The Corruption of Science
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As society’s leftist elites have turned away from God, they’ve tried to replace Him with science. The success of science in curing diseases and providing the basis for technologies that enhance human life has led to people thinking that science has the answer to all our questions.
The reality, however, is that not only is science restricted to explaining how things work, and hence totally unable to address issues of morality or the meaning of life, but that the modern oracles of the cult of science often lie about what science says.
Science itself is nothing more than a process by which we can objectively determine how physical things work. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, the process of science starts with someone coming up with an idea of how to explain things, then predicting what should happen under certain circumstances, and then comparing the idea’s predictions with the results of experiments. If the predictions match the data, then we say the idea is correct. If they don’t match, then the idea is wrong.
Note that it doesn’t matter who supports the idea or who opposes it; the truth is established by repeatable objective experiments, not by personal authority.
Given that it would seem that science is incorruptible, because the results of experiments are supposed to be available for all to see. However, just as most of Americans can’t fix their own cars, most Americans need someone to translate the esoteric jargon of science into something comprehensible.
But those modern oracles are human and suffer from all the defects of any American -- desire for power and money as well as a belief that their ideology is correct. Hence, just like everyone else, scientists can lie to advance their own agenda, whether it be more funding or a change in the government’s policy on an issue.
When misrepresenting science, corrupted oracles attempt to leverage the good science has done to advance their own personal agenda. This is bad because, as the motto of Cal Tech and the Bible says “The Truth shall set you free.” People whose view of reality is distorted by lies will often come to conclusions that hurt, not help them.
Here are a few examples of how science has been corrupted:
Social Darwinism: The theory of evolution says that the fittest organisms survive and that less fit organisms die off. That says nothing about the value of humans since science can’t address moral issues. Unfortunately, many people extended the theory of evolution to human society, claiming that the “unfit” -- generally defined as those who aren’t like the person making the claim -- should not be allowed to breed and have children or even be allowed to live. That society should control who has children so that the human race “improves.”
Not surprisingly, given the role Europeans and Americans had at the time that the theory of evolution appeared, the oracles told us that science said that we should have more Western white folk and fewer brown and yellow folk. It also provided a veneer of science to cover the horrors of the Holocaust.
This is a corruption of science, because science never talked about the relative value of people; that was something the oracles added in because it supported their racism.
Evolution as a fact: If we look at all the data we have, evolution seems to be the best way to explain why the biosphere is as we see it today. However, since we can’t perform experiments on the past, we can’t actually know if God, or hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings who look like mice intervened.
While there is no contradiction between God using evolution to form the human body, but not our soul, and Christianity, as witnessed by the Catholic Church’s statements, nothing in science proves that it happened. Hence saying that evolution “proves” that there is no God, which requires saying that evolution is an indisputable fact, is an invalid argument.
But because some of the oracles don’t like God they pretend evolution is on stronger footing than it is.
Transgenderism: Science is clear that our sex is determined by our DNA. Just as no amount of surgery or drugs will turn a person into a cat, or an elf, no amount of drugs and surgery can turn a man into a woman.
Yet scientists, or pseudoscientists like Bill Nye, either lie about this or stay silent because they want to advance an agenda.
When human life begins: Science is unequivocal; human life begins at conception when a genetically unique human being is formed. Yet scientists will either deny this or stay silent, because they want to support the right of a woman to kill her unborn daughter.
Nuclear Winter: Back when Ronald Reagan was trying to protect the U.S. from a Soviet first strike Carl Sagan advanced the idea that a very small Soviet attack only targeting U.S. ICBMs would end life on earth. Scientists knew he was wrong but said nothing because they were against defending the U.S. from a Soviet strike due to their belief, based on the general leftist tilt of scientists, that the Soviet Union was more trustworthy than America.
Human Caused Climate Change: People may be affecting the climate but as of now we don’t have any evidence of that. But we do know that the famous hockey stick diagram was bad science and we have reason to believe that the folks who made it deliberately concealed data that contradicted it. We know that the only data set which is not constantly being changed shows a “pause” in warming and that all of the computer models have failed to accurately predict the consequences of increasing global CO2 levels.
But because prior to the whole global warming scaremongering climate scientists got hardly any funding and now they get huge amounts scientists have a good reason to lie. Further, since scientists tend to be leftists, they’re all in on “protecting” the environment even if it means suffering for the poor in the Third World.
The final proof however that the oracles are lying to us about Global Warming… err Climate Change, is that the infamous Paris accords allowed India and China to massively increase their CO
2 emissions. If the oracles truly believed their doomsday prophecies -- and if you look you’ll find that most scientists who say that mankind is causing global warming don’t think the warming will have catastrophic consequences -- then they couldn’t allow that, since it would lead to unimaginably horrible consequences. Given that the same folks who push massive taxes on the U.S. economy to thwart Climate Change don’t care about China and India’s massive CO2 increase it’s fairly safe to say that what motivates those folks is a desire to increase the power of government, not save the world.
Atheists are more altruistic than Theists: A study done on children supposedly showed that theist children are less charitable than atheist children. The problem was that there were no atheists in the sample population, only less theistic kids, the experiments core methodology didn’t actually test charity, and there was absolutely no basis for saying anything about the behavior of adult atheists. But given that atheists count for about 50% of scientists, the study was treated as credible.
When evaluating people who are making claims about what science says, you should always look and see if they have ulterior motives.
Contrary to leftist myth, scientists are just as human as anyone else and as such they can have conscious and unconscious biases. If “science” supports advancing the leftist or atheist agenda, or will put lots of money into the scientist’s pockets odds are that truth may become a victim of support for the “greater good.”
Tags
Who is online
91 visitors
“But because prior to the whole global warming scaremongering climate scientists got hardly any funding and now they get huge amounts scientists have a good reason to lie. Further, since scientists tend to be leftists, they’re all in on “protecting” the environment even if it means suffering for the poor in the Third World.
The final proof however that the oracles are lying to us about Global Warming… err Climate Change, is that the infamous Paris accords allowed India and China to massively increase their CO
2 emissions. If the oracles truly believed their doomsday prophecies -- and if you look you’ll find that most scientists who say that mankind is causing global warming don’t think the warming will have catastrophic consequences -- then they couldn’t allow that, since it would lead to unimaginably horrible consequences. Given that the same folks who push massive taxes on the U.S. economy to thwart Climate Change don’t care about China and India’s massive CO2 increase it’s fairly safe to say that what motivates those folks is a desire to increase the power of government, not save the world...
When evaluating people who are making claims about what science says, you should always look and see if they have ulterior motives.
Contrary to leftist myth, scientists are just as human as anyone else and as such they can have conscious and unconscious biases.”
While I am not totally convinced of climate change and all the scary predictions about it that haven't panned out, I am comfortable with accepting evolution as a reality and a fact. The evidence is overwhelming, and this is just one area of science. What else could explain the imprint of a palm frond on a vertical exposure of the Laramie Formation near the Colorado School of Mines, or the dinosaur tracks on the deeply tilted Dakota Sandstone on Dinosaur Ridge near Red Rocks Park, or the several thousand feet of Pierre Shale laid down in Western Interior Seaway which laid over this area for about 30 million year...and this just the geology of Colorado.
Then there is the fossil record of humanoids, where every fossil is intermediate and there is no "gap". Or the fact that humans are just another type of ape, sharing a common ancestor with the lesser apes. We know this because the DNA is almost identical. And yes, some small dinosaurs survived the big bad asteroid and evolved into birds that we still have to this day. The Scientific Method simply allows scientists to explain what they observe, incorrect interpretations of the data simply get tossed out. Some may try to find their "Answers In Genesis", but I am not one of them. After years of being force fed religion, the truth finally dawned on me and set me free. And as you can tell from my comments, I am nowhere close to being a leftist.
Follow the money. A few tens of millions spent on debunking climate change by the industries most responsible for it, or hundreds of billions spent globally every single year by governments, corporations, and cities preparing for it? I think I am going to go with the hundreds of billions.
How are they preparing for it? The lesser developed countries of the world and anyone outside of urban areas will continue to rely on energy sources that are abundant and cheaper than the "alternatives" Even cities can't meet all their needs with solar and wind. Coal, oil, and natural gas aren't going away any time soon. Deal with it!
City planning and infrastructure design (primarily along the coasts) is the most obvious example.
And as the tech becomes cheaper and more efficient they will start getting more and more energy from renewable sources. As for right now only the more developed nations can start taking action to prepare for climate change but that will change as time goes on.
Absolutely correct.
They obviously will never go away entirely, but their use will be less than a shadow of what it once was, probably within the next 20 years. Regardless, the best we can do is mitigate climate change and lessen its effects. Again, follow the money.
Yawn, numbers....
When governments and global corporations start ignoring climate change then so will I.
How can you logically turn away from what has no evidence of existing?
The scientific process works because it screens out those biases.
Sure it does....Not!
A personal bias is screened out by the peer review process. If others cannot replicate your results then your work was sloppy and contains an innate bias.
How can god be removed by science when it is only the Bible and blind failth of believers that claim that any god exists at all? Belief=/= fact.
Yes it does, it is called peer review. If someone is full of shit their peers are all too happy to call them on it.
Peer review does nothing to eliminate biases; because they do not repeat the experiments or try to recreate the data. All the peer review boards act like are glorified editors.
It completely eliminates them in the final product. All that is left is the raw data and what that data shows. We don't know the force of gravity on earth is 9.807m/s2 because a scientist "feels" like that is what it is or wants it to be that. We know that is what it is because it has been tested and measured relentlessly and that is what the data from those tests says it is. Zero bias whatsoever. Even when you get to something like evolution, the scientific community doesn't accept it because they feel like it is accurate or want it to be, they accept it because literally every single shred of objective, verifiable evidence says that it is.
For fucks sake, YES THEY DO!!!!! THAT IS WHY MOTHER FUCKERS PUBLISH THEIR HYPOTHESIS, METHODS, AND RESULTS IN PEER REVIEW JOURNALS! They do it specifically so that others can recreate and repeat their experiments and verify the results. If you posit a hypothesis that cannot be repeated then right off the bat it is dismissed.
Not even remotely close.
Not to mention that if someone is called out on their BS, their reputation and credibility take a hit in the scientific community. the scientific community generally doesn't treat such things too kindly. At the very least, a scientist should include limitations or a margin of error with their study. That way, they acknowledge their conclusions are not perfect or set in stone.
That's generally false, but when they do act that way due to conflicts of interest or other such things which legitimate journals normally catch, they're called on it by outside organizations and usually get a very public thrashing. And sometimes the person who submitted the paper gets roasted over the coals too, like the loony bible-babbler in Texas whose sociology career has been ruined by his willingness to skew the science in order to provide anti-gay and anti-trans results to support the anti-LGBT agenda of the hate groups which fund his research like the FRC and the Heritage Foundation. I'm referring of course to Mark Regnerus and his infamous "Regnerus study." No credible journal today is willing to publish his crap.
In fact there are a number of groups which monitor the peer review process and report errors they find. The error you make is in thinking that one erroneous paper represents the current thinking in that discipline rather than just an outlier. Unlike superstition, science doesn't have a "gospel" or other dogma to maintain so over time that erroneous paper will get the public thrashing it deserves.
Oh for sure, that is why they often take so long to submit their work. That is why they go over it with a fine tooth comb time and time again, even going so far as to check the accuracy of basic grammar. In many cases they will spend months or years just fine tuning their submissions to make sure that they have accounted for everything a person can think of, because if they don't they will be hammered by their peers and it will be much more difficult for them to be taken seriously going forward. The death sentence of a scientific career is submitting inaccurate or fraudulent data.
Amazingly enough, scientists (mostly) actually care about their careers and reputations.
That's why Mark Regnerus failed big time, because his primary funding source was pressuring him to publish in early 2012 so that they could use his research as an argument in the US supreme court against marriage equality. In fact Regnerus himself signed on to their amicus brief, a very questionable act for a "scientist" who claims not to have an anti-LGBT agenda. His work was so bad that his own department formally denounced it.
Oh yes. I cannot tell you how many times I have tried to read an email, paper, essay etc. that has shit grammar and not even been able to focus on the actual content. The fact that the grammar was so poor makes me kinda dismiss their argument or request outright, even if it is legitimate. It is 1000 times worse in the peer review circle.
I review a number of SBIR and R4 grant submissions each year and it's astonishing how poorly written most of these are. I blame it on the era of word processors and computers vs the white-out era - today there's no physical incentive to think through a concept before committing it to the screen.....and once that happens then the screen constrains one's thinking.
However in Regnerus' case it wasn't the grammar which was the problem but his underlying Catholic bias which caused him to do such crappy and unscientific work.
In matters of science, peer review is entirely about experiment repetition. Without it, peer review becomes simply an opinion.
In this context it doesn't matter because the contrast, as stated by the author is religion and NO ONE can deny that it is based ENTIRELY on bias.
Peer review boards do not do any experimentation regarding the actual findings. They just review the stated methodology and, if there is math, recalculate the equations. One of the biggest problems facing science in ALL sciences is the LACK OF REPEATIBILITY. 90+% of studies and reports are of new things not recreations of previous experiments to verify the results.
As I said, peer review boards are nothing but glorified editorial boards. They don’t do actual repeats of the experiments, they review the methodology and math and that is it. They do not remove any actual bias in the data, unless it is obvious. Just take the Climate Science published by the IPCC. If the peer review boards were doing their job and actually reviewing the science, almost all of it would have been thrown out because it did not meet the 95th Percentile in term of reliability. The IPCC has admitted that their data and results were mostly in the 90th Percentile, which is junk science.
Yep. That is called making sure there are no glaring errors right off the bat before publishing.
The fuck it is. Again, if you try to publish a hypothesis where the experimentation cannot be repeated, then it will not be published. Pure and simple. Personal attack - PRF
Personal attack. Removed - PRF
Yeah, do you want to actually make an argument or do you seriously just expect me to go through and read a bunch of links? I am here to be entertained, not bored.
OMG dude, you really do not have even the slightest understanding of what you are talking about do you? Like, you seriously don't get what the point of publication is, or what the term "peer review" actually means.
You go to show your lack of understanding. The Lack of Repeatability isn’t about if an experiment is able to be repeated, it is about the lack of people in science trying to recreate the data and results. You really need to watch Adam Conover’s interviews from Adam Ruins Science. He talks to a scientist whom is trying to get people to repeat experiments, I believe he is from Virginia.
Wow thanks so much for that great reference. I found myself surprisingly impressed that you were actually basing your comments of the subject on some kind of academic study.
But now that I see that it's based on a TV show hosted by a comic, I'm returned to the level of hilarity with which I usually read your posts.
No, I was pointing to a TV show that interviewed a scientist whom was trying to get experiments to be repeated as scientists have not been interested in actual verifiable and accurate results. Most of my viewpoint has nothing to do with Adam Conover’s show; but from all the training I had in the late 80’s and early 90’s in Chemistry. It was from when I was a Sophomore in High School to when I was a Junior in colleg majoring in Chemistry.
Which merely illustrates that you are no more qualified to talk about the peer review of scientific academia than the author. Neither of you has one wit of experience even doing research that was submitted for peer review and it's pretty fucking evident that neither of you has any respect for those that DO peer review in any field.
I'd like to know where you think the funding for conducting all of these experiments is supposed to come from? It sure as hell isn't in Trump's budget unless it's part of the military industrial complex or to study stupid shit like the fallacy of 'clean coal'.
The vast majority of experiments actually get their funding from the private sector, not from government. Frankly, government grants should go to those that are trying to recreate the data and experiments.
Actually, the 'majority' don't and only a select set of industries and universities get the majority of the private funding available. As an example, some universities get 10% private funding, some get 90%.
I haven't done a study, I'd make a bet that quite a bit of the 'private funding' is from industries that are subsidized by state and federal government.
The percentage has been leaning more toward private funding since the GOP imposed sequester. The problem with that is that then the corporation decides what's worthy of researching, HOW the research is conducted and WHO does the research. In short, they prefer to stack the deck.
And perhaps Trump could fully fund the FDA, CDC, NOAA and the EPA so they can do the research and peer review needed to protect Americans.
Did you bother to read the article? The article states the exact opposite of your claim.
Doesn't mean the article is not full of shit, ( deleted, skirting {SP} )
So, it is only scientists that you agree with that aren't full of BS. Because, the author is a scientist and has a PhD in Physics.
Nope, it what is accepted by the majority of the scientific community that I agree with.
And?
At one time, the majority of scientists believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, do you agree with them?
Not at all, because after enough evidence was gathered and peer reviewed they were shown to be wrong. Also, what we call "scientists" didn't exist, really, until Galileo. They were more philosophical observers back then.
Sorry, the Ancient Greeks had scientists and they actually believed in Heliocentrism and that was LONG BEFORE Galileo.
Eh, not as we define them today. The scientific method hadn't really been developed back then. There were indeed some VERY smart folks who figured out some pretty damn impressive shit with (what we consider) to be little to no real tech and a lot of social pressure telling them their observations are not right. Trust me, I have mad respect for the ancients, we are standing on their shoulders, but they do not qualify as "scientists" as we understand the term. Again, they were more or less philosophers.
That is the great thing about science: it corrects itself when shown to be wrong (unlike some science deniers). When new evidence is discovered, it is incorporated into the science and what is currently accepted or known either gets updated with the new information, or it gets discarded.
Never ceases to amaze me how some people actually see that as a flaw or fault. IMO that is the scientific method's greatest strength.
Link?
The article is false.
Not to mention they use that as an excuse to crap on science. It only shows how ignorant of or biased against science they really are.
Indeed it is.
Have you noticed that science self-corrects? Is that a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion?
You summed him and them up pretty well. The personification of a book title; “The Closing of the American Mind”.
I get all my morals from an invisible sky fairy who murdered all the first-born sons of Egypt (including farm animals) because he was pissed at the Pharaoh......and apparently has very bad aim.
I get my morals from a magic all powerful fairy that apparently can't think of literally any other way of fixing its fuck up than to murder every single person on the planet save one daughter fucker and his kids.
I think you are mixing up Lot with Noah.
Nah, Noah fucked his kids too.
Are you sure. I mean, Noah had a lot of animals on his ark. If the ark's a rockin' don't come a knockin, know what I mean?
Lol, you just made me realize that that character was a bigger piece of shit than I already thought!
Save 2 of every animal, eh? Was the gender of the animals specified?
I'm sure Noah was happy screwing either one.
Okay for real, we are way off topic now lol. I really don't want to get into a conversation about homosexual or bisexual beastiality (although I admit I kinda started it), let's talk about how HA has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the scientific method!
Adam and Eve had 3 sons, who the Bible says populated the entire Earth. Think about that situation that for a second when you claim that the Bible is the source of morality.
E.A Did Someone Say Ignorance is the Birth of Bigotry and Bigotry is??
Genesis 5 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
Bold and Colour Added by E.A
One would think that the Ridiculers …. well they should at least read this!
Evil in the Last Days
2 Timothy 3 1But understand this: In the last days terrible times will come. 2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, 4traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these!
6They are the kind who worm their way into households and captivate vulnerable women who are weighed down with sins and led astray by various passions, 7always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth. They are depraved in mind and disqualified from the faith. 9But they will not advance much further. For just like Jannes and Jambres, their folly will be plain to everyone.
While they don't believe in biological evolution, they sure as hell believe in the evolution of their dogma. At some point, many, MANY generations after the 'creation' and not quite buttoned down mind you, incest became a sin worthy of death.
Still sounds like an awful lot of incest to me, whether Adam and Eve's sons were supposedly gettin' busy with Eve, or with their sisters. Pretty nasty either way.
The jokes almost write themselves when people claim that Genesis and the rest of the Bible is literal truth. Claiming that it is the result of cognitive dissonance just doesn't do it justice.
Did you ever notice that Adam and Eve are always depicted having a belly button?
Interesting that, isn't it?
Which begs the question: if god created man (beginning with Adam & Eve according to myth) in his image, does that mean god has a belly button? Why would a god have a belly button? What about a penis (God is often referred to as "Father")? Internal organs? Even useless ones like an appendix?
Hey, that's bible porn for you.
I'm sure he found other uses for the elephants snouts. LOL
God is Spirit, not flesh like mankind. We are created as spiritual beings as our spirits are eternal. Additionally it refers to the relational character of God and mankind. God the Father, God the Word (YHWH), and God the Holy Spirit are Us and Our in the passage
We have a vertical relationship with God and horizontal with mankind
What is "spirit" and how does it interact with matter or energy?
That's nice. Prove it!
And children have a "relation" with their imaginary friends too.
More like delusional.
Thanks for in no way making a real contribution to this discussion.
Not even gonna read the article, HA posting it tells me everything I need to know. Without a doubt it tries to talk about morals or some other shit, which the sciences do not address in any way shape or form.
Just more of the same thing that he posts endlessly here, that have little or no real value.
Like your comment.
I like it too.
I like it three!
Fish at night and fish at dawn
Catch your fish but let them spawn
More like yours. You never post anything of any real value to the topic, just snark and one liner BS, like this one. So before you point your accusing snarky finger at others, you should first clean up your own act.
I agree with you. Some don’t understand what you said and think you liked her comment.
The day and moment that you post something of value to this site will be an historic first.
.... fucking seriously? Dude.......
Same goes for you. And the first time you post a seed that has any kind of relevant value will be a historic first for this site. Clean up your own act first, then you will have the right to criticize others.
Once again you can't see the forest for the HA trees in your face.
Whoosh.
Blah, blah, blah. Still more projection.
Yes yes, you are completely confused, we know.
Oh the irony here.
Reminds me of a gal I knew in High School..... Well, her mom actually.
HA needs to learn to credit a source for his threads because doing otherwise is plagiarism by default.
Click on the Seeded Content bar for the source. A source that is revered by rightwing extremists, yet typically hidden to reduce humiliation issues due to it's lack of credibility. Teabag media.
Click on the "Seeded Content" bar. It will take you to the article, which is written by Tom Trinko, whom has a PhD in Physics.
I should have expected that he would seed a column from the American Thinker. Its the equivalent of Scientific American for TEAbags.
Did you like my seed today from the NYTimes?
Actually, it states exactly what you just stated and that those pushing science as the end-all-be-all are actually corrupting it by adding their own false morals into it. They go about lying about what science says and that the data shows things it does not. For instance, children of theists being less charitable than atheist children. There were no atheist children in the study, so it starts with a false data set.
Who would that be, exactly?
Be careful that you don't confuse the hard and soft sciences.
Don't know anyone that is doing that.
Even when studying social science and statistics, you need to have a sample size that includes everything you are trying to prove. Without any atheist children in the sample, you cannot make the claim that theist children are less charitable than atheist children; because you have no data regarding atheist children.
The article appears to be written by a right-wing wacko who's a climate change denialist and a transphobe who has completely ignored the science on both those topics, and who then goes on to cherry pick a small handful of cases to support his anti-science views.
Does he even bother to mention that methodology errors (like the one you described about not including atheists in a sociology study) will usually be caught during peer review? No he doesn't.
Yep, but you cannot speak about the soft sciences and the hard sciences at the same time, in the same sentence, because of the significant differences between them. I am just saying, make sure you specify which one you are talking about.
No argument here, hence why I take everything that comes out of the soft sciences with a grain of salt.
Is he denying it? He is saying that if it is true and that Climate Scientists actually believe it to be true, why did they not protest the exemptions to China and India in the Paris Climate Accord. So, again, if it is true why are there no Climate Scientists actually calling for China and India to follow the levels set for the USA in the Accord?
I don't know if there are or not but that's a political concern and an issue of disparities between industrialized countries and developing countries. The Trump regime has even prohibited government-employed climate scientists from speaking on these issues.
That is politics, not science. And China is actually undertaking a massive program to move away from fossil fuels for energy as quickly as possible. China is very much taking climate change seriously, of course they are a nation with the resources to do so.
Which is why such a study would lack any validity.
Then the Tom Trinko should talk to David Paulin over there at American Stinker. David had no issue supporting the Regnerus study, which the AMA said:
The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”
Speaking of cults, this article is proselytizing teavangelical bullshit, plain and simple.
You know I love you more than I loved how perky my ass used to be when I was younger, but I'm not sure this is proselytizing. I see it as the author being extremely uneducated. Had there been a link, I would have researched the author, and I'm betting 9th grade, tops.
My father, back when he still had a mind undamaged by Alzheimer's, was a man of God and a man of science. He could never have become an aerospace engineer, or helped to put people on the moon without the science part.
Besides, who on this planet could argue with the simplicity of a widely available fossil record? (Besides the doof that wrote the article...)
From what I could find, he is a priest. Many of his FB page friends are 'Catholic Apologists'.
So, you are calling a PhD in Physics teavangical bullshit? Because, the author, Tom Trinko, has a PhD in Physics.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Where do you get that he had a PhD in physics because I can only find that he is a computer programmer.You don't pound a keyboard writing code if you have a legitimate PhD in physcis. His arguments are emotional and simplistic, so apparently he isn't very good at thinking logically, or maybe being a paid hack for the American Thinker pays better than being logical.
Obviously, he doesn't understand gender identity because while a person's biological gender is determined by their DNA their gender identity isnt determined by DNA. Trans' people would not exist if it were otherwise.
I guess you didn't look at his byline at the bottom of the article, which states:
And apparently he has zero background or familiarity with climatology, biology, neurology, fetal development, endocrinology, sociology or anything else outside his very narrow knowledge domain.
No, I'm calling the article teavangelical bullshit. I don't care which teabag dipshit wrote it.
In what way does a PhD in physics make one qualified or an expert in biology, sociology, embryology, ect. A PhD doesn't mean one is incapable of posting BS like what is presented in this article.
I would include the whole thing Tom, just to be fair.
personally I would not expect anyone who refers to his own writings as "rants", as a person who expects to be taken too seriously. IMHO
I agree.
Do you have any proof of that, outside of his claims?
So, you don’t rant, aka complain, about anything? Isn’t that what 90% of the content on this site is? I say he is being honest and upfront.
Where are you getting that info?
Google.
So, you might have gotten it about anyone name Tom Trinko and possibly not the actual author. Besides, it doesn't disprove that he has a PhD in Physics. The Pharmacist that checks my PT/INR once a month has a MS in Computer Science.
There are multiple Tom Trinko’s out there. https://www.americanthinker.com/author/tom_trinko/
I know how common the name Tom is, and it is easy to have multiple people with the same first and last name. Heck, at one point in my family, my dad, his dad, and my cousin were all alive and they had the same first and last name as me. My cousin actually is still alive and has the same middle initial as me as well.
The google search didn’t even reveal the one from AmericanThinker. It just shows the bias of their search results when it comes to conservatives.
Looks like you're projecting.
Good! That just shows some people are still rational and logical. At least science is real and gets results.
Far more than any god. There's nothing to suggest god cured or answered anything.
The purpose of science is to explain how things work. It's not being restricted. Only conspiracy theorists think it is.
Morality is a social construct. Not a scientific one. Science doesn't deal with morality itself.
That is kind of the purpose of science. Were you expecting something else?
What might help with that is if people became better educated in and with science.
I don't see any corruption. Just the nonsensical ramblings of someone completely ignorant of science and/or trying to inject theistic concepts into actual science, where it doesn't belong.
Lol that is great. Saying science being restricted to explaining how things work (is that really a restriction?) is like saying my car is restricted to just taking me places I want to go. That isn't a restriction at all but the entire fucking point. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
skirting the CoC [ph]
Yeah, and saying science doesn't address moral issues is like saying your car doesn't address driving etiquette.
Or that my dish washer is restricted to only washing dishes and can't tell my sister how to handle her recent break up, thus it is not reliable.
Here is a science lesson for ya all. I waste lotsa time on other parts of the Net besides NT!
That'd be fun to see for sure!
There's a good reason that high-frequency conduction on the surface of a conductor is called the "skin effect."
Thanks for that. that was quite good. Ah science: both educational and entertaining.
Actually it does, unlike the claims made in the article. That's part of the field of sociobiology, and it's indisputable that all animals which live in groups have evolved various moral concepts, like a dog's sense of "fairness". Of course unlike the fossil or genetic record we can only get a behavioral snapshot at the current moment.
I think what gordy is getting at is that "morality" is not exactly a measurable biological trait. In the same way that some species have developed "culture" (I am mainly thinking of elephants and orcas) but that that is not exactly hard science data.
I'm sure there's not a hair's worth of distance between Gordy's and my views on this, but I was really responding more to the claims made in the seed. It's an interesting area for me due to the essential vagueness and opacity of the subject as well as the anthropocentric bias which permeates any discussion of morality or of differences between man and other animals. Regardless of whether a scientist is superstitious many seem to have an almost religious compulsion to draw bright lines between us and them, as if our "humanity" is somehow dependent on one essential distinction in tool use, language, ethics, theory of mind, etc. That bias has blinded us to how much we actually share with most other animals.
On that or most other issues. There rarely is.
Evolution might cause some species to be more sociable (to varying degrees) than others. We see this in various species of primates. From an evolutionary standpoint, that makes sense as it may help with overall species survival. "Morality" is more of a byproduct of that socialization. Socialization is more generalized whereas morality gets into the smaller details of that socialization. I hope I'm making that clear.
Science is clear that our biological sex is determined by our DNA and our gender is determined completely differently. Stating "our sex is determined by our DNA" only highlights the lack of education on the topic and conflating biological sex with gender. This statement also shows a lack of knowledge on transgendered individuals as well - you should really get out of your house of worship sometime and talk to people with different viewpoints and different lives than those of your like-minded hive inside of your house of worship - it only shows the religious indulgence in groupthink.
I love it when people bring up biology in the discussion of homosexuality or transgenderism or whatever. They like to say biology says you are either this or that, but what about people who have xxy or xxx chromosomes? What about hermaphrodites? What about people lacking certain sexual organs? Biology is not as clear cut as some people think.
yeap, it's many times the religious who do such things so apparently they just have "faith" that biology is as clear cut as they like to think.
It is endlessly amusing to me that they have "faith" in biology (with their limited understanding) when it comes to sex and sexual orientation, but when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, biologists, geneticists etc. have no fucking idea what they are talking about. Gotta that religious cherry picking.
Plus they seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of the prenatal hormonal influence on brain development.
I'd say no knowledge period when it comes to this topic. Beyond male or female, which we both know is actually a pretty grey area.
“But given that atheists count for about 50% of scientists, the study was treated as credible.
When evaluating people who are making claims about what science says, you should always look and see if they have ulterior motives.
Contrary to leftist myth, scientists are just as human as anyone else and as such they can have conscious and unconscious biases.”
Soft sciences...
i'm quite sure you can give us irrefutable proof from non-biased credible sources that biological sex is the exact same as gender and gender identity doesn't exist, right ? i'll wait
very common theme among many of the conservative minded religious, as long as it fits their conservative minded religious agenda that they can push onto everyone else in an effort to control them
I have a deck to stain tomorrow. Can I use your broad brush.
E.A Brilliant response, well done!
Well said. I’m going to get my broom out to clear up my driveway and side walk from all the sweeping generalizations on the left side of it.
i wish i had one, instead i spoke the truth - if you need further evidence then refer to the same sex marriage debate before SCOTUS ruled on it, ok ?? Thanks
(it seems many think that episode never existed or that the many of the conservative religious minded still aren't trying to reverse that decision - in fact it was in a political platform that panders to that base... guess you will need to find a different brush for your deck)
E.A Did Someone Say Ignorance is the Birth of Bigotry and Bigotry is??
Genesis 5 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
Bold and Colour Added by E.A
One would think that the Ridiculers …. well they should at least read this!
Evil in the Last Days
2 Timothy 3 1But understand this: In the last days terrible times will come. 2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, 4traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these!
6They are the kind who worm their way into households and captivate vulnerable women who are weighed down with sins and led astray by various passions, 7always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth. They are depraved in mind and disqualified from the faith. 9But they will not advance much further. For just like Jannes and Jambres, their folly will be plain to everyone.
Do you sincerely want to claim that a man fathered children at the age of 130?
Before viagra no less.
According to some theists, that's perfectly reasonable because people lived for hundreds of years before sin and/or sex with demons (I swear I am not making that up) degraded our DNA, thereby causing reduced lifespans, diseases, ect..
I wonder how our JW Viner is?
Which one? I've known several with those particular viewpoints?
JWAH?
Do you feed your chipmunk a steady diet of the stuff? Damn thing never stops.
Who?
I'd need to smoke an entire bale of weed before I would even consider that possibly being true. And the only thing that I have ever smoked is large pieces of meat and the occasional tire.
That's one.
Smoking something may be how such a ludicrous story came to be.
Could be my fault then, pretty sure I've had sex with a demon or two in my time!
Kinky.
You're such a goody-two-shoes...hope you at least go for a drink once in awhile!
That's the one I was thinking of.
I can think of a couple others too. How they believe the nonsense they spewed is beyond me.
I only remember one other - a name that was some variation of Dave. That's not to say that there weren't more that I might have missed.
I'm drawing a blank there.
Me too. I can think of couple, but their names escape me.
Dave B001, or something like it.
i'm quite sure you have scientific proof to back this up, correct ? (i won't hold my breath)
Still sounds like an awful lot of incest to me, whether Adam and Eve's sons were supposedly ( getting') corrected busy with Eve, or with their sisters.
E.A Ignorance does indeed lead to Bigotry!!!
Here is the Example::
Science tells us that we are ALL from one Woman See Mitochondrial Eve.
So then according to SCIENCE they tell us that because of the deficiency of the Mitochondrial tracking they can not hone IN to one male but FIVE, so how did they " Populate the Globe "?
You obviously can't even be bothered to read the wiki on the subject. That's some weak shit.
1) "Leftist elites"? I thought they were all on welfare and didn't have jobs? NOW they are ELITES? Pick a narrative and stick with it, thanks.
2) Turned away from God and replaced him with science? Science has always existed, god was created by man a few thousand years ago in an effort to control large swaths of ignorant people, and it is still working to this day among the weak minded sheep.
LOTS of proof of science.... God? None, at all.
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: American Thinker is a conservative daily online magazine dealing with American politics, foreign policy, national security, Israel, economics, diplomacy, culture and military strategy. The American Thinker demonstrates a right bias through wording and story selection. They have also failed a few fact checks such as this one . (7/18/2016) Updated (6/26/2017)
Source:
As if anything you have to say will stop me from seeding from these “mixed” sources as your outfit calls them.
I couldn't care less if you do, just keep posting that biased fake news that your messiah trumpy hates so much.
I usually post from objective alternative media and openly conservative editorial pages/sites. Today my two seeds are from the New York Times and Washington Post that I found links to from Real Clear Politics.com. I hope you enjoyed them.
You know that we can actually see your seeds right?
That is quite an amusing euphemism for hip deep in bovine effluent. Do you also support the existence of alternate facts?
Americanthinker is neither of those sites...LOL
Probably the best description of cow shit I have ever seen.. lol
I first saw it used in a local newspaper when they had to describe a serious car accident between a pickup and a farmer towing a sludge wagon. They tried to describe the situation in a PC, and family friendly manner.
Personal attack. removed. That is also five violations this week, so you get a two day vacation starting now: 11:06AM MST 12th - 14th. - PRF
Correct. It's ironic that the author included this little paraphrased tidbit from Feynman in an article that begins with the words: "As society’s leftist elites have turned away from God, they’ve tried to replace Him with science."
All God claims are arguments from personal authority, with no 'truth' established by repeatable, objective experiments.
That's hilarious.
Oh, what faux indignation. Free market capitalism is Social Darwinism, and right wingers are always going on about how much they LOVE free market capitalism. The more laissez-faire the better, right? No safety nets, no public education, no redistributive intervention of any kind. Survival of the fittest.
What's up with that?
So, he acknowledges that he can't know whether God or maybe even supermice had anything to do with it, but he's just going to go with the God thing anyway? Where is the logic in that? If you can't show something, then you can't claim to know it. Maybe he should review that Feynman thing above.
Oh, it is. It really, really is. Evolution has a plethora of actually-existing observable evidence. God is basically just feelings and wishful thinking and about as valid as supermice. Again, see that Feynman thing above.
Pssst. Sex and gender aren't the same thing. Also, DNA isn't error-proof. People with physical characteristics of both sexes do exist. DNA is actually quite error-prone (the reproduction of it, anyway). That's why there's so much biological diversity out there.
Well, the first sentence is technically accurate, but the second is not only wildly inaccurate , but petty, vile and disgusting. As hard as it may be for some to accept, there are some very good, even moral reasons for not banning abortion outright in all circumstances (especially those having to do with the health of the mother). People might want to google some of the arguments made in the run-up to the recent vote in Ireland.
Had to go refresh my memory on that one. Short answer (and one that I should have known, considering the source)... Of course he didn't say that.
Here's the abstract for that paper.
I found several articles about it as well, and nowhere did I find Sagan claiming that a small nuclear attack would end life on Earth.
Horseshit.
Horseshit.
Horseshit. There's no pause. Temps are still trending upward year after year. Last month was the hottest May on record in the US.
[source]
Glaciers are melting, permafrost is thawing (releasing more and more negative feedback methane), coral reefs are dying, ocean acidification is increasing, sea levels are rising and will continue to do so, and human-added CO2 (identifiable via fossil fuel isotopes) keeps going up and up.
Ugh. I'm done. I can't take anymore.
American Thinker's motto should be 'For Stupid People, By Stupid People'.
Nicely done.
Wrong answer,
and,
Do you have a problem with the NOAA?
My linked source is NOAA.gov.
Didn't you look before you replied to me?
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Watching him attempt to backpedal makes even Lance Armstrong smile.
Thats for sure.....
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Why? They both used the same source but different time frames. Land shark 🦈 said two years and the response used the same source but for only the last four months to try to disprove his claim for the last two years.
Here's a snapshot from the interactive graph on the NOAA climate dashboard on their main page.
2017 was slightly cooler than 2016 and 2015, but still warmer than everything prior.
As the graph shows, yearly temps sometimes drop from one year to the next, but the overall trend keeps going up.
And your sources are....?
2017 was slightly cooler than 2016 and 2015, but still warmer than everything prior.
Pretty sure these two don't know what a trend is. I am actually positive that your graph has seriously confused them, as in they have no clue what they are looking at or what its implications are.
Because the last 4 months are PART of the last two years. Sheesh.
No, that would be the motto for Progressive, The Nation, Humanist, FFRF, and Mother Jones magazines and web sites.
The facts disagree with you.
I'll ignore the fact that as a Humanist your statement is an unsupported personal attack.
Sweeping Generalizations [ph]
That's it? That's your response?
And what could you possibly have against Humanists? They're pretty much everything Christians are supposed to be, just without all of the silly supernatural and superstitious nonsense. They tend to be genuinely good people, the real deal, who actually care about doing good for goodness' sake alone, not just out of fear over a threat of eternal punishment from some imaginary Bronze Age deity.
I think you answered your own question.
I've actually had Christians tell me atheists, humanists, ect. were incapable of being good or moral people if they didn't believe in God.
I've heard that one before, myself. It's lunacy.
That were exactly 100% right on.
No, it’s not.
Yes, it is! It's completely irrational!
Are you saying that only Christians can be moral because of their belief in god?
What is your definition of morality?
Either that or that non-Christians (especially atheists) are incapable of being moral because of a lack of belief (in the Christian god at least). I've actually had some Christians tell me that. Such sanctimonious arrogance.
I'll pit my idea of "morality" against any Christian's (or any other religion) any day.
What is your idea of morality then? Inquiring minds want to know!
Do you feel that you have any moral obligation to treat others in a certain manner?
Simple: kindness, being nice. Treating everyone fairly and equally and not causing any harm.
Don't be an asshole. That is mine. Don't intentionally cause harm to others, treat other as you wish them to treat you.
That's a pretty good rule to live by. Too bad so many don't seem to live by it.
Absolutely I do.
When do you plan to start to do that because your posts point to a person who ignores morality in favor of religious intolerance for anyone who might disagree with your religious beliefs?
Unless you believe that morality is a one-way street that you do not nor need to reciprocate? Do you think that people can deny you service at their business because you support allowing businesses to deny service to LGBT couples or customer's relgious beliefs?
Oops. That stands out like a sore thumb after resting my eyes for a while. That should say positive, not negative. Thawing tundra is a positive feedback look. Warming gets you more warming. Sorry all.
Loop, damn it.
This is getting ridiculous.
There was an article in National Geographic several years ago about how warming was causing the Alaskan permafrost to melt, causing the release of trapped methane, which would only exacerbate warming.
No worries. We know what you meant.
Yup. That's what I was referring to. Permafrost is a ticking time bomb. Methane may not have the staying power that CO2 does in the atmosphere, but it's a much, much more potent greenhouse gas while it's there.
There's also the problem of methyl hydrates in the ocean. Just like in permafrost, rising water temps releases methane into the air.
Personal attack. removed - PRF