Anyone notice that many people are scientifically illiterate

[USincognito]

The Alarmists of course degrade what science has to say, In the 70s I was told we were gonna have overpopulation and die of mass starvation by the 80s., along with global cooling.

This demonstrates the OP. The primary promoter of neo-Malthusianism was Paul Ehrlich and The Population Bomb which was a mass market book, not a scientific paper. It contained a lot of false predictions about the impending starvation. You know who cited it and was predicting the end of the world in the 1970s? Hal Lindsey.

As to global cooling, that's another pop cultural phenomenon. An analysis of the actual papers published in the 70s were more concerned with warming than cooling.

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...

journals.ametsoc.org

 

[USincognito]

Now there you go. This is no denial of global warming. It is the CAUSE that is in dispute.

That's a moved goalpost position many are taking now that the warming has become undeniable. As recently as 10 years ago on this forum many of those one the right claimed it wasn't even warming.

The fact is that there are no natural factors effecting global temperatures other than the increase in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2.

 

[USincognito]

Or why it was said that The first doses were enough to stop the spread but didn't. Then we needed another dose 8 months later and after that we needed boosters.

1. It was a new virus. The scientists went with the information they had as they discovered it.
2. Viruses evolve. That's why we get a flu shot each year and sometimes twice a season.
3. Some viruses evolve quickly. SARS-CoV-2 is one of those viruses.

Was the fear warranted for this virus?

1.1 million dead Americans vindicated the concern.

Was shutting people up about COVID warranted on social media, especially alternative medicine?

There is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is only medicine and quackery. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic and there's been zero evidence it works on viruses, much less Covid-19. The same goes for hydroxychloroquine.

 

[USincognito]

The hysteria from the science community undermines their credibility. According to some doom and gloomers, we should all be sailing to work instead of driving.

You don't have to worry about climate change. The world will not last long enough.

Do you not notice some irony here?

Your argument is simplistic. Climate change has always been a feature of the earth's history.

This platitude is nice, but it ignores the reality. The current climate change is:
a) caused by human activity
b) occurring at an accelerated rate
c) creating effects that we're already seeing

 

[USincognito]

You dont want to hear a lot of YEC stuff. It'd probably just upset you.

She's been a member of CF for nearly 3 years and most of her posts are in the Physical Science or Creationism and Evolution section. She's very familiar with Creationist claims. The only thing upsetting about Creationist claims is the nonsense they believe. I can give plenty of examples.

 

[USincognito]

Tour is a member of the Discovery Institute. And as such would have signed their 'Statement of Faith'. Which, in part, says this:

"No apparent or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology can be valid if it contradicts scripture".

So I will therefore discount any argument he has regarding abiogenesis. Also without needing to see it.

That's AIG's statement of faith. I don't believe DI has one. they like to maintain the façade of not being a religious organization.

 

[USincognito]

I regularly hear from Professor James Tour, a leader in microbiology,

He's an organic chemist who specializes in carbon nanotubes. He's not a microbiologist.

who has published many papers, has many patents and started many businesses to turn research into useful products.

None of which have anything do with the origin of life.

OOL research has simply demonstrated that life cannot, in all likelihood, arise spontaneously.

That has never happened.

However, the scientific community gets in a rage when this is stated. Obviously, to them the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Why the histrionic verbiage?

So called science's answer is to attack the messenger. Professor Tour was ridiculed by a well known "scientist" who had not even seen the presentation.

Citation needed.

 

[USincognito]

Isaac Newton did explain gravity.

Newton understood less about what causes gravity than he did about alchemy. What he did was describe how it effects objects with mass.

Somewhere around AD 725, the Christian monk Bede described the earth as an orb.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in 240 BCE.

Evolution is still a theory that cannot be proven.

"Still a theory" is a phrase demonstrating the premise of the OP. Theories are the most powerful explanatory tool in the scientific toolkit. They don't graduate to laws or anything like that. Also, while "scientific proof" is a popular, pithy phrase, there is no such thing as scientific proof. Proofs are final and not subject to further revision or potential falsification. Every proposition and conclusion in science is considered provisional and can be changed or thrown out if there are new data. That even applies to things as well supported as heliocentrism and gravity making objects attract. Proof is therefore only found in mathematics.

 

[USincognito]

He does not understand the evolutionary process because there is no evolutionary process. As he says, there is no mechanism.

That would be false. We've know the most basic mechanism for evolution since at least the 1930s - mutation and selection. We've discovered numerous others, like horizontal gene transfer, in the intervening century.

Professor Tour's specialty is prebiotic chemistry. That is exactly what OOL is about.

You keep mischaracterizing his CV. He's an organic chemist whose specialty is carbon nanotubes. His research has nothing to do with abiogenesis or the origin of life.

 

[Bradskii]

That's AIG's statement of faith. I don't believe DI has one. they like to maintain the façade of not being a religious organization.

Aargh...my bad. You're right. No excuses.

 

[Bradskii]

Citation needed.

I'd ignore this. Tour has/is having a youtube tete a tete with some dude nicknamed Professor Dave. Who is not a scientist. He is going into the most detailed explanations of why Tour's claims are wrong. It's all well above my paygrade. The fact that Tour spends a lot of time in combat with this guy tells us all we need to know about Tour's claims. Thay aren't out in the scientific community. They're restricted to religious groups and web pages - he's preaching to the choir.

I have to say that he is a brilliant scientist. He knows his area of expertise . But it ain't abiogenesis. And he's simply a nay-sayer. He makes no proposals. If the guy had any credibility he wouldn't spend his time arguing with some random dude on the internet.

 

[USincognito]

What gets my back up is that no one will accept the logical human consequences if evolution is true.

"If evolution is true" is NEVER a good sign.
As to the "logical human consequences" of evolution, you seem quite confused. All humans are equally evolved. All things living today are equally evolved. Some species are more complex, but everything alive today is the result of the same 3.5 billion years of evolution.

Hitler's "racial purity" is evolution based.

Absolute rubbish. Hitler rejected Darwin because he suggested all humans were equally evolved while he (Hitler) ascribed to the Great Chain of Being which was an Aristotelian concept promoted by the Medieval Church. The roots of his ideas were more from bad archaeology, Teutonic mythos and a heaping helping of Nietzsche. He banned Darwin's books.

The same goes for the denigration of blacks, who were considered not as far down the evolutionary tree as white people. That's how many justified enslaving blacks.

Not in the U.S. They didn't use Origin or Descent to justify slavery. They used a different book.

If we are evolved, then morality has no meaning. Fair and unfair, right and wrong are meaningless. All we have is different paths of evolution. The drug dealer is no different from those who research cancer treatments. Hamas is no different from the Red Cross and Hitler was no worse than Ghandi.

None of these are conclusions drawn from evolution. Evolution isn't a philosophy or worldview. It's simply the best explanation for the diversity of life we observe now and in the fossil record.

When scientists admit that they do not know for sure and that so called Creationism is equally a theory,

It's not. Because its neither a theory nor is it supported by the evidence.

They are deceived by the false claims that evolutionary scientists make.

Name one.

Since schools generally do not teach both sides of the story, many never hear the creationist point of view.

They teach science in science class, which is why the teach evolution in biology. Because it's science.

 

[USincognito]

The "climate change" movement has become more of a religion and/or political movement than science.

That certainly is a claim, but it's irrelevant to the science supporting global warming.

The "global warming" alarmists' predictions were so far off that they had to change the name to "climate change."

That would be a falsehood. Global warming and climate change have been used interchangeably because global warming is an aspect of climate change. In fact the first scientific paper that popularized the term global warming used both terms in the title.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.189.4201.460

But the truth is that no one knows what percent man might contribute to warming.

Actually it's basically 100%. There are no other factors in play right now. The sun has been moribund the last 3 solar cycles so it's no irradiance causing the warming, We're not in a Milankovitch cycle. There hasn't been a change to our orbit. The only change scientists can find is a rise in atmospheric CO2 from 320 ppm in the 50s to 418 ppm now. We know from the isotopes that the CO2 is anthropogenic.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

Tell John Kerry to take the bus. Tell Kamala to quit cooking on her gas stove. Tell Al Gore to quit buying up ocean front property and to turn his lights off. These people need to lead by example.

Ah yes, the tired old "Al Gore is a fat hypocrite so therefore Global Warming is a hoax" argument. The actions taken by Sec. Kerry, Vice President Harris and Vice President Gore are irrelevant to the science.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

...
Absolute rubbish...
"If evolution is true" is NEVER a good sign....you seem quite confused...
That certainly is a claim, but it's irrelevant to the science supporting global warming...
That would be a falsehood...
Actually it's basically 100%...
Ah yes, the tired old "Al Gore is a fat hypocrite so therefore Global Warming is a hoax" argument...
...

If you know so much, you should use your skill to help people understand.

Give those who have less than you a friendly hand up ????

 

[Astrid]

She's been a member of CF for nearly 3 years and most of her posts are in the Physical Science or Creationism and Evolution section. She's very familiar with Creationist claims. The only thing upsetting about Creationist claims is the nonsense they believe. I can give plenty of examples.

The idea that creo- claims can upset me is
as out to lunch as the claims themselves.

 

[Astrid]

That would be false. We've know the most basic mechanism for evolution since at least the 1930s - mutation and selection. We've discovered numerous others, like horizontal gene transfer, in the intervening century.

You keep mischaracterizing his CV. He's an organic chemist whose specialty is carbon nanotubes. His research has nothing to do with abiogenesis or the origin of life.

Check n see if your friend will
admit he misrepresented Tours'
quals

 

[Astrid]

The "climate change" movement has become more of a religion and/or political movement than science. The "global warming" alarmists' predictions were so far off that they had to change the name to "climate change." Of course, the climate changes, so all scientists should believe in climate change. But the truth is that no one knows what percent man might contribute to warming. Is it one percent or a tenth of a percent? If you believe a disaster is imminent, I urge you to hold your leaders on the left accountable. Tell John Kerry to take the bus. Tell Kamala to quit cooking on her gas stove. Tell Al Gore to quit buying up ocean front property and to turn his lights off. These people need to lead by example. Tell Joe to demand that China matches the pollution standards here in the United States.

Green madness: You’d have to burn a pizza stove 849 years to equal one year of John Kerry’s private jet

New Yorkers are once again suffering at the hands of the unelected food police in the name of public health and climate change.

nypost.com

What does it mean that the word "religion" ,
or " faith" are so often used to try to trash
something?

 

[Astrid]

If you know so much, you should use your skill to help people understand.

Give those who have less than you a friendly hand up ????

A prob trying to give a " hand up" to the
scientifically benighted creationists is that they never
ever ever will admit any of their ideas about science
is incorrect.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

A prob trying to give a " hand up" to the
scientifically benighted creationists is that they never
ever ever will admit any of their ideas about science
is incorrect.

Then why bother discussing with them at all?? You're not trying to help them understand - you're trying to .......... make sure someone else reading the argument isn't persuaded by the creationist??

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

edit