There are plenty of examples of biased scientist manipulating experiments to obtain what they want.
Does this mean that gravity is false? No.
But there is gonna be plenty of scientist willing to bend reality.
There is SCIENCE and PSEUDOSCIENCE. Carrot propagades both pseudoscience and scientific fraud. Science can't deny or confirm any spiritual shit,because they have no tools for it. The Church has always being very pro-science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Church
There is SCIENCE and PSEUDOSCIENCE. Carrot propagades both pseudoscience and scientific fraud. Science can't deny or confirm any spiritual shit,because they have no tools for it. The Church has always being very pro-science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Church
Look,i didn't say shit about Christians being the true religion just because xyz had scientifics achievements. Learn to read what i actually write and not what you imagine i think. My point was that being RELIGIOUS ( i didn't mention christian btw) doesn't equal to being unable to produce science. I know where you are coming from:"Religious people are superstitious,therefore can't think logically and be unbiased". Its an immature belief. Yes,religion has conflicted in the past with science,but still we had notorious scientific work done by religious people.
most of the people fighting science are bible thumbing zealots who deny the big bang,evolution and round earth in favor of flat earth,creationism and god created universe
you only need to look at who's debating agasint evolution to tell which side is truly anti science
Religious people are superstitious,therefore can't think logically and be unbiased". Its an immature belief. Yes,religion has conflicted in the past with science.
people who are basing their stances on belief, are always going to have positions which oppose facts
hardcore liberals/leftists like carrot are prime examples of that
men having an insane amount of privilge is just one of those idealogical takes, it's the reality that most of the homeless are male which cant be true if men hold all the power in the society
if im looking at reality with the viewpoint that x thing is true regardless of evidence then guess what im gonna ignore evidence cause that aint the framework used for the hypothical viewpoint propsed here
most of the people fighting science are bible thumbing zealots who deny the big bang,evolution and round earth in favor of flat earth,creationism and god created universe
you only need to look at who's debating agasint evolution to tell which side is truly anti science
people who are basing their stances on belief, are always going to have positions which oppose facts
hardcore liberals/leftists like carrot are prime examples of that
men having an insane amount of privilge is just one of those idealogical takes, it's the reality that most of the homeless are male which cant be true if men hold all the power in the society
if im looking at reality with the viewpoint that x thing is true regardless of evidence then guess what im gonna ignore evidence cause that aint the framework used for the hypothical viewpoint propsed here
Look,i didn't say shit about Christians being the true religion just because xyz had scientic achievements. Learn to read what i actually write and not what you imagine i think. My point was that being RELIGIOUS ( i didn't mention christian btw) doesn't equal to being unable to produce science. I know where you are coming from:"Religious people are superstitious,therefore can't think logically and be unbiased". Its an immature belief. Yes,religion has conflicted in the past with science,but still we had notorious scientific work done by religious people.
is what you believe then bro grab some history books about scientific contributions by religious folks and you'll find that the vast majority were religious and diests
most of the people fighting science are bible thumbing zealots who deny the big bang,evolution and round earth in favor of flat earth,creationism and god created universe
Big bang and Explanations of Evolution through Darwaniian lense is filled with holes and quesitons, and you can't force a theory down someone's throat just because you believe in it.
And bruh Vast majority of Christians would believe earth being round
And creationsim and idea of there being a God as the initiator of the universe.. Have Logical evidences backing it up.. And unlike the theories you mentioned are quite more realistic and reasonable
Is yoir argument : there is conflict.. Hence there can't be a religious scientist?
What is your point dude?
Ig what NAMELESS says here
is what you believe then bro grab some history books about scientific contributions by religious folks and you'll find that the vast majority were religious and diests
Post automatically merged:
Big bang and Explanations of Evolution through Darwaniian lense is filled with holes and quesitons, and you can't force a theory down someone's throat just because you believe in it.
And bruh Vast majority of Christians would believe earth being round
And creationsim and idea of there being a God as the initiator of the universe.. Have Logical evidences backing it up.. And unlike the theories you mentioned are quite more realistic and reasonable
There are plenty of examples of biased scientist manipulating experiments to obtain what they want.
Does this mean that gravity is false? No.
But there is gonna be plenty of scientist willing to bend reality.
Section "Meaning and types", last pragraph, third sentence.
"Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning."
"Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists, with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented by state-level legislators in the early 1900s.[34] Eugenic policies also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.[35] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[36] Brazil,[37]Canada,[38]Japan and Sweden. Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed eugenics as a social philosophy—a philosophy with implications for social order.[39] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics"). "
This is all about parents with undesirable traits, not aborting children with disabilities. this just doesnt apply to what we were talking about. but nice try i guess (not really)
no, since down syndrome is not heritable, and eugenics is all about selecting favorable heritable traits.
you are wrong, and this still doesnt say anything regarding the point that sience works. you are just deflecting from the point attacking dawkins character
religious scientists more often than not reinterpret a literalist interpretation of passages contrary to the scientific research. and other reasonable religious people do as well. i've seen someone reinterpret adam and eve story to be indicative of evolution.
Big bang and Explanations of Evolution through Darwaniian lense is filled with holes and quesitons, and you can't force a theory down someone's throat just because you believe in it.
scientific theory
[ sahy-uhn-tif-ik theer-ee, thee-uh-ree ]SHOW IPA
noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
They just said to Israel to make sure that they take actions for a genocide to not happen like allowing humanitary help to get inside Gaza like Israel is doing.
Nothing that the court said gives Israel a single drop of guilty therefore there is no asking for them to stop the attacks.
I suggest you return look at the conclusion of the sessions. You missed some stuff.
" The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from harming or killing Palestinians. It also ruled that Israel must urgently get basic aid to Gaza and that the country should punish any incitement to genocide, among other measures.
The panel told Israel to submit a report on steps taken within a month.
“That’s a time that the court could come back and say, ‘You have not met the orders. You have not complied. Now we find you are in the midst of committing genocide,’” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of law and international peace studies at Notre Dame University’s Kroc Institute
"
Well.. You got a fair point here, but sadly, if you want to ask native to do an action, it will be useless to target France and the country that protect those billionnaires. This is our job to stop them. But what those people can do is rise us and sabotage the work of those priviledged people in their countries.
Then you are basically antiscience. You can't say "I accept just the science I like therefore I for science". No, you are just against the scientific process mate
Conclusions are unbiased* (at least they need to be). But conclusions are only one part of the scientific process. The rest of the process can be completely subjugated to biased.
But yeah, Bob speaks from an ignorant starting point about science, we can agree on that.
Careful when you are lying with that sort of subjects about me, you better be prepared. Because I don't like those kind of deffamation, especially about science about me and will fire back at you personnaly with every scientific firepower I have and you won't like it.
You better be really sure of what you are going to say next.
This is all about parents with undesirable traits, not aborting children with disabilities. this just doesnt apply to what we were talking about. but nice try i guess
You just added more historical context to the notion of eugenism. If you do not agree with me, ask wikipedia to delete the sources and the paragraph I just shared to you as even a child would understand that you are just avoiding what is written... Or accept - for once - to be wrong.
no, since down syndrome is not heritable, and eugenics is all about selecting favorable heritable traits.
you are wrong, and this still doesnt say anything regarding the point that sience works. you are just deflecting from the point attacking dawkins character
I'm right. As (like I shared) there is what we call "negative eugenism" that tends to act on abortion. And this is a case where someone tries to legitimate that practice. Its therefore Eugenic and nothing you will say will stop this from being true, I'm sorry, you are wrong and Dawkins was ALSO wrong.
And yes, the goal here was precisely to attack Dawkins because this guys is a bit too shared when it comes to talk about subjects that don't concerns him.
Then you are basically antiscience. You can't say "I accept just the science I like therefore I for science". No, you are just against the scientific process mate
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.