What to tell AOC about evolution

You can sort through journal articles, books, etc. for evidence of scientific reasoning, but you have to search through a lot of material because a lot of it doesn't directly explain the fundamental scientific questions that are behind it.

Rather, there are loads of scientists who collaborate to flesh out theories, like in the articles I mentioned where they go on about how to assess how fast the universe is expanding, whether it is accelerating and/or whether the acceleration rate is accelerating, etc. but they don't mention the fundamental basis for the theory of expansion as being rooted in Hubble's observation of redshift in many galaxies and the interpretation of that redshift in terms of Einstein's relativity that explains the doppler effect of light.

I'm not saying expansion is necessarily wrong, but I'm saying you're not going to necessarily get down to that level of science by reading an article about how fast the universe is expanding, because that article is just propagating the assumption that expansion is a valid theory without espousing any critical thinking about the possibility of other explanations for redshift between galaxies besides them moving away from each other.


You're under no obligations that I know of period. But what you're implying is wrong, that conference attendance or paying for classes, books, articles, etc. is a necessary criteria for scientific thinking and discussion. Professors tell students to do all those things because it funds their business sector.

Yes you have to somehow get material to discuss, but you don't have to have a PhD in physics to question whether redshifted galaxies can be interpreted in some other way than assuming the universe is expanding.

you never jut HAVE a PhD, you earn it. Noone ever said that it wa handed to you effort free.

Thats where you seem to fall off the boat. Read all the yo tube or wikipedia or whatever and sometimes youll get some good stuff. However, a few times you get nothing of value. Its up to you to know enough to tell the difference.

You are responding to a simple statement about redshift and the theory that galaxies are moving away from each other and therefore that the universe is expanding.

I'm talking about cosmology and you're talking about whether PhDs require effort.


And then there's online discussion to help you bounce thoughts off others and study what they have to say.

Some actually discuss content instead of chastising and ridiculing and talking about PhDs requiring effort.

you just brought it up, and besides this thread is NOT about redshift or cepheid stars or orbital parallax or any other **** that has nothing to do with evolution.
Try to follow along , you seem to weakly adhere to ongoing discussions

LivingLava is taking a decidedly anti-science position.

Science plays a prominent role in our society because of its ability to provide definitive answers to questions. We believe science about medicine, about antibiotics, about handwashing, about how to build and fly airplanes safely. Far more often science operates behind the scene, most people don't know how their computer works... but the science is clear enough to allow engineers to produce computers anyway.

Science is perfectly capable of informing us about things like climate change, vaccinations too. These are scientific questions which the scientific community can answer with a great deal of certainty.

The issue of evolution isn't really important for civic understanding (as long as you aren't a biologist), but the result of these stupid arguments is to discredit science as an institution.

This is a bad thing for a modern society that depends on science for so many things.

A couple of you losers are using the word "science" as if it were meant to be a synonym for "evolutionism". Evolution is an ideological doctrine and not a legitimate science theory. Real science theories don't have to be reinvented every couple of years.

Again, evolution is an ideological doctrine, devised primarily to allow the English ruling class to feel good about the kinds of dastardly **** they were and in fact remain in the habit of perpetrating.

WHEN A MAN BEGINS TO VIEW HIS NEIGHBORS AS MEAT BYPRODUCTS OF RANDOM EVENTS, HE HAS BASICALLY OPENED THE GATES OF HELL FOR HIMSELF.

What does that kind of outlook on life say about children, you might ask? Jesus said that an idiot who were to perpetrate any kind of vicious crime against a child would be in worse shape than if he'd been tossed into the middle of the Atlantic ocean with a millstone tied around his neck; to the evoloser of course, a child is just another meat byproduct of random events.

There is a logical nexus buried in those stories about Prince Andrew, the two KKKlintlers, and all the rest of those high-class hoodlums who were flying back and forth to that island of the late Jeffrey Epsteins. In other words, are you really ready to believe that a guy like Prince Andrew was gonna be going through the hassle of flying back and forth to the Caribbean for any kind of ordinary fatcat/teen sex which he could get anywhere in London for the asking?? Not really; simple logic says that whatever that fool was getting down there on Epstein's island had to be a lot fancier than ordinary garden-variety fatcat/teen sex.

First eighteen minutes of this video are about the Alamo fortress and Cenotaph monument in San Antonio Tx., the rest of the video is about Jeffrey Epstein and his pedo/pervo island and what went on there:

https://youtu.be/nLomGe49xIM

you realize how ridiculous your manifesto sounds in todays world. You may wish to continue casting for opposition to your worldview , however, its no longer even fun to point out the huge holes in the reasoning youve been clinging to.

Do you have some sort of a PHD in blowhardism?

Or maybe "Blowhard Studies"?? I mean what the hell, they give out degrees in "black studies", "womens studies", "islammic studies" and every other sort of thing these days...

got anything of substance???

Thought as much. You still seem to be hanging on doctrines of the mid 1800's and the Christian Fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century.

You have absolutely NO evidence with which to back up your fairy tale and you know it as a fact.

You still seem to be sucking the hind teat of Lysenkoist Bullshit .

Having a PhD is a sign of at least doing some basic research of a kind (my term was in appplied science , so listening to you pontificate about **** you know nothing about is truly laughable)

Isnt it about time for you to start spouting your Russky propoganda and bold faced lies supporting Trump?

I wonder how staunchly the true Conservatives on the board can accept your worldview and support it as anything other than demonstrating "Free speech" no matter how idiotic you sound

Funny, I never had the PHD sickness, I saw that **** ruining lives when I was 22, 23 years old, people 35 years old who'd never done anything other than attend school.... I got as much of an education as I thought I needed and got out,

I might have said this was the intention all along, except I don't really think it dawned on them that this might actually be possible until fairly recently. Now it's DEFINITELY intentional.

youve probably never been passionate about learning science and learning in general. (Why learn anything when the internet provides answers for you to buy without questioning.

Of course, that still puts me light years ahead of formerman with his phd in blowhard studies, I mean, that isn't really asking for a whole hell of a lot. I can at least deal with logic and grammar, think clearly, write coherently, and recognize bullshit when I see it.

could use a bit more there G' snake

'PhD sickness' is somewhat about passion for learning but a lot of it is intense ego-drive to attain status and social recognition as an expert in your field, not to mention getting professional advancement out of it.

If you spend enough time in higher academia, you should see that things get convoluted with professional/territorial/disciplinary issues. Each field has its big shots and they protect their territory, so people getting PhDs are corralled into narrowing their focus to claiming a small niche as their territory, and then they spend the rest of their careers honoring other peoples' niches by citing them and not making waves.

Academic writing is convoluted and filled with posturing and citations because it's like a meeting where there is more hand-shaking and bowing going on than substantial discussion that gets down to the most relevant details. People like to avoid really exposing the fundamental issues by going on and on about the details of their POV. That can be helpful if you need to understand their POV more deeply, but it is a pain when people aren't able to just get to the point.

In short, much of academia involves dealing with ego-defensiveness of the most powerful minds, who have achieved position and status applying the power of their minds to attaining and defending the highest status possible. Is it worth it to you to try to position yourself among such people? Maybe, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's going to be a peaceful open venue for intellectual freedom. Quite the opposite, and they will justify it all by saying things like "quality requires struggle," etc. when the reality is that truth is an open book if you can reach the level of humility that it takes to not fight over it.

Chuck Barry once wrote a song about the state of this last/final generation of evoloserism true believers I mention, that is, last and final because it is no longer possible to baffle the whole world with bullshit or hide real information forever in an internet age:

https://youtu.be/6i9ZIr1kN5w

Maybe not in some ways, but in other ways, it's even easier because there is more bias toward institutional bias that have the superficial appearance of being superior to supposed 'fringe lunacy.'

So, for example, you could have a math teacher showing how some outdated concept that's been proven wrong is right and have people believe it because the alternative to to have to new-age hippy explaining true/valid science in a weird, touchy-feely way that would trigger a knee-jerk anti-bullshit reflect in people who think they can distinguish right from wrong based on a subjective and thus biased bullshit-filter.