Blowing Up Darwin

[otto105]

Exposing Scientific Dogmas - Banned TED Talk - Rupert Sheldrake​

Yup, another flat white earth maga fuckup talk.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yup, another flat white earth maga fuckup talk.

 

[otto105]

Exactly right on the political point maga fuckup.

You're not questioning science, you're denying it.

 

[MisterBeale]

Exactly right on the political point maga fuckup.

You're not questioning science, you're denying it.

Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10 Dogmas Holding Back Science: Rupert Sheldrake PhD – Forbidden Knowledge TV

forbiddenknowledgetv.net

 

[otto105]

Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10 Dogmas Holding Back Science: Rupert Sheldrake PhD – Forbidden Knowledge TV

forbiddenknowledgetv.net

Sure fuckup

What does science inform us about human caused climate change.

 

[scruffy]

Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10 Dogmas Holding Back Science: Rupert Sheldrake PhD – Forbidden Knowledge TV

forbiddenknowledgetv.net

Psychic phenomena?

Really?

Do you know how many thousands of experiments have been performed on that?

It's somewhere between unrepeatable and nonexistent.

Proven thousands of times.

 

[MisterBeale]

Psychic phenomena?

Really?

Do you know how many thousands of experiments have been performed on that?

It's somewhere between unrepeatable and nonexistent.

Proven thousands of times.

Yeah, I'm familiar.

It is very hard to do unbiased scientific research when you start out with an epistemology which seeks to "de-bunk," certain natural phenomenon. This is what researchers do.

Am I accusing them of falsifying their data? Of course not. But researchers are only human.
When you understand that human thought and emotion, affect experimental outcomes, regardless of what researches do, then looking into this type of phenomenon becomes nearly impossible.

. . . now, if you understand the double slit experiment and the nature of the universe, you would not even need to ask these silly questions.

 

[scruffy]

Yeah, I'm familiar.

It is very hard to do unbiased scientific research when you start out with an epistemology which seeks to "de-bunk," certain natural phenomenon. This is what researchers do.

Oh. You mean like evolution.

Am I accusing them of falsifying their data? Of course not. But researchers are only human.
When you understand that human thought and emotion, affect experimental outcomes, regardless of what researches do, then looking into this type of phenomenon becomes nearly impossible.

"Looking into it" consumed most of the 60's and the first half of the 70's.

. . . now, if you understand the double slit experiment and the nature of the universe, you would not even need to ask these silly questions.

Brains do not function using double slits.

They function with noise, which is a much more sophisticated form of randomness.

You know the criteria for science - independently observable and repeatable. Repeatability and randomness are opposites.

You're welcome to design an experiment demonstrating a relationship. No one has yet done so for psychic phenomena.

 

[otto105]

Yeah, I'm familiar.

It is very hard to do unbiased scientific research when you start out with an epistemology which seeks to "de-bunk," certain natural phenomenon. This is what researchers do.

Am I accusing them of falsifying their data? Of course not. But researchers are only human.
When you understand that human thought and emotion, affect experimental outcomes, regardless of what researches do, then looking into this type of phenomenon becomes nearly impossible.

. . . now, if you understand the double slit experiment and the nature of the universe, you would not even need to ask these silly questions.

Doing unbiased scientific research isn’t hard. Keeping maga from politicizing it is the challenge.

 

[Frankenstein]

Sure fuckup

What does science inform us about human caused climate change.

That it exists, and that is a lie

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course, questions have answers. If you question science and get your answer, say thank you and move on.

Otherwise it's just baseless, irrational doubt.

 

[otto105]

That it exists, and that is a lie

So, a political answer.

 

[Frankenstein]

So, a political answer.

Nope factual

 

[whutTHEYsay]

whut I say in my first response to the first statement in PoliticalChic Post #490 Dec 13, 2024 …~… When a white Republican Christian nationalist such as St.Pchic says “There are two religions in conflict.” she is seeking validation for what only Trump supporting Christians need as she has trouble coping as a religious zealot who is forced to live in a secular culture under a system that protects individual and group religious liberty against zealots like her.

She needs a US President and political party machine who will destroy her perceived religious enemies as her “War God of the Holy Bible” has done for thousands of years …

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Questioning is not the same as doubting.

The entire scientific process is questioning. Testing hypotheses.

 

[Rigby5]

As recent developments have proven that the Democrats/Left has no compunction as far as lies, hoaxes and slander, it is time to highlight their similar attempts at the basis of Western Civilization….religion.
And the use of Darwin’s theory to attack same.

In this thread, an interview that Piers Morgan had with Dr. Stephen Meyer, about the actual science behind Charles Darwin’s theory (spoiler: there is none)​

When it comes to evolution, politics is more prominent than science. And with that in mind, .....a simple rule that will clarify the place Darwin’s Theory holds:
Any article, event, opinion, data or study that redounds in favor of the Left/Demorat Party, is to be considered a lie or hoax.

• One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
  Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

• I will provide the interview of Meyer by Piers Morgan…..and quotes from that interview. Meyer provides FACTS. Put aside the Democrat/Liberal/Marxist anti-religion propaganda, and focus on the science that demolishes Darwin’s Theory.
• 
  
• 
  

• 
  
• Tucker Carlson, on Joe Rogan: “Evolution as articulated by Darwin is kinda not true. There is no evidence for it….if all life originated from a single organism, there would be a fossil record of that….and there is not.”
• 
  
• Meyer: “Here in London, 2016, there was a conference held by the most august scientific society, the Royal Society, a group of evolutionary biologists, are dissatisfied with Darwin’s method of evolutionary change, natural selection and random mutation …lacks the creative power to generate major changes in life.”

Nonsense.
Everyone who knows chemistry knows that protein chains form spontaneously and that it is impossible to prevent life from popping up whenever you have the right proteins, water, and energy.

The claim that new species just "pop up" is foolish.
Of course they did not just "pop up", instead and took a long time to evolve.
The fact we don't find their fossils until they are so successful that they had millions of members, does not mean they did not exist back when they were in such small quantity that we did not find any of their fossils.
The fact is we actually find very few fossils at all.

 

[Rigby5]

Meyer: “Here in London, 2016, there was a conference held by the most august scientific society, the Royal Society, a group of evolutionary biologists, are dissatisfied with Darwin’s method of evolutionary change, natural selection and random mutation …lacks the creative power to generate major changes in life.”


Why would the Royal Society demand a new explanation for life on earth?

Wrong.
They are not demanding a "new explanation for life on earth", but only want a faster methodology for evolutionary changes.
And the reason they are wrong to want that is because they are forgetting that when there are more members of a species, you are going to have far more random mutations and more of them are going to be improvements.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 1119664
whut I say in my first response to the first statement in PoliticalChic Post #490 Dec 13, 2024 …~… When a white Republican Christian nationalist such as St.Pchic says “There are two religions in conflict.” she is seeking validation for what only Trump supporting Christians need as she has trouble coping as a religious zealot who is forced to live in a secular culture under a system that protects individual and group religious liberty against zealots like her.

She needs a US President and political party machine who will destroy her perceived religious enemies as her “War God of the Holy Bible” has done for thousands of years …

View attachment 1119662

I hate to say "nonsense", but obviously religion explains nothing.
Obviously humans have an internal sense of ethics we are born with, that makes us social.
But there are also even more species who are predators, who have entirely different and anti-social behavior and ethics.
So to claim we are "cast in the image of god" is obviously false, since predators are equally a product of the same source as humans.
We are no more god-like than the predators are.

 

[Rigby5]

Perhaps you can explain where the first living organism came from.

No scientist can.

Can you explain why Darwin's theory is so important to Marxism.


Careful.....if this is your first attempt at thinking, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

Wrong.
The origin of the first living organism were duplicated in labs many times.
{...
The Miller-Urey Experiment was a landmark experiment conducted in 1952 to investigate the chemical conditions that might have led to the origin of life on Earth. The experiment simulated the conditions thought to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It showed that organic molecules could have formed from simple chemical reactions.
...}

The facts are that when you have the right chemicals in water and with some energy source, protein chains will spontaneously be created.
Since these protein chains reproduce, then life is easily and often created.

 

[Rigby5]

Perhaps you can explain where the first living organism came from.

No scientist can.

Can you explain why Darwin's theory is so important to Marxism.


Careful.....if this is your first attempt at thinking, you may be subject to an aneurysm.

You ask that because you don't know what Marxism is.
Marxism is just the realization that since large factories can wipe out cottage industries through their economy of scale, that clearly the wealthy elite will have inherent monopolies.

Karl Marx suggested that we could prevent these abusive monopolies through shared community investment in the means of production, but we also found that anti-trust laws, unions, and labor laws also prevent abuses.

Anyone suggesting Marxism is at all in conflict with democratic republics, is just confused by propaganda.