/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15708646]

Why is it important for wikipedia to tell me there was no intelligent process guiding the creation of life on earth, even going so far as to attempt to engineer a consciousness in its readers that if one were to arrive at such a conclusion, they would be socially punished via ridicule presented as indifferent, objective conclusions of the scientifically educated?

[Anonymous No.15708668]

The co founder of Wikipedia has quite literally been on record saying three letter agencies; specifically the CIA and FBI run wikipedia

> Speaking on Greenwald’s ‘System Update’ podcast, Sanger lamented how the site he helped found in 2001 has become an instrument of “control” in the hands of the left-liberal establishment, among which he counts the CIA, FBI, and other US intelligence agencies.

>“We do have evidence that, as early as 2008, that CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia,” he said. “Do you think that they stopped doing that back then?”

>Activity by the CIA and FBI on Wikipedia was first made public by a programming student named Virgil Griffith in 2007. Griffith developed a program called WikiScanner that could trace the location of computers used to edit Wikipedia articles, and found that the CIA, FBI, and a host of large corporations and government agencies were scrubbing the online encyclopedia of incriminating information.

> CIA computers were used to remove casualty counts from the Iraq War, while an FBI machine was used to remove aerial and satellite images of the US prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. CIA computers were used to edit hundreds of articles, including entries on then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, China’s nuclear program, and the Argentine navy.

> Some edits were more petty, with former CIA chief William Colby apparently editing his own entry to expand his list of accomplishments.

>“[The intelligence agencies] pay off the most influential people to push their agendas, which they’re already mostly in line with, or they just develop their own talent within the [intelligence] community, learn the Wikipedia game, and then push what they want to say with their own people,” Sanger told Greenwald.

>“A great part of intelligence and information warfare is conducted online,” he continued, “on websites like Wikipedia.”

[Anonymous No.15708674]

>>15708646
>Why is it important for wikipedia to tell me there was no
edit it then
>NOOOOOO I WONT
skill issue
also, intelligent design can not be proven therefore it is a philosophy at best.
>HOW SO?!
it is Aristotelian at core, it ASSUMES things have origin that are connected to each other until ending up in a primum movens, which is also assumed to be one and ultimate.
therefore
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.15708687]

>>15708646
I agree that the article has bias, but "intelligent design" is not just the statement that there was an "intelligent process guiding the creation of life on earth," it tries to say everything in pseudoscientific jargon.

[Anonymous No.15708725]

>>15708674
>Retard schizo is too stupid to understand the way wikipedia works
You can’t change articles if they’re locked
The edits must be approved
Most articles have someone who acts as a sentinel and will change back any edits
Especially if they are the one who created the biased edit

>Intelligent design can not be proven therefore it is a philosophy at best
This is again retard logic

Let’s put it this way
>Gas sat around for billions or trillions of years and always existed
>Gas decides to be angry and explode at extreme heats just because it wants to
>Everything is formed in this extreme heat of gases
>Angry gases decide to turn into elements etc;
>Angry gases formed into humans billions of years later
Evolution by your assumption is a philosophy at best
It can not be proven
>HOW SO?!
It is faggotry at core, it ASSUMES things have origin that aren’t connected to each other until ending up in a faggot stew
Therefore
>>>/z/
Also you’re showing your underage faggotry by capitalizing your words to emphasize your reddittry

[Anonymous No.15708731]

>>15708646
When the spinning ball-Earth is finally exposed worldwide for the 400+ year deception it was, Earth's entire population will suddenly be faced with the reality that every government, every space agency, university, secret society, religious organization, mainstream and alternative media outlet have ALL been duplicitous in propping up a monstrous manipulation to fleece and control the masses. The resulting mass mental exodus away from the control system is exactly what humanity needs. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these lying politicians, spokesmen, reporters and teachers suddenly change from being heralded voices of authority to being ridiculed, shunned and denounced as they deserve. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these governments, universities, media outlets and other entangled organizations which have long been hard at work weaving this multi-generational ball-Earth myth, suddenly and completely lose all credibility. Once the truth of our flat Earth gets out, so does the truth of these few elite families/societies who have kept this most important and fundamental reality from us for these hundreds of years! Essentially, once the flat Earth truth gets out, so does every other important truth by proxy, because this "mother-of-all-conspiracies" holds under its umbrella literally ALL of the other conspiracies, and exposes them.

[Anonymous No.15708750]

>>15708674
You're trying too hard

[Anonymous No.15708754]

>>15708668
Making sure intelligent design is called a pseudoscience is definitely the top priority of alphabet agencies. It is unlikely that this could have been an ordinary guy who gained power by ruthlessly editing wikipedia every day and then is able to control which pages are allowed to be modified so he can keep his anti-theistic ideas presented as settled facts.

[Anonymous No.15708774]

>>15708646
look around you, retard
clearly nothing about this universe is intelligently designed

[Anonymous No.15708813]

>>15708774
Great reasoning, this really proves that the universe just randomly exists

[Anonymous No.15708821]

It's crazy to think that every big site is controlled and used as propaganda outlets.

[Anonymous No.15708824]

>>15708821
Do you mean it would be crazy if that weren't true? How does 4chan do it anyway?

[Anonymous No.15708826]

>>15708821
Here's a simple heuristic to live by.
>Is it media?
>It's propaganda.

[Anonymous No.15708829]

>>15708646
This is the same site that hides transpeople's real identities. Everybody else who changed their name for any reason will have their birth name listed someplace in their Wiki page, but Wiki made a special exception for trannies.

[Anonymous No.15708830]

>>15708646
If human intelligence is the highest form of intelligence, human government is the highest power.
If its not the highest form of intelligence, than human government is a corrupt cope and all their totalitarian fantasies about dominating the natural world and individual behavior are against cosmic law.

[Anonymous No.15708832]

>>15708830
>cosmic law
Sounds like a totally real thing that exists like "natural law" and "rights" lol.

[Anonymous No.15708834]

>>15708832
Is nature dominant, or is man? Are we the master of the universe, or are we subordinate to its laws?

[Anonymous No.15708835]

>>15708829
>transpeople

[Anonymous No.15708836]

>>15708834
>master of the universe
The idea of a master is an invention of human language and behavior. It doesn't apply to "the universe."

[Anonymous No.15708837]

>>15708835
Anon thought he's not affected by the propaganda. Whomp whomp.

[Anonymous No.15708856]

>>15708837
I'm normally against snobbish prescriptivists telling people how they're allowed to talk, like I couldn't care less about how people use the word literally. But "transpeople", that's such a retarded coinage. So if trans means on the other side of, or going to the other side, then transgender makes sense as they think they're becoming another gender. So what then is a transperson? Are they formally an alien? The only people that ought to be called that are the reptilian elite.

[Anonymous No.15708864]

>>15708856
There are two parts to it. Tranny ideology is opposed to the idea of being male or female, hence "person." "Trans" is the group affiliation.

[Anonymous No.15708872]

>>15708864
They normalized the word trans as a single word used to refer to members of their ideology. You sometimes even see trans prefixed on job titles. It's a terrible corruption of the word.

[Anonymous No.15708877]

>>15708646
>tell me there was no intelligent process guiding the creation of life on earth
It doesn't say that. It says it's pseudoscience which is correct by definition.

>even going so far as to attempt to engineer a consciousness in its readers that if one were to arrive at such a conclusion, they would be socially punished via ridicule presented as indifferent, objective conclusions of the scientifically educated
That is not anywhere in your screencap.

[Anonymous No.15708882]

>>15708877
How is it pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.15708893]

>>15708882
>How is an untestable hypothesis pseudoscience
Ah, gee wizz, I dunno...

[Anonymous No.15708896]

>>15708882
It's not necessarily pseudoscientific, but it depends on how far you go. Pointing out gaps in cosmology/evolutionary theory isn't pseudoscientific by default. Trying to "prove" that Noah's ark is possible and that dinosaurs aren't real certainly is. I don't know why the board is so quick to defend imbeciles just because mainstream opinion mocks them.

[Anonymous No.15708901]

>>15708893
So you believe any untestable theory must be labelled pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.15708909]

>>15708901
Yes, by definition.

[Anonymous No.15708914]

>>15708909
That is not the definition of pseudoscience, pseudoscience is an unproven claim that claims to be scientific.

[Anonymous No.15708915]

>>15708914
That's implied by the context of the conversation. Obviously some method of inquiry that in no way purports to be scientific, is not pseudoscientific.

[Anonymous No.15708927]

>>15708725
It is weird that certain unfalsifable theories are automatically pseudo science, while others are just considered true. I know there are theories behind them, nerdy math shit, but can't multiple theories be true simultaneously?

[Anonymous No.15708929]

>>15708646
The solution is simple: Add the "advocate of pseudoscience" to every single wikipedia article of a religious person. If a person has described themselves as Christain, mark him/her as a peusdoscientist. A Jew -> pseudoscientist. Spiritual -> pseudoscientist. Believes in a higher power -> pseudoscientist. Person has ever thanked god -> pseudoscientist.

[Anonymous No.15708948]

>>15708927
It’s not weird, it’s intentional.
If you believe one science that they provide you then you must believe all the science they provide you.
If you don’t believe all the science they provide you then you’re insane or a schizo etc;
Don’t question anything
Don’t question science
Don’t question them

Science isn’t even the same anymore
There is a complete lacking of the scientific method in all sciences.
Thus we have ridiculous amounts of junk data
We also have the replication crisis

Everything should be questionable
We should not just accept whatever is presented
Nothing is settled
People want to control the information you have access to

Both can be true, a guided creation by a hyper intelligent being could have created a chaotic world and the complex machinations of our existence.
He could absolutely leave room for evolution and everything in between.

[Anonymous No.15708962]

>>15708915
How is it implied in that article?

[Anonymous No.15708967]

>>15708914
An untestable hypothesis is an unproven claim that claims to be scientific. Intelligent design fits exactly.

[Anonymous No.15708968]

>>15708948
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.15708973]

>>15708967
Is a person unable to propose intelligent design without claiming it's scientific? Is there like a magical force that's making them do that?

[Anonymous No.15708983]

>>15708948
I don't think going radically opposite of big science is correct either. Clearly a good portion of science is true. Some fields like astronomy and evolutionary biology are almost impossible to "prove" because of how long it would take to observe expected outcomes. These two fields have a purity about them though, because it doesn't actually matter to anyone's everyday life what things are considered "true". Science gets messy when it comes in contact with power.
What I find interesting in evolutionary theory is the sheer amount of assumptions and conjecture about how seemingly impossible evolutionary jumps happened. I think that one dude, can't remember his name, who said that based on just mathematical chances derived from the current understanding of evolution, it's impossible for it to be true. That being said, I think it's retarded to not believe that evolution is true, the idea of it being so completely random is where it becomes a little sus.

[Anonymous No.15708987]

>>15708968
What’s exactly wrong with what I said?
Please break it down for me

[Anonymous No.15708988]

>>15708646
"intelligence" is a projection and therefor not ultimately true

[Anonymous No.15708991]

>>15708973
I think you're unfamiliar with "Christian science" and are just arguing from the standpoint of atheists on this board playing devil's advocate in opposition to institutionalized science. Most creationists I've encountered do attempt to be "scientific" but it's laughably bad.

[Anonymous No.15708995]

>>15708991
That article makes no mention of him being christian, and that still wouldn't be enough to justify calling is a pseudoscience in the way it did. If it said how he proposes it as scientific and that his claims of science are pseudoscientific, that would make sense. But it doesn't, it just says it's a pseudoscience without any further detail. I am not playing the devil's advocate, I'm pretty sure you are.

[Anonymous No.15708996]

[Anonymous No.15708998]

>>15708983
> I don't think going radically opposite of big science is correct either. Clearly a good portion of science is true
I agree, but I don’t believe we shouldn’t question everything.
A lot of science isn’t replicable

> A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most researchers said they still trust the published literature.

They trust science without it being replicable
They trust data that can’t be proven again or hasn’t been which goes against the scientific method

Replication is key to good science

> That being said, I think it's retarded to not believe that evolution is true
I agree, you can see minor evolution in certain studies like the silver foxes or the flys that became blind.
I just don’t agree with accepting anything that is handed down without it being replicable and having backing studies that are also replicable.

[Anonymous No.15709017]

>>15708998
With the amount of media sensation about the replication crisis, it leads me to think it's not as big a deal as they say it is. I can't honestly say I know anything about it, but from what I've heard, it sounds like a lot of it has do with statistical manipulation of results, and desu who cares. Bullshit data won't "stick" in the end.

[Anonymous No.15709052]

>>15708995
Oh, you're still talking about the article. Yes it's obviously just propaganda and they're labeling the dude as heretical. Intelligent design arguments tend to either be entirely non-scientific or pseudoscience, but it doesn't need to be stated as such before every mention of intelligent design in an article.

[Anonymous No.15709053]

>>15709017
It’s the issue of it being used in fields where anything can stick and do damage to people over long periods of time.
Such as psychology/mental health, medicine, medical research, water inclusions etc;

Plenty of damage can be caused by non replicable science from those fields.
>Medicine that was considered safe by junk data
>Supplements that were considered safe
>Inclusions in water that were considered safe
All because they refused to repeat the data or were unable to repeat the data.
It speaks volumes to what they’ll accept to make a quick buck or to garner funding so they can continue to create junk data.
The junk data only lends to new junk data which is being created at a faster pace than its being debunked.
Then you have a situation where there’s contradictory data on both sides that can take years to debunk everything.
All the while the bad data is causing real harm to people.

Imagine it’s you or your mother or child who is suffering from this bad data.
Place yourself into that scenario where you were promised something works because the scientists did their due diligence and did the studies but find out now your child has autism or your mother has cancer.

Not good to say the least

[Anonymous No.15709055]

>>15708987
If you don't see the problem with your post then you are definitely off your meds or they need to be adjusted. Don't be afraid to pursue the help you need.

[Anonymous No.15709074]

>>15709055
Sounds like you can’t pinpoint out the issue because you lack any argument counter to my very real points.
If you read the rest of my posts at no point do I say anything schizo such as flat earth or dinosaurs aren’t real.
I take real issue with junk data, and simply accepting science not backed by the scientific method.
I also believe that billion dollar companies lobby heavily to change what information is available to you and change what you should be able to access.
If you don’t believe that pharmaceutical companies or large billion dollar companies aren’t paying to have studies changed then I can provide evidence.
Such as Coca Cola and their studies being bought and paid for.
I’ve provided evidence from the Wikipedia founder himself who states that three letter agencies are changing information available to you in an information war.

Now please provide an argument or suck my cock.

[Anonymous No.15709105]

>>15709053
Shits complicated bro. For most people, Tylenol works and does no damage, but for some people it kills. Some can process lactose, others can't. Idk what to tell you, it's cost/benefits thing.
Also, the emotional appeal angle, seems a little glowie.

[Anonymous No.15709124]

>>15709105
> Shits complicated bro. For most people, Tylenol works and does no damage, but for some people it kills. Some can process lactose, others can't. Idk what to tell you, it's cost/benefits thing.

Not what I’m saying at all
Junk data is the issue and unnecessary risk being created by junk data and scientists who are more interested in funding or prestige than actual science.

Yes you caught me
I’m a cia agent pushing for better science whilst simultaneously calling out the cia and their control of wikipedia
Lmao

[Anonymous No.15709157]

>>15709124
> Junk data is the issue and unnecessary risk being created by junk data and scientists who are more interested in funding or prestige than actual science.
Believe it or not, there's a lot of prestige in debunking long held theories.

> I’m a cia agent pushing for better science whilst simultaneously calling out the cia and their control of wikipedia
> The cia is the only entity with an online presence.
Wikipedia is totally fine for most things, as long as it doesn't have a political modern political angle.

[Anonymous No.15709174]

>>15709157
You don’t seem to be getting the point and continuously misconstrue what I’m saying
Again, this isn’t about debunking etc;

> The cia is the only entity with an online presence.
No where did I say anything close to that.
In my first post I make sure to include all three letter agencies.

>Wikipedia is totally fine for most things, as long as it doesn't have a political modern political angle.
Lol
Talk about glownigger
No idea what you’re even arguing for anymore, seems like you just like to argue.

[Anonymous No.15709230]

>>15709174
Okay, what's the solution to the junk data Apocalypse that is right around the corner. Surely, for someone so concerned, you have an opinion on what the root problem is and how to fix it?

[Anonymous No.15709773]

>>15709230
Lol have your data be repeatable before you get more funding especially government funding nor can you have a paper published
Limit the money and “prestige” and you limit the amount of junk data
A lot of junk data comes from Chinese so just limit funding to China without repeat data

????
Profit?

[Anonymous No.15709777]

>>15708646
>Wokepedia

[Anonymous No.15709886]

>>15709773

[Anonymous No.15709909]

>>15709886
You act like this is difficult
Plenty of academia forces people to push out studies
Plenty of it is government funded
If studies are being paid for with government funding and none of it is replicable then that’s definitely an issue

You asked for a solution
Would you like to provide a better option?
Or would you simply like to pass judgement so you can pretend your opinion is correct?
It’s probably easier to just do that and also pretend that this isn’t a fixable issue.

[Anonymous No.15709913]

>>15708754
>making sure that the public thinks their isn't an omnipotent God that directly states everything your glowie agency does is objectively evil, isn't considered by objectively evil glowie agencies
Sure buddy

[Anonymous No.15709916]

>>15708774
What, do you think a perfect world that one could model in an afternoon in Python is 'intelligently' designed? Fucking retard.
The fact that any structure exists at all in our chaotic universe is reason to inquire about intelligent design

[Anonymous No.15709918]

>>15708826
This is objectively true, if you don't see why, you are fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.15709947]

>>15708830
Is this board finally understanding why centralization of power, in any form, is inherently bad? Are they finally understanding why things played out the way they did following the 2008 financial crash with Bitcoin, OWS, Trump, and Covid? The people that make up this board are so fucking retarded. They flock to this site as refugees of centralization, yet half of them actively reject/can't figure out basic principles of reality that the founding fathers knew were objectively true nearly 300 years ago.

[Anonymous No.15709960]

>>15709947
No no, take your meds.
Everyone is insane for believing in corruption like the founding fathers predicted.

[Anonymous No.15710014]

>>15708646
Wikipedia is run by zoophiliac antifa trannies. Not even hyperbole or making this up, go look it up on conservapedia

[Anonymous No.15710225]

>>15708674
what's the prime mover of the chain of causes of our universe?
Hint: it's also the intelligent designer.

[Anonymous No.15710247]

>>15708996
This shut them up real quick. Lmao

[Anonymous No.15710264]

>>15708967
>An untestable hypothesis is an unproven claim that claims to be scientific
That's the case with evolution too.

[Anonymous No.15710272]

>>15708821
And this propaganda bot's flavor is called "for 5 year olds".

[Anonymous No.15710276]

Holy shit bots flew in like bees attracted to honey.

[Anonymous No.15710412]

>>15708646
"Pseudoscience" doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means it's not a science although it pretends to be one.

[Anonymous No.15710524]

>>15710225
Since our universe appears to be mathematical in nature, it should have the same prime as mathematics which is the origin point which is just 0, nothing, and in math there are numerous functions upon 0 which lead directly to 100%, 0! being the most basic.

[Anonymous No.15710540]

>>15708725
>>Gas sat around for billions or trillions of years and always existed
That is a mischaracterization, big bang theory or I guess cosmic evolution as you seem to want to call it doesn't start from the beginning and project to the present as you claim, it starts at the present and projects back to the past and not as far as you are implying it does, only to a certain unknown point where no other extrapolations can be made.

>angry... wants to
No, according to the theory, it originally expanded because ???
It is not "proven" it is still being examined.

>>15708927
Its because the process of cosmic inflation is what is well understood, but not the origin cause of inflation, that is a mischaracterization, they don't have faith in any beginning, they are still trying to figure it out.

[Anonymous No.15710543]

>>15708731
Why would the moon and sun and other planets all obviously be balls, but not earth?

[Anonymous No.15710555]

>>15708754
Why would glowies want there to not be an intelligent designer when the holy books tend to agree that the intelligent designer supports authorities like glowies and is the one who put them in power and wants the to rule over everyone else?

[Anonymous No.15710561]

>>15708813
Do you think that is the only alternative to intelligent design since anon definitely disproved intelligent design or do you just lack the intelligence necessary to think up another alternative?

[Anonymous No.15710568]

>>15708836
It applies to your standing in the universe either you are its slave or it is yours.

[Anonymous No.15710576]

>>15708882
A pseudoscience is a thought process that employs some, but not all of the steps of the scientific method and since nobody can actually prove they have gathered data from the beginning of the universe, intelligent design skips that step and just uses the original prediction of an intelligent designer as the data supporting the existence of an intelligent designer. Same reason singularities are still pseudoscience at this point.

[Anonymous No.15710583]

>>15708948
>a guided creation by a hyper intelligent being could have created a chaotic world and the complex machinations of our existence.
Not really, but it definitely could not have been the creation of any of the beings described in any of the holy books or the ones that Stephen C. Meyers believes in and uses pseudoscience to justify since your description is not how any of the books characterize the being.

[Anonymous No.15710587]

>>15708973
They just can't try to exert the same kind of authority if they are claiming its just some imaginary bullshit they use as a coping method rather than something real that has actually been measured and demonstrated as fact to the same degree as well tested scientific theories.

[Anonymous No.15710591]

>>15708983
>he idea of it being so completely random is where it becomes a little sus.
Nobody ever said it was completely random, random mutation is only half of the equation, natural selection is the seemingly intelligent, but definitely deterministic process.

[Anonymous No.15710611]

>>15708668
Good post. The 3 letter agencies has been morphed from manipulating the public using any means neccisary to stop the spread of communistic ideologies and extracting information. Then into semi autonomous agencies continuing to manipulate the american people but under the guise of anti terrorism. Makes me think that the three letter agencies were never even created in the first place to fight americas enemies, but instead their people.

[Anonymous No.15710636]

>>15710611
Congratz. How long did it take you?

[Anonymous No.15710671]

>>15708973
Every time you attempt to understand reality using reason you are doing science. Most scientists these days are extremely unphilosophical (and consequently not very good at science) and cannot understand the work of a scientist outside of the bureaucratic framework of modern academia with its fields and subfields and titles and awards and so on.

[Anonymous No.15710675]

>>15710671
>Every time you attempt to understand reality using reason you are doing science
Utterly retardedly wrong.

[Anonymous No.15710683]

>>15710675
Let me guess, it's about thinking really carefully and using numbers?

[Anonymous No.15710689]

>>15710675
What do you think "testable" means? You think you need a ruler and stopwatch? Don't you also test an idea by thinking about why it might be wrong?

Like I said, people who consider themselves scientifically minded are for the most part NPCs for whom the most important thing is to "know" lots of "facts".

[Anonymous No.15710690]

>>15710683
Sigh..

It's about coming to an agreement with your community and peer group, making conclusions, and then seeking out evidence to justify said conclusions.

It's really not that complicated. But of course a 4chan incel would struggle with the scientific method too just like he struggles with everything else.

[Anonymous No.15710693]

>>15710690
>It's about coming to an agreement with your community
You couldn't have given a worse defense.

[Anonymous No.15710698]

>>15710693

Not him but you're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.15710704]

>>15710690
>i hate 4chan
why are you here?

[Anonymous No.15710713]

>>15710704
who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.15710717]

>>15709913
>God that directly states everything your glowie agency does is objectively evil,
No, not true at all if you are talking about biblical god, they say that they put the legal authorities in their positions and that you should give back to caesar and follow man's laws as if they are god's laws.

[Anonymous No.15710720]

>>15710264
No, you are likely conflating abiogenesis with evolution since evolution can and has been successfully tested while abiogenesis has not.

[Anonymous No.15710726]

>>15710683
No, it just that trying to understand reality using reason is called logic, understanding it using actual physical experimentation rather than just hypothetical reasoning alone is science.

[Anonymous No.15710736]

>>15708646
Pseudo-science doesn't mean it's wrong, it just isn't proven by actual scientific method. You can't prove that God created all this, and that's ok, it doesn't mean anything wrong. Faith and scientific method are complete opposites, but it doesn't mean that a person can't use both, because we all do, you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.15710740]

>>15710736
>Pseudo-science doesn't mean it's wrong,
It means something is posing as science when it isn't science, which means its authors are wrong about the validity of their methods and reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15710752]

>>15710726
Please direct me to the physical experiments that have given support to the theory of abiogenesis.

[Anonymous No.15710754]

>>15710720
Evolution is not a scientific theory. It states "what survives survives, what dies dies". Prehistoric man could understand that children are like their parents, and that life evolves according to who has children.

[Anonymous No.15710756]

>>15710752
Why don't you just finish reading the article or scroll down a bit until you get to the The Miller-Urey experiment sections?

[Anonymous No.15710760]

>>15710754
>"what survives survives, what dies dies".
That is an application of the law of identity, not evolutionary theory.

[Anonymous No.15710761]

>>15710754
I spoke incautiously. It isn't that it isn't a *scientific theory*, it's that it isn't a theory at all.

[Anonymous No.15710768]

>>15710740
Correct, wrong in the paradigm of scientific method model. Which is a human invention.
Just because something doesn't go in accord with the scientific method, doesn't mean it's wrong.
I'm not saying the method is bad or something, sometimes we just haven't figured enough stuff yet...
Science has became the modern religion.

[Anonymous No.15710785]

>>15710756
Look, in order to really get into this I need to first point out that most people have no idea what evidence means. When someone says "there is no evidence for X", they are wrong, because there is evidence for every conceivable statement, the question is how good is that evidence, and there is no algorithm for making that evaluation, as much as autistic, unphilosophical STEM crowd would like there to be.

Now: this experiment shows that amino acids are likely to spontaneously emerge. To call this supporting evidence for abiogensis theory, as though it made any appreciable difference in the perceived likelihood of a replicator emerging by chance, is frankly laughable. Try to analogise it to physics to understand.

[Anonymous No.15710787]

>>15710760
"Evolutionary theory" is this tautology plus the entirely unsupported assertion that random mutation is sufficient to account for the complexity of life that we observe.

[Anonymous No.15710789]

>>15710768
>wrong in the paradigm of scientific method model
Which is the paradigm pseudoscientists willingly impose upon their work, hence they are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15710794]

>>15710761
Its just too bad your poorly constructed strawman isn't actually the theory.

[Anonymous No.15710802]

>>15710787
That isn't true either, its not just because of random mutation, its also also selection leading to compounding complexity.

[Anonymous No.15710828]

>>15710802
Triple stranded DNA exists.

[Anonymous No.15710837]

>>15710828
Most breeds of marsupial are native to Australia.

[Anonymous No.15710842]

>>15710837
Who are you replying to??

[Anonymous No.15710843]

Isn't the fact that we were created pretty much with same DNA and common ancestry explain that we were created from single creator? I don't know why but evidence for single creator outweight any other theory I known and polytheism is basically disproven.

[Anonymous No.15710846]

>>15710842
The other guy who started throwing out random trivia instead of continuing the conversation.

[Anonymous No.15710849]

>>15710843
You aren't talking about creators you are talking about ancestors.

[Anonymous No.15710901]

>>15710802
>random mutation
You need an endless stream of random positive mutations and there are no. Further minimum time between them is a multiple of the successive generations. For more complex lifeforms these are years up to decades which means that you need trillions of years just to form a simple toenail. Evolution theory is made for NPC tier idiots. But any discussion in this glownigger thread mill is fruitless because only muuuh trust the science is an argument even when it is retarded beyond believe.

[Anonymous No.15710928]

>>15710901
>You need an endless stream
Time has been an endless stream so far.

>Further minimum time between them is a multiple of the successive generations.
Nope, growth is exponential, so successive generations take less time to form new helpful mutations.

[Anonymous No.15710974]

>>15710901
If only one human existed at a time, maybe it really would take trillions of years to evolve something useful. But there are quite a few more than that. Historically, tens of millions across the planet, now billions. Everyone mutating, and everyone subject to being selected out if their mutations are not fit enough.

[Anonymous No.15710977]

>>15710901
>>15710974
>retards arguing about their vague intuitions

[Anonymous No.15711060]

>>15710683
>>15710689
>Using the scientific method correctly is the same as "just thinking real hard about stuff"
Absolute retards.

[Anonymous No.15711061]

>>15710785
NTA, that's still evidence for abiogenesis. You seem to confuse this with "proof".

[Anonymous No.15711068]

>>15711061
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15711096]

>>15711068
How?

[Anonymous No.15711159]

>>15710583
>it can’t because I say so and I want it to be so for my argument
Lmao
Yeah you definitely understand the inner workings of a supreme intelligence
He definitely can’t create a chaotic world and us because
????
He would have to make everything perfect because
????
He wouldn’t get bored with perfection because of
????

You guys are such fucking retards it’s insane

[Anonymous No.15711188]

>>15708646
Intelligent design is a pseudoscience even if it's true. It is, by definition, not a scientific theory. People believe in it for religious or political reasons, it can never be proven or disproven by an observation. Science is an investigation of the processes of the physical world based on observation and the scientific method assumes that events in the universe unfold according to predictable patterns.

[Anonymous No.15711204]

>>15710752
Abiogenesis isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. That means that it's a guess someone made which might be disproven. There doesn't need to be evidence in order for it to be a hypothesis.

That being said, the evidence is that we have never observed the universe acting unpredictably or doing anything that isn't in accordance with some repeatable physical law. There are no miracles on film, and nobody has ever seen a miracle except schizophrenics and liars. So we should assume that the events leading up to the origin of life were not any different than the events we see every day.

[Anonymous No.15711320]

>>15711204
>abiogenesis might be disproven
It's hilarious watching physicalists behave as though they had any right to be confident in their own intellect.

Abiogenesis being "disproven" means that life never spontaneously emerged from inorganic matter. Where else would you imagine it came from?

This is thoughtless "falsifiability criterion means Real Science" atheist automaton speak. How do you imagine this "hypothesis" (and you think a hypothesis is without evidence -- perhaps you have never considered that no hypothesis would be worth posing without having some reason to believe it) would be "disproven" (proof is not established in scientific matters)?

[Anonymous No.15711339]

>>15711061
You seem to confuse "proof" with the things that establish theories of the natural world as plausible. Proof belongs to the world of mathematics. Evidence is about belief. If you find strong evidence in support of some theory, and eventually find out that the theory is very likely untrue, were you wrong to think that the evidence that you initially found was strong? No, because evidence is defined by its ability to make you believe in something, and so the fact that you find this experiment to provide evidence says absolutely nothing about anything except your own state of mind.

[Anonymous No.15711421]

>>15711339
>You seem to confuse "proof" with the things that establish theories of the natural world as plausible.
Nope.

[Anonymous No.15711444]

>>15711320
Life could have been seeded to earth from a different place. It also could have been created by aliens. Both of these are reasonably provable alternatives to the hypothesis that life on earth spontaneously arose from inorganic matter.

I acknowledge that discussing and answering questions about the origin of life on earth, which happened a really long time ago, is a lot more difficult than discussing questions about some kind of bird or rock. There's a lot less evidence and the hypotheses are less justified. But it's still fundamentally the same kind of investigation. Magic doesn't become a more likely explanation for this kind of question because there's less evidence. You might as well have posted your whole drivel in response to the question "did T.rex have feathers" because there's no direct evidence or disproof and there probably never will be.

[Anonymous No.15711598]

>>15710974
>tens of millions across the planet, now billions.
Adds only complexity and needs a mechanism to spread and coordinate "mutations" against all the others. Literally proof of creatonism. when it works that way.

>>15711188
>. It is, by definition, not a scientific theory
Evolution is exactly the same.

[Anonymous No.15711604]

>>15711444
>seeded to earth from a different place. It also could have been created by aliens.
Only a problem shift, but all other theories have same problem.

[Anonymous No.15711653]

>>15710540
>Its because the process of cosmic inflation is what is well understood,
You have any idea of whether or not the red shift can be produced through perhaps traveling through some sort of medium?

[Anonymous No.15711672]

>>15709909
>It’s probably easier to just do that and also pretend that this isn’t a fixable issue.
Whether it's fixable or not, I kinda doubt, science Inc in its current form is quite engrained.
For a fix, I'd say look to the past, you basically just throw money at the smartest people and tell them to do what ever they want. The current system requires you to publish papers regularly, many scientists aren't even doing research on things they are really passionate about, they are simply meeting quotas, else they don't make any money. It's easy to kind of look at scientists as not people, but they just doing their job to put food on the table, mostly.

>If studies are being paid for with government funding and none of it is replicable then that’s definitely an issue
The fix for this again, would be more money, not less and more academic freedom with less quotas. But some fields I think are always going to be inherently less reproducible, anything outside of STEM

[Anonymous No.15712677]

>>15711444
Use your brain for a second. The interesting question of course is not "how could life originate from inorganic matter *here on Earth*" but "how could life originate from inorganic matter?"

That you would equivocate between these two questions goes to show just how little "science venerator" types actually care about truth. They care about winning imaginary arguments and maintaining the delusion that reality neatly conforms to their artificial worldview.

[Anonymous No.15712692]

>>15708646
relax, its not aimed at you. its just that there are a lot of people out there who still believe that stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.15713085]

[Anonymous No.15713126]

>>15710225
>an intelligent designer who based in the quality of the work, is mentally retarded
Ah yes, what a good explanation. Have a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWZifSXlzlI

[Anonymous No.15713471]

>>15711653
>You have any idea of whether or not the red shift can be produced through perhaps traveling through some sort of medium?
Doesn't matter which blatant hallucination you pull out of your a.. . Big Bang is just one of Myself can easily do the same eg. interference with the colliding light from our galaxy or a stacking effect in the CCD bins (or analog film). The latter has the disadvantage to be disprobable, but who cares?

>>15713126
>intelligent designer
This and the evolution BS are just two sides of the same fake medal. Stuck people away from the fact that this theme is unsolvable (who/what created the creator/primal soup).

[Anonymous No.15713496]

>>15713085
There is a place where even the jannies don't go.

[Anonymous No.15714187]

>>15710611
>>15710636
>Makes me think that the three letter agencies were never even created in the first place to fight americas enemies, but instead their people.
But to what end?

[Anonymous No.15714621]

[Anonymous No.15715566]

>>15708646

[Anonymous No.15716896]

>>15713496
theres several of them:
the gym
the shower
to work
between a woman's legs

[Anonymous No.15716910]

>>15714187
Forming a single global superpower which can be controlled and manipulated with no resistance from its inhabitants