What's new
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)

"After college, after Trump mostly gave up his personal athletic interests, he came to view time spent playing sports as time wasted. Trump believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted. So he didn't work out. When he learned that John O'Donnell, one of his top casino executives, was training for an Ironman triathlon, he admonished him, 'You are going to die young because of this.'"

Link

 
"After college, after Trump mostly gave up his personal athletic interests, he came to view time spent playing sports as time wasted. Trump believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted. So he didn't work out. When he learned that John O'Donnell, one of his top casino executives, was training for an Ironman triathlon, he admonished him, 'You are going to die young because of this.'"

Link
He uses a motorcade for any distance over fifty yards. 

I saw a documentary on Ronald Reagan not too long awhile. The footage of him out in California working on his ranch wasn't just for show. He did chop wood, and fix fence posts, and bail hay. He filled out a suit very well, with broad shoulders and no paunch. 

 
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.
Never saw this... was given a timeout. Here is something very recent. Video at the end is cool too.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-whale/ancient-four-legged-whale-from-peru-walked-on-land-swam-in-sea-idUSKCN1RG1Y4

In regards to there *could* be a god... sure. Gravity could just be invisible angels pushing down on us. Maybe the sun is pulled around in a cart by Apollo. Perhaps dark matter is really the Yggdrasill. Maybe snakes and donkeys once had the ability to speak lost the ability due to evolutionary pressure. Maybe God created the universe last night and just gave it the appearance of age. Or -- and the true believers may need to sit down for this - religion is all just a pretty (and often not so pretty, judgmental, and bigoted) lie meant to make people feel better about their lot in life. Once you start adding in "magic" into the equation there is really no reason to not add magic to every equation (which is much more like how it used to be).

Addressing the "everything from one cell" that may or may not be true. There are prions, RNA viruses, and innumerable DNA based organisms - did one evolve from the other? Were they once in competition? How the early soup interacted is, and likely will always be, a mystery. Maybe *two* cells formed separately and fused into one. Maybe we are a sum of many parts - like the addition of mitochondria to our genome. We can't know everything... but that doesn't mean that then leaves a reasonable opening for "god did it." God didn't make rainbows as a promise to mankind. Zeus isn't responsible for lightning bolts. We don't need to sacrifice kids at Chichen Itza to appease the Mayan gods or for a good harvest. Constellations aren't gods/demigods/immortals etc. etc. etc. All of which was believed to be true at some point in time. Replacing "we don't know" with "god did it" isn't really the best way to do things and that is more or less what you are advocating we do/accept.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Instead of creating strawmen about gravity, DNA, creation, etc.....why not discuss the science of global warming or whatever the topic is you believe someone is denying?

 
Instead of creating strawmen about gravity, DNA, creation, etc.....why not discuss the science of global warming or whatever the topic is you believe someone is denying?
Ok.

"Noise from wind turbines causes cancer" - Donald J. Trump

/thread

 
Instead of creating strawmen about gravity, DNA, creation, etc.....why not discuss the science of global warming or whatever the topic is you believe someone is denying?
Maybe you should reread the thread - someone is denying Evolution. 

 
So when a prominent democrat says something dumb, that means Democrars are dumb.

/Thead
Ummm....I didn't say anything about Trump or anyone else being dumb, I simply quoted the highest-ranking Republican. Funny that you took it that way though.

You asked for discussion on Republican science denial and I provided some. Simple as that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ummm....I didn't say anything about Trump or anyone else being dumb, I simply quoted the highest-ranking Republican. Funny that you took it that way though.

You asked for discussion on Republican science denial and I provided some. Simple as that.
That is fine, except the /thread part suggests you were done discussing and you considered the topic of science denial by Republicans closed. 

 
Never saw this... was given a timeout. Here is something very recent. Video at the end is cool too.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-whale/ancient-four-legged-whale-from-peru-walked-on-land-swam-in-sea-idUSKCN1RG1Y4

In regards to there *could* be a god... sure. Gravity could just be invisible angels pushing down on us. Maybe the sun is pulled around in a cart by Apollo. Perhaps dark matter is really the Yggdrasill. Maybe snakes and donkeys once had the ability to speak lost the ability due to evolutionary pressure. Maybe God created the universe last night and just gave it the appearance of age. Or -- and the true believers may need to sit down for this - religion is all just a pretty (and often not so pretty, judgmental, and bigoted) lie meant to make people feel better about their lot in life. Once you start adding in "magic" into the equation there is really no reason to not add magic to every equation (which is much more like how it used to be).

Addressing the "everything from one cell" that may or may not be true. There are prions, RNA viruses, and innumerable DNA based organisms - did one evolve from the other? Were they once in competition? How the early soup interacted is, and likely will always be, a mystery. Maybe *two* cells formed separately and fused into one. Maybe we are a sum of many parts - like the addition of mitochondria to our genome. We can't know everything... but that doesn't mean that then leaves a reasonable opening for "god did it." God didn't make rainbows as a promise to mankind. Zeus isn't responsible for lightning bolts. We don't need to sacrifice kids at Chichen Itza to appease the Mayan gods or for a good harvest. Constellations aren't gods/demigods/immortals etc. etc. etc. All of which was believed to be true at some point in time. Replacing "we don't know" with "god did it" isn't really the best way to do things and that is more or less what you are advocating we do/accept.
I stopped reading at “Gravity could just be invisible angels pushing down on us.” No need for that kind of disrespect. 

 
I stopped reading at “Gravity could just be invisible angels pushing down on us.” No need for that kind of disrespect. 
Your loss, but do realize that intelligent design arguments are more disrespectful. In religion, everything is fact until it is proven incorrect or ridiculous - then it conveniently becomes a pretty allegory. This pretty much has defined the interpretation of Genesis over the past couple hundred years or so. By saying evolutionists and creationists are talking past one another when one is basically saying, "You can't prove that omniscient magic didn't happen right at this point." is insulting to anyone that has actually studied the subject of evolution. 

 
I stopped reading at “Gravity could just be invisible angels pushing down on us.” No need for that kind of disrespect. 
Too bad.  really no difference between that and “maybe a god helped guide evolution”.

 
I am surprised by this thread. It is clearly trolling Republicans and while I understand this site is liberal I also thought it was opposed to trolling.

I tend to lean Republican and am very statistics/science oriented.

Pro gmo

Believe in mmgw

Degree in chemical engineering

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am surprised by this thread. It is clearly trolling Republicans and while I understand this site is liberal I also thought it was opposed to trolling.

I tend to lean Republican and am very statistics/science oriented.

Pro gmo

Believe in mmgw

Degree in chemical engineering
You may be the outlier to the party.

The topic is about the overall party and what their policies support and don’t.  Science is not high on the list of support.

When life begins...climate change/global warming...stem cell research...

Though it would be easy to argue that they are more concerned (as are the democrats) with who is funding them.  

 
You may be the outlier to the party.

The topic is about the overall party and what their policies support and don’t.  Science is not high on the list of support.

When life begins...climate change/global warming...stem cell research...

Though it would be easy to argue that they are more concerned (as are the democrats) with who is funding them.  
Population density statistics as it relates to high speed rail viability is one example of Democrats denying data science in another thread.

I am not an outlier to the party, both sides deny science that they disagree with. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your loss, but do realize that intelligent design arguments are more disrespectful. In religion, everything is fact until it is proven incorrect or ridiculous - then it conveniently becomes a pretty allegory. This pretty much has defined the interpretation of Genesis over the past couple hundred years or so. By saying evolutionists and creationists are talking past one another when one is basically saying, "You can't prove that omniscient magic didn't happen right at this point." is insulting to anyone that has actually studied the subject of evolution. 
I tried to make a fair post, detailing some of the reasons why atheists and fundamentalists disagree on this subject.  You chose to go down the path of openly mocking those that believe in a God, and have now doubled down with even more negative statements.

Ive learned  there’s nothing to be gained by discussing something with someone who ridicules your beliefs..  I’d be glad to discuss this in a friendly way, but you’ve already made it clear that you think that believing in an intelligent designer is somehow disrespectful.  So it’s pointless to continue. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why can't anyone ever admit they don't really know WTF happened "in the beginning?"

I am agnostic.  I believe wholeheartedly in science of every discipline. I believe that the universe,  or at least parts of it, may very well have been the product of intelligent design. Intelligent design could be God or a god, exactly aligned with or completely opposed to any and all earthly religions. It could have been an alien organism that we cannot comprehend because it would drive us mad, Cthulhu-style. It could have been a grand experiment or we may all be stuck in the matrix.

I don't know. You don't know. None of us do. Personally, I find that liberating.

 
Why can't anyone ever admit they don't really know WTF happened "in the beginning?"

I am agnostic.  I believe wholeheartedly in science of every discipline. I believe that the universe,  or at least parts of it, may very well have been the product of intelligent design. Intelligent design could be God or a god, exactly aligned with or completely opposed to any and all earthly religions. It could have been an alien organism that we cannot comprehend because it would drive us mad, Cthulhu-style. It could have been a grand experiment or we may all be stuck in the matrix.

I don't know. You don't know. None of us do. Personally, I find that liberating.
Who can’t admit that?

 
Who can’t admit that?
Anyone who either scoffs at religion as ancient fairy tales that make people feel better or who ignores science in favor of religion in a "well this is god's will" sort of way. I wasn't singling anyone here out specifically.

 
Anyone who either scoffs at religion as ancient fairy tales that make people feel better or who ignores science in favor of religion in a "well this is god's will" sort of way. I wasn't singling anyone here out specifically.
I would think it’s possible to do that and admit to not knowing what happened at the beginning 

 
I know the whole quote, but trying to conceive a way that could be a mistake
“They say” is the same as “Trump said?”  
First off, you should know by now that "many people are saying" is just Trump's way of deflecting responsibility for his lies.

Second, adding "they say" doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. Because it shows that the president is easily swayed by unsubstantiated, poorly sourced stories that he hears.

 
Herb said:
Why can't anyone ever admit they don't really know WTF happened "in the beginning?"
In my experience people can't even agree on what "the beginning" means. There's a lot assumed by both sides of this argument. Agreeing on a starting point is crucial to discussion yet rarely ever happens

 
In my experience people can't even agree on what "the beginning" means. There's a lot assumed by both sides of this argument. Agreeing on a starting point is crucial to discussion yet rarely ever happens
Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started, wait
The earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool
Neanderthals developed tools
We built a wall (we built the pyramids)
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries
That all started with the big bang! Hey!

 
Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started, wait
The earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool
Neanderthals developed tools
We built a wall (we built the pyramids)
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries
That all started with the big bang! Hey!
Fun fact....if you let that track play after the apparent "end" of the song, you hear "but what was there before the big bang"....at least on my cassette you do.  It's never ending from my experience.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
I tried to make a fair post, detailing some of the reasons why atheists and fundamentalists disagree on this subject.  You chose to go down the path of openly mocking those that believe in a God, and have now doubled down with even more negative statements.

Ive learned  there’s nothing to be gained by discussing something with someone who ridicules your beliefs..  I’d be glad to discuss this in a friendly way, but you’ve already made it clear that you think that believing in an intelligent designer is somehow disrespectful.  So it’s pointless to continue. 
It isn't really a "fair" post. Atheists and fundamentalists disagree because one thinks there is an omnipotent, omniscient, man in the sky and the other doesn't. There is no debating "facts" or "evidence" with fundamentalists. Your post can basically be summarized as this.

1st section) Good informative post - but isn't conclusive so keep having your doubts regarding evolution.

2nd section) Evolution is OK, but remember that you can always [insert the act of god at this point in time that is "quite possible"] that can't be disproven so intelligent design carries equal weight.

3) Semantics + throwing doubt on evolutionary theory + retconning Genesis to make the Earth 4.5 billion years old.

Quite frankly, it is insulting when I post something that is informative with no snark, that someone who is truly interested in the subject could spend 10-15 minutes Googling keywords to learn more about, and I get responses like "so no proof - gotcha" and an appeal for intelligent design.

There is no evidence of guided evolution. I mean, your post insinuates, that God, decided to make the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, hit it with some planetary sized object to create the moon, bombarded it with comets to give us oceans, kick started life as what initially protein? RNA? which then, thanks to his omniscience started evolving into bacteria, viruses, and other single celled critters. Toss photosynthesis in there somewhere which starts polluting the world with oxygen. A Snowball earth. Then we get algae which sort of kick start the selection of multicelluar life. Cambrian explosion. Plants start colonizing the land (and remember, all of this time the earth is *nothing* like the earth we have today). Then, after hundreds of millions of years of life, several planetary extinction events, we get a couple upright, bipedal, ancestral primates. The earth experiences some fits and starts with human lineages. Then, after billions of years, God's grand plan finally comes to fruition a couple hundred thousand years ago, with the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in his image. Who then, based on his inspiration, write a book chronicling this creation that is believed as absolute truth for thousands of years until we prove that is a bunch of nonsense. At which point, to apologists it is no longer truth but allegory while there are still plenty of people that think it is still absolute truth.

Again, once you start inserting magic somewhere in the story, it is OK to insert magic anywhere in the story. We can't disprove existence of ghosts, bigfoot, santa, angels, gods, chupacabras, leprechauns, unicorns, godzilla, the tooth fairy, etc. etc. etc. However, there is no evidence for these things. So, realize, when you pitch intelligent design to happen here and there but definitely not over here or over there it is analogous to someone pitching the existence of said critters because their existence can't be disproven. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It isn't really a "fair" post. Atheists and fundamentalists disagree because one thinks there is an omnipotent, omniscient, man in the sky and the other doesn't. There is no debating "facts" or "evidence" with fundamentalists. Your post can basically be summarized as this.

1st section) Good informative post - but isn't conclusive so keep having your doubts regarding evolution.

2nd section) Evolution is OK, but remember that you can always [insert the act of god at this point in time that is "quite possible"] that can't be disproven so intelligent design carries equal weight.

3) Semantics + throwing doubt on evolutionary theory + retconning Genesis to make the Earth 4.5 billion years old.

Quite frankly, it is insulting when I post something that is informative with no snark, that someone who is truly interested in the subject could spend 10-15 minutes Googling keywords to learn more about, and I get responses like "so no proof - gotcha" and an appeal for intelligent design.

There is no evidence of guided evolution. I mean, your post insinuates, that God, decided to make the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, hit it with some planetary sized object to create the moon, bombarded it with comets to give us oceans, kick started life as what initially protein? RNA? which then, thanks to his omniscience started evolving into bacteria, viruses, and other single celled critters. Toss photosynthesis in there somewhere which starts polluting the world with oxygen. A Snowball earth. Then we get algae which sort of kick start the selection of multicelluar life. Cambrian explosion. Plants start colonizing the land (and remember, all of this time the earth is *nothing* like the earth we have today). Then, after hundreds of millions of years of life, several planetary extinction events, we get a couple upright, bipedal, ancestral primates. The earth experiences some fits and starts with human lineages. Then, after billions of years, God's grand plan finally comes to fruition a couple hundred thousand years ago, with the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in his image. Who then, based on his inspiration, write a book chronicling this creation that is believed as absolute truth for thousands of years until we prove that is a bunch of nonsense. At which point, to apologists it is no longer truth but allegory while there are still plenty of people that think it is still absolute truth.

Again, once you start inserting magic somewhere in the story, it is OK to insert magic anywhere in the story. We can't disprove existence of ghosts, bigfoot, santa, angels, gods, chupacabras, leprechauns, unicorns, godzilla, the tooth fairy, etc. etc. etc. However, there is no evidence for these things. So, realize, when you pitch intelligent design to happen here and there but definitely not over here or over there it is analogous to someone pitching the existence of said critters because their existence can't be disproven. 
It’s not insulting for someone to give their opinions on what they believe.  It’s insulting to mock another person’s beliefs.  The issue you have is that you didn’t fully read what I wrote (you called me a fundamentalist, for crying out loud) , and are looking to mock others. In each of your posts you’ve made a bunch of ridiculous analogies and examples that have nothing to do with the subject. You might think you’re funny by comparing people’s beliefs to godzilla, but you’re not.

I know your internet browsing makes you feel really good about your personal beliefs, but being dogmatic is never a good look. Enjoy your evening.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Debunked climate change myths.

NEWSFLASH!  I guess that they couldn't find a picture of a polar bear on an ice cube.....
It should be easy .....considering the polar bear population has almost quadrupled
>>While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline.

The best-studied population, in Canada’s western Hudson Bay, fell by 22% from 1194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A second group in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska’s north coast, is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as the Hudson Bay group.

A comprehensive review (pdf) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for the decline seen in these populations, and it recently proposed listing polar bears as threatened (pdf) under the Endangered Species Act. The World Conservation Union projects the bears’ numbers will drop by 30% by 2050 (pdf)due to continued loss of Arctic sea ice.<<

 
shader said:
I tried to make a fair post, detailing some of the reasons why atheists and fundamentalists disagree on this subject.  You chose to go down the path of openly mocking those that believe in a God, and have now doubled down with even more negative statements.

Ive learned  there’s nothing to be gained by discussing something with someone who ridicules your beliefs..  I’d be glad to discuss this in a friendly way, but you’ve already made it clear that you think that believing in an intelligent designer is somehow disrespectful.  So it’s pointless to continue. 
Creationism deserves the same treatment as flat earth

 
Creationism deserves the same treatment as flat earth
It depends. 

If religious people take Genesis as literal truth while at the same time attempting to disprove that the Earth is billions of years old, then you’re correct. 

If religious people accept what science teaches us but then add, “this is the way God created the Earth”, then no it doesn’t. 

 
shader said:
People that believe in a higher power deserve the same treatment as people who believe in something that is literally proven to be false?  
Don't put words in my mouth. I said creationists, not religious people.

The Venn diagrams do not overlap completely.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
>>While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline.

The best-studied population, in Canada’s western Hudson Bay, fell by 22% from 1194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A second group in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska’s north coast, is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as the Hudson Bay group.

A comprehensive review (pdf) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for the decline seen in these populations, and it recently proposed listing polar bears as threatened (pdf) under the Endangered Species Act. The World Conservation Union projects the bears’ numbers will drop by 30% by 2050 (pdf)due to continued loss of Arctic sea ice.<<
So , yet another "gloom & doom" prophecy set far enough in the future that most of us will have been forgotten..

But...in the meantime...

"Once upon a time, stories of polar bears starving to death were regular features of environmental and science “reporting.” The fuzzy fur-balls of ferocity were the beloved icons for the crusade against global warming.  However, they have been seemingly absent from recent “climate change” discussions.  Could this be due to rapidly increasing number of polar bears, a fact which counters all the doom-and-gloom assertions made by supposed experts?"

"The plight of arctic polar bears is an emotional tragedy that has helped advance public awareness about the devastating impact of climate change.Except, it’s not actually true.  According research from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, polar bear numbers appear to have quadrupled since the 1960s."

"Crockford makes the case that the polar bear population in 1975 was around 5,000. It is presently estimated to be around 32,000. Clearly, the decision to continue to list the bears as a threatened species is about politics, not science."

 
timschochet said:
If religious people accept what science teaches us but then add, “this is the way God created the Earth”, then no it doesn’t. 
And how do you square "believing what science teaches us" with the central tenets of creationism, the age of the earth, intelligent design and less central themes such as cowpokes riding dinosaurs?

 
So , yet another "gloom & doom" prophecy set far enough in the future that most of us will have been forgotten..

But...in the meantime...

"Once upon a time, stories of polar bears starving to death were regular features of environmental and science “reporting.” The fuzzy fur-balls of ferocity were the beloved icons for the crusade against global warming.  However, they have been seemingly absent from recent “climate change” discussions.  Could this be due to rapidly increasing number of polar bears, a fact which counters all the doom-and-gloom assertions made by supposed experts?"

"The plight of arctic polar bears is an emotional tragedy that has helped advance public awareness about the devastating impact of climate change.Except, it’s not actually true.  According research from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, polar bear numbers appear to have quadrupled since the 1960s."

"Crockford makes the case that the polar bear population in 1975 was around 5,000. It is presently estimated to be around 32,000. Clearly, the decision to continue to list the bears as a threatened species is about politics, not science."
That's obviously correct, but it's also a separate issue. That's about conservancy and protecting bears from hunting vs the effect of climate change on future bear population.

 
And how do you square "believing what science teaches us" with the central tenets of creationism, the age of the earth, intelligent design and less central themes such as cowpokes riding dinosaurs?
I’ve already said earlier in the thread that some fundamentalists that teach the 6,000 year earth cause many of the issues and disagreements.  

Unless I’ve missed it, I’ve yet to see a YEC enter this thread. My bigger issue with that group is a theological one that causes them to have to reject science for no good reason.

Intelligent design is something believed by virtually anyone who is a “religious person”, not just “creationists”

 
I’ve already said earlier in the thread that some fundamentalists that teach the 6,000 year earth cause many of the issues and disagreements.  

Unless I’ve missed it, I’ve yet to see a YEC enter this thread. My bigger issue with that group is a theological one that causes them to have to reject science for no good reason.

Intelligent design is something believed by virtually anyone who is a “religious person”, not just “creationists”
When I were religious in my youth I would laugh my ### off at intelligent design believers. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top