ADVERTISEMENT

Well, at least scientists are consistent in being..........

And while I'm trying to convince you that scientists' winning percentage would get them fired at teck, read this excellent bit of lab work for the betterment of mankind: https://nypost.com/2019/09/17/plan-to-kill-off-mosquitoes-backfires-spawning-mutant-hybrid-insects/

I love the part where the researchers claim the wild female mosquitos became wise to their plan and would no longer allow the genetically altered males to bed them. Damn Brazilian female mosquitos were smarter than the scientists. LMAO. Scientists should have given the males some musky cologne, gold chains, bigger mosquito peckers. LMAO.
 
I don't have time to write a long form response, but the idea of "owning" "scientists" when you live in a society that has electricity, global travel, and medication is backwards. You are talking to me through an electronic device. You are enabled to tell me "science sucks" because of science.

Two fundamental misunderstandings here.

1. Neither NYT or Fox News are scholarly sources. They take data and filter it through agendas to appeal to an audience. They are more about eye balls than information.

2. Science is founded on "I was wrong but then I corrected my hypothesis to get closer to the truth. Further results pending" So when you post an article about when the mosquito experiment didn't work, and claiming a victory over science... while simultaneously ignoring the times around the world where it has already gone on to be successful, you are showing your ignorance.

It's the same thing with the Ice Age predictions from the 70's, get more information and you refine what you think will happen.

Also science is not a single-brain, single-agenda monolith. It's fragmented and under many hierarchies. What you are doing is a little bit like blaming the local Baptist church for the Crusades (and not the Billy Graham kind).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jbpayne32
I don't what time to write a long form response, but the idea of "owning" "scientists" when you live in a society that has electricity, global travel, and medication is backwards. You are talking to me through an electronic device. You are enabled to tell me "science sucks" because of science.

Two fundamental misunderstandings here.

1. Neither NYT or Fox News are scholarly sources. They take data and filter it through agendas to appeal to an audience. They are more about eye balls than information.

2. Science is founded on "I was wrong but then I corrected my hypothesis to get closer to the truth. Further results pending" So when you post an article about when the mosquito experiment didn't work, and claiming a victory over science... while simultaneously ignoring the times around the world where it has already gone on to be successful, you are showing your ignorance.

It's the same thing with the Ice Age predictions from the 70's, get more information and you refine what you think will happen.

Also science is not a single-brain, single-agenda monolith. It's fragmented and under many hierarchies. What you are doing is a little bit like blaming the local Baptist church for the Crusades (and not the Billy Graham kind).

I asked you some questions in the previous thread about the age of the earth. I am still waiting for your answers. I don't really expect any because a typical dimorat tactic is to deflect and ignore and go on spouting their agenda.

Here is a ? or 2 relating to this thread. How can a supposed believer in God hook his wagon to science so strongly. Let me explain. Yes, science has done many wonderful and good things, however, science has also been so wrong about so much. Why would you grab hold of something that MANY/MOST use to try and disprove the Bible and the creation? You SEEM to be exactly what Romans 1 was talking about, someone that has placed their trust in the "wisdom" of man rather than God. I think the scientist that you have chosen to believe are atheist that pump garbage into a theory to promote their anti God anti America theories. Why don't you place any trust in the scientist that disagree with them? I think by your statements, you have chosen a side. A side that has been proven wrong multiple times no less. I also asked how a masters student can slam a NASA scientist with a PHD from MIT in the previous thread. No answer. You doubt his education.. me thinks you are a brainwashed puppy that has listened to the wrong folks.
 
It's the same thing with the Ice Age predictions from the 70's, get more information and you refine what you think will happen.
That's quite a refinement to go from telling me I will die in the coming ice age to telling me I will die in the coming fire age.

You're really missing my point. I'm appreciative of inventions which have had a positive impact on my life. Same for medicines and other things. But I have an overriding compulsion to poke fun at groups who take themselves so seriously yet are often wrong.

The point is not that I think all science is wrong. The point is why should I now believe that scientists see in the future and know as fact that man's actions are causing the earth to burn up? Aren't these the same guys who told us a few years ago there was a coming ice age?

So, global scientists and politicians want the US to shutter factories, eliminate farting farm animals, drive electric cars, etc., etc., while the rest of the world goes merrily on their way, using pollution to create economies of scale which decimate economic advantages we have EARNED? This sounds suspiciously like a transfer of wealth from greater to lesser peoples; in a word, socialism. Noteworthy is the fact that the pursestrings to the continuing research of these global climatologists are held in many cases by socialist-leaning governments. Also worth noting is that scientists are the products of many years in academia and are likely as conditioned as Pavlov's rats, the universities being the socialist/communist cess pools which they are.
 
I asked you some questions in the previous thread about the age of the earth. I am still waiting for your answers. I don't really expect any because a typical dimorat tactic is to deflect and ignore and go on spouting their agenda.

Here is a ? or 2 relating to this thread. How can a supposed believer in God hook his wagon to science so strongly. Let me explain. Yes, science has done many wonderful and good things, however, science has also been so wrong about so much. Why would you grab hold of something that MANY/MOST use to try and disprove the Bible and the creation? You SEEM to be exactly what Romans 1 was talking about, someone that has placed their trust in the "wisdom" of man rather than God. I think the scientist that you have chosen to believe are atheist that pump garbage into a theory to promote their anti God anti America theories. Why don't you place any trust in the scientist that disagree with them? I think by your statements, you have chosen a side. A side that has been proven wrong multiple times no less. I also asked how a masters student can slam a NASA scientist with a PHD from MIT in the previous thread. No answer. You doubt his education.. me thinks you are a brainwashed puppy that has listened to the wrong folks.

It's almost as if I said I was busy.
 
That's quite a refinement to go from telling me I will die in the coming ice age to telling me I will die in the coming fire age.

You're really missing my point. I'm appreciative of inventions which have had a positive impact on my life. Same for medicines and other things. But I have an overriding compulsion to poke fun at groups who take themselves so seriously yet are often wrong.

The point is not that I think all science is wrong. The point is why should I now believe that scientists see in the future and know as fact that man's actions are causing the earth to burn up? Aren't these the same guys who told us a few years ago there was a coming ice age?

So, global scientists and politicians want the US to shutter factories, eliminate farting farm animals, drive electric cars, etc., etc., while the rest of the world goes merrily on their way, using pollution to create economies of scale which decimate economic advantages we have EARNED? This sounds suspiciously like a transfer of wealth from greater to lesser peoples; in a word, socialism. Noteworthy is the fact that the pursestrings to the continuing research of these global climatologists are held in many cases by socialist-leaning governments. Also worth noting is that scientists are the products of many years in academia and are likely as conditioned as Pavlov's rats, the universities being the socialist/communist cess pools which they are.

I'm not saying you can't have an a la carte worldview. I'm just saying it's stupid.
 
LOL you are one "brilliant" fella. You are so full of yourself I wonder how you can fit through a door. Please don't pop a pimple, you'll die. Oh, and great inciteful answers btw,, you should be proud.
He's not going to answer you. He's now down to the argument that if you choose to not believe what he tells you to believe then you are stupid. What an elitist, arrogant, self-absorbed contention.

Heck, I believe the climate is in a warming trend. But, I don't understand why the scientists have to cheat like carnival hucksters to make the data fit the narrative. There has to be an agenda, either financial, political, or both, unless they just like cheating, like Teck people. Maybe they ARE Teck people.
 
He's now down to the argument that if you choose to not believe what he tells you to believe then you are stupid. What an elitist, arrogant, self-absorbed contention.

You tagged me in a post to flaunt some egregiously bad logic. I pointed it out. I used the word stupid to describe it (describing it, not you, two different things).
Both you and Bench have called me idiotic (or much worse) about two dozen times.

I know I am just words on a screen to you, but if did offend I am sorry. I'll be more intentional in practicing kindness in all areas I communicate, even this one.

He's not going to answer you
I think this is pretty funny because I have had multiple long-form posts that answer the questions you have asked me but then I get a "well, what about this different thing over here" type of response.

You and bench have belittled me personally, my experience and my education, as well as continually making bold, incorrect, insulting assumptions about me. But I am the one who is speaking arrogantly? Cool.

So, Einstein, we either have to accept everything science tells us, or nothing they tell us?
No, but what you are doing is pointing at exceptions to try to disprove a generality. When that plays out in the real world it looks really obvious. Example. Imagine if a Florida fan got on here and said UGA has a terrible defense, and posted gifs of 2 or 3 bad plays the defense has made this year. It would be irrefutable if we tried to argue localized in only those instances that proves the Florida fan's loaded preconception, he would be right (if we only looked at the evidence he brought to the table). But you would rightly point out that those plays only represent about 3% of the defensive snaps that Georgia has taken this year and Florida fan can't really demonstrate anything meaningful from a small, hand-picked sample size. (Sorry, you are the "Florida fan" in this situation).

Using what Prince Charles or Gore or AOC have to say about climate change is worthless, particularly when what they are saying is not exactly congruent with actual predictions (because they are using hyperbolic extremes of the truth to make a political point). So what you end up doing is throwing the baby out with the bath water because off strawmen (if I can mix metaphors).

Aren't these the same guys who told us a few years ago there was a coming ice age?
Well, 40 years. Computing power (and therefore the power of predictive analytic models) increase exponentially every year. So yeah we can make better predictions.

But even still, there were real (non-sensationalist) scientists back then making predictions that were proven true.

But I have an overriding compulsion to poke fun at groups who take themselves so seriously yet are often wrong.
Again I would say that "often wrong" just means you pointing out the examples that demonstrate you're preconception. I mean you literally posted the mosquito article to say "hur hur dumb scientists" not knowing that the same experiment has been replicated, corrected, and can work in some places now and pending further refinement it will make huge benefits for people. How comes this doesn't demonstrate to yourself what kind of poor logic you are using...?

I don't understand why the scientists have to cheat like carnival hucksters to make the data fit the narrative.
So taking the grain of truth you are trying to spin into an actual argument, I'll look at it two different ways.

1) Why don't you think this works both ways? Anti-global warming guys (I'm thinking specifically of the former Greenpeace guy and the Watt guy, I don't remember his website) are masterclasses in misrepresenting data to prove a point. Their go-to moves of misrepresenting data are fuddling with the mean (this would be something like "having a gross loss/net gain in the arctic ice sheet" but painting it like an overall gain) or to misrepresent average (+,-) gains from the means and zero. It's stuff you couldn't get past a freshman stats student. I don't have time to breakdown specific examples now.

2) What money is in climate science that would cause people to skew data? A point I made earlier was if you were the climate scientist that could prove the oil companies were doing no harm (i.e. there is no danger from anthropogenic climate change) then they would instantly make you one of the wealthiest people in the world. And this is proven true! (At least, the part where oil companies give money to scientists to back up this belief) We've caught oil and coal companies funding bogus research to create subterfuge around a non-contended point. But you are saying that climate scientists would rather falsify data to keep working to what amounts to be two full-time jobs to make less than 100k a year rather than to get what would be ten lotteries worth of money. Makes sense.

Edit for clarity.
 
Last edited:
typical dimorat tactic

Again, not a Democrat. The fact that you look at the world in such a flat, binary way says a lot.

supposed believer
Baseless insult.

hook his wagon to science so strongly.
Science is the plain observation of the universe. I believe the cosmos we know is fundamentally reliable on theological grounds. Because God is trustworthy we can see aspects of truth of Him through nature. Look up general revelation. It's a fundamental Biblical concept. Because nature isn't fundamentally deceptive we can trust observations of it.

Why would you grab hold of something that MANY/MOST use to try and disprove the Bible and the creation?
Everyone has bias, no doubt. But because someone has bias doesn't mean everything they say is false. Or that I should doubt the true things they say (I made that point earlier, about how shady politicians using the Bible as a merit badge doesn't make me doubt the Bible.)

You SEEM to be exactly what Romans 1 was talking about, someone that has placed their trust in the "wisdom" of man rather than God.
Again, baseless, insulting accusation.

Also way off base. What wickedness are you accusing me of that would suppress the truth? (I'll note that this verse states, directly, that it is moral dereliction that leads to supplanting God with wisdom, not vice versa like you are implying, i.e. using wisdom [something that is profoundly Biblical] as a means to wickedness).

a theory to promote their anti God anti America theories.
Do you think Jesus has a pro-America agenda?

Why don't you place any trust in the scientist that disagree with them?
Because it isn't about placing trust it's about evaluating evidence. And I question their methodology.

I think by your statements, you have chosen a side.
Lol please be explicit with what you are implying

A side that has been proven wrong multiple times no less.
Are you saying science should never be wrong?

I also asked how a masters student can slam a NASA scientist with a PHD from MIT in the previous thread.
Well, his methodology.

No answer.
It get's frustrating when I am very busy, but I write these long form replies, and you copy and past link about things I can tell you haven't read or have a full appreciation of.

You doubt his education.
Nope, his methods.

me thinks you are a brainwashed puppy that has listened to the wrong folks.
Let me get this straight. You post huge walls of text about complex subjects, can't really delineate what your sources are actually saying, ignore my (actually educated) opinion, while you are still speaking to me professorially about things you don't have a great grasp of. But I am the one out of us that is brainwashed and arrogant? Gotcha.

See all of this education stuff with you is not about quality of education or being someone who can discern the truth. It is about conforming the opinions around you to your preconceptions. If I agreed with all of what you had to say you'd be lapping it up and I'd be one of the "young ones who just gets it."

What do you know about the age of the Earth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riotch
You tagged me in a post to flaunt some egregiously bad logic. I pointed it out. I used the word stupid to describe it (describing it, not you, two different things).
Both you and Bench have called me idiotic (or much worse) about two dozen times.

I know I am just words on a screen to you, but if did offend I am sorry. I'll be more intentional in practicing kindness in all areas I communicate, even this one.

I think this is pretty funny because I have had multiple long-form posts that answer the questions you have asked me but then I get a "well, what about this different thing over here" type of response.

You and bench have belittled me personally, my experience and my education, as well as continually making bold, incorrect, insulting assumptions about me. But I am the one who is speaking arrogantly? Cool.


No, but what you are doing is pointing at exceptions to try to disprove a generality. When that plays out in the real world it looks really obvious. Example. Imagine if a Florida fan got on here and said UGA has a terrible defense, and posted gifs of 2 or 3 bad plays the defense has made this year. It would be irrefutable if we tried to argue localized in only those instances that proves the Florida fan's loaded preconception, he would be right (if we only looked at the evidence he brought to the table). But you would rightly point out that those plays only represent about 3% of the defensive snaps that Georgia has taken this year and Florida fan can't really demonstrate anything meaningful from a small, hand-picked sample size. (Sorry, you are the "Florida fan" in this situation).

Using what Prince Charles or Gore or AOC have to say about climate change is worthless, particularly when what they are saying is not exactly congruent with actual predictions (because they are using hyperbolic extremes of the truth to make a political point). So what you end up doing is throwing the baby out with the bath water because off strawmen (if I can mix metaphors).

Well, 40 years. Computing power (and therefore the power of predictive analytic models) increase exponentially every year. So yeah we can make better predictions.

But even still, there were real (non-sensationalist) scientists back then making predictions that were proven true.

Again I would say that "often wrong" just means you pointing out the examples that demonstrate you're preconception. I mean you literally posted the mosquito article to say "hur hur dumb scientists" not knowing that the same experiment has been replicated, corrected, and can work in some places now and pending further refinement it will make huge benefits for people. How comes this doesn't demonstrate to yourself what kind of poor logic you are using...?

So taking the grain of truth you are trying to spin into an actual argument, I'll look at it two different ways.

1) Why don't you think this works both ways? Anti-global warming guys (I'm thinking specifically of the former Greenpeace guy and the Watt guy, I don't remember his website) are masterclasses in misrepresenting data to prove a point. Their go-to moves of misrepresenting data are fuddling with the mean (this would be something like "having a gross loss/net gain in the arctic ice sheet" but painting it like an overall gain) or to misrepresent average (+,-) gains from the means and zero. It's stuff you couldn't get past a freshman stats student. I don't have time to breakdown specific examples now.

2) What money is in climate science that would cause people to skew data? A point I made earlier was if you were the climate scientist that could prove the oil companies were doing no harm (i.e. there is no danger from anthropogenic climate change) then they would instantly make you one of the wealthiest people in the world. And this is proven true! (At least, the part where oil companies give money to scientists to back up this belief) We've caught oil and coal companies funding bogus research to create subterfuge around a non-contended point. But you are saying that climate scientists would rather falsify data to keep working to what amounts to be two full-time jobs to make less than 100k a year rather than to get what would be ten lotteries worth of money. Makes sense.

Edit for clarity.
This post is painful.
 
Again, not a Democrat. The fact that you look at the world in such a flat, binary way says a lot.


Baseless insult.

Science is the plain observation of the universe. I believe the cosmos we know is fundamentally reliable on theological grounds. Because God is trustworthy we can see aspects of truth of Him through nature. Look up general revelation. It's a fundamental Biblical concept. Because nature isn't fundamentally deceptive we can trust observations of it.

Everyone has bias, no doubt. But because someone has bias doesn't mean everything they say is false. Or that I should doubt the true things they say (I made that point earlier, about how shady politicians using the Bible as a merit badge doesn't make me doubt the Bible.)

Again, baseless, insulting accusation.

Also way off base. What wickedness are you accusing me of that would suppress the truth? (I'll note that this verse states, directly, that it is moral dereliction that leads to supplanting God with wisdom, not vice versa like you are implying, i.e. using wisdom [something that is profoundly Biblical] as a means to wickedness).


Do you think Jesus has a pro-America agenda?


Because it isn't about placing trust it's about evaluating evidence. And I question their methodology.

Lol please be explicit with what you are implying

Are you saying science should never be wrong?

Well, his methodology.


It get's frustrating when I am very busy, but I write these long form replies, and you copy and past link about things I can tell you haven't read or have a full appreciation of.

Nope, his methods.


Let me get this straight. You post huge walls of text about complex subjects, can't really delineate what your sources are actually saying, ignore my (actually educated) opinion, while you are still speaking to me professorially about things you don't have a great grasp of. But I am the one out of us that is brainwashed and arrogant? Gotcha.

See all of this education stuff with you is not about quality of education or being someone who can discern the truth. It is about conforming the opinions around you to your preconceptions. If I agreed with all of what you had to say you'd be lapping it up and I'd be one of the "young ones who just gets it."

What do you know about the age of the Earth?
This post is beyond painful.
 
Truth hurts?
Here is an old joke for you to try to loosen you up:

Jake was dying. His wife sat at the bedside.

He looked up and said weakly:

'I have something I must confess.'

'There's no need to,’ his wife replied.

'No,' he insisted,

'I want to die in peace.

I slept with your sister, your best friend,

her best friend, and your mother!'

'I know,' she replied.

'Now just rest and let the poison work.'
 
Again, not a Democrat. The fact that you look at the world in such a flat, binary way says a lot.


Baseless insult.

Science is the plain observation of the universe. I believe the cosmos we know is fundamentally reliable on theological grounds. Because God is trustworthy we can see aspects of truth of Him through nature. Look up general revelation. It's a fundamental Biblical concept. Because nature isn't fundamentally deceptive we can trust observations of it.

Everyone has bias, no doubt. But because someone has bias doesn't mean everything they say is false. Or that I should doubt the true things they say (I made that point earlier, about how shady politicians using the Bible as a merit badge doesn't make me doubt the Bible.)

Again, baseless, insulting accusation.

Also way off base. What wickedness are you accusing me of that would suppress the truth? (I'll note that this verse states, directly, that it is moral dereliction that leads to supplanting God with wisdom, not vice versa like you are implying, i.e. using wisdom [something that is profoundly Biblical] as a means to wickedness).


Do you think Jesus has a pro-America agenda?

First you may not be a dimorat by registration, but your acceptance of JUNK science and deflection of questions fit in very well with them. Call yourself what you want, heck, dof food claims to be a Reagan man. Actions speak louder than words.

Because it isn't about placing trust it's about evaluating evidence. And I question their methodology.

Lol please be explicit with what you are implying

Are you saying science should never be wrong?

Well, his methodology.


It get's frustrating when I am very busy, but I write these long form replies, and you copy and past link about things I can tell you haven't read or have a full appreciation of.

Nope, his methods.


Let me get this straight. You post huge walls of text about complex subjects, can't really delineate what your sources are actually saying, ignore my (actually educated) opinion, while you are still speaking to me professorially about things you don't have a great grasp of. But I am the one out of us that is brainwashed and arrogant? Gotcha.

See all of this education stuff with you is not about quality of education or being someone who can discern the truth. It is about conforming the opinions around you to your preconceptions. If I agreed with all of what you had to say you'd be lapping it up and I'd be one of the "young ones who just gets it."

What do you know about the age of the Earth?

Ummmm actions speak louder than words, your acceptance of JUNK science, "all based on models, ran by men" and the way you deflect questions you don't like makes you look like a dimorat. Just like dog food, the guy that claims to be a Reagan man, yet is a full bore, anti borders, pro abortion, pro gay, anti American liberal.

Further, I look at things through the lens of experience, observation, and facts. You are the one that follows models made up by people that want to prove a point and put in the facts of there choosing, and POO POO anyone else that doesn't follow their anti America agenda. I think you are the binary thinker> YOU think yourself smarter than the rest of us... YOU are the one that does not accept any theory other than what the Climate Alarmist preach.. YOU accept science that says the earth is billions of years old rather than the Bible. I take it back, maybe you are not a binary thinker, you are lunatic thinker. You go on trusting your science books, I'll believe in God.

Yes we can trust in nature, God created it and set everything in motion, and it all works because of him.. He told man to have dominion it, YOU are the one that doubts Gods control and his power. YOU think it has taken billions of years.. This statement I am about to make is not a guarantee, but I would bet that you think some things in the Bible have been proven false by science? Just don't know if you will admit that or not. But YOU SURE AS HECK place a lot of faith in science. Billions of years???? not so.f

No someone that has a bias doesn't say untrue things about everything. "not everything is false" But primarily what there bias is about would be what they say untrue things about. I don't even think most of them think they are lying. They are alarmist and they believe we are all gonna burn up because of green house gasses in 10 yrs. They are willing to say what ever to stop that. Some may do it for money, "GRANTS", some just want to end capitalism, some or just gullible. Some want to be popular etc etc etc. WE KNOW, that some have used made up data to run their models. That's extreme bias.

NO, using the Bible as a merit badge by a POLITICAN is ridiculous. The ones that do don't give a rats booty what the Bible says, They use it out of context to try and quilt someone into their socialist views. The use it to promote a welfare state. The Bible says "if a man won't work or take care of his family he shouldn't eat" The Bible also does not tell me I should give money to the govt to take care of people, it says I should do good, I do, I give liberally to my church and participate in work programs, Further, those same politicians promote killing babies and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. HYPOCRITES,,, BUT the scientist I gave you info from is not a politician, he is a scientist and a Christian, and he is providing information that shows, the POLITICAL scientist, the anti American socialist, atheist are incorrect with there models. YOUR guys be alllllll over the news and put on a pedestal by the dimwit politicians,,, not my guy. YOU have picked a side. NOT implying anything, Your statements show that you have chosen to believe the scientist that promote the climate alarmist theories, the billons of years old earth and anti CREATION big bang crap..

The Bible is full of talk about men thinking themselves wise but will be proven to be fools: The Romans 1 we are discussing: Romans 1:22 "Professing to be wise, the became fools" They even though they KNEW God, v 21 did not glorify him nor give thanks to him" they chose to worship man and animals etc. V 25 says they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.... I think you need to reread. this over and over.

Sir, I told you to ignore all but the first one I posted since you are offended that I posted so many. I put them there for your use, I don't care if you don't read them. I don't think you would read them with an open mind anyway.. Again you have mentioned in this post about how educated you are and talked about me not being able to understand what I read. You again place your work as a student over that of the PHD from MIT> OK dream on. Your masters thesis does not compare sir.

I do not think God choses sides on which country, football team, or rock band is the best. Its about the individual. However, your beloved scientist do choose sides,,, many of those are anti-capitalist, anti-American and Atheist.
I do know that God created the earth and all that is in it. And God, not man will destroy the earth. He will burn it up with fire, and that fire will come after the judgement day. I do not believe man will destroy the earth, because the Bible says how the earth will be destroyed.

IF you would please reread the things in my original post, I was careful to say it SEEMS on a lot of things, I did not make definite statements about you. But the thing I believe you to be in danger of is accepting mans "wisdom" over Gods truths.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT