans evolved from the ape species. She appeared to be very offended that her religious belief in creationism was being unfairly attacked. *sigh*

Don't blame her. Neither the Theory of Evolution nor the Theory of Creation nor the Theory of Abiogenesis are theories of science. None of them are falsifiable.

Biology doesn't depend on the Theory of Evolution.Textbooks and instructors teaching religion as 'science' is a big problem, especially when that religion is taught in a bigoted and racist manner (also a big problem in our universities today).

 

[Damocles]

I would say that 95% of all Christians believe that......that isn't inconsistent with what the Bible says.......the 6k argument comes from a guy in the 1800s named Ussher, not from the bible..........

I think it comes from the lineage, first from Adam, then from Abraham to Joseph and Mary to show the correct Lineage for him to be the Messiah. Basically if you add up the first man, from the 7th day's age and all the begats to get that lineage, it would mean the Earth wasn't quite old enough for Dinosaurs to exist if you consider the time of "void" to mean lifeless...

My mother believed the Dinosaurs came from the time of the "void" Earth... When God came to Earth and it was void and darkness covered the face of the deep...

 

[Damocles]

really?......I had assumed when you laughed at people you were backsliding.......

Well, yeah. But laughing at ideas not so much.

 

[iewitness]

here is a good teacher on the subject of genesis and he does not waste time.

. I know a many of you bastards have many things to say about this teacher, and mainstream religionists say he is a false teacher. I do not agree with all his teachings, but this scientific part of his teaching is good. let you that are without sin cast the first stone.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I think it comes from the lineage, first from Adam, then from Abraham to Joseph and Mary to show the correct Lineage for him to be the Messiah. Basically if you add up the first man, from the 7th day's age and all the begats to get that lineage, it would mean the Earth wasn't quite old enough for Dinosaurs to exist if you consider the time of "void" to mean lifeless...

My mother believed the Dinosaurs came from the time of the "void" Earth... When God came to Earth and it was void and darkness covered the face of the deep...

nope.....Usscher..........by the way, how many days do you think passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.......

 

[Micawber]

There is no scientific basis for the so-called 'greenhouse effect'. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using the infrared light emitted from the Earth.

.

I'll just leave this stupidity here as a home school caused microphone dropper.

 

[Damocles]

nope.....Usscher..........by the way, how many days do you think passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.......

Personally? I think it is a myth... However, if I were to believe I'd be more along the lines that the 7 days was accelerated timeline. An all powerful being could absolutely accelerate time while directing evolution to make 4 billion years happen in just a few "days".

The reality is it tells you how long each of the people lived. It isn't difficult to add up that timeline. You can blame Usscher, and you wouldn't be wrong in a large part, but the story itself tells you how long the people lived in the "begats". Adding it all up and even being generous with time doesn't get you 4+ billion years, no matter how hard you try to make it happen.