Chose a side

imgflip.com/i/agk8o4 FLAG UP, MATE

This is what you get when everything is relative and there are no absolutes. They claim to be guided by science but not even science has absolutes. Science can be what ever they want it to be.

They have the emotional maturity of a 2 year old.

Actually science does have absolutes. It's called Scientific Law and the dems/left ignore that like they do every type of law.

There are scientific laws but as we learn more we are finding that we need to set certain conditions on those laws and new data is actually changing the laws.

That is why there is no such think as "settled science". Even how the thought about gravity has changed over the years. That was when we learned that gravity depends on the size of the object. The larger the object the more intense the gravity and the smaller the object the weaker the gravitational pull.

I don't know if there will be anything new we learn about gravity in the future but I am not saying that what we know now is everything we need to know.

However, when a scientific law or theory becomes politicized then that science will never change. It was 60+ years ago when science realized that a species cannot evolve into a completely new species in the amount of time the earth has been around. The earth is (currently considered) to be 4.5 billion years old. For one species to evolved into another species would most likely take 10^238 years. Yet we're all supposed to believe that it all happened in a few million years.

Knowing this information gives religious people more hope and socialists (who are the atheist who first promoted the theory of evolution) just cannot stand to have their only semi-plausible theory questioned and especially disproved.

The idea that lifeforms change over time has nothing to do with socialism because it pre-dates socialism. And no scientist who studies evolution thinks that it takes 10^238 years for one species to change into another. Like with so many other things, you don't understand evolution.

Sort of. The theory came after socialism. Only if the theory is true does your statement work.

There was a perfect storm. Charles Darwin's theory started to gain in popularity around the same time as Marx's ideas came around. Socialism, which Marx's communism is based on is an atheist government. It demands that there be nothing above the state. Socialist have long wanted to capture the zeal that religion has on the people and direct it towards the state.

So socialists first had to convince more people that there is no God. The theory of evolution showed up just when they needed it the most.

Now they had science to prove there is no God. Except that isn't exactly true either. Neither evolution nor any other science has anything to do with proving the existence or non-existence of God or any other kind of deity or unmoved mover (to use Aristotle's idea)

That didn't matter. Evolution was pushed as the scientific alternative to creationism and Christians for a century were totally unprepared to argue against that theory.

But that has all changed now. Not that Christians have just found a voice in science but that science itself is working against evolution and abiogenesis. In fact it is working against much of what has been considered by atheists and some religionists to be settled science is unraveling. Not that you would openly see it unraveling because atheists are holding on to that science with everything they got.

Atheist scientists came up with the concept of "god of the gaps". The idea that the few things that science could not explain does not lend credence to the existence of gods or a God.

Those gaps are getting much wider, meaning that theories are not altogether what they used to be.

When you start calculating mathematical probabilities without any bias then you find that it is more than just statistically improbable for life to exist on any planet. It is flat out impossible. There are just far too many factors that had to line up perfectly in order for this planet to sustain life.

If the big bang is true, then not only did all matter have to expand away from the core at the precise timing to allow a sun to develop with several very large planets in the outer part of our solar system. They needed to be there so that the sun's gravity didn't pull the earth into a death spiral. The earth had to be precisely in the correct distance from the sun so that it was not too hot or too cold. Continued

Then for a system to set itself up to maintain the perfect balance of nitrogen and oxygen (80% nitrogen and 18% oxygen), let alone having an atmosphere composed of those two gases. Nature has to be exact. We do not breath very much oxygen produced by plants, we breath oxygen produced by phytoplankton in the ocean. In order for that phytoplankton to exist in the correct amount Saharan sands must blow in the upper atmosphere across the Atlantic and cause condensation to turn into rain and then snow in the Andes. That snow then feeds the rivers and picks up nutrients that the phytoplankton need to sustain their life.

Then there is the theory of abiogenesis. This is where elements, presumably near heat vents in the ocean, randomly combined into a membrane that magically turned into a living single cell. There again, this happening on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old is a mathematical impossibility.

There is also the issue of a priori learning. Every organism that exists or has ever existed gains information from its parents. Sometimes that information is passed chemically and other species the parent teaches its offspring. So when this 1st cell magically appeared where did it get its a priori learning. How did it know that it required energy to live? How did it know of its own mortality? How did it know to reproduce for it to survive its own death that it had no concept of. ALL life from simple single cell organisms to the largest animals to have ever existed all have that a priori knowledge passed down to keep their species alive. They all know they must consume energy.

So we have this one 1st cell that has none of that. Either that one cell lived long enough to magically divide to create another cell or the whole concept of abiogenesis is severely flawed.

In order for evolution to be allowed to happen in the earth's timeframe then it had to be directed. Each mutation on a species had to be both beneficial and inheritable. Mutations do not work that way. Most of the time they are not beneficial or inheritable.

This puts a huge kink in the idea of flight because we have several different species that can fly. How did symmetrical wings mutate on a bird, or insect or even the flying squirrel. Flying squirrels cannot fly great distances like birds or insects but the fact that they can glide at all while most other squirrels cannot not means something.

How did each species develop flight independent of each other?

We breath oxygen produced by plants and any life form that uses photosynthesis aswell as the oxygen that has always been here (oxygen isn’t uncommon in the Universe l)

We’re not certain how life exactly got to be life we’re working on that daily. But early earth was hot and had many of the building blocks for cellular life. It had oxygen, ammonia, hydrogen, water and lighting or electricity which when scientists put these building blocks together in a lab were able to create cellular life

The cell was the first and was created after the right things came together eventually which then the cell was able to split and make a copy of itself. It didn’t have a mind or a brain it was actually a very simple cell nothing like we have much more simple.

Evolution didn’t have to be directed evolution worked with the species just like how the egg came before the chicken.

How do flying squirrels not fly? They never could fly they glide they’re just called flying squirrels. Really Adam you thought they could fly?

You're just reiterating what I said. I understand what the theory of abiogenesis is. I just don't believe it.

I know that flying squirrels glide but what did they do in the all of the years it took them to develop the ability to glide.

Survival of the fittest, right? What about survival of the almost fittest? Or the less fit than them. How did species survive while they mutating into the fittest?

We do have flight less birds but what is the purpose of their wings. Chickens are considered flightless but they can flight up to a tree branch. I know this because I used to have chickens. But ostriches will never fly.

Adam you don’t understand a Scientific theory and a theory

A Scientific theory is basing things off real world observations and patterns and mathematical data. Yes a theory cannot be 100 percent true but science is always trying to prove itself wrong and evolution has just stood the grounds of time.

Those gaps? Are getting smaller and smaller by the day we know can explain black holes and gravity and quantum mechanics things we couldn’t really 100+ years ago

When you start calculating unbiased? You can’t calculate biased. 5 x 5 is always 25 no matter if you’re back white or a boy or a girl.

The Big Bang is true sorry to burst your bubble there. The Big Bang created galaxy upon trillions of them and the places where energy was more dense then others gravity started to pull things together and out of those trillions of galaxies exists ours. Our galaxy where we sit on the tail of the spiral. The sun was formed as a 3rd generation start being created out of gas and dust from other comps objects 3 times after. Eventually the solar system would cool allowing the sun to form in which the elements in our solar system that formed from the burst of dying stars would go on to find each other using gravity and then collapse into planets

I do understand and it all comes down the best guess as to what actually happened. A theory, scientific or otherwise is NOT a fact until it meets the basic definition of the scientific process. Until then it's just a theory. It doesn't matter how much investment of time has been put into trying to prove the theory. And it definitely doesn't matter how much you want to believe it is fact.

Black holes and gravity have nothing to do with evolution. Did you know that most astrophysicists sre Christians. Why? Do they know something we don't?

I'm not denying the Big Bang Theory. It was a funny TV show.

But doesn't it seem odd to you that in the world kf science everything has a cause and an effect except for the big bang theory. What was the cause that all matter in the singularly just exploded? Where did the singularity come from?

In other words you are requiring me to have faith that a singularly existed and then for no reason at all it just exploded. That's called magical thinking.

Where did you get 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000?

Claude AI.

nah, there is no way that you got that from an intelligent thing

Do it yourself. I told you because I am not hiding from it. I even saved the chat I had with Claude AI in a file on my computer. I can quote from it if you want to.

You just have to filter out all bias by telling it to stick to just mathematical probability, logic and reason and not base the results on what science currently agrees on. If you don't do that first then you will get the answers you already believe. It will just take the path of least resistance and quote what science is telling us. If you tell it to do its own calculations then that is when it comes up with the number I gave you.

This is for complete speciation, when one species changes into another species. It is not adaptation when one species stays the same species but adapts to a different living condition. Like an iguana vs a marine iguana. Or like how all dogs were once wolves. Although the latter was caused by the influence of mankind. We simply bred wolves into dogs and all the different varieties of dogs. They are all still canines.

The thing is any person interested in science of any sort even Chemistry will tell you that’s incorrect and cannot be right

He’s just pulling #s out of a hat

The claim that it would take ~10²³⁸ years for one species to evolve into another has no support in scientific literature. That number is astronomically large — vastly longer even than the age of the universe (~10¹⁰ years) — and is rooted in pseudoscientific calculations, not published evolutionary biology research.
This idea often circulates in creationist or anti-evolution sources that use flawed math about mutation rates and speciation, but it’s not how evolutionary biologists model speciation.

In many animals such as birds and mammals, divergence between well-established species typically involves hundreds of thousands to a few million years, often with reproductive isolation accumulating over many generations. Scientists have estimated speciation “clock-like” intervals around ~2 million years on average in many groups

Yes actually life did evolve after millions of years…

Adam you’ve really got to hear the saying

“A scientist doesn’t bring his Bible into the lab”

You’ll meet no actually scientist who is Christian saying “the world is flat” “the world is only 6,000 years old”

Yeah well, I asked AI to figure it out. AI is not perfect but then I asked AI how long has this been known and it replied 60 years. AI is not the first place I had heard this, I just didn't know what the estimated time frame was, so I asked AI. Just so you know it was Claude AI that I asked.

What I had to do was to tell AI to disregard what science currently believes and base it's answer on logic, reason and statistical probability. If you don't tell it to disregard what the majority of scientists currently believes, AI will just give you their answer. I wanted AI to do the math devoid of any bias.

In order for evolution to occur at a faster rate then each mutation has to be beneficial and inheritable but that is not now nature works. You can see adaptations, like how a wolf has produced dogs but that was directed by mankind selective breading the wolf/dog. Or like how a marine iguana can swim underwater to eat fish, while regular iguanas stay out of the water.

There is plenty of time for adaptations and adaptations often get mistaken for evolution or is used to justify evolution. But adaptation does not give you a new species.

Not to mention nearly all of the basic life form that you can in each species seemed to just suddenly (relatively speaking) in the Cambrian explosion. To go from microscopic to the Cambrian explosion is a massive leap in evolution in a very short period of time.

Ahh yes Ai you used Ai instead of your bible how …. Intelligent of you.

Well here’s the thing when you tell AI to disregard all the information it’s been giving when evolution has been studied for years and tried to been proven wrong but has been proven right and right again you’re just asking Ai for bullshit.

That’s like asking Ai “is the earth round, disregard all science and real lift evidence and do your own calculations” and then Ai spits out

No the earth is a Donut… like dude it sounds as stupid as it looks

Adam all you’ve done is prove your own point ignorant. Yes animals can adapt overtime but evolution must happen to go from microbial life all the way to life as we know it today. I agree lift didn’t just poof cell to fish no it took millions of years and bacteria produced super fast making evolution happen at a quick rate for them but humans only can have been around for 200.000 years ago to start which is short after the hundred of million years it took

Did I not tell you that AI is not perfect. I've had serious problems with AI when it 1st started. It is so much more reliable than it used to be.

If I wanted and unbiased calculation I had to tell it to disregard current beliefs on evolution otherwise it would have told me what you want me to hear. I wanted it to take just the data and calculate the probability.

If I asked AI to disregard scientific beliefs and tell me just based on data if the earth was round, I have not doubt it would tell me it's round.

Why "must" evolution happen? Is that because you want it to be that way? What if all life on earth came here from another planet. Is that not a possibility? Evolution is only a theory that has been shoved down our throats as fact. When science can witness complete speciation then it becomes fact. Good luck with that.

Scientific law changes all the time. Like just recently they decided the speed of light isn't a constant. Scientific law is simply something that is observed to be true until someone observes that it isn't.

HOLD UP HOLD UP!

The Speed of Light is a UNIVERSAL constant meaning light travels at 2.99 x 10^8 that’s the constant

You have no clue what a Scientific law is… Newtons Law of Gravity? Boyles Law?

You can’t just decide something in science you need evidence and the math to prove it.

Lokiare we may never agree politically but for everything that is HOLY please stay out of Physics and science which you don’t know a ton of

Technically, it goes slower through some mediums

No they didn't. The speed of light is a constant. Just because scientists have been able to slow down a beam of light temporarily that doesn't change the fact that the speed of light is naturally constant.

These MAGA Christian’s have no f**king clue about Physics or Science they need to shut up and stay in their lane

I get thinking the earth was made in 7 days or whatever blah blah blah

But you don’t throw it out like it’s true you just seem like a loser and big old idiot

Not you Czechy obviously you understand you can slow down light and freeze it but that doesn’t stop it or make it any less fast.

Nothing says science like Republicans, finally getting to slash scientific research all over the place like they've wanted since the Scopes Monkey Trial, which, as we know, is responsible for birthing Christian Fundamentalism. That's right folks, not only did humans evolve from hairier apes, so did hardcore Christianity,,,

Hey learned about that in class 5 months ago!!

Shows the incompetence of stupid people

And it really did spur the beginning of the Christian Fundamentalist movement as a reaction against the theory of evolution. That's why that's all Christian fundamentalists talk about, the Ceation story plus that line from Leviticus. That's it, that's the extent of Christian Fundamentalism. You never hear them talking about keeping the Sabbath or eating kosher.

It's also a big part of Conservatism, that and the Civil Rights Movement, plus later the Women's Movement and then Gay Rights Movement.

I just hate people who deny science and believe the Earth appeared 6000 years ago when we gave evidence of humans 10000 years ago

We have actual civilizations that are eight thousand years old, in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. So they existed before Adam and Eve did. Then again, Cain went to Nod to find a wife, and then he started a city there. So I reckon that Yahweh, the Creator of the Hebrews, was a little bit tardy when he got around to creating his little tiny small dot on the planet.

Liberals ignore the laws of physics?

Yeah I actually travel faster then light

One of my five Don knotts templates from back in the day. One of my earlier muses.

Yes, you can argue that the scientific law is a thing which is 100% is like 1000% agree like your laws of motion your laws of gravity, but let me ask you do you agree with the Big Bang the universe, the creation of the Earth evolution because if you don’t, you are denying the scientific law right there and being hypocritical

Scientific laws are only laws as long as they aren't disproven

Ironic, not only coming from the ilk that claims science is a most grievous sin against the fairy tales of Genesis, and anything contrary to the myopic retrogressive view that is conservatism is somehow taking sides. Which it is, but that is sideS as in plural as opposed to taking one single myopic retrogressive willfully blindfolded side. Kool-Aid flavored, of course,,,

"Ironic, not only coming from the ilk that claims science is a most grievous sin against the fairy tales of Genesis"

Ilk???

I never said that science is any kind of a sin against Genesis. I don't know anyone who thinks that way.

But you should clarify what you mean by science. You're referring specifically to the theory of evolution because quantum mechanics, biology, astrophysics, etc are not at odds with Genesis.

It's only the fairy tale of evolution that differs from Genesis.

I can't help it if the earth isn't old enough to support your fairy tale.

You think science is on your side? It was science, not creationists, who did the math and found out that for one species to evolve into another species under the laws of probability estimates that it would take 10^238 years (or 10 with 238 zeroes after it). Deal with it.

Proof

Give now let’s see

Because last I check all scientist don’t doubt evolution which has existed for a while and they’ve gone to school for years

So give some proof

Go to your favorite AI system. I use Claude AI because they seem the best for software development and I am a software developer.

Instruct it to disregard all conventional scientific beliefs so that you can get an unbiased response. Then you need to tell it to just use mathematical probability, logic and reason. Once you get it to agree to those terms then it performs the calculations based on reported data and not on any conclusions that have been drawn.

I tried it with Claude AI but I also heard it works on Grok and even ChatGPT. When I tried it on ChatGPT it could not let go of any bias but I have heard that other have had success with it.

In addition I watched a video on YouTube about 15 or 20 years ago where a panel of about 4 mathematicians, scientists and statisticians were discussing the same idea. They did not say how long it would take. They just said that evolution was a statistical impossibility of evolution occurring in the years the earth has existed.

Claude AI didn't just tell me the number of years it estimated at first, I had to actually ask it to calculate the number of years and that is when it displayed 10^238 years.

I also asked Claude AI how long science has known that evolution was statistically impossible and it replied 60 years.

I figure the reason why people hang on to this outdated theory is because it is the plausible non-religious explanation out there. And atheists are scared to death that there might actually be a creator.

That is why when the big bang theory was first posited it was lampoon as Christian "science". Years later when intelligent design appeared the same thing happened to it.

But lampooning doesn't change anything, only facts do. I think I remember that a new theory is being thrown around to replace the big bang theory but I would have to look into that again.

Intelligent design never went away, it just got marginalized even though it had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. It was an observation that there are mechanisms in simple cells that are just to complicated to explain it as evolution. They simply stated that it looks engineered. DNA is more complicating than software code.

When I asked Claude AI about how many years would it take for random elements to come together to form a simple cell it gave me a number that was also huge like speciation.

None of this bothers me because I know that God created the universe. He is the intelligent designer.

Another conservative who doesn't understand how probability works. Do you think that because something is improbable it can't happen? What are the odds that every single one of your ancestors had exactly the children they had for dozens of generations to get to you specifically? I guess it didn't happen because it's so unlikely

You said yourself you asked an AI program instead of talking to an actual scientist or reading an actual textbook on the subject 😂😂 and on top of that you also said you told the AI program to disregard what we actually know before coming up with its answer

Are you saying that Claude AI is conservative. I can tell you it was programmed by liberals. I have asked it leading questions just to see if it is biased and it is.

I don't know any evolutionary scientists. Do you? What kind of answer would you expect from someone who's career is on the line if they say that evolution is false?

You can believe whatever you want. I know that you are so entrenched in this fiction that nothing I say will change your mind. You'll just continue to throw irrelevant stuff at me just to justify your belief. And I am certainly not smart enough to do my own calculations on probability. There is just far too much I don't know. That is why I asked AI.

Perhaps AI is wrong and it doesn't take 10^238 years and it only takes 10^20 years. Does that make it more possible? Nope. It has to happen in maybe a 10 to 100 million year time period or it doesn't happen at all.

I had forgotten he had said that he got that number from asking AI.

AI came out with that bogus number, and it also told another member that Kristy Noem's book does not exist and she never said anything in it about killing her dog.

It would appear that AI has a thing for telling people what they want to hear.

You replied to the wrong comment.

Science is not on anybody's side. Science is science, it is impartial, it is not part of this overly forced partisan ping pong nonsense for one dimensional characters who believe thinking means picking from column A or column B.

As for whatever your fake number that you made up indicates, save it for the children who believe the Earth is 6000 years old because some British Monk said so a couple of hundred years ago. Or better yet, save it for those who believe that they too will one day become the gods of their own planet. Got to be fun them just sitting around waiting that long for species to evolve. Hope they pack a couple of long books to read during their wait.

I have no problem with the earth being 4.5 billion years old. I know a lot of Christians strictly hold to the concept that when God said he created something in a day they believe that it means a 24 hour period of time. Even though the Hebrew word can mean that and it can mean a period of time. A day could be a million or a billion years. We don't know.

And like I said, I didn't make that number up. AI calculated it.

Deal with it.

A day means a day. And of course Christians don't hold on to that concept because they don't hold out to anything having to do with the Word, just ask them on the Sabbath when they're eating Kosher or keeping holy the Passover because that will mark the 2,000 year delayed second coming of the Messiah that never messiahed.

It's like when you tell the teacher that you did the book report but you misplaced it, and you keep the teacher waiting for you to find this report you never did like maybe they'll eventually forget or something. That's Jesus. He's going to come back within a 2000 year generation and drive the Roman Empire out of Judea aaaaany day now,,,

There's no such thing as a Christian, they're all anti-christs.

AI. Guy is referred to AI to give a number for what he can see by simply extending his arm and looking at it. AI. A ferkin I.

Not even in English does a day always mean a 24 hour period. When an old timer says, "back in my day" they are not referring the any time in the last 24 hours. I don't remember the Hebrew word for day but it also has the same duel meaning. That means the universe could have been created in 144 hours OR it could have been created in a much, much, much longer period of time. I really have no problem with either idea but I tend to lean on the much, much, much longer than 144 hours.

However long God took in creating the universe is what we'll find out after we meet Him in the next life.

"There's no such thing as a Christian, they're all anti-christs."

If you read the Bible, everywhere the word "anti-Christ" is used specifically means people who were Christians but have rejected Christ. I don't know where a lot of Christians think it points to one specific individual who will come just before Christ returns to enslave the world. I never once saw an anti-Christ referred to as one specific individual.

If you once followed Jesus and then left and turned against Jesus then you are an anti-Christ.

If AI gave you all of the answers that you want to believe then you would think AI is wonderful. But because I used it to find information that contracts what you want to believe, now AI is evil in your world view.

Here. Let me ease your burden. If you just ask AI for answer to questions and not preface your question by telling it you want unbiased information, then it will make you very happy. All of the AI's I have questioned (all two of them, ChatGPT and Claude AI) were programmed by leftists. I've used Grok a couple of times but I don't have much experience with that. Right now it sucks if you ask it programming questions. ChatGPT kind of sucks also but it has gotten better. Oh yeah... I use Microsoft Copilot at work because it is now company policy to use Copilot for any AI searches. I've only used it for programming questions.

Moda, believing in socialism, goes against all historical evidence. People still have absolute faith in it.

What are you going on about? Socialism? I guess I missed that chapter in Genesis.

The US uses parts of socialism

Taxes

That's what governments do, pool resources.

The people that complain about it the most forget the tales that grandparents told them about how they had dirt roads and outhouses and no electricity until FDR decided to bring them into the 20th Century because people up North felt really bad watching newsreels in the theaters of them folks starving to death caked in the dust of their fields blowing around them.

Exactly everyone’s like “Socialism is terrible”

Mean while Socialism

Free education
Healthcare
Roads
Parks
Cops

Ect ect

Except those things are social welfare, not actual socialism.

Plus none of those things are free, they still cost money, and have to come out of our taxes. As well as debt since taxes aren't enough to cover the costs which themselves keep increasing.

Proportion is the problem. Creating a Nanny State, expecting the government to do everything for you. No one has a problem with highway projects or Social Security. It's not all-or-none. The government shouldn't be able to cut your little boy's dick off. Power over reach is a judgment; it's not quantifiable. That is were common sense should kick in. If it sounds crazy to offer POC reperations, maybe it is crazy.

My parents in rural NC didn't get electricity until after WW2. FDR was dead by then.

That's because your parents weren't in North Carolina.

There are plenty that have problems with highway projects and Social Security. Republicans have been trying to get rid of Social Security for decades.

Not highway projects funded by the federal government, of course, because Red States can't afford to make their own highways. Nor should they be made to afford them. If they want to have dirt roads, let them, so much the easier for people from modern (Northern) states to avoid them.

Mixing politics and science corrupts. Do I have to remind you of all the Crazy COVID and Climate change BS that Democrats considered "science?" Pimimping out science is what politicians do.

Yeah, Covid was totally fake.

It amazes me how everybody knows people that died from it. Except for the same lot whose Twitter accounts turn down to be not as American as they've been pretending to be.

Trying to goad me is a cheap trick. Biden administration pimping out science for control is now obvious. Was also obvious then, but with evidence like the Twitter files and Fauci's emails, it is proven.

If you feel you were being goaded, then you feel you're being goaded. That's on you.

That Covid was just a big prank with millions of people killing themselves just to make Trump look bad is a tad bit stretching things some.

Moda, you are just making up stuff again. The Biden administration aggressively pushed the COVID origin narrative. That is a fact.

But seriously, where on Earth do you live that saw no illness and deaths from the plague of the century?

That's a strawman argument. Biden's team lied about the science and repressed dissenting voices. Nazis promoted their racial ideas by calling them science.

Good grief, 2020 and its QAnon fanfic was so 2020 ago.

Speaking of which, whatever did happen to QAnon?
Gosh, those were the days. As if Trump wasn't enough, we had that to lay on the laughs even more,,,

No, it is not an argument at all, it is a question. Again, where do you live that you don't know anybody that had taked ill or died from Covid when everybody else has? That is not an argument. It's a very simple question. If you think it's an argument, then that's also on you, and I would suggest that you get your Google Translate fixed.

COVID killed millions around the world. Dr. Fauci lied about the origin of COVID because he authorized funding for the Wuhan lab, contrary to policy. The Biden Administration lied about the effectiveness of the vaccine and forced people to take it who didn't need it.

LLMs with multiple political divisive roleplaying artificial personality accounts, LARPing with government manufactured political ideologies to control a narrative is better?

Science cannot be whatever it wants to be science follows the laws in the evidence surrounding it. The law of gravity is not different. Some other spot in the universe is the same all around the distance between the objects and the size of the objects times G the force that act on them.

The speed of light is a constant it’ll always be the same unless there’s some way you stop it in some sense which you’re taking a picture of light does not stop light so to argue that science doesn’t have absolute and it can be an opinion based thing is a moronic thing to say.

That is true of real science. What I was saying is that new information can change long established ideas. That happens all of the time. Like now they are postulating travel much faster than the speed of light. I can't remember what they called this but I saw a YouTube video on it recently. And yeah, anyone can post anything on YouTube but this did sound like it was from real scientists.

But there is also popularized science. This is science that has become so popular with some scientists that their pride will keep them from accepting contradicting or problematic data. That does happen many times.

Then there is politicized science. That is science where the conclusion is created by politicians either in our government, the UN or the World Economic Forum. This science is created to support an idea that would never be accepted by the people unless it was presented as existentially important.

The idea is given to bought and paid scientists for them to fabricate the "science" to support it. Once they have completed the "research" it is then pushed as "settled science" and those who question it are labeled "science deniers".

This started in the 1970's with global cooling. Then global warming in the 80's. Then they tried the ozone hole. None of those worked so they went back to global warming because in the late 90's earth was actually warming. Even though it peaked in '97 they just kept pushing it.

Then actual scientists showed that the earth was actually cooling slightly. So they changed it to the name "climate change". That way they can blame any weather anomaly on climate change. It doesn't matter if the weather anomaly is no more frequent than it has ever been.

I even heard insane things like an asteroid passing closer than what was originally projected being blamed on climate change. Earthquakes get blamed on climate change. Every hurricane on the Gulf Coast is now blamed on climate change. Every tornado in "tornado alley" is blamed on climate change.

Every single prediction ever made about global warming/climate change that was supposed to occur by certain date has failed. And it wasn't because it was off by a few years, it never happened and many of those predictions are coming up on around 30 years.

BTW the ozone hole must of have healed itself because when the politicians jumped on global warming not a single word was ever said about the ozone hole.

Jan 6th?

That was yesterday. Today is Jan 7th.

Does it bother you that somethings in life are actually relative?

Science is based on evidence, not whatever people want it to be

No. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is how post-modernists make everything relative. Does it bother you that there are absolutes?

I agree, science is evidence based. But a lot of science has become politicized because politicians or others have decided the conclusion before they commissioned scientists to build the science around that conclusion. That is what global warming/climate change is all about.

You actually don’t agree since you deny evolution.

Bet you also think the earth is 6000 years old. How do you consider dinosaurs

Climate change and global warming on real that’s how a planet works

Evolution is not the entirety of science. It is just once minor aspect and it is a theory. When anyone points out it is a theory, atheists get angry but that is all it is. It can never be proved because no one has lived long enough to see speciation, when one species evolves into another.

Denying evolution is not science denying, it is just the theory of evolution denying. I still think the earth is round, it revolves around the sun. It is the 3rd planet from the sun. I still believe in biology, physics, astronomy, and everything else as far as what we currently know.

We are learning new things everyday.

Oh and BTW every single prediction that science and politicians have given with regards to global warming where certain things were supposed to happen by a specific year has failed. And not just failed because they were off by a year. They failed as in they never happened. None of them. And some of those predictions are coming up on 30 years old now.

The simple fact is the earth is not warming. It did warm and reached it's peak in 1997 and that is when it was decided that global warming was the pseudo-science that the politicians and global elite were going to push. But then the earth started to cool a little. Scientist called it a pause, then the renamed it altogether to climate change.

The polar ice caps are expanding not melting. Florida is not underwater. The polar bear population is at record highs.

I still have to shovel snow off of my driveway. Also this year it does seem like there is warming going on. We had two very wet snow storms where the snow melted off the next day. The temps have been in the 40's and 50's. I am just not used to that. It's mostly rained, even in the mountains. I live in the west and if we don't get enough snow in the winter then we go into a drought in the summer. But this warming is local, not global because other parts of the country are getting pelted with snow just like normal.

But think of it this way. If there was global warming and it was caused by an increase in CO2 then we would have a much longer growing season with much hardier and productive crops. We could solve world hunger.

Speaking of CO2 we are actually in a deficit compared to the overall history of the earth. We used to have twice or more the amount of CO2.

Also as a Christian, the scriptures predict that in the last days the earth will burn like an oven. But that global warming is not caused by capitalism, but by sin.

You don’t understand a scientific theory!!!

Gosh Adam gosh…

Adam no you clearly don’t believe in science since you can’t comphrend a scientific theory

A scientific theory is different then a theory, a scientific theory is based on observations and then evidence and then mathematical calculations and corrections the theory is always trying to be disproven but evolution never has been.

A theory is just pulling it out of a hat

“Where are my car keys?” I have a theory they’re in my car. That’s different very very different

The earth is warming yearly as CO2 is be added creating a more thicker and warmer atmosphere

Of course we’re in a deficit when earth had that much CO2 it what a hot and sticky sticky place

If something is absolute then that doesn't bother me. But a lot of people think that something is absolute even if it's not, like many moral issues.

The actual science behind studying climate change has nothing to do with politics. Scientists don't start with a conclusion and try to find the evidence to make it fit, that's what religious conservatives do.

Moral relativism is what is destroying western civilization. If morality is relative then the morality of Adolf Hitler and Jesus Christ are equivalent. The morality of Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa are equivalent. The morality that builds and protects freedom is just as valid as the morality that commits genocide.

In order for morality to benefit mankind it must be considered absolute. Our founding fathers agreed that Judeo/Christian morality was by far the best to serve mankind and preserve freedom. So it must be treated as absolute otherwise the post-modernist solution will destroy civilization, all civilization, not just western civilization.

Climate change was invented by the UN with the specific goal of creating a global fascist government. Then the World Economic Forum picked up on that. It is documented and open for the world to see on the WEF's website. Of course they have obscured some of it and there are a gazillion documents to sift through but it is there.

Just go and look up either "Smart Cities" or "15-Minute Cities". Read about how to combat climate change, everyone will be forced to live in those cities. "Smart Cites" are cities where cameras are mounted everywhere in the cities. They already exist in some places in the world. These cameras are used with facial recognition and gate recognition software to monitor people's movements in and around the city.

"15-Minute Cities" are the ultimate goal. These are cities where as far as you are allowed to travel is 15 minutes away from your house. And travel excludes all internal combustion engines. That means walking, biking, electric scooters, and maybe electric vehicles.

If you have family outside of your 15 minute district you have to get special permission to see them. If you want to go on vacation they tell you how far away you can go and how long your vacation will be.

This is NOT a conspiracy theory. This is all documented on the WEF's website.

However, scandal reeked havoc on the WEF about a year or 2 ago. It was reported that from the top down there was sexual abuse and racism in promotions practiced. Klaus Schwab prematurely stepped down as president. I really haven't paid much attention to them since so I don't know what the current state of that organization is. But they were just one of many organizations pushing for the exact same thing. George Soros's Open Society, the UN's Agenda 21 & 2030, the International Monetary Fund, Blackrock to name a few.

Science is true to highest extent unless proven otherwise by Science

You're mostly correct, but science doesn't deal with truth, it just forms models to explain things. And the models either gets supported by evidence or the evidence shows that the model is not fully accurate, and then scientists either adjust the model to fit with the new evidence or overturn it completely and start again with a different model