COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[George Christiansen]

If it can't be questioned, like this climate-change bullshit, it's not science. But before you can question it, you have to understand it. You don't.

If it can't be falsified then it isn't science.

The vast majority of what is taught as the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable for all the same reasons climate "science" is: it's based upon assumptions that cannot be tested, let alone falsified.

[Mark Rippetoe]

If it can't be falsified then it isn't science.

The vast majority of what is taught as the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable for all the same reasons climate "science" is: it's based upon assumptions that cannot be tested, let alone falsified.

Finally, something intelligent. Most biology teachers do not understand the processes by which things change over time, and therefore cannot explain it correctly. For there to be no 'evolution" the earth must be only 6000 years old. Do you still believe that too? Mutation is certainly not the only mechanism by which life changes over time.

[Cascadian]

Scientific theories, like quantum mechanics or evolution, are not models of "Nature" or "reality".

Scientific theories are models (I prefer "metaphors") of our observations.

What we see is not the same as "what is." No one has ever seen a 3D object. We only see lower dimensional parts at a time, and piece together our observations to imagine, or mentally map, a 3D object.

As I always tell people, "The map is not the mountain."

But that does not mean maps are not useful, if only within a limited scope. Maxwell's equations are spectacularly beautiful and powerful metaphors that describe the electromagnetic spectrum, and are broadly applicable to almost every aspect of our modern lives, from 3-phase power, to computer circuitry, signal transmission, eye glasses, ... the list is long indeed. They sure seem scientific AF.

But Maxwell's equations break down with the oh-so-simple double slit experiment. They must be augmented with quantum mechanics, another magnificent metaphor with mind-blowing consistency and confirmation, but which too has a limited scope of application, beyond which it fails.

So, does the "failure" of a scientific - read: observational - model (or metaphor, or map), when it is used beyond its scope of application, render it useless? Or unscientific?

The flippant dismissal of "man's puny calculus" is one's prerogative, but broadly applied, would find us still living in the age of sticks and stone, covered in fleas, living to a ripe old age of 31.

[Buddy Rich]

Anthony Colpo’s latest:

German Biologist Stefan Lanka Bet €100,000 the Measles Virus Doesn’t Exist. He Won.

[David A. Rowe]

Finally, something intelligent. Most biology teachers do not understand the processes by which things change over time, and therefore cannot explain it correctly. For there to be no 'evolution" the earth must be only 6000 years old. Do you still believe that too? Mutation is certainly not the only mechanism by which life changes over time.

This is not a personal attack or dogpile, but merely an observation:

I wish modern theories were attacked as viciously and critically as religion. There is so much wrong with each of them, and yet, in the attempt to replace the spiritual throughout modern and post-modern western society, science has replaced it ubiquitously in the scientific community. There are real theories and people out there, Christians all, who don't believe in things like "6000 years old" (which was modern laymen, both scientifically and theologically, reading scripture out of context and using it to justify or refute scientific hypotheses). Not that the "science community" doesn't generally hold as rabidly or emotionally to its beliefs as any other religious group. The BROAD discussions I've seen from any an all sides look, essentially, like an internet slap fight.

If you want a rabbit hole to jump down on macroevolution, protein folding would be the first black hole punched through the standing theory.

------------

But anyway, looks like another summer of love getting ready to really kick-off. Can't wait to see how it goes down now that it's not an easy, domestic target like law enforcement.

[Cascadian]

... If you want a rabbit hole to jump down on macroevolution, protein folding would be the first black hole punched through the standing theory.

I'm lost. Why would protein folding punch a hole in the standing theory of evolution?

Are you implying that given the infinite number of possible proteins, and how exceptionally rare are proteins folded "just so" to be functional, that, statistically speaking, complex life isn't possible?

[mkm5]

This is not a personal attack or dogpile, but merely an observation:

I wish modern theories were attacked as viciously and critically as religion. There is so much wrong with each of them, and yet, in the attempt to replace the spiritual throughout modern and post-modern western society, science has replaced it ubiquitously in the scientific community. There are real theories and people out there, Christians all, who don't believe in things like "6000 years old" (which was modern laymen, both scientifically and theologically, reading scripture out of context and using it to justify or refute scientific hypotheses). Not that the "science community" doesn't generally hold as rabidly or emotionally to its beliefs as any other religious group. The BROAD discussions I've seen from any an all sides look, essentially, like an internet slap fight.

If you want a rabbit hole to jump down on macroevolution, protein folding would be the first black hole punched through the standing theory.

------------

But anyway, looks like another summer of love getting ready to really kick-off. Can't wait to see how it goes down now that it's not an easy, domestic target like law enforcement.

Yes, it's definitely going to be an interesting summer of "love."

The "paid actors," their sponsors, and the useful idiots might be in for a surprise.

Looks like this cop doesn't skip his squats and deadlifts, the way he packs up this parasite and takes out the garbage:

This is absolutely PRICELESS - YouTube

[anticausal]

This is not a personal attack or dogpile, but merely an observation:

I wish modern theories were attacked as viciously and critically as religion. There is so much wrong with each of them, and yet, in the attempt to replace the spiritual throughout modern and post-modern western society, science has replaced it ubiquitously in the scientific community.

Public facing scientists have been fags for a long time. A few exceptions existed, like Mr. Wizard, but he still had some of the "before-time" in him. I loved that salty old bastard. (His cultural successor, Bill Nye, on the other hand, is a complete fag.) Guys like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins were obviously propagandists to me. The science is always secondary to the atheism when you look at it from a propaganda-informed perspective. More propaganda-driven energy has been focused into evangelizing atheism than anything else in post-WWII American pop-culture, besides, perhaps, anti-racism and anti-white conditioning.

And now Niel Degrasse Tyson is just what remains among the dregs, after the long degeneration of American society.

[David A. Rowe]

I'm lost. Why would protein folding punch a hole in the standing theory of evolution?

Are you implying that given the infinite number of possible proteins, and how exceptionally rare are proteins folded "just so" to be functional, that, statistically speaking, complex life isn't possible?

That is the tippy top of the iceberg, but the implications of the assumptions and their derivative elements of the theory deteriorate rapidly. It was interesting to me, at least.

And this isn't a theological own, either. It's a valid scientific refutation. Believe me, it is equally bothersome to me how badly Western Christians and denominations misunderstand scripture by missing the context -- usually entirely.

It's bitterly ironic to me how similar the issues are on both sides, though I'd rather try to convince someone of a faith-based worldview of the science than convince a "scientist" (and without the scare quotes) how much of their position is also faith-based when they have yet to recognize it themselves.

Something, something human nature.


Yeah, this summer is gonna be lit.

[Cascadian]

That is the tippy top of the iceberg, but the implications of the assumptions and their derivative elements of the theory deteriorate rapidly. It was interesting to me, at least.

And this isn't a theological own, either. It's a valid scientific refutation. Believe me, it is equally bothersome to me how badly Western Christians and denominations misunderstand scripture by missing the context -- usually entirely.

It's bitterly ironic to me how similar the issues are on both sides, though I'd rather try to convince someone of a faith-based worldview of the science than convince a "scientist" (and without the scare quotes) how much of their position is also faith-based when they have yet to recognize it themselves.

Something, something human nature.


Yeah, this summer is gonna be lit.

Wait, you didn't answer my question.

Please explain WHY "protein folding punches a black hole in the standing theory of evolution."

To say, "That is the tippy top of the iceberg, but the implications of the assumptions and their derivative elements of the theory deteriorate rapidly" is near-supersonic hand-waving.