Anyone notice that many people are scientifically illiterate

[Astrid]

You don't know if there were other scientific theories before this one? But I am stupid, since I think it would be relevant if the educated at one time were wrong or irrelevant in the past.

I was concerned about the educated class and their thoughts at various times. So far all I have been able to discern is natural occurrence in the past.

" ...if the educated were wrong...in the past"


Of course! Happens all the time.


Science as per Greeks, Romans, ancient Chinese etc was riddled with errors.

At the very heart of modern science is that any law, theory or other understanding is a matter of probabilities,
not absolutes or Truth. All laws and theories are unproven,
can never be proved.

To do science is to always be ready to be wrong
to search for ways that you or others are wrong.


Perhaps this tendency discomforts those accustomed
to comforting certainties, absolutes, and Truth- from- a-
Book.

In science- never sure you are right

In Religion it's more like, impossible to ever be wrong

 

[NxNW]

Tell me what you think you mean by that. Maths is not a science. The fact that you haven't just googled it is astounding.

That's funny; I have a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You don't know if there were other scientific theories before this one? But I am stupid, since I think it would be relevant if the educated at one time were wrong or irrelevant in the past.

Our understanding of modern climate and human-driven climate change comes from detailed remote sensing from orbit and large-scale computer modeling. There really isn't much to be concerned about from earlier than 50 or so years ago in terms of what people understood. Even setting this aside, climatology and meteorology (plus oceonography and glaciology) are quite young as sciences go. I gave you a link about Agassiz who first worked out the historical pattern of the recent glacial maxima and he only died 150 years ago.

I was concerned about the educated class and their thoughts at various times. So far all I have been able to discern is natural occurrence in the past.

There have been some papers written about possible human climate impacts before the industrial revolution and the large scale burning of fossil fuels. The studies have examine whether the deforestation of New England or the Great Lakes have impacted climate or the small impact of the pre-auto age of steam on climate (burning coal).

Life (not humans) have changed the climate many times, most notably the evolution of photosynthesis radically changed the climate when the CO2-rich atmosphere was replaced by oxygen. Such things can be found in the geological record.

 

[ralliann]

" ...if the educated were wrong...in the past"


Of course! Happens all the time.
The topic is science, this, so
let's consider that only.

Science as per Greeks, Romans, ancient Chinese etc was riddled with errors.

At the very heart of modern science is that any law, theory or other understanding is a matter of probabilities,
not absolutes or Truth. All laws and theories are unproven,
can never be proved.

To do science is to always be ready to be wrong
to search for ways that you or others are wrong.


Perhaps this tendency discomforts those accustomed
to comforting certainties, absolutes, and Truth- from- a-
Book.

In science- never sure you are right

In Religion it's more like, impossible to ever be wrong

How many denominations exist which says the other is wrong? This fact alone should prove you wrong on religion.

 

[ralliann]

Then what I said earlier stands. You can stand with those who are determined to find ways to solve the problem. Or stand over there with Yemen.

Teah the educated need to determine all the boxes for the rest of us

 

[Bradskii]

Teah the educated need to determine all the boxes for the rest of us

You are choosing your own box. You just don't want to be in the one I'm in.

 

[ralliann]

You are choosing your own box. You just don't want to be in the one I'm in.

You are wrong. You are so arrogant

 

[Bradskii]

How many denominations exist which says the other is wrong? This fact alone should prove you wrong on religion.

It's quite refreshing for someone to admit that their denomination might be wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

You are wrong. You are so arrogant

Do you want to be in the box that says it's a man made problem and we really need to find solution to it? There's room enough.

 

[ralliann]

It's quite refreshing for someone to admit that their denomination might be wrong.

Lot's of people attend churches they are not in full agreement with on everything. Do you think maybe they are not like you all?

 

[ralliann]

Do you want to be in the box that says it's a man made problem and we really need to find solution to it? There's room enough.

Im definately in the box that disagrees we are gonna be toast in 12 years.

 

[Bradskii]

Lot's of people attend churches they are not in full agreement with on everything. Do you think maybe they are not like you all?

Read my first signature. I was serious when I said it was refreshing.

 

[ralliann]

Read my first signature. I was serious when I said it was refreshing.

And I am definitely in the box, all the desperate hype for many many is for political manipulation to change this country. I am done.

 

[Bradskii]

Im definately in the box that disagrees we are gonna be toast in 12 years.

If 'we' means the whole planet then I'm a paid up member of that one as well. But I only joined to tell those who do turn up that someone has been less than honest with them. Not everyone is going to die.

 

[Bradskii]

And I am definitely in the box, all the desperate hype for many many is for political manipulation to change this country. I am done.

Hard to make changes to solve a problem without...making changes. Conservatism has a logical basis. But ignoring things just hoping they'll get better by themsleves isn't logical.

 

[driewerf]

How many denominations exist which says the other is wrong? This fact alone should prove you wrong on religion.

But each one pretends to be right as opposed to the others (and mutually exclusive).
Show me one denomination that is open to the possibility that they are wrong.

 

[USincognito]

Who's expectations and what were the expectations based upon?

Paleoclimatology? Have you ever heard of that? We've had 3 interglacial periods in the last 300,000 that have lasted about 8-10,000 years. We're well over that already.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf

In the early Holocene...

That copy and paste didn't tell me anything I didn't know 30 years ago.

There was warming to produce modern species. What caused this warming?

[urlhttps://www.christianforums.com/threads/anyone-notice-that-many-people-are-scientifically-illiterate.8287802/post-77472076]Post 217[/url]
>> Just because people can die due to human activity does not mean all deaths are caused by human activity. I believe the Holocene warming is due to changes in the earths orbit. <<

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What caused the warming as above. It does seem to me there was much more massive "change" than the warming we see today. But being dumb and all I am asking ?

Perhaps I was too subtle with my point. There was a great amount of warming at the start of the Holocene, but after 10,000 BP there wasn't much warming with temperature anomalies fluctuating within -.5 and .5 of the average, Put simply there was a few thousand years of warming, then 10,000 years of relative stasis and then a massive uptick in temps since the 1980s.

 

[USincognito]

Eugenics was founded on Darwinian principles.

Only if one stretches the facts to the breaking point. Eugenics was practiced by the Spartans, by American slave holders and by Frederick of Prussia with his Pottsdam Giants. It wasn't invented by Galton. Further, eugenics isn't Darwinian. The key to understanding that is natural selection vs. artificial selection.

The question is not whether Creationism is scientific but whether or not it is true.

It's not.

"Equally evolved"? What does that mean? Some people are born with a stronger physical frame than others, some are more intelligent, some have darker skin, some are prone to baldness, some are shortsighted and so on.

Individuals are not species or populations. Also you're operating under one of the most common misconceptions that stronger is "better". The only "better" in evolution is reproductive fitness. Chickens are not as strong as eagle, but there's 1,0000,000,000 of them and not nearly that many eagles. Mice aren't as strong as cheetahs. There's 50 billion of them and only a few thousand cheetahs.

This image summarizes "equally evolved" as well as I could explain it.

There is no room for eugenics in God's creation.

The breeding program of American slave holders say otherwise.

Darwin was racist and believed in the superiority of some races.

As did every other white person on earth at that time. Their racism has ZERO effect on the validity of evolution.

This is a logical conclusion from evolution.

Utter poppycock. Again, all human populations are equally evolved. We all are the end lines of a 3.5 billion year long process.

However, he promoted genocide, not exactly a superior philosophy.

He never promoted genocide.

'In 1881, toward the end of his life, Charles Darwin wrote to a colleague that the “more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”' (Darwin writing to William Graham 3rd July 1881)

I'm not seeing the promotion in here.

Also, "The Descent of Man" (1871), where he claimed, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races." Darwin saw this as a good thing, not evil.

Where did he say he saw that as a good thing?

 

[Astrophile]

Also, "The Descent of Man" (1871), where he claimed, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races." Darwin saw this as a good thing, not evil.

What Darwin actually wrote in Chapter VI of The Descent of Man was, 'The great break in the organic chain , between man and his nearest allies, ... has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief than man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who , from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. ... these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, ... and some ape as low as a baboon.'

Darwin was explaining that gaps, such as that between Homo sapiens and the other great apes, have arisen by the extinction of intermediate forms rather than being the result of special creation of distinct species; he was not advocating genocide or seeing extinction as a good thing. Unfortunately, his prophecy about the fate of the anthropomorphous apes looks as if it will be fulfilled; all the species of the great apes and the lesser apes are now either endangered or critically endangered.

 

[Astrid]

Only if one stretches the facts to the breaking point. Eugenics was practiced by the Spartans, by American slave holders and by Frederick of Prussia with his Pottsdam Giants. It wasn't invented by Galton. Further, eugenics isn't Darwinian. The key to understanding that is natural selection vs. artificial selection.

It's not.

Individuals are not species or populations. Also you're operating under one of the most common misconceptions that stronger is "better". The only "better" in evolution is reproductive fitness. Chickens are not as strong as eagle, but there's 1,0000,000,000 of them and not nearly that many eagles. Mice aren't as strong as cheetahs. There's 50 billion of them and only a few thousand cheetahs.

This image summarizes "equally evolved" as well as I could explain it.
View attachment 339936

The breeding program of American slave holders say otherwise.

As did every other white person on earth at that time. Their racism has ZERO effect on the validity of evolution.

Utter poppycock. Again, all human populations are equally evolved. We all are the end lines of a 3.5 billion year long process.

He never promoted genocide.

I'm not seeing the promotion in here.

Where did he say he saw that as a good thing?

Stsnd by for admission that certain
"Facts" are fiction.

You are wrong. You are so arrogant

None are more arrogant than those who
proclaim they have Truth voucbsafed unto them
thro God's direct assistance.

A subset are the creationists who all hold that they
know more about science than any actual
researcher on earth.

Are you among these?
If, for example. You " know" that ToE is false, you are
among the most arrogant.