Science People who reject the theory of human evolution tend to have more bigoted attitudes

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MARIS61 said:
The notion of calling people racist or bigoted for disbelieving Darwin's Theory that man evolved from apes is hilariously ironic, as Darwin was known as a rabid racist who was accused of sing his theory to imply Africans and Indians were basically the link between real men and apes.

I don't reject the basic theory of evolution, or creationism, or the Big Bang...I have studied the first 2 in great detail personally since childhood, but I find them unlikely and flawed just from a logical standpoint. The Big Bang theory provides little of anything to study so far, but seems like something thrown against the wall to see if it sticks.

My personal theory is there was never a "birth" of the universe and beyond, it's always been and it always will be.

Small minds have a problem wrapping their heads around such a simple concept, because they assume everything unknown must be ultra-complicated, but I have never seen anything or anyone who could provide evidence to dispute it.

But none are proven, and none are supported by any measure of credible evidence. They are merely ideas of what might be an answer.

All scientific knowledge begins with questions, proceeds to theories, and eventually is proven or disproven, or just stagnates forever due to the stubborn refusal of one side to admit they are mistaken.

Post your pictures of The Missing Link here. :cheers:
Click to expand...
You just did a lot of talking about stuff that doesn't relate to this thread. Good job.

You're probably right about where people came from...

tenor(9).gif
 
The Great Race of Yith, the Elder Things, and the Mi-Go visited this world in ages so long ago that your sanity would splinter if you even tried to comprhend it. For reasons no human mind could ever understand, they created and maipulated teran life to evolve into humans. Were you created or evolved, neither, or both?

That insane tittering you hear is the nuclear chaos at the heart of a universe that is incapable of caring any less. If it even noticed your existence, you would be nothing but the briefest of amusement.
 
Actual scientists write in peer reviewed journals and sign their names. They don't post uninformed screeds anonymously in blogs. The blog Maris copied and pasted was not written by a scientist. Most of the so called theories disproven in the blog were never theories. They were prescientific ideas, fringe beliefs, or in the case of cold fusion, intriguing ideas that were quickly shown to be mistaken when no one could duplicate results. And obviously none of that had any bearing on evolution by natural selection, which has stood the test of time, and been verified in thousands of peer reviewed studies.
 
Last edited:
crandc said:
Actual scientists write in peer reviewed journals and sign their names. They don't post uninformed screeds anonymously in blogs. The blog Maris copied and pasted was not written by a scientist. Most of the so called theories disproven in the blog we're never theories. They were prescientific ideas, fringe beliefs, or in the case of cold fusion, intriguing ideas that were quickly shown to be mistaken when no one could duplicate results. And obviously none of that had any bearing on evolution by natural selection, which has stood the test of time, and been verified in thousands of peer reviewed studies.
Click to expand...

It's almost like the scientific method works...
 
I don’t know what I believe, there are things science can explain and things it can’t. This “study” did a poor job of mutually excluding these two personality traits though. All Muslims are terrorists too, right guys? It’s really not surprising to me though that an atheist wrote a politically-motivated paper outlining how “that group over there” is racist, basically putting their own intolerance for an entire group on display. Ironic. The pile-on in this thread is a further exhibition of this.
Also interesting that many of the same people educating us on the virtues of science with noses held high are the same ones telling us there are more than two genders or gender is fluid.
 
jonnyboy said:
I don’t know what I believe, there are things science can explain and things it can’t. This “study” did a poor job of mutually excluding these two personality traits though. All Muslims are terrorists too, right guys? It’s really not surprising to me though that an atheist wrote a politically-motivated paper outlining how “that group over there” is racist, basically putting their own intolerance for an entire group on display. Ironic. The pile-on in this thread is a further exhibition of this.
Also interesting that many of the same people educating us on the virtues of science with noses held high are the same ones telling us there are more than two genders or gender is fluid.
Click to expand...

Where did it say "all"?

That's such a poor analogy, it's not even funny. You either have a poor understanding of how correlation works, or you just felt you needed to put together a vomit of words hoping it would sound smart.

That's sly's job anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
julius said:
Where did it say "all"?

That's such a poor analogy, it's not even funny. You either have a poor understanding of how correlation works, or you just felt you needed to put together a vomit of words hoping it would sound smart.

That's sly's job anyways.
Click to expand...

If you don’t have a coherent response outside of attacking someone’s character, you actually don’t have to type anything. It’s easier that way and it saves everyone time.
 
Oh man this study was so bad it’s not even funny. Talk about word vomit. The author just wants to sound smart. Derp.
 
jonnyboy said:
If you don’t have a coherent response outside of attacking someone’s character, you actually don’t have to type anything. It’s easier that way and it saves everyone time.
Click to expand...

That wasn't an attack on your character, but your misunderstanding the concept of correlation.
 
crandc said:
Actual scientists write in peer reviewed journals and sign their names. They don't post uninformed screeds anonymously in blogs. The blog Maris copied and pasted was not written by a scientist. Most of the so called theories disproven in the blog we're never theories. They were prescientific ideas, fringe beliefs, or in the case of cold fusion, intriguing ideas that were quickly shown to be mistaken when no one could duplicate results. And obviously none of that had any bearing on evolution by natural selection, which has stood the test of time, and been verified in thousands of peer reviewed studies.
Click to expand...

Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
crandc's go-to science expert.
956c0e82.jpg
 
crandc said:
Actual scientists write in peer reviewed journals and sign their names. They don't post uninformed screeds anonymously in blogs. The blog Maris copied and pasted was not written by a scientist.
Click to expand...

Do you ever stop and think before spewing gibberish?

About
Famous Scientists is the web’s largest educational resource focusing on the lives and achievements of the most famous scientists and inventors in history. We provide a useful list of the names of famous scientists and their biographies.

famous-scientist-montage.jpg



We also maintain a science blog that takes a more general approach to science than the pages devoted to individual scientists.

Since mid-2014 our lead writer has been Doug Stewart (The Doc), a Ph.D. qualified scientist. Doug has been writing about science on the web for over a decade. He also writes for chemicool.com.
 
MARIS61 said:
Do you ever stop and think before spewing gibberish?

About
Famous Scientists is the web’s largest educational resource focusing on the lives and achievements of the most famous scientists and inventors in history. We provide a useful list of the names of famous scientists and their biographies.

famous-scientist-montage.jpg



We also maintain a science blog that takes a more general approach to science than the pages devoted to individual scientists.

Since mid-2014 our lead writer has been Doug Stewart (The Doc), a Ph.D. qualified scientist. Doug has been writing about science on the web for over a decade. He also writes for chemicool.com.
Click to expand...

Except the "article" you posted only says "by scientist" with no name or credentials and was written in 2012.
 
crandc said:
Actual scientists write in peer reviewed journals and sign their names.
Click to expand...

Which peer-reviewed journals do you write in?

I am genuinely interested in reading what you have written in them.

BTW, what particular scientific field do you work in? All I know is that you have worked in some sort of laboratory.
 
jonnyboy said:
I don’t know what I believe, there are things science can explain and things it can’t. This “study” did a poor job of mutually excluding these two personality traits though. All Muslims are terrorists too, right guys? It’s really not surprising to me though that an atheist wrote a politically-motivated paper outlining how “that group over there” is racist, basically putting their own intolerance for an entire group on display. Ironic. The pile-on in this thread is a further exhibition of this.
Also interesting that many of the same people educating us on the virtues of science with noses held high are the same ones telling us there are more than two genders or gender is fluid.
Click to expand...

Post of the day! :cheers:
 
MARIS61 said:
Which peer-reviewed journals do you write in?

I am genuinely interested in reading what you have written in them.

BTW, what particular scientific field do you work in? All I know is that you have worked in some sort of laboratory.
Click to expand...

I would highly recommend against that. That would require her to give out personal information like her name, and places of employment, and that is enough to figure out where she lives.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Except the "article" you posted only says "by scientist" with no name or credentials and was written in 2012.
Click to expand...

Everything on FamousScientists.org is peer reviewed. This article, as you point out, had already withstood 2 years of scrutiny before being published by FamousScientists.org.

Despite "Dr." crandc's attempt at mud throwing, these are 10 commonly known theories which were widely accepted for considerable lengths of time. Anyone with at least a high school education has heard of them and a quick google search will verify that.
 
MARIS61 said:
Everything on FamousScientists.org is peer reviewed. This article, as you point out, had already withstood 2 years of scrutiny before being published by FamousScientists.org.

Despite "Dr." crandc's attempt at mud throwing, these are 10 commonly known theories which were widely accepted for considerable lengths of time. Anyone with at least a high school education has heard of them and a quick google search will verify that.
Click to expand...

No, that article was posted ON FS in 2012.
 
Chris Craig said:
I am open minded to the idea that there is space for both creationism and science (evolution). That they can co-exist and that one does not negate the other.
Click to expand...

The concept that God used evolution as a tool in creating the beings that inhabit our world is commonly accepted by many Christian denominations, including Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, and many others.

I believe that a tendency towards bigotry is a part of the human condition that arises from our tendency to try to find validation and security by the ugly means of being bigoted towards "the other".
 
MARIS61 said:
Everything on FamousScientists.org is peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

Either you don't know what 'peer reviewed' means in science, or you are hoping the rest of us don't.

FamousScientists.org looks like a failed Cub Scout project.

But yes, you made me look.

barfo
 
Chris Craig said:
I am open minded to the idea that there is space for both creationism and science (evolution). That they can co-exist and that one does not negate the other.
Click to expand...
But then you might still have a few brain cells left so there is that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top