Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

Lawrence Krauss did though, but for sexual assault

[link to www.sciencemag.org (secure)]

The provost of Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe concluded this week that high-profile astrophysicist and atheist Lawrence Krauss violated the university’s sexual harassment policy by grabbing a woman’s breast at a conference in Australia in late 2016.

“Responsive action is being taken to prevent any further recurrence of similar conduct,” ASU’s executive vice president and provost, Mark Searle, wrote in a 31 July letter to Melanie Thomson, a microbiologist based in Ocean Grove, Australia, who is an outspoken advocate for women in science. Thomson, who witnessed the breast-grabbing incident, received the provost's written judgment, called a "determination" from Searle and shared it with Science. His conclusion concurred with the findings of investigators from ASU’s Office of Equity and Inclusion (OEI).

In response to an email asking what specific actions the university is taking, an ASU spokesperson wrote: “Professor Lawrence Krauss is no longer director of Arizona State University’s Origins Project, a research unit at ASU. Krauss remains on administrative leave from the university. It is the policy of the university not to comment on ongoing personnel matters.”

If the actual tenants and ideology of Catholicism didn't contribute then why did/do they spend millions on science? Maybe you should do some research. Again, you are being disingenuous

disingenuous
/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs/
adjective
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
"this journalist was being somewhat disingenuous as well as cynical"
synonyms: dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling, insincere, false, lying, untruthful, mendacious.


Christians and even the Pope question the Bible all the time and change their opinions and views on what it means. If you don't know this then you need to educate yourself. Many on here are appealing to authority in the form of science, a very discredited form of debate.

Yes, your evidence is that everything points to your propositions being real. The scientific method doesn't say this means it is true.

So what? It's not like priests are known for sexual assault. Oh, wait...

I don't understand your question. The Nazis contributed to science, that doesn't mean that their ideology has contributed to science. Atheists and people from many religions have contributed to science, but their religious beliefs were inconsequential.
I think I've done more research than you. I'm not being disingenuous.

Yes, Christians change their interpretation of the Bible all the time, but their religion requires that god exists and the Bible is true. These can't change, which closes people's minds to alternate explanations, and proper science.

I never said it does. If all the evidence points to one scenario, then it's most likely to be true. This is just reality, regardless of what science says.

There are Catholic Priests undertaking science on behalf of the Catholic church. If the nazi's or Catholic church didn't consider science important it would never have happened.

Same as certain groups forbid science and science doesn't occur.

If they didn't condone and want the science it wouldn't have occurred. As Priests they do what the church asks of them, they are not following science for their own interest outside of the church.

If the Bible is deemed true then it cant be open to reinterpretation after 2,000 years. If they were truly closed minded reinterpretations would never be allowed and they would not be involved in the proper science they are conducting.

You do know that is how mysticism came about don't you? The following of false Gods etc etc etc. Evidence convicts innocent people on a daily basis, that is also a fact. Even scientists use evidence to come to false conclusion and accept as true things that are later shown to be false. Scientists are not immune from errors yet all you have written suggests that if they say the evidence points to this then it is likely true. In time it may be shown that all you hope is true is proven true. Equally you may die and discover that all you doubted was in fact true. The question is which will happen first?

You really do have black and white opinions of religion don't you? It is a pity your not Gay, then you could complain about how Islam commands that you should be thrown off a tall building but I guess your real complaint is with Christianity, or rather Catholicism rather than Religion.

This is getting old. Yes, Catholics can do science. Catholicism itself isn't being utilized in scientific research. Catholicism itself hasn't taught us any scientific knowledge. It has on multiple occasions motivated people to oppose scientific progress when it conflicts with what it teaches. I don't care how much money Catholics spend on science, or if a scientist happens to be catholic. Let's move on.

"If the Bible is deemed true then it cant be open to reinterpretation after 2,000 years."

That doesn't make sense. You can interpret the bible any way you want, but you're still operating under the assumption that the bible is true. If you presuppose that the bible is true, and god made man, and this can't be questioned, you are not open to alternate explanations. You can't tap dance around this.

"You do know that is how mysticism came about don't you? The following of false Gods etc etc etc."

What? Mysticism was around before your religion, and why should I think your god isn't false?

"Evidence convicts innocent people on a daily basis, that is also a fact. Even scientists use evidence to come to false conclusion and accept as true things that are later shown to be false."

What's your point? That evidence doesn't matter? That's absurd. It's the best we have. Would you suggest we just convict people based on what we feel is right? Based on faith?

Scientists are not immune from errors yet all you have written suggests that if they say the evidence points to this then it is likely true. In time it may be shown that all you hope is true is proven true. Equally you may die and discover that all you doubted was in fact true. The question is which will happen first? "

No, I never said that if scientists say the evidence points to something it's likely to be true. You have some nerve calling me disingenuous. I said that if the evidence (which is directly observable) points to something, it's most likely true. This seems pretty obvious to me. I'm kind of shocked that you would dispute this. Evolution is an observable fact, when it comes to the distant past, we have to rely on evidence. Would you agree that a paternity test is the best way to determine whether someone is the father of a child? Is that proof? Because the ERV evidence functions on the same principle as a paternity test.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard the threats of hell before. Doesn't sway me.

"You really do have black and white opinions of religion don't you? It is a pity your not Gay, then you could complain about how Islam commands that you should be thrown off a tall building but I guess your real complaint is with Christianity, or rather Catholicism rather than Religion."

Black and white? I don't get what you mean. You brought up Catholicism not me. Your opinion that I'm somehow biased against Christianity is completely unreasonable.

This is a thread about evolution, I'm only forced to talk about religion because Creationists think that a literal interpretation of the Bible should take precedence over science.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/05/2019 07:23 AM

My point is that you think Christian creationists are representative of all religion and treat all religion as if it is run/governed/controlled etc by creationists.

It isn't.

Your viewpoint is why people don't like immigration because you don't know who is the nutter so all must be nutters.

Religion is also not the Bible. The Church is not all religion. If the Pope didn't want his Priests to stare at the cosmos and study the heavens then they wouldn't have built something like 100 observatories around the world.

You are the small minded one in this conversation. irrespective of the Bible and what is written churches still look for answers. Answers to prove the Bible right but in doing so to also invalidate parts of the Bible.

If you didn't know Catholic Priests spend years at university to become a Priest. They are educated and are taught to doubt, ask questions and seek truths, and yes some do things they shouldn't like all people.

I think your view that religion is the enemy is a generalisation and not entirely fair.

FWIW I have been in a catholic church twice, once for a wedding and once for a funeral so I am far from a Catholic or any other Church.

I don't think Christian Creationists are representative of all religion. No idea why you accuse me of this.

My view is why people don't like immigration? lol. That's a stretch.

Ok. The pope wants people to look through telescopes. Cool. I don't care. My problem is when people use the Bible as a source for scientific knowledge. This is the primary reason that people reject evolution, big bang, the age of the earth, abiogenesis etc. It's why people rejected the germ theory of disease and heliocentric theory.

The abrahamic religions have historically punished people for questioning them, and taught that you will be tortured for eternity for disbelief. You know this is true. Churches may encourage people to seek knowledge, but there are core teachings within each religion that can not be changed without destroying the religion. Christianity for example is not open to the possibility that Yahweh is a man-made myth. If Yahweh is a myth, Christianity is false.

I never said religion is the enemy. I think buddhism contains a lot of wisdom and practical advice, as does the teachings of Jesus. I may even be considered a pantheist. If you believe that god is omnicient and he created nature, then evolution and abiogenesis, like all natural processes, would be part of his will.

But Creationists won't accept this because of their literal interpretation of genesis. So they run around spreading misinformation and trying to discredit science.

Brainwashed evotards are hardwired to behave like this.

The voice in your head is supernatural.

Therefore, the supernatural exists.

Your mind is supernatural.

Therefore, the supernatural exists.

If you are going to come back with the epic 'my mind is natural', I'd like you to present it to me some day.

Case & point ^^^^ Evolutionists are as bad as religious fanatics & cannot be reasoned with or dissuaded from their indoctrinated belief system.

Not all of them but most.

They just ride the bandwagon of pop science and general consensus, the grade of stupidity of the consensus does not matter, they are simply acting like the zealous priests and godheads did hundreds/thousands of years ago.

These are the very same people that will be the first ones to state that blacks are inferior, handicapped should be killed and homosexuals should be burned at the stake.

Critical towards everything, except themselves and their reasoning/conclusions.

Yeah, yeah, keep talking about me, because you have no evidence or arguments. Only ad hominems.

I bring up ERV's and the fossil record, and you just call me a big, dumb, evil meanie. You're a joke. Creationists are on the same level as flat earthers. The world is laughing at you.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/05/2019 09:22 PM

It was not religion that rejected Big Bang, the church immediately embraced it, science rejected it. What better way to prove "in the beginning".

You need to look at history instead of making false statements.

I didn't make a false statement. That guy right above you rejects the big bang as an atheistic religion that says everything randomly came from nothing.

I'm aware of how the theory came about, but today you will find Creationists everywhere reject it. Many of them even think that the big bang and evolution are the same theory, such as Kent Hovind. In his words, the big bang is just the atheists way to explain the universe without God.

You continue to try and fail to attack my character and credibility, I'm just interested in the science.

and then you blamed Abrahamic religions. It is getting old.

I blamed Abrahamic religions for what? I don't even know what you're talking about. I said Abrahamic religions have historically punished people for questioning them. That's a fact. If it upsets you, then too fucking bad.

Let's talk about the science. Science offers naturalistic mechanisms for how life appeared, evolved. Whether a god controls those processes is another question. Creationists propose no mechanism for how god creates things, other than miracles/magic. All they do is accuse evolutionists of having faith and being nazis. It's sad.

I've briefly described the ERV and fossil evidence. You don't find these convincing?

Can we talk about how science and the world's pre-eminent scientists rejected the Big Bang Theory because the Church embraced it or is that inconvenient?

'Science' didn't reject it, but yeah popular scientists did. Then scientists gathered evidence and it changed people's minds. So what?

Punished people? lol

I've asked or said this before, but are you aware that science has killed more humans/organisms than all religions combined since the beginning of time?

Science merely describes what is already out there, you attribute everything that is out there to random chance events and call this science.

You are the one that believes rocks turned into living organisms and gradually evolved over eons of time.

You can throw a billion arguments of dna/rna, erv's and the fossil record, but that is merely your faith without any evidence.

Australia doesn't like and doesn't know a lot about history.

Careful now.

Yes, laughing boy. punished people.



Even if that were true, so what? The truth isn't determined by which 'team' has done the most bad things.



That's not true. That's a straw man you invented so that you don't have to argue with a real person.



ERVs and the fossil record are evidence, you idiot. You're speaking gibberish. Where's the evidence for your theory?

So what you don't like about others is acceptable from scientists?

Interesting that you call scientists such as Eddington, Einstein and Hoyle along with many others as popular scientists.

There you go again. No, I don't hold scientists to lower standards, no matter how much you want me to. Nothing I said implies that.

I didn't name any of those scientists specifically, but Einstein is popular, so what are you talking about?

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/06/2019 06:41 AM

Dude, what bothers me the most in these fanatics is the dishonesty. They go to any length to justify their fanaticism, lie and even kill if needed. This is because religion is all they have, without it their world would erude beneath them. Many times I've talk to fanatics and asked: "If somehow it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that god is not real and religion is all crap, what would you do?". Many answer along the lines of "I'll go out and kill and steal and rape for there are no consequences". For these people, which is not a minority among fanatics, is better they don't go out of this faith bubble of darkness. The only thing separating them from barbarism is the fear of consequences, for inside they are horrible people, anguished in their fear of the invisible, inexistent god. But by far, the worst is their dishonesty. Reason, logic, proof and truth is not important, these things are almost as if impossible concepts for them. Better believe in magic, almighty rageful gods than knowing the truth. So questining them is asking for outrageous answers, full of false rhetorics, logical fallacies and all kinds of dishonest argumentation. Trying to be reasonable with fanatics is the same as chewing bubble gum to solve an algebra problem. Its futile to bring reason to their lives, they are better with their lies and superstition. In summary, they are dangerous ignorants, and they are the majority. Luckily, religions have a timespan of like a couple thousand years tops, history based on history of religions that came and died.

They were making a very clear point to you and clearly you are so obsessed that you were blind to their point.

Judeo-Christian values and morals are the basis of law and morals throughout western societies.

Their point was that if you have no God then the basic foundations of Western civilisation as we know it is built on a false premise. The Bible says thou shalt not kill etc etc. If the Bible has no standing then why should such things be seen as bad? What values will ultimately replace it?

The problem with typing is that much of the message is open to interpretation. The way you typed "popular" seemed to infer that they were insignificant and not real scientists so what does it matter. They were far from insignificant, they had a huge following within the scientific community and were looked at for views about such matters.

They deliberately stifled scientific advancement because they saw the Big Bang as a Church based justification for our existence.

Interesting question, but that has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. Evolution is not false just because you don't like the moral implications of it.

This is an appeal to consequence fallacy.

No, I don't think Einstein is insignificant.

Being skeptical is not stifling scientific advancement. Scientists should be skeptical. But scientists tested the big bang theory and they discovered evidence for it, and that's why it is now commonly accepted. That's how science works.
Stifling scientific advancement would be silencing people for blasphemy or spreading misinformation.

And if some scientists did deliberately stifle advancement, I'm against that. Stop trying to paint me as having a double standard, it won't accomplish anything.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/06/2019 07:54 AM