Mister CIA
Footballguy
I think your argument falls apart if you accept the fact that the earth is only a few thousand years old. If it were, say, four or five billion years old you might have a point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I think the Republican Party supports science denial - Here is Why (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Captain Cranks
- Start date
Insomniac
Footballguy
The perception that the GOP is anti-science is due to the fact that one of the larger groups that votes overwhelmingly for the GOP is White Evangelical Christians. 2018 Election
As far as I can tell these are the people who believe in Young Earth Creationism which requires denial of the evolution of species and the concept that the universe is billions of years old in favor of a religious belief that it's about 6000 years old. I remember a couple of cycles back in an early GOP Presidential debate the candidates were asked which ones believed in evolution and something like 3 out of ~12 admitted it. Just off the top of my head other well established scientific fields that are incompatible with YEC include the Big Bang, plate tectonics, and virtually all of astronomy. Someone earlier pointed out that these beliefs really have little to do with day to day life. The only time it comes up at all is when some people try to teach Creation Science in public schools which doesn't seem to be very common.
The negative to this disbelief in well established science is that it show the person holding the beliefs is showing everyone that they will ignore facts in order to support beliefs that they want to believe. If you can't change your mind on something in the face of overwhelming facts you shouldn't be leading the city, state, or country.
There are plenty of GOPers that do accept most/all modern science.
As far as I can tell these are the people who believe in Young Earth Creationism which requires denial of the evolution of species and the concept that the universe is billions of years old in favor of a religious belief that it's about 6000 years old. I remember a couple of cycles back in an early GOP Presidential debate the candidates were asked which ones believed in evolution and something like 3 out of ~12 admitted it. Just off the top of my head other well established scientific fields that are incompatible with YEC include the Big Bang, plate tectonics, and virtually all of astronomy. Someone earlier pointed out that these beliefs really have little to do with day to day life. The only time it comes up at all is when some people try to teach Creation Science in public schools which doesn't seem to be very common.
The negative to this disbelief in well established science is that it show the person holding the beliefs is showing everyone that they will ignore facts in order to support beliefs that they want to believe. If you can't change your mind on something in the face of overwhelming facts you shouldn't be leading the city, state, or country.
There are plenty of GOPers that do accept most/all modern science.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
so no example of one animal turning into another one - gotcha
science is great, and its also based on theories and hypothesis's and so often we've seen how wrong science is on things
science
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
munga30
Checkin' my email
zoonation
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
This is a good post and one most "creationists" are ill-equipped to answer. Mostly because they've been deluded into thinking that all of evolution is wrong. That being said, the other side takes a post like the above and thinks "well gee this intelligent guy totally destroyed the creationists, that must mean that all of evolutionary theory is correct, proven, and valid".
Finding relatives, identifying criminals, DNA advances...these are incredible advances that no person should shy away from.
Animals change. Evolution happens. It's all around us and has been proven to a certain extent, many times.
But that doesn't mean that there's scientific proof that the one original cell "evolved" into everything we see today, with absolutely no assistance of any kind from any intelligent being/creator/God, etc. That's where I think people talk past each other. It's ok to admit that things change and evolve. It's ok to admit that DNA evidence is living proof of some of the aspects of Darwin's theories. It's also ok to admit that it's quite possible that a guiding force of some kind created the building blocks, or the "kinds", etc. Anyone being dogmatic about events that may or may not have happened billions of years ago shows their naivety.
(The whale with "vestigal legs". Please share which fossil you're talking about. That's a discussion I vaguely remember having 5-10 years ago.)
As to the last question, you'd have to be more specific about what "to deny evolution" means, in order for your statement to be true. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having skepticism on all aspects of evolution, as even scientists continue to debate various issues within the larger theory as a whole. It would also be extremely wrong to say that "evolution is a hoax", as that's just a simplistic and absurd statement.
I think the 6k year earth has really put fundamentalist christianity behind the 8-ball and if these people would wipe that idea away, they could realize that God could have created the earth 4.5+ billion years ago.
joffer
Footballguy
Red T Raccoon @RedTRaccoon
FollowFollow @RedTRaccoon
More
A Trump official said seismic air gun tests don’t hurt whales. So Rep. Joe Cunningham blasted him with an air horn.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103844774149324805
Video is in the link - worth the watch imo (about a minute)
I think this sums up the Trump Administration / GOP on science issues - its not that they really deny the science (obviously some do) - its that they see benefits to ignoring impacts.
FollowFollow @RedTRaccoon
More
A Trump official said seismic air gun tests don’t hurt whales. So Rep. Joe Cunningham blasted him with an air horn.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103844774149324805
Video is in the link - worth the watch imo (about a minute)
I think this sums up the Trump Administration / GOP on science issues - its not that they really deny the science (obviously some do) - its that they see benefits to ignoring impacts.
WaPo article on the above hearing:
By Darryl Fears
March 7 at 8:31 PM
A hearing on the threat seismic testing poses to North Atlantic right whales was plodding along Thursday when, seemingly out of nowhere, Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.) pulled out an air horn and politely asked if he could blast it.
Before that moment at a Natural Resources subcommittee hearing, Cunningham had listened to a Trump administration official testify, over and over, that firing commercial air guns under water every 10 seconds in search of oil and gas deposits over a period of months would have next to no effect on the endangered animals, which use echolocation to communicate, feed, mate and keep track of their babies. It’s why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave five companies permission to conduct tests that could harm the whales last year, said the official, Chris Oliver, an assistant administrator for fisheries.
As committee members engaged in a predictable debate along party lines — Republicans in support of testing and President Trump’s energy agenda, Democrats against it — Cunningham reached for the air horn, put his finger on the button and turned to Oliver.
“It’s fair to say seismic air gun blasting is extremely loud and disruptive ... is that correct?” the congressman asked.
“I don’t know exactly how loud it is. I actually never experienced it myself,” Oliver replied.
So Cunningham gave Oliver a taste of the 120-decibel horn. An earsplitting sound filled the small committee room. An audience of about 50 gasped and murmured.
“Was that disruptive?” Cunningham asked.
“It was irritating, but I didn’t find it too disruptive,” Oliver said.
It seemed disruptive to at least one person in the room. Subcommittee Chairman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) broke into the debate to say an aide, who is pregnant, informed him that when the air horn sounded, her baby kicked.
Cunningham, who represents Charleston and other coastal cities, pressed on. What if it happened every 10 seconds for days, weeks and months, he said. He asked Oliver to guess how much louder commercial air guns are than his store-bought air horn. When Oliver didn’t bite, he told him the sound from air guns is 16,000 times that of his air horn.
Five companies are awaiting final permits from the Interior Department to begin testing between New Jersey and Florida. An estimated 400 North Atlantic right whales, hunted to the brink of extinction, survive. A birth among the 100 mating pairs is so rare that seven calves spotted recently were celebrated as a tiny glimmer of hope.
Every governor from Massachusetts to Florida, Republicans and Democrats, stands in opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to offer federal offshore leases along the Atlantic coast, where beach tourism thrives. The governors are backed by state attorneys general and legislators.
Although Cunningham’s stunt was the highlight of an ordinary hearing, Democrats could not shake the administration’s argument that there is no evidence showing that seismic testing has ever killed or significantly hurt a right whale in the Gulf of Mexico or Pacific Ocean, where testing has happened recently.
Oliver said right whales are more commonly killed by boat strikes and getting entangled in fishing nets, and that NOAA Fisheries is focused on stopping that. He emphasized that studies have shown some adverse impacts from seismic testing but that those “are sublethal.”
But that testimony was followed by testimony from whale experts who described what sublethal means. Scott Kraus, a vice president and senior science adviser for the New England Aquarium, said the tests will stress out an animal that’s already struggling from lack of disease resistance.
“Many right whales now have poor body scores that are just above the threshold of reproductive success, suggesting that any additional stressors ... will push them below any ability to reproduce," Kraus said.
Christopher Clark, a senior scientist and research professor at Cornell University, said there is nowhere for animals to hide from seismic noise. It travels efficiently underwater, radiating for thousands of miles from where it starts. The bowhead whale, a close relative of right whales, reacts to extremely low levels of seismic noise from far away.
“It continues reacting until it totally stops communicating,” Clark said. “For right whales, such changes will increase the likelihood of mother-calf separations.” It’s not physical harm to a single individual, he said, but “this is the cost to a marginally surviving population as a result of chronic noise from seismic air gun surveys.”
By Darryl Fears
March 7 at 8:31 PM
A hearing on the threat seismic testing poses to North Atlantic right whales was plodding along Thursday when, seemingly out of nowhere, Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.) pulled out an air horn and politely asked if he could blast it.
Before that moment at a Natural Resources subcommittee hearing, Cunningham had listened to a Trump administration official testify, over and over, that firing commercial air guns under water every 10 seconds in search of oil and gas deposits over a period of months would have next to no effect on the endangered animals, which use echolocation to communicate, feed, mate and keep track of their babies. It’s why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave five companies permission to conduct tests that could harm the whales last year, said the official, Chris Oliver, an assistant administrator for fisheries.
As committee members engaged in a predictable debate along party lines — Republicans in support of testing and President Trump’s energy agenda, Democrats against it — Cunningham reached for the air horn, put his finger on the button and turned to Oliver.
“It’s fair to say seismic air gun blasting is extremely loud and disruptive ... is that correct?” the congressman asked.
“I don’t know exactly how loud it is. I actually never experienced it myself,” Oliver replied.
So Cunningham gave Oliver a taste of the 120-decibel horn. An earsplitting sound filled the small committee room. An audience of about 50 gasped and murmured.
“Was that disruptive?” Cunningham asked.
“It was irritating, but I didn’t find it too disruptive,” Oliver said.
It seemed disruptive to at least one person in the room. Subcommittee Chairman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) broke into the debate to say an aide, who is pregnant, informed him that when the air horn sounded, her baby kicked.
Cunningham, who represents Charleston and other coastal cities, pressed on. What if it happened every 10 seconds for days, weeks and months, he said. He asked Oliver to guess how much louder commercial air guns are than his store-bought air horn. When Oliver didn’t bite, he told him the sound from air guns is 16,000 times that of his air horn.
Five companies are awaiting final permits from the Interior Department to begin testing between New Jersey and Florida. An estimated 400 North Atlantic right whales, hunted to the brink of extinction, survive. A birth among the 100 mating pairs is so rare that seven calves spotted recently were celebrated as a tiny glimmer of hope.
Every governor from Massachusetts to Florida, Republicans and Democrats, stands in opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to offer federal offshore leases along the Atlantic coast, where beach tourism thrives. The governors are backed by state attorneys general and legislators.
Although Cunningham’s stunt was the highlight of an ordinary hearing, Democrats could not shake the administration’s argument that there is no evidence showing that seismic testing has ever killed or significantly hurt a right whale in the Gulf of Mexico or Pacific Ocean, where testing has happened recently.
Oliver said right whales are more commonly killed by boat strikes and getting entangled in fishing nets, and that NOAA Fisheries is focused on stopping that. He emphasized that studies have shown some adverse impacts from seismic testing but that those “are sublethal.”
But that testimony was followed by testimony from whale experts who described what sublethal means. Scott Kraus, a vice president and senior science adviser for the New England Aquarium, said the tests will stress out an animal that’s already struggling from lack of disease resistance.
“Many right whales now have poor body scores that are just above the threshold of reproductive success, suggesting that any additional stressors ... will push them below any ability to reproduce," Kraus said.
Christopher Clark, a senior scientist and research professor at Cornell University, said there is nowhere for animals to hide from seismic noise. It travels efficiently underwater, radiating for thousands of miles from where it starts. The bowhead whale, a close relative of right whales, reacts to extremely low levels of seismic noise from far away.
“It continues reacting until it totally stops communicating,” Clark said. “For right whales, such changes will increase the likelihood of mother-calf separations.” It’s not physical harm to a single individual, he said, but “this is the cost to a marginally surviving population as a result of chronic noise from seismic air gun surveys.”
Another classic from cranks.
At least you didn't call for violence against those who disagree with you in this thread, I guess that is progress.
Speaking of science.
Have you ever heard of geology?
It may surprise you to find that over the past billion years certain areas have changed from oceans to deserts. Permian says hello.
And speaking of science, some people apparently think that if you are born a female that you, or your parents, can change their mind and declare you a male.
Muh science.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Sorry for the delayed response, but I appreciate your counterarguments and wanted to respond.
- I know I was overgeneralizing and I guess what I really meant was that the Republican Party, or at least some representatives of the party, reject science when it conflicts with faith or political agenda.
- Climate change: Seems we agree.
- Big Bang Theory: Not as pronounced an issue now, but there are some who still believe creationism should be taught in public schools as a counter to the Big Bang Theory and evolution. 2016 Mississippi 2018 Arizona Indiana 2019
- Evolution: See Big Bang Theory. As you point out, opinions like this drive Republican representatives to change the public school curriculum.
- Stem Cell Research: You have a point, but it seems like a pretty big stretch to say an 8-day embryo constructed on a petri dish is a human life.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Please cite your work.
I have no clue what you're rambling on about beyond the bolded. That kind of smarts must be beyond my pay grade.
Which recently banned Trump supporter are you the alias of again?
Certainly an open minded one. Lol. And doesn't take long to see why the original was suspended.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Rove!
Footballguy
Progressives tend to oppose genetic engineering.
https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/07/life-saving-golden-rice-finally-gets-to
https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/07/life-saving-golden-rice-finally-gets-to
Typical tactic. Just assume the worst possible motivation about why the other side is against an issue and use rhetoric to belittle everyone who dares speaks a word against it. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the agenda put forth in the name of global warming such as: too much power for the government to control every aspect of our lives, too costly for too little benefit, schemes which serve to put money in the pockets of politicians, only serves to drive production out of the US and to lesser-developed nations, promotes/subsidizes inefficient solutions which in the long run will reduce the drive to produce better and more cost-effective solution, etc. None of those are anti-science. It is funny when people say they are pro-science, but can't accurately articulate what the science really says versus what the rhetoric says. I see lots of people who are more pro-agenda than they are pro-science.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
None of those are "legitimate" reasons. It is a bunch of ill thought out reasons though. And, they are all anti-science because climate change is something the scientific community as a whole says needs to be addressed now - all of those are reasons why it should never be or never will be addressed.
msommer
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Trump wants to cut 1 BILLION National Science Foundation funding
Trump sure loves cutting anything that has to do with education. Potential moves like this will harm the US for a very long time.
Trump sure loves cutting anything that has to do with education. Potential moves like this will harm the US for a very long time.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Just out of curiosity, joh_mx....Just blanketly dismiss without even the slightest rebuttal.
Do you have a college degree and, if so, what is it in?
zoonation
Footballguy
no. he addressed it all quite succinctly actually. it is actually you who is being intellectually dishonest. even if we accepted your "reasons" that people may have to not do anything about climate change, you conveniently ignore the reality that there is a massive base of GOP voters who reject it outright.
. The echo chamber is strong in here. You guys are as bad Trump supporters when it comes to honesty.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
...why, because I school this forum on so many topics? It is amazing you guys really believe you are right on things just because you have numbers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Yes, that's it. Nailed it.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Wow, these lazy people are still getting 7.1 billion but want more hand outs. PULL YOURSELF UP BY THE BOOTSTRAPS!! /republicans
roadkill1292
Footballguy
If one has to announce how badly he's "schooling" this forum, then chances are excellent that he isn't.
I love this echo chamber. I laid out a number of legitimate reasons why the global warming agenda should be criticized and all that is done is belittlement and personalization. Not one poster is man enough to talk about substance. Not a one of you.
zoonation
Footballguy
the entire western democratic world outside of flyover America is the "echo chamber".
zoonation
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I think these are all reasonable concerns, and I agree that none of them are anti-science.
But as a general rule, conservatives in this country have not emphasized the concerns you have listed here. Instead, they have chosen to be climate change skeptics at every opportunity- and that includes you jon.
timschochet
Footballguy
Also “not a one of you” makes me think of Kathy Bates from Titanic.
zoonation
Footballguy
These are not reasonable concerns. They are claims without any substance behind them. Very Trumpian. No substance. If he wants to expound on any of these "claims" to make a case with evidence he is more than welcomed to do so. But that is not what he does.
Exhibit A: "schemes which serve to put money in the pockets of politicians".
Exhibit B: "drive production out of the US to lesser developed nations".
And, he conveniently chooses to move the goalposts from the very real reality that there is an entire "climate change is a hoax" movement in the Trump party.
I don't disagree with your points about there being many bad arguements used by Republicans, you misunderstand my points. I believe what the science finds, but there is a clear bias in the community which is overly hostile to legitimate skepticism and overly friendly to fear-mongering. There is substantial evidence of man's influence in the climate/warming, but the checks in the science are being eliminated and the science too political.
timschochet
Footballguy
Why not ask me to expand on those points? I provide some of the most in depth analysis on this forum. Give me a day or two when I have more time and I will expand on those.
I am not moving any goal posts. I directly disputed the premise of the thread.
zoonation
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
What I meant when I wrote that his concerns are reasonable is that I think that it’s reasonable to be troubled by a federal government top down approach to dealing with climate change, as is proposed by the Green New Deal. Now personally I believe that such an approach is inevitable, but it’s not irrational to fear the possible negative results from it.
sn0mm1s
Footballguy
@jon_mx your reasons aren't really reasons unless you are denying the science of man made climate change.
Here is the problem. Scientists generally believe:
1) Climate change is occurring rapidly
2) It is primarily man-made
3) It is an existential threat to a huge segment of the world. Directly or indirectly.
4) It needs to be addressed immediately.
5) Man has the ability to reverse its course.
If you can accept this (which is the general consensus of the scientific community) then your "legitimate reasons" aren't anything close to legitimate.
A) too much power for the government to control every aspect of our lives
--- Governments are the only thing big enough to coordinate and prevent/slow/reverse climate change. They also the only entities that can negotiate with one another to create sweeping change. Amazon and Alibaba don't have the pockets or the pull or the authority to do much of anything. Also, one can argue that the primary job of a government is to protect its people. Stopping climate change is just as important, perhaps even more important, than having a strong military (Due to #3). The government isn't controlling your life - that is a straw man.
B) too costly for too little benefit
--- I don't know the monetary value of say, all the coastal cities in the US/world, farms, forests, famine, etc. etc. but I would say, the trillions lost by climate change would dwarf whatever the cost is to prevent it.
C) schemes which serve to put money in the pockets of politicians
--- C'mon... this is just conspiracy BS. It isn't like this is going to be some govermental ponzi scheme.
D) only serves to drive production out of the US and to lesser-developed nations
--- Last I checked, most nations were trying to combat climate change too... we were the ones that backed out of any sort of commitment. Beyond that, what production are you talking about that we would lose that would be so detrimental, that other countries would be eager to pick up, and would be worthwhile to do despite international pressure to the contrary?
E) promotes/subsidizes inefficient solutions which in the long run will reduce the drive to produce better and more cost-effective solution
--- This is just dumb and made up BS and fear mongering to prevent action. It subsidizes *the best solutions we have at our disposal*. I mean, you could argue that we should be spending billions on fusion research and the quest for a room temperature super conductor... but trust me, if we ever reach those milestones the fact that we have a bunch of solar cells and wind turbines isn't going to prevent those from taking hold nor the incentive to keep looking for them.
And, yes, all of these are anti-science, because they might only be slightly valid if you assume #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 are false. They are equivalent to trying to find a reason not to run out of a burning building.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Trump administration proposes $7.1 billion funding decrease to Education Department
7.1 billion must be a magic number. Seriously, what kind of scum does this while constantly complaining about "handouts" and giving the richest 1% of people in the world a tax cut. These people hate Americans and I hate them.
Last edited by a moderator:
