Well, in all fairness, W.A.Y. could possibly be Muslim. As such, it’s my understanding that Muslims are allowed to lie, cheat, steal, kill, eat pork, and basically do anything necessary as long as they do it for the good of Allah. Yep, free pass to 72 virgins just as long as you are deceiving the infidels to help Allah conquer the world. The great thing about Abrahamic religions, they certainly do have their perks. 
1 Like
‘Raisins,’ not ‘Virgins,’ Quran scholars say (‘Raisins,’ not ‘Virgins,’ Quran scholars say)
Anem… 72 Raisins. 72 dried grapes. 72 shriveled in the sun, fruits. Good luck ramming your penis into one of these.
2 Likes
You do know that Karl Marx was enamored with Darwin’s work? Engels and Marx wrote letters to each other 38 times mentioning Darwin. The political movement of Communism is strongly connected with Darwin’s theories. How can I safely say power and money then are not connected with people’s ideologies especially those of the elite be it scientific or not? I think it safe to be skeptical of what i am told and let truth guide me not what i want to be true but what is true.
Secondly, all men are susceptible to greed and power.
Thirdly, people are now being cancelled and i think that will influence the general public.
Fourthly, scientists who go against the grain don’t get grants, are marginalized and are pressured into silence.
So you’re not even going to bother answering Sheldon’s question, but instead peddle duplicitous distraction? Quelle surprise.
Once again, your blatant shilling for the Duplicity Institute is trasnparently obvious.
So what? You expect intellectuals not to be interested in startling new developments?
Again, this is nothing but a blatant distraction from your wilful refusal to answer Sheldon’s question.
Complete and utter bullshit, as anyone who has actually read Das Kapital knows. Communism is a political ideology founded upon economic axioms, not biological ones. But the well poisoning you’re pedding here is exactly the same sort that we see coming from the Duplicity Institute.
Already dealt with your attempt to sneak the usual tiresome insinuations into the subject matter above.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Pull the other one, it’s got fucking bells on.
You lap up uncritically as “truth”, the bullshit and lies of the Duplicity Institute, and regurgitate them here as if they purportedly constitute fact. You’re not a “sceptic”, you’re a blatant creationist shill.
You peddle specious apologetic fabrications in order to try (and fail) to hand-wave away valid scientific researchm, including research that involves direct experimental test of relevant postulates, while making up frankly infantile garbage in order to prop up the fatuous notion that a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology is real.
Your posturing is laughable.
Every irony meter in the universe just exploded after you of all people posted this.
You mean, such as all those “holy men” who are living in fuck-off huge mansions and poncing about in private jets?
Oh look, it’s the tiresome Christian Nationalist “cancel culture” whinge. Except that it’s Christian Nationalists who are doing the real “cancelling” here. Book bans in libraries? Check. Trying to remove proper teaching about racism in American history from the educational curriculum? Check. Trying to stamp on trans rights? Check.
Oh, and of course, we now have the digusting spectacle of Christian Nationalists trying to peddle the lie that slavery was “good” for African-Americans (this insidious and venomous nonsense is covered here and here), and in a move that truly takes being an obnoxious cunt to a whole new level, we have a Christian Nationalist asserting that the Holocaust was “good” for the Jews that survived). That one will make a lot of people here vomit.
Let’s see what other shit you’re serving up here shall we?
BULLSHIT.
Oh wait, I’m aware of three scientists who challenged established paradigms. Let’s see what happened to them shall we?
[1] Barry Marshall. Barry Marshall was an Australian doctor, who challenged the established paradigm that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and excess adicity. Instead, he posited that they were the result of bacterial infection. In order to test his hypothesis, he experimented upon himself, by consuming samples of bacteria and arranging for his colleague to perform gastroscopies to examine the results. By doing so, he established the evidence supporting his hypothesis. How did he fare? Oh wait, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. His paper on Helicopacter pylori is one of the most cited papers ever published by an Australian medical scientist, and h. pylori testing is now a routine part of hospital procedure right across the developed world.
[2] Stanley Prusiner. Stanley Prusiner proposed the hypothesis that transmissible spongiform encephalopathies were the product of rogue proteins forming without the assistance of DNA transcription (known as “prions”). After a long period of research, how did he fare? Oh wait, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, and his work is now standard reference material.
[3] Lynn Margulis. Lynn Margulis hypothesised that eukaryotic cells evolved as a result of the development of a mutualist relationship between ancestral prokaryotes (the endosymbiont hypothesis). Result? Her theory is now a standard part of mainstream science, and she was awarded the National Medal of Science in the USA in 1999. The Library of Congress has announced that it will permanently archive her papers, she was awarded the Proctor Prize For Scientific Achievement in 1999, and has been inducted into the World Academy of Art And Science.
You obviously know nothing about the manner in which science operates. Successfully challenging established ideas is a guarantor of success in scientific circles, the above three individuals being merely the examples I can alight upon quickly. If someone successfully overturned General Relativity tomorrow, they would be receiving an invitation to partake in an all expenses paid holiday in Sweden, and receive a nice shiny gold medal, in pretty short order.
Got any more lies to present here as easy cannon fodder for those of us who paid attention in class?
Oh, and while you’re at it, how about ANSWERING Sheldon’s question? Or is this something you’re incapable of doing?
3 Likes
What methodology did you use to arrive at this assertion? Please show your work.
What do you mean by “being cancelled”? Once you’ve answered that, please describe how that would influence the general public and how you would measure it.
1 Like
- Why do you believe the Noah flood myth, when the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred?
- How does the human genome evidence any deity, as you claimed?
- That is just an unevidenced conspiracy theory to wave away the objective evidence that refutes your claim, and again we are still waiting for you to explain these many weeks, how (as you claimed) the human genome evidences any deity (see 1)?
You tell me, since you were the one who claimed there was scientific evidence for a creator? You seem to be only sceptical of scientific facts, but happy to indulge subjective bias and propaganda?
That is a demonstrable lie, since you claimed there was scientific evidence for a creator, yet have failed to demonstrate any, and failed to explain why atheism rises significantly among scientists, so you’re not being sceptical at all, just using the bias of a closed mind.
Does this include the ones you claim have evidence for a creator deity? If so what objective evidence made you think they were right, and the vast majority of scientists wrong?
Only this seems like a pretty obvious poisoning of the well fallacy, that you only apply when scientific facts refute the archaic myths in your unevidenced superstition? That kind of bias is defined as closed minded.
I ask again and again and again:
- Why do you believe the Noah flood myth, when the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred?
- How does the human genome evidence any deity, as you claimed?
Show some integrity and answer please. Just have the honesty to state you don’t care about any objective scientific fact, and prefer closed minded subjective belief in your unevidenced religion. I’ll accept that and let it go. I will not accept unevidenced lies and vague unevidenced conspiracy theories decrying science only when it suits your you, unless of course you turn off your computer and the internet, and then pray the answer to me, that I will also accept if you can do it.
1 Like
Well of course that would include any positive statements made on your behalf regarding your abilities to discern truth from fiction, fantasy from reality, rationality from nonsense, etc…
I do want to thank you for providing a solution to the nutrient depleted garden spot I have been using for a number of years now. All I need do is print your post(s) and place them strategically in said garden spot, and as they are absorbed into the dirt, the high horseshit content should facilitate a revitalization of the growing medium…
So thanks so much! 
Now you probably need this:
IRONY
noun
the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning
Edit to check the bridge
1 Like
So you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence that science evidences a creator deity, and when someone points out scientists are overwhelmingly atheist, you make a second unevidenced claim implying the majority of scientists must be corrupt?
I think I already know the answer, but can you objectively evidence either of your claims there? Also are you seriously exiting us not to laugh at your closed minded bias?
You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
3 Likes
Worse still she is demonstrably lying, claiming scientific evidence for a creator which she has failed to demonstrate at all, and then making vague unevidenced claims that scientists must be corrupt when scientific facts refute her subjective beliefs in unevidenced archaic supersiton.
She still has not offered one single word of explanation to support her claim that the human genome evidences a creator deity. Now of course she also needs to explain how she can trust this evidence (if she ever offers it) given the way she has decried scientists as corrupt and unreliable here.
Her posts are risible.
1 Like
Well, I’m not surprised to see this exercise in discoursive hypocrisy emanating from someone whose modus operandi clearly matches that of a shill for the Duplicity Institute, because the Duplicity Institute itself peddles almost identical lies and bullshit.
Though the modus operandi in action has deeper roots, pre-dating the Duplicity Institute by a good 25 years or so, stretching all the way back to the activites of arch-charlatan and professional liar for doctrine Henry Morris in the 1970s. He it was who scribbled a verminous and pestilential “how to” manual for quote miners, setting a sordid and disreputable precedent eagerly pursued by would be successors to the Morris manchineel throne, and who, in a doubtless wholly unintended moment of uncharacteristic candour, revealed that the essential principle underpinning creationism can be succicntly summarised as “if reality and my mythology differ, reality is wrong and my mythology is right”.
Creationists routinely display that principle in action whenever they toss their foetid little offerings into the arena of public discourse. For them, “truth” isn’t defined by deductive rigour or proper correspondence with observational data, but instead by conformity to doctrine. Projection of this onto us and the scientists whose research we value, in a failed and utterly dishonest attempt to misrepresent said research as “ideological”, while hoping no one will notice the blatant ideological basis of creationism, is merely another well documented part of the aetiology.
Lying about science has been pretty much endemic to creationism since before the time of Morris and his particularly noxious species of dialectical lice, but Morris made the duplicitous treatment of science as a branch of apologetics some sort of special mission. Which is probably the reason he became the go-to source of material for the likes of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, each then building their own individual variety of sleaze and disrepute upon that evil foundation. But when the Duplicity Institute materialised, it took this process and amped it up to Spinal Tap 11.
Indeed, the screed known as the Wedge Strategy document, famously leaked into the public domain and exposing the true nature of “intelligent design” as nothing but Christian Nationalist creationism wearing a stolen lab coat, is a suitably handy exposé of the scam in question. Not that creationism was ever far from the nastier, more lurid parts of the “evangelical” landscape, some of which has direct ties to the Klan, an openly creationist organisation virtually since its inception. Creationism was pretty much tailor made to tickle the erogenous zones of the sort of people who wore bedsheets with eye holes, and pointed their armpits at burning crosses, which on its own is the reason irony meters explode, when the likes of Richart Weikart try to peddle the “Darwin led to Hitler” garbage that’s been a Duplicity Institute favourite.
Of course, not only do mythology fanboys really hate being reminded of all of this, but hate the fact that there are enough educated persons in existence willing and able to turn over the requisite stones and study the things creeping thereunder. Said hatred resulting in much impotent rage when the educated persons in question are an ocean away from Sundowner Town lynch mobs.
Returning to that amusing Wedge Strategy document for a moment, it’s interesting to note that none of its “governing goals” have been achieved, and certainly not the ones cited as being an ambition for 20 years after its publication, which so happens to be around now. At best, the scientific community has treated its pretensions as a vapid irrelevance, and at worst as beneath deserving of a point of view. Likewise, the two largest Christian denominations on the planet - the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion - treat its view of theology as at best infantile, at worst heretical.
Though perhaps this level of failure is a just reward for creationists having spent the best part of half a century poisoning the arena of discourse with their sewage.
1 Like
I would reach out to Dr James Tour and ask him about his experience with the NAS. I am sure he would tell you about his experience of being excluded from the National Academy of Science. He applied and they told him he will never get into the National Academy. They acknowledged he has done twice as much as people getting in the NAS. They told him he would not get in because he signed a statement in 2001, stating that the signatories were skeptical of random mutation, and a natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
A known crackpot in the field…Who publishes lies for the lunatic Discovery Institute.
James Tour said so many lies so far that this sounds like just another one!
You don’t seriously listen to that guy, do you?
He is disgrace to humanity not just scientific community. The way he talks about his colleagues is just disgusting.
And what does synthetic chemist has to say about abiogenesis and evolution anyway. Have you even watched that debate between him and “professor Dave”?
1 Like
He has a nasty habit of conflating the two fields, when it suits his purposes. For example: he’ll tell you that privately the top scientists in the field admit they don’t understand the theory of evolution; but when pressed you’ll discover he is talking about abiogenesis; hoping his listener/reader doesn’t know the difference (which is exactly who the Discovery Institute material is targeted for; the ignorant).
2 Likes
You mean the guy who is not an expert in evolutionary science who says that all the evolutionary science experts are wrong?
3 Likes
So no then you can’t offer any objective evidence for either claim at all, quelle surprise.
- How (as you claimed) does the human genome evidence any deity?
- If as you claim, there is scientific evidence for a deity, why is atheism higher among scientists?
Stop using dishonest rhetoric, and answer the questions please.
Being used as an argument from authority fallacy by another demonstrated liar on here, @WhoAreYou, who reels off lie after lie, and refuses to answer questions with any integrity. She now just drops in every week or so to troll.
2 Likes
"Tour has written articles for the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank that promotes the pseudoscience of intelligent design.
Tour has also signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, a statement issued by the Discovery Institute disputing the scientific consensus on evolution. Tour rejects the label of intelligent design proponent. He has separately debated American YouTuber Dave Farina, and British chemist Leroy Cronin on humanity’s closeness to discovering the origin of life, with Tour arguing humanity is clueless with regards to the origin of life, contrary to researchers in the field."
I am still waiting to hear why this in any way evidenced @WhoAreYou’s claim that:
- There is scientific evidence for a deity.
- That the human genome is evidence for a deity.
a) Or for her to answer honestly why, if this were true, atheism is almost universal among elite biologists? All she has are ludicrous and of course unevidenced conspiracy theories. - Why atheism is far higher among scientists and especially elite scientists, if there is scientific evidence for a deity as she claimed.
She is peddling lies, and doing so dishonestly as well, and now her occasional drive by’s are looking like a creepy recruitment drive from some barking mad cult, which isn’t that surprising really.
2 Likes
Removed Removed Removed