Why do people deny evolution?

@oralloy,

oralloy said:

Quote:

farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
2They are flat wrong or out of date (your case)

There was nothing wrong with the science. The article was suppressed because it counters the leftist narrative.

farmerman wrote:
Then why does recent data(12 years post your reference??) show that the Sierras ARE cumulatively losing snowpack AND ,all the .glaciers

Beats me. My point is that the journals are wrong to suppress entries that counter the leftist narrative.

AS yiou note, you have no explanation for how the rejected authors got it wrong. WEhich they did. In other words, the journal rejected an article with an incorrect conclusion, the kind of article which should be rejected. Considering the process which casused a reduced snowpack has veen in oppearion since the mid 19th centyury, and considering snowpack has been measured since 1930, it's pretty obvious that their conclusion was suspect. And it did in fact turn out to be wrong. Which maes it most probable that the article was rejected for research faults, as I suggested log ago. Since it is highly unlikely that you frequently read the Journal of Climatology, or wherever it was originally submitted, it is most likely that you are copping this from some denialist source that you frequent, rather than originating it youraelf. And its their speculation, based on pure supposition and sketchy inference that it
s suppression. It's far more likely since their conclusion was in fact wrong, that their research was badly flawed and worthy of rejection. That's not supression that's rejection forbad material. Your case has fallen apart.

1 Reply

Quote:

Perhaps hyper-advanced life isn’t just external. Perhaps it’s already all around. It is embedded in what we perceive to be physics itself, from the root behavior of particles and fields to the phenomena of complexity and emergence,” says Scharf, a research scientist at Columbia University and director of the Columbia Astrobiology Center. “What we think might be the effects of mysterious forces such as dark energy and dark matter in the Universe, could actually be the influence of alien intelligence – or maybe even aliens themselves.”

I get such a kick out of this stuff!
I'd file this under 'Proof that in academia, ANY answer is better than God.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

That's a bit cut and dried, the term alien intelligence is wide ranging and there's no reason why it couldn't include a God or gods. You're the one making claims about needing to put God in or leave God out.

Does it really give you a kick ,or are you just looking for an argument like some stroppy teenager with too much time on their hands?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

AS yiou note, you have no explanation for how the rejected authors got it wrong. WEhich they did.

"Conflicting with the leftist narrative" does not mean that research is wrong.

MontereyJack wrote:

In other words, the journal rejected an article with an incorrect conclusion, the kind of article which should be rejected.

When facts and reality are in conflict with leftist ideology (as they so often are), that does not mean that facts and reality are incorrect.

MontereyJack wrote:

Considering the process which casused a reduced snowpack has veen in oppearion since the mid 19th centyury, and considering snowpack has been measured since 1930, it's pretty obvious that their conclusion was suspect. And it did in fact turn out to be wrong.

There was nothing wrong with their research, other than the fact that the results conflicted with the leftist narrative.

MontereyJack wrote:

Which maes it most probable that the article was rejected for research faults, as I suggested log ago.

When "conflicting with the leftist narrative" is regarded as a fault that results in data being excluded, the result is skewed and unreliable data.

MontereyJack wrote:

Since it is highly unlikely that you frequently read the Journal of Climatology, or wherever it was originally submitted, it is most likely that you are copping this from some denialist source that you frequent, rather than originating it youraelf.

Nice attempt at a logical fallacy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

It strains credulity a bit that you are labeling reputable scientists and reputable media as denialists though, just because they stick to facts and reality instead of covering it up to preserve the leftist narrative.

MontereyJack wrote:

It's far more likely since their conclusion was in fact wrong, that their research was badly flawed and worthy of rejection.

When facts and reality conflict with the leftist narrative, it's not facts and reality that are wrong.

MontereyJack wrote:

That's not supression that's rejection for bad material.

Conflicting with the leftist narrative does not make research bad.

MontereyJack wrote:

Your case has fallen apart.

That is incorrect. I am still not paying attention to any of this global warming hysteria.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

may be its because they have not understand the fact that the last thing that a man reach by investigating nature and creation is finding him self and becoming a worshiper of statues ,,, but some people don't wont to give their mind a rest

0 Replies

@oralloy,

No, oralloy. They got it wrong, WAY,WAY wrong. Not suppression, fsaulty conclusion, for ewhatever reason a faulty conclusion. The Journal of Climate editor called it right https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-snowpack Look at the graphic. Compare the size and number of the orange circles (decrease) with the size and number and distribution of the blue circles (increase). You have no case.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

When reality conflicts with leftist ideology, it isn't reality that is wrong.

So, no sale. I'm not interested in what your biased and skewed data indicates.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Reality is biting you on the ass. That's not a journal. That's the EPA. They're the ones who measure snowpack. That's the facts, dating back to 45 years before anybody even thought of climate change, to the last measurements a couple years ago. That's the data, that's the science, those are the facts and the reality you are the babble.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

No sale. I'm not interested in your biased and skewed data.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You really are determined to live in alternate reality.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Nah. I'm just not interested in biased and skewed data.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Problem is, your case that the data are biased and skewed has evaporated, just like the snowpack.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That is incorrect. Scientific journals have been caught rejecting data just because it conflicts with the leftist narrative.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

That's a bit cut and dried, the term alien intelligence is wide ranging and there's no reason why it couldn't include a God or gods. You're the one making claims about needing to put God in or leave God out.

Then I take it that you agree that there is plenty of reason to deny the absurd notion of 'Evolution'.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Scientific journals have been caught rejecting data just because it conflicts with the leftist narrative.

Cientific Journals are like any other human activity, Imperfect, flawed, and several times product driven. Im rally not aware of any journals that have rejected data because of "leftist lanings". Thats a political statement borne out of your inability to provide compelling arguments about your beliefs.

I know of two cases in a geological journal where articles about fracking being harmful to ground water were stymied for a yr or mor bfore publication . It turned out that the journal itself was heavily sponsored by petroleum interests.

Climate Change and Human induced global warming are now clearly visible and no matter how much I hear your bleating against the science behind it, you are flat incorrect. Youve got nothing , you arent even aware of the gizmos weve got that allow us to monitor past climate and paleo-edaphic conitions.
When your attitude continues to be one of "I aint listening to anything that dosnt agree with me" and then try to find fault with science by just calling it "left wing", you merely provide me with more evidence about your lack of knowledge

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I'd file this under 'Proof that in academia, ANY answer is better than God

You really have a minimal understanding how science works. If, by going in, your whole argument is based on "Wow , God really did something here", whats really left to investigate.?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

That's very dishonest of you. Just because I say one thing it doesn't follow I mean something else.

There's nothing wrong with evolution, the only thing absurd are the idiots trying to deny it.

And they are all idiots.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

That's your ideologically-driven fantasy. It's not reality.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm beginning to understand. As long as Science says the evidence indicates the universe had an intelligent designer and creator it's OK, as long as you don't call it God.

Unless you're Izzy then God is OK. As long as you mean his God.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

That's your ideologically-driven fantasy. It's not reality.

Wrong again. Scientific journals have been caught rejecting data just because it conflicts with the leftist narrative.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know