CDZ Biology Deniers

[P@triot]

From an educational standpoint - what can be done to educate our youth and prevent them from going down this progressive path of denying science, denying climate data, denying biology, etc.

There is a large push recently to place ideology over reality. It's important to curb that and it can really only be done through education.

Matt Walsh: Let’s start calling them ‘biology deniers’

 

[Coyote]

You mean like Intelligent Design?

 

[P@triot]

You mean like Intelligent Design?

Yes...that's another good example. Their denial of "Intelligent Design" as well.

 

[Coyote]

Ok...now it's clear...we're talking about evidence based science (like evolution and climate change) vs faith based pseudo-science like intelligent design.

 

[P@triot]

Ok...now it's clear...we're talking about evidence based science (like evolution and climate change) vs faith based pseudo-science like intelligent design.

We're talking about facts. Like the fact that the polar ice-cap grew an astounding 60% (over 900,000 sq. miles) by 2014 when progressives claimed it would be completely "melted" by then. We have progressives denying indisputable climate data like that, indisputable biology like chromosomes, etc.

Don't you consider that to be at least slightly problematic, if not worse?

 

[Coyote]

Climate science is complicated. The fact is, there is an overwelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change IS occurring and not all scientists are "progressive". The consensus crosses disciplines. That is evidence based science.

Where there is less consensus is on the long term effects and the timing of those effects.

Now, with biology and gender identification it's not that clear cut. Biological gender IS. Gender identification doesn't seem to be. There is a lot about the brain we don't know yet. The fact that gender identification seems to be established very young in children leads me to think there is some sort of biological basis. There is more to gender than an X and a Y chromosone. There's a boatload of hormones, and whatever goes on in the brain.

 

[Chuz Life]

When it comes to biology, The real denial by the left is not so much about gender as it is about when a new child's life begins.

No one is being systematically killed by the confusion and debates about gender. Least not by the tens of millions like we have with abortion.


Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Coyote]

We're not talking about abortion though - that would derail the topic.

 

[jasonnfree]

Speaking of climate change.......

Congress: Obama admin fired top scientist to advance climate change plans

 

[Coyote]

Let's try to discuss the OP and not divert on other tangents.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let's try to discuss the OP and not divert on other tangents.

The subject is about the left's denials and confusion about biology.

That's not limited to only gender identity issues.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[P@triot]

Climate science is complicated. The fact is, there is an overwelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change IS occurring and not all scientists are "progressive". The consensus crosses disciplines. That is evidence based science.

Where there is less consensus is on the long term effects and the timing of those effects.

Now, with biology and gender identification it's not that clear cut. Biological gender IS. Gender identification doesn't seem to be. There is a lot about the brain we don't know yet. The fact that gender identification seems to be established very young in children leads me to think there is some sort of biological basis. There is more to gender than an X and a Y chromosone. There's a boatload of hormones, and whatever goes on in the brain.

Well using that same "logic" Coyote, any person who feels they are Jesus Christ should not be taken to a psych ward but rather should be worshipped and indulged.

I mean, after all, we don't know what goes on in the brain.

 

[william the wie]

1) the term settled science is an oxymoron. Gravity is observable and measurable but why and how it works is still to some degree unknown therefore it is not settled science. Climate change was disproven in 1961 by Lorenz working in the MIT meterological Department.
2) Horse breeders and women act on the assumption that the female mammal provides @60% of offspring inheritance.
3) Crick and Wallace both reached the conclusion that evolution was bunk. Richard Dawkins has reportedly gone the same way.

You are not being wiley Coyote

 

[Coyote]

Climate science is complicated. The fact is, there is an overwelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change IS occurring and not all scientists are "progressive". The consensus crosses disciplines. That is evidence based science.

Where there is less consensus is on the long term effects and the timing of those effects.

Now, with biology and gender identification it's not that clear cut. Biological gender IS. Gender identification doesn't seem to be. There is a lot about the brain we don't know yet. The fact that gender identification seems to be established very young in children leads me to think there is some sort of biological basis. There is more to gender than an X and a Y chromosone. There's a boatload of hormones, and whatever goes on in the brain.

Well using that same "logic" Coyote, any person who feels they are Jesus Christ should not be taken to a psych ward but rather should be worshipped and indulged.

I mean, after all, we don't know what goes on in the brain.

I don't think that's comparable.

 

[Coyote]

1) the term settled science is an oxymoron. Gravity is observable and measurable but why and how it works is still to some degree unknown therefore it is not settled science. Climate change was disproven in 1961 by Lorenz working in the MIT meterological Department.
2) Horse breeders and women act on the assumption that the female mammal provides @60% of offspring inheritance.
3) Crick and Wallace both reached the conclusion that evolution was bunk. Richard Dawkins has reportedly gone the same way.

You are not being wiley Coyote

Climate change is not "disproven" - 1961 is 55 years ago.
Evolution is "bunk"? Specifically by what evidence? Are Crick, Wallace and Dawkins now stating there is a diety involved?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

From an educational standpoint - what can be done to educate our youth and prevent them from going down this progressive path of denying science, denying climate data, denying biology, etc.

There is a large push recently to place ideology over reality. It's important to curb that and it can really only be done through education.

Matt Walsh: Let’s start calling them ‘biology deniers’

Science is simply a more clear explanation for what was once considered magic and religious belief.

There is still much to be learned concerning the basis of such explanations, which are by no means set in stone.

That science has "an explanation" in no way dispenses faith from having a part in that explanation, particularly within that part which cannot yet be explained.

 

[Boss]

Climate change is not "disproven"

You're right... the climate definitely changes. That's indisputable. It's warmer in Alabama today than it was yesterday, therefore, the climate obviously changed.

Over the last century, there has been ~1 degree change in ambient temperature. Given the accuracy of our instruments crossing from analog to digital in that same time period is of some consequence, but supposing all data is completely accurate, this seems to be a very insignificant overall change.

The often heard cry of how 97% of scientists agree on AGW is a falsehood. This has been proven by independent analysts who researched the claim. They found nothing could be further from the truth. The number of scientists who are qualified to assert an opinion on climatology and believe that man is the primary cause of significant increase in global warming is ~0.3%. In short, more scientists probably believe we've been visited by aliens.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In short, more scientists probably believe we've been visited by aliens.

The funny thing is the number of scientists who actually believe we've been visited by extraterrestrials.

 

[Boss]

There is still much to be learned concerning the basis of such explanations, which are by no means set in stone.

Exactly. Therefore, claims that AGW is "settled science" are the antithesis of Science itself. Those who promote this assumption are not practicing Science anymore, they are adopting a faith-based belief in a conclusion. All too often, we are inundated with the arguments of popular consensus. Popular consensus is fine but it's certainly not Science. Once was a time when it was "popular consensus" the world was flat... the universe revolved around the earth... most of the universe was comprised of atoms... time was linear and not relative... things float because they long to be in the heavens... things stop moving because they become tired. These were all assumptions and conclusions that man made and Science disproved. Science is the never-ending and perpetual exploration of possibility and probability, it does not make conclusions.

 

[P@triot]

Climate science is complicated. The fact is, there is an overwelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change IS occurring and not all scientists are "progressive". The consensus crosses disciplines. That is evidence based science.

Where there is less consensus is on the long term effects and the timing of those effects.

Now, with biology and gender identification it's not that clear cut. Biological gender IS. Gender identification doesn't seem to be. There is a lot about the brain we don't know yet. The fact that gender identification seems to be established very young in children leads me to think there is some sort of biological basis. There is more to gender than an X and a Y chromosone. There's a boatload of hormones, and whatever goes on in the brain.

Well using that same "logic" Coyote, any person who feels they are Jesus Christ should not be taken to a psych ward but rather should be worshipped and indulged.

I mean, after all, we don't know what goes on in the brain.

I don't think that's comparable.

Why not?