Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[Mountainmike]

What does that even mean??

We’ve been round this? The minimum known cell is from memory a self building designing factory of 10000 +++ proteins and 100++ genes. It is massively complex.

Abiogenesis postulates a development track from small molecules to full cells. Yet there is no much simpler cell postulated or ever observed A void. How the minimum cell came to be is just speculation.

 

[SelfSim]

Have you looked up the evidence?

Nope .. not interested in dead ends.

 

[SelfSim]

We’ve been round this? The minimum known cell is from memory a self building designing factory of 10000 +++ proteins and 100++ genes. It is massively complex.

Evolved modern-day cells are .. but the real conversation is about autocatalytic molecular replication in much simpler protocells .. (ie: your intermediates?)

Abiogenesis postulates a development track from small molecules to full cells. Yet there is no much simpler cell postulated..

There's speculation supported by information theory and autocatalytic sets mixing with polymers in lipid vesicles .. ie: non-template replicating protocells. There is ongoing research work aimed at producing them (in the lab).

or ever observed A void. How the minimum cell came to be is just speculation.

Not speculation .. experimentally testable organic chemistries, backed by information theory and direct evidence of 3.5 billion year old primitive, 'fuelled acetoclastic methanogenesis and organic sulfides such as methanethiol and (methylsulfanyl) methane, possibly having served as substrates for fermenting methanogenic bacteria'.
IOW: Abiogenesis Hypotheses undergoing testing!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction is an interesting anti- intellectual.

There are hundreds of man years of thorough scientific research that concludes real forensic pathology of the same victim of the much older provenance sudarium of Oviedo. Research that puts it in the right part of Israel. The mark is certainly not an artwork. Other date methods suggest first century. The unique torture is enough.

He refuses to look at it, preferring his “ dishonest” conspiracy why?
There have been hundreds of independent researchers.

it doesn’t even threaten his worldview. Roman and Egyptian emperors claimed to be a Gods. Subduction doesn’t refuse to look at their archeology or forensics. Mind you the non contact radiation makes it hard to explain.

So why? If it’s that easy to prove a fake, why doesn’t he dare look at the real evidence?

There are too many atheists that go anti intellectual when they sense their world view is threatened.

Ive no doubt if I pointed at evidence of space time warp by magnetism allowing translocation, not propulsion, he’d accept the possibility. Why? Because it doesn’t threaten his worldview. On the other hand evidence of consciousness outside the brain. Ie that life is more than chemical No doubt is a worrying no no. Atheists are so selective.

LOL! An anti intellectual thinks that I have his flaws.

Dude! The Shroud of Turin is a hoax. It fails repeatedly, but the worst fail was its carbon dating in 1988. The cloth is from the time of its first appearance:

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia

It is a fake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Using Wikipedia as an authority source, as edited By skeptics. I thought you were better than that. Sceptic world turned on him the day he found something he couldn’t debunk.

don’t believe willesee, believe the camera footage he took, the tests they did.
A camera doesn’t get drunk, nor does a CT scanner. Have you looked up the evidence?

Skeptics make Wikipedia more reliable than the sources that you use. You clearly do not understand the editing procedure there. Dishonest editing will get a person banned. It is too much work to qualify to edit in the first place for trolls to change articles. Meanwhile you follow sources without any credentials at all.

 

[Mountainmike]

Fascinating anti intellectual subduction refuses to read science.
who would have thought it?

Tell me. How did a faker fake blood serum forensics he could not even see? Or get 60 point forensic correspondence ( a science he could not have understood) to a cloth he could never have accessed? How did he manage to exhibit it elsewhere in Europe long before he faked it? Why did he not copy icons that showed nailing elsewhere , and a bonnet of thorns not ring, if he wanted it accepted as the real thing? How did he get plant and mineral evidence specific to that region of Israel. Indeed why? Since the science wasn’t around to contest it.

Most Sceptic arguments are utterly ridiculous in the light of actual science. It would be a change to see a credible fake hypothesis consistent with evidence that showed the atheist had bothered to look!

Entire books have been written about the falasy of that farcical date! One paper warning written before it was tested by the only archaeologist dater ever involved: they ignored the protocol. The scientific world moved on . The date was discredited.

But like all anti intellectual sceptics subduction clings to his straw of sceptic editing of wiki: a site produced by people like him.
That atheist faith is too strong to allow reason...

If it was faked how was the mark faked? It beats all serious scientists but not subduction!

What i don’t understand is why subductions worldview feels threatened enough to not research before comment?
Bizarre. As I said... Egyptian & Roman emperors claimed to be Gods. Sceptics don’t dispute their Relics.

The shroud almost certainly belonged to the one person whose torture it documents in forensics. sceptics dare not look at the science.

LOL! An anti intellectual thinks that I have his flaws.

Dude! The Shroud of Turin is a hoax. It fails repeatedly, but the worst fail was its carbon dating in 1988. The cloth is from the time of its first appearance:

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia

It is a fake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fascinating anti intellectual subduction refuses to read science.
who would have thought it?

Tell me. How did a faker fake blood serum forensics he could not even see? Or get 60 point forensic correspondence ( a science he could not have understood) to a cloth he could never have accessed? How did he manage to exhibit it elsewhere in Europe long before he faked it?

Entire books have been written about the falasy of that farcical date! One paper warning written before it was tested by the only archaeologist dater ever involved: they ignored the protocol. The scientific world moved on . The date was discredited.

But like all anti intellectual sceptics subduction clings to his straw of sceptic editing of wiki: a site produced by people like him.
That atheist faith is too strong to allow reason...

If it was faked how was the mark faked? It beats all serious scientists but not subduction!

What i don’t understand is why subductionsc worldview feels threatened enough to not research before comment?
Bizarre. As I said... Egyptian & Roman emperors claimed to be Gods. Sceptics don’t dispute their Relics.

The shroud almost certainly belonged to the one person whose torture it documents in forensics. sceptics dare not look at the science.

You did not provide any science. You only made personal claims that you could not support with valid sources.

 

[Mountainmike]

The world is full of science books and papers on the shroud.
One day you might try reading some. Then we could discuss them.


This antintellectual thread isn’t about the evidence itself.

it is psychoanalysing why such as you refuse to read the science let alone accept it? You want to conclude from your world view not science.

But that is even stranger. Jesus was a historic figure. Accepting Archeological evidence of that doesn’t force you to believe, any more than it forces you to believe that Nero or tutenkhamen was a God!

Why do you feel so threatened you won’t study it?


im a scientist. I’m happy to listen to hypothesis for fake , PROVIDED it also explains the massive volume of other evidence. Not just the discredited parts of it!

You did not provide any science. You only made personal claims that you could not support with valid sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The world is full of science books and papers on the shroud.
One day you might try reading some. Then we could discuss them.


This antintellectual thread isn’t about the evidence itself.

it is psychoanalysing why such as you refuse to read the science let alone accept it? You want to conclude from your world view not science.

But that is even stranger. Jesus was a historic figure. Accepting Archeological evidence of that doesn’t force you to believe, any more than it forces you to believe that Nero or tutenkhamen was a God!

Why do you feel so threatened you won’t study it?


im a scientist. I’m happy to listen to hypothesis for fake , PROVIDED it also explains the massive volume of other evidence. Not just the discredited parts of it!

You are wrong. Plenty of self deluded fools have written books about the shroud. Very few of them have been scientific. The only valid study that I know of was the one where it was carbon dated and that was never refuted.

I do not think that you understand what the scientific method is. You tend towards anti-intellectualism. Find a valid source and we can discuss it.

There probably was a Jesus, but the evidence for that is rather weak.

 

[Jesusfann777888]

The astrophysicist Brian Koberlein was part of a TEDx talk on science education brought up in this thread.

In a conversation with Brian not only is how science taught an issue but science itself is under attack motivated by anti-intellectualism.





It's a sad state of affairs when climate scientists are subjected to death threats or a scientist is threatened by stating the Earth is round.

I state rather that it makes no sense to blindly conclude that scientists practice "science" when they falsely assert that space expand's when it lacks physical dimension.

science is a farse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I state rather that it makes no sense to blindly conclude that scientists practice "science" when they falsely assert that space expand's when it lacks physical dimension.

science is a farse.

Just because a person does not understand something does not make it false. Perhaps you should ask how they know this.

 

[Jesusfann777888]

Just because a person does not understand something does not make it false. Perhaps you should ask how they know this.

Nooo. I understand space is not a scalar quantity. It lacks physical dimension. Nice try, but I was The Best at physics in college. It's conceptually false and is conceptually irrational.a false and illogical premise that is part of a theory determines the theory is just as false as the premise, I mean if the premise is false then the theory isn't really associated with anything other than false ramblings and false concepts. You should ask me where the theory came from. I'll give you a hint, monad, from greek, meaning singularity.You should ask me how the monad is traced back to babylonian occultism which is a word for word explanation for the world and the concept or monastic causation or causation from a singularity they called satan all pentagram style, earth air wind water and fire.

But since you didn't understand that science is just a semantic reassociation for the word religion maybe it might make more sense to do some research.

 

[Jesusfann777888]

Actually I understand physics very well.

1.) Space is not a scalar quantity and lacks physical dimension.false premise=false theory.

The concept or human origin from a singularity is associated with babylonian occultism and it's genetive etymology, is associated with Greece, from the word monad represented by a pentacle and pentagram which translates in English as singularity.

you know, earth air wind water and fire and the combination of the five substances that comprise all substances on Earth, where the babylonian concept of religion shares word for word Correspondence with the semantic reassociation of the term religion as science. Why I would say "science" has simply stolen the Greek and latin discuss and semantically reassociated the meaning of science with religion itself! No wonder it shares so many things in common with a word for word description satanist's give about how the whole universe came into existence, where the babylonian's called the monad satan. Odd isn't it when you realize science is the same religion, that is itself religion as a concept that is equal between all religion's.

Can someone say transmission and plagiarism? I wrote a book that is in the final stages of publication about the anthropology of religion and religious texts and that science plagiarized religious concepts using the greek and latin discuss. scientists are nothing more than satanist's who have carried on the practice's of druids who use to try to get high and contact higher powers they associated with astrology and the twelve constellations of the zodiac.odd how the symbol that is associated with atheism depicts the pentagram. When you realize how much correspondence science has with religion you realize it is religion, in it's pure context,literally religion.it's kind of interesting how they used words to hide certain meanings that sound more complex such as in the case of the word sperm which in the latin discuss means seed. How silly.but they didn't dare to use the word monad because then everyone would know that "science" is itself literally religion.actually they semantically used three languages to hide meaning,I'll have to change that in my book.

Instead of (f)gods science uses amoebas. Nothing more than replacing words.

 

[Mountainmike]

Truly an antintellectual.
In shroud terms subduction is a flat earther!

You will never know what the science says until you read it!
Have you ever looked at the pathology, serum, blood tests & those that confirm correspondence between the sudarium & shroud? Do you know the chemistry and optical distortion of the mark.

I have 3 books alone that focus just on why the dating went wrong, one of which written by the only practising archeologist connected! . One is all the correspondence between the scientists, that shows what went wrong. It’s well over 500 pages.

You are welcome to your atheist faith.

But in the case of the shroud science doesn’t support you! You have no idea what books were written. You have never looked.

You are wrong. Plenty of self deluded fools have written books about the shroud. Very few of them have been scientific. The only valid study that I know of was the one where it was carbon dated and that was never refuted.

I do not think that you understand what the scientific method is. You tend towards anti-intellectualism. Find a valid source and we can discuss it.

There probably was a Jesus, but the evidence for that is rather weak.

 

[Estrid]

Actually I understand physics very well.

1.) Space is not a scalar quantity and lacks physical dimension.false premise=false theory.

The concept or human origin from a singularity is associated with babylonian occultism and it's genetive etymology, is associated with Greece, from the word monad represented by a pentacle and pentagram which translates in English as singularity.

you know, earth air wind water and fire and the combination of the five substances that comprise all substances on Earth, where the babylonian concept of religion shares word for word Correspondence with the semantic reassociation of the term religion as science. Why I would say "science" has simply stolen the Greek and latin discuss and semantically reassociated the meaning of science with religion itself! No wonder it shares so many things in common with a word for word description satanist's give about how the whole universe came into existence, where the babylonian's called the monad satan. Odd isn't it when you realize science is the same religion, that is itself religion as a concept that is equal between all religion's.

Can someone say transmission and plagiarism? I wrote a book that is in the final stages of publication about the anthropology of religion and religious texts and that science plagiarized religious concepts using the greek and latin discuss. scientists are nothing more than satanist's who have carried on the practice's of druids who use to try to get high and contact higher powers they associated with astrology and the twelve constellations of the zodiac.odd how the symbol that is associated with atheism depicts the pentagram. When you realize how much correspondence science has with religion you realize it is religion, in it's pure context,literally religion.it's kind of interesting how they used words to hide certain meanings that sound more complex such as in the case of the word sperm which in the latin discuss means seed. How silly.but they didn't dare to use the word monad because then everyone would know that "science" is itself literally religion.actually they semantically used three languages to hide meaning,I'll have to change that in my book.

Instead of (f)gods science uses amoebas. Nothing more than replacing words.

We hope your "publisher" knows that
there is no apostrophe in the plural
of "Satanist" or "practice".

Vanity press tends to be as unscrupulous as
outfits that say they will help with your invention.
Be careful.

 

[Mountainmike]

Ive already told you elsewhere.
I am not necessarily against the principle. If I see proof all well and Good.
The problem I have is there is no simpler intermediate postulated, observed or reproducible. So no process specified for how it got from soup to a cell

All you say is just speculation.
It also doesnt account for another obvious question: If it is a process of stages which have a significant probability. Why then do we observe none of the process now?Why is there no conveyor belt of intermediates from soup to a modern cell. There is nothing.

All fair questions.

Science is so far only studying possible ideas for parts of the process is as far it goes. But as I warned you by analogy, just because you can walk up a hill to get closer to the moon, does not mean you can walk to the moon, or indeed that those who got to the moon , got to the moon that way.

So the significance of what is known is way exaggerated. Dawkins statement that it is "close to fact" is antiintellectual. He is letting his faith override the big void in the science.

So when most atheists claiming evolution from small molecule chemicals IS the way that cells appeared. They are making a faith statement not a scientific one. The jury is out.

Meanwhile..... I have actual forensic evidence for so called eucharistic miracles - which if not fake - prove life by other than evolutionary process. (and there are reasons why fake seems impossible)

The question I have for this thread - is not the evidence per se.
It is why a more or less void of evidence for abiogenesis is taken as fact, but actual evidence for EM is discounted before look at them.

One of the problems of the researchers is the refusal of many establishments even to examine samples if they have come from such a source, when all they are asked to do is pathological examimation. If they think they are so asily discounted, why do many universities refuse to look. Worse: why do they try to discredit all who think the evidence is valid. The university at Sokolka gagged the pathologists just for doing the job, then offered a ridiculous alternative explanation based on not even looking at the samples!

The world of academia seems to feel threatended. Same reason on this forum, I cant get people to look!!

Why does atheism feel so threatened by science? If these labs and academics are so confident of the conclusion science will reach?

That in my view is why such as subduction wont look at the shroud science. Deep down they are worried what they might find. In that case ,they need not be. Roman emperors such as Nero claimed to be a God. Acknowledging their relics is not an action of faith!

Evolved modern-day cells are .. but the real conversation is about autocatalytic molecular replication in much simpler protocells .. (ie: your intermediates?)
There's speculation supported by information theory and autocatalytic sets mixing with polymers in lipid vesicles .. ie: non-template replicating protocells. There is ongoing research work aimed at producing them (in the lab).
Not speculation .. experimentally testable organic chemistries, backed by information theory and direct evidence of 3.5 billion year old primitive, 'fuelled acetoclastic methanogenesis and organic sulfides such as methanethiol and (methylsulfanyl) methane, possibly having served as substrates for fermenting methanogenic bacteria'.
IOW: Abiogenesis Hypotheses undergoing testing!

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Actually I understand physics very well.

1.) Space is not a scalar quantity and lacks physical dimension.false premise=false theory.

The concept or human origin from a singularity is associated with babylonian occultism and it's genetive etymology, is associated with Greece, from the word monad represented by a pentacle and pentagram which translates in English as singularity.

you know, earth air wind water and fire and the combination of the five substances that comprise all substances on Earth, where the babylonian concept of religion shares word for word Correspondence with the semantic reassociation of the term religion as science. Why I would say "science" has simply stolen the Greek and latin discuss and semantically reassociated the meaning of science with religion itself! No wonder it shares so many things in common with a word for word description satanist's give about how the whole universe came into existence, where the babylonian's called the monad satan. Odd isn't it when you realize science is the same religion, that is itself religion as a concept that is equal between all religion's.

Can someone say transmission and plagiarism? I wrote a book that is in the final stages of publication about the anthropology of religion and religious texts and that science plagiarized religious concepts using the greek and latin discuss. scientists are nothing more than satanist's who have carried on the practice's of druids who use to try to get high and contact higher powers they associated with astrology and the twelve constellations of the zodiac.odd how the symbol that is associated with atheism depicts the pentagram. When you realize how much correspondence science has with religion you realize it is religion, in it's pure context,literally religion.it's kind of interesting how they used words to hide certain meanings that sound more complex such as in the case of the word sperm which in the latin discuss means seed. How silly.but they didn't dare to use the word monad because then everyone would know that "science" is itself literally religion.actually they semantically used three languages to hide meaning,I'll have to change that in my book.

Instead of (f)gods science uses amoebas. Nothing more than replacing words.

You might want to read the stickies at the top of the forum which include this:
"This had been added to the Statement of Purpose (SOP):

Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up. Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum. "

 

[sjastro]

Nooo. I understand space is not a scalar quantity. It lacks physical dimension. Nice try, but I was The Best at physics in college. It's conceptually false and is conceptually irrational.a false and illogical premise that is part of a theory determines the theory is just as false as the premise, I mean if the premise is false then the theory isn't really associated with anything other than false ramblings and false concepts. You should ask me where the theory came from. I'll give you a hint, monad, from greek, meaning singularity.You should ask me how the monad is traced back to babylonian occultism which is a word for word explanation for the world and the concept or monastic causation or causation from a singularity they called satan all pentagram style, earth air wind water and fire.

But since you didn't understand that science is just a semantic reassociation for the word religion maybe it might make more sense to do some research.

Since you boast of being very good at physics and claim to have a superior comprehension to any astrophysicist on the subject of space-time lets look at the propagation of gravitational waves through space-time from a theoretical and experimental perspective as an example to evaluate what you really understand about physics as opposed to boasting.

First the theoretical side.
Clearly Einstein made a mistake somewhere why don’t you point out where he made the error.
Is it in using the weak gravitational field limit in applying a perturbation to the g₀₀, g₁₁, g₂₂ and g₃₃ components of the Lorentz metric?
Or perhaps Einstein should not have assumed the product of the Christoffel symbols are small enough to be neglected when evaluating the non vanishing symbols for the perturbed metric in the Ricci tensor.
Maybe the mistake occurred further along in the calculations where the vacuum field equations are reduced to a Helmoltz type wave equation where gravitational waves not only travel at the speed of light but also space-time takes on a quadrupole symmetry.
Where is the error?

If you can’t find the error in the theory lets go to the experiment.
Explain the discrepancy in the experimental design where physicists developed a laser interferometer to exploit the quadrupole symmetry of space-time for a passing gravitational wave?

If you can’t explain this either then what the heck have the LIGO and VIRGO interferometers been detecting in the past few years if space-time is conceptually false and irrational?

 

[Mountainmike]

You asked me a question and then answered it yourself. Psychologists have been studying anti-intellectualism for decades and understand it a lot better than you think they do.

A rhetorical question.
I’m referring a recent trend.

A great many experts have made pronouncements of what is speculation in areas of great uncertainty without the necessary health warning. They have also been very wrong.

I cited economists and epidemiologists. I could point at some outrageous predictions of environmentalists too.

That has certainly discredited the perceived value of both experts and expert pronouncements. Only by being consistently right do they keep their standing as worth listening to. That’s why it’s important for guesswork to be called guesswork, so it doesn’t damage the value of more certain predictions when they are made.

For one thing the size of academic institutions have massively grown which means “ professor” no longer carries the gravitas it did.

What annoys me is those who abuse the position of “ public understanding of science” to push their own philosophy , or indeed they speculate in areas for which they are not qualified. Both also undermine trust.

Dawkins espouses a philosophy that says:
1/ all life is an unguided progression from chemicals so life is just a biochemical automaton. He says is close to a fact despite gaping holes in facts.
2/ consciousness is just a biochemical process
3/ the universe and all phenomena are in essence completely explained or explicable by science
He is going way beyond what science can say.
He is abusing his position.

The problem with that is he is destroying credibility for science.

experts should identify what is just speculation.

 

[SelfSim]

A rhetorical question.
I’m referring a recent trend.

A great many experts have made pronouncements of what is speculation in areas of great uncertainty without the necessary health warning. They have also been very wrong.

I cited economists and epidemiologists. I could point at some outrageous predictions of environmentalists too.

That has certainly discredited the perceived value of both experts and expert pronouncements. Only by being consistently right do they keep their standing as worth listening to. That’s why it’s important for guesswork to be called guesswork, so it doesn’t damage the value of more certain predictions when they are made.

For one thing the size of academic institutions have massively grown which means “ professor” no longer carries the gravitas it did.

What annoys me is those who abuse the position of “ public understanding of science” to push their own philosophy , or indeed they speculate in areas for which they are not qualified. Both also undermine trust.

Dawkins espouses a philosophy that says:
1/ all life is an unguided progression from chemicals so life is just a biochemical automaton. He says is close to a fact despite gaping holes in facts.
2/ consciousness is just a biochemical process
3/ the universe and all phenomena are in essence completely explained or explicable by science
He is going way beyond what science can say.
He is abusing his position.

The problem with that is he is destroying credibility for science.

experts should identify what is just speculation.

I tend to agree that Dawkins went beyond the role of a scientist in many of his debates and presentations.
His version of 'Atheism' doesn't appear to be the same as other publically speaking atheists.