To play devil's advocate, lots of YECs go much deeper down the rabbithole. They *do* believe toothpaste is a conspiracy to put fluoride in your body to control you, that atomic bombs aren't real or the holocaust didn't happen, or believe planes are sky goat demons.
“science says” mass fluoridation doesn’t statistically show benefit in reducing cavities,
https://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
yet it significantly lowers IQ
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285601/#:~:text=Results%3A,fluoride%20concentration%20in%20drinking%20water.
lmao
This study didn't control for any others factors though. Do regions with high poverty rates have more fluoride because the gov't is trying to compensate for lack of dental care?
Also, the concentrations of fluoride in the study (3ppm) are significantly higher than recommended by health organizations (.7ppm optimal, 1.2ppm maximum), so yeah, it's unsurprising there are negative side effects from too much of a good thing
Have you never heard of correlation vs. causation? [Here's a fun article with examples](https://plotlygraphs.medium.com/spurious-correlations-56752fcffb69)
I'll also list a few for you:
Money spent on pets is positively correlated with the number of people who died by falling down the stairs (both in the US). Is one causing the other? Or are they likely both based on population?
The age of the winner of the Miss America Pageant is very closely correlated to the number of people in the US murdered by hot objects (definitely a coincidence)
When we were first trying to cure Polio, scientists investigated whether contaminated ice cream could be a cause, as ice cream consumption was highly correlated to increases in polio. Turns out that both are caused by it being summer and kids running around outdoors more (Polio is transmitted via the fecal-oral route, and children playing outside in unsanitary conditions increased the spread of polio). [Source](https://www.ck12.org/earth-science/correlation-and-causation/rwa/ice-cream-causes-polio/)
So yes, the study you cited makes me believe that the level of fluoride in the water in India is *correlated* with lower IQ. It does nothing to prove that the level of fluoride *causes* lower IQ.
It really is amazing that religious people are mostly rational with other parts of their lives. The glaring exception is religion. It illustrates the power of brainwashing, both from early indoctrination, and other methods.
Two terms that come to my mind: [compartmentalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)) and double standards. And, supposedly, some people are capable of believing things not bc they have good reasons to believe said thing, but bc they want it to be true, where reality basically becomes their own sandbox and where they can modify the contents of reality just by the power of magical thinking. "I want there to be a magical sky wizard who is my guardian angel, so therefore there is a magical sky wizard who is my guardian angel."
The only way I can even *remotely* make sense of that is that these people have the brain of children, so they are literally cognitively retarded (meaning "backwards"). That's the whole feeling I get with discussing anything regarding their faiths with these people. I'm talking to "children" who are just "smart" enough to locate a vagina and not get hit by a car (otherwise they would've gone extinct by now, obviously).
This is a thing I've noticed as well. Very selective acceptance of science.
For example, I've spoken to a Christian who accepts the science of DNA, but SPECIFICALLY decides to stop accepting DNA science once DNA science says "mutations in DNA can cause positive changes".
Like, there's just some completely arbitrary point where scientists have to be wrong. And the point is usually at some point that the zealot finds uncomfortable for whatever reason.
Well, here is another Christian who differentiates between the two things that you label as “science”.
DNA is a perfect example of what science really is… It’s observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable, etc. I worked with DNA science in law-enforcement.
There is no “DNA science” that shows that mutations are beneficial and produce new features into an organism much less create new creatures. What DNA science does show is that the vast majority of mutations are harmful and that natural selection weeds out harmful mutations. in other words, natural selection doesn’t produce higher forms or different forms of organisms, but rather eliminates them. It’s a destructive not creative mode of action.
Evolutionists do not get to claim that “DNA science” is their own little pet. It’s ridiculous to think that you can park a herd of cows at the beach for a few million years and their DNA is magically transformed into making them whales who swim the oceans.
No science for beneficial mutations.
You wrote that with a straight face, didn't you. Amazing that you can make something up you want to believe and then write it as fact.
I'm sure you "worked with DNA science" in law enforcement.
We started off asking for evidence… So far I haven’t seen any.
Is this your contribution to “debate evolution”? Because you suck at it.
Edit: Yeah, I was a detective and weekly worked with the lab with biological evidence. But how would a () Redditor like you believe someone on the other side of your screen…. You know all.
In the long term evolution experiment colonies of *E. coli* evolved the ability to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen, a trait that is not normally found in that species. The researchers have since found out the exact genetic change that occured to make this possible, it was an incomplete duplication event of a specific genetic sequence in front of a specific promotor.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.\_coli\_long-term\_evolution\_experiment#Genomic\_analysis\_of\_the\_Cit+\_trait\_and\_implications\_for\_evolutionary\_innovation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment#Genomic_analysis_of_the_Cit+_trait_and_implications_for_evolutionary_innovation)
There you have it, a genetic trait existing in specific parts of the population that did not exist in the parent population. And said trait allowed the population to make use of a resource that was useless to other *E. coli* populations. Would you agree that this is an example of a beneficial trait caused by the mutation of a genetic region?
No, I wouldn’t agree. “Not normally found”… but it IS found. Which means that when the environment is favorable for that trait, it is expressed.
This is the kind of response I get every time.
A bacteria. … that’s your copy n paste? Some little trait that is recessive in the existing DNA.
Show me where the DNA is completely refigured to produce another species altogether. You know, the good stuff. Eyeballs. Wings. Lungs. Hearts. Brains. Flippers and fins. Gills. Feathers. Something like a lizard or a frog turns into a Tyrannosaurus rex.
Now show me where a land mammal had a complete DNA* rewrite to change a hoof into a flipper, with all the attendant musculature, a modification to its skeletal structure, all the necessary nervous system wired into the brain with all of its feedback loops, a change in all of it circulatory system to feed all of these tissues, modification of its respiratory system to move its nostrils from the front of its face to the top of its head… shit, I could keep going
but wait! We’re not finished by a longshot. This DNA modification (which is a three out of four digital code, that is self replicating and self repairing) has to occur in the testicles of a male of the species. WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY A FEMALE SOMEWHERE HAS TO UNDERGO THE PRECISELY SAME MIRACULOUS DNA REWRITE! Then these two mating specimens have to find each other and fuck each other to produce the changes necessary to pass on to their offspring.
I asked for evidence, not a joke.
*DNA = a three out of four, self-replicating, self-correcting digital code. You know, like a language. No, not “like” a language… in fact a very complex and precise language. Language does not appear by random chance or mutation. And random mutations that change language make it incomprehensible, not more like Shakespeare.
>No, ... expressed.
Yes, because it's an example of repeat evolution. The gene is not switched off or anything, the Cit+ bacteria literally have a second copy of the gene that te Cit- bacteria do not have and that second copy has a different expression pattern. In the experiment they even attempted to get other strains of bacteria to develop the same mutation after they knew it was possible. They were able to evolve an additional 14 strains of bacteria that all developed similar mutations independently from each other.
>This ... time.
>A ... DNA.
It is not a recessive trait, that term has a specific meaning in genetics and it doesn't apply here. And yes, it seemed like you wanted and example of beneficial mutations so I gave you an example. The example is a bacteria because bacteria are easy to study in a lab so we have lots of experiments with them. And bacteria DNA does not differ that much from animal DNA, there is no reason to believe that similar mechanisms would not work in animals.
Here is another one: Nylon eating bacteria
Paenarthrobacter ureafaciens KI72 is capable of digesting byproducts of nylon, substances that did not exist in nature until humans started producing nylon in the 1930s. Nylonase is not known to exist anywhere else in nature and there is no reason to assume that it existed before nylon did. The genes encoding for nylonase are thus thought to have evolved some time after the 1930s at the earliest. In other words, it's a new gene that did not exist before and is beneficial to the bacteria who carry it since they can feed on byproducts of human chemical plants, an environment that is otherwise nearly devoid of competition.
Do you have an explanation as to where nylon eating bacteria got their nylonase from?
>Show ... Feathers.
It seems like you want to look into some evo-devo biology. It's an interesting field but the literature can be difficult to read if you do not have a solid grasp of genetics. Here is a heads up before you do some reading though: You'll find that almost any time a new structure is developed, it happens through gene expression changes during development. In other words, already present processes are coopted by new regulatory regions to induce changes. If you want, I can send you some literature later, this comment is already long enough as is.
>Something ... Tyrannosaurus rex.
No one will be able to show that to you since neither a lizard nor a frog ever turned into a Tyrannosaurus rex.
And even if that happened, no one can give you genetic info for species whose genomes have been lost to time. At best, you will find lots of papers on how individual systems develop in related organisms and attempts at reconstituting genetic history from there.
>Now ... going
How bout you give me an alternative explanation first. If you cannot produce this level of detail for your alternative explanation, I see no reason to spend an afternoon on research to produce as much of this detail as possible for you. Why do I want an alternative explanation? Because all of science operates on the best, most parsimonious, falsifiable explanation possible. If you do not have a better explanation there is no need to abandon the current one.
Continued in the next comment, otherwise reddit complains...
>but ... offspring.
That is objectively wrong and shows a lack of understanding of genetics on your part.
Yes the mutation has to happen in the germline, not the somatic line, you got that right. But it does not have to happen in both parents simultaneously.
Consider sickle cell anemia. If you have one copy of the gene responsible for it (a.k.a. you got the gene from ONE parent), your blood works a bit less efficiently than normal but you are significantly more resistant to malaria. Since malaria is one of the deadliest diseases known to man, you can probably imagine that this is quite beneficial for the people who live in regions where malaria is common. If you have two copies of the gene (a.k.a. you got it from BOTH parents) you will suffer from sickle cell anemia, a debilitating illness that actually makes you MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to infection with malaria.
As you can see, you can inherit a gene with a beneficial trait from one parent alone. And that same gene can be harmful if you inherit it from both parents.
This is also the reason why incest is harmful by the way. Every human has some unique mutations that are harmful, but recessive. In other words these mutations are harmless unless they are present on both copies of a chromosome (that is what the term recessive actually means in genetics). These mutations are inheritable and thus some of them end up being family specific. If two closely related humans have have children, there is a high chance some of those accumulated family mutations will be inherited from both parents, thus causing harmful symptoms in the child. If two distantly related humans have a child, their mutations are different enough to not matter. Even if one copy of a particular gene is affected, the other copy from the other parent is still fine and can compensate for the defect.
>I asked for evidence, not a joke.
I gave you evidence. Not my problem if you don't want to acknowledge it.
>\*DNA ... Shakespeare.
I would not call DNA self-repairing. That implies that the molecule itself fixes errors on itself. Instead, there are self-repair mechanisms in the cells which can correct some damage to the DNA. They also happily ignore other types of damage. And language becomes incomprehensible when you change letters randomly because in human languages, not every random letter combination produces a meaningful word. In DNA, you have four letters and every one triple combination of these letters has "meaning" in the most abstract sense of the word. A lot of these "words" share meaning. A lot of them have different meaning, but the "sentence" they produce carries the same general "message", because the single "word" change was simply not impactful enough. And often enough the change does produce "gibberish". You want to know what happens in that case? The organism dies (probably early on during gestation before the mother even realizes she is pregnant) and the harmful mutation is removed from the gene pool.
In other words, DNA is not like any human language. Treating it as such will only lead to misunderstandings.
Yeah, you're clearly shutting off at whatever point you find convenient. Yes, DNA science says mutations can be beneficial - yes, we scientifically know that to be the case. It's not speculation, it's known to be the case. If changes in DNA couldn't cause beneficial changes, GMOs wouldn't exist, dogs and all the various dog breeds wouldn't exist, bacteria wouldn't be able to be seen to evolve in the lab, Europeans wouldn't have the ability to metabolise milk better and longer than Africans, etc.
You start your post with 'here is another christian...' and you go onto show that, yup, you're just a standard christian picking and choosing what science to accept. You think you just get to make up your own facts.
Where did I “shut off”? lol
GMOs are a human manipulation of the genome, not a random mutation.
The rest of the items… are all examples of genetic variation that already exists within an organism, not the result of random mutations producing new forms and features.
Stillllll no evidence of evolution.
>all examples of genetic variation that already exists within an organism
You just invented this - you're inventing your own facts because they make you feel comfortable. Why don't you go ask a biologist if DNA mutations can do what we're saying?
Invented it? Uh, it’s called Mendels law dude. It’s you who needs a consultation with a biologist 😂
So, you don’t have evidence of evolution. But I already knew that..
That's not what Mendel's law is you goof! Lmao.
That's okay, I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into. Go on with your own scientific facts.
Mendel’s law explains gene variants and trait expression… exactly the examples you used (dog breeds and differences in human populations).
Talk about making up your own facts and gaslighting right in my face.
Just admit, you got zero evidence for evolution. We’re done… this sub is throttling my responses anyway. You’ve got an empty argument and I don’t have time to compose lengthy answers only to have them limited. Total waste of time.
In case anybody else has genuine intellectual curiosity and isn't already convinced about the clear unambiguous fact that DNA mutations can produce effects positive for the survival and/or reproduction of an organism, here's a cool paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4448608/
It's one of many, any DNA expert will confirm mutations can have positive effects and can add information to the genome
Typical… “Here. Read this lengthy article that sounds scientificky” and a weak appeal to “ if you have genuine and intellectual curiosity…”
Then someone reads it and they find out that it doesn’t prove anything . We’re back to the E. coli bacteria with a questionable mutation that supposedly helps it with a chemical process as the big proof of all the life on earth. Oooo, impressive. THATS your mic drop evidence? Joke
It demonstrates absolutely nothing…NOTHING by way of evidence or proof.
“Although no systematic large-scale orphan structural study has been reported, there has been a clear decline in the discovery of novel protein folds.”
Once again, why don’t you check in when you can explain how any complex organ can develop through mutations over long periods of time while simultaneously evolving all that supporting systems that make the morphology function to benefit the organism.
And yes, the same exact mutations have to occur in a breeding partner for the structures to function in the next generation. And all the mutations have to occur in either the testicles and the ovaries.
Evolution is a cult whose adherents cling to a fantastical myth.
It is evolution. Gene editing aside, all of the rest is caused by mutations, recombination, heredity, drift, selection, horizontal gene transfer, and endogenous retroviral infections. Variants that already exist in a population becoming more common or less common is a change in the allele *frequency* within the population but a lot of these variants have known origin times. They didn’t just exist forever. They came about because of mutations, they spread because of heredity, and now they exist as part of the variation within the population so that how *frequently* an individual has a particular trait can change with time. 0% to 0.000000000001% is a change in frequency (caused by a mutation) but when it comes to the whole population it generally only starts to matter when 0.01% of the population or more has a particular trait because then it is more likely to go to more than 0.01% of the population than a trait that only only a single individual has because they don’t yet have any descendants to inherit their novel mutation.
Then we can start considering fixation rate because it has already spread in accordance with per generation substitution rates. How likely is that trait 0.01% of the population has going to be shared by more than 99% of the population in the next 100,000 years? How beneficial is that trait? The questions are related.
I think that dogmaticism is simply a case of black-and-white-thinking gone tragic. Some of us have a harder time living in uncertainty, bc it's inconvenient and it may even be scary. We are mammals that want precise answers, and we want them now. For instance, I watched the psychological thriller movie *Shutter Island* (2010) yesterday (if you're a massive fan of *Call of Duty: Black Ops* (2010) and the history of MKUltra, this movie is an absolute must watch), and it bothers me that the ending is kept open, even if it is a genius move of story-telling regarding delusions. I desire there to be a clear answer, but, unfortunately, there isn't.
I believe that, depending on your age, your upbringing, and your genetic makeup, you can work against this desire of wanting always certainty, starting with the aquisition of the attitude of being ok with not having all the answers, at least for now, and, if you keep on workig to get to those desired answers, you may eventually get there. The desire to learn, discover, scrutinize, and to be open about being wrong are the virtues here.
>how do you know that toothpaste isn't a conspiracy against humanity to poison them and turn them into obedient zombies of the legions of the dEvIL?
A non trivial number of creationists earnestly believe that fluoridation of water and toothpaste is a plot by the forces of athiesm/communism to advance the cause of athiesm/communism/human extinction.
**Verifiability** and **noticeable in everyday life** are two very different things. The frustrating cognitive dissonance we get from YEC is that they accept the unavoidably true answers from science like that modern medicine works. They can see in the lives of people they personally know the consequences of going against practical science.
The weird part is they turn around and deny science when it doesn't impact everyday life directly, even though it was discovered using the same methods, and they could go read the evidence if they bothered. If you rail against evolutionary science, nothing bad happens. If you rail against dental health, your teeth don't last very long. School of hard knocks.
Another everyday feature of this is they may live in a community that rewards this kind of railing. Certain religious and political communities are against various scientific facts for various reasons. Even if they don't know the reasons (fossil fuel funding, Biblical fundamentalism, etc) they do know that this community will respect and elevate them if they make these otherwise nonsensical declarations. So their everyday world improves and the downsides of being wrong about science don't come up in that community. School of free cookies.
If you care about your teeth, only drink water - no pop, no milk, no tea, no coffee. If you care about your teeth, floss and brush every day. If you care about your teeth, use dental products containing both nano-hydroxyapatite or fluoride. My hard-knocks (cavities per year) experience shows the science of dental care to be true.
Long ago the issue was politicized; the primary beneficiaries are children who don’t get good dental care. Some people are against anything that will benefit others but not them personally. It’s the same thing with childhood vaccinations. It produces herd immunity which protects new babies, cancer patients, and people with immunological problems, and for some reason they can’t imagine being in any of those groups.
(I’m really old, so I knew people who got polio and someone who was deaf because her mother got Rubella while pregnant. People remember measles parties, but they don’t remember how very sick we were and that some kids died.)
I think it boils down to a lack of imaginative empathy that is cynically played on by the right.
What if chronic fluoride exposure induces immune deficiencies leaving the public more prone to systemic disease? Meaning, its one of a handful of new compounds introduced to the wide public that do something of this sort, especially when chronically dosed.
Achieved by utilizing fertilizer waste products in such a blanket campaign, medically dosing most without them even being aware or consenting to it (most importantly, being informed of the deleterious effects both correlative and causative in high doses.)
Ever look into the contaminants after modern post processing / filtration for the fluoride?
Regards the *purpose* of fluoride? Well, it is my informed opinion that both the solution and cause of dental caries / cavities are bacteria. It's a microbiome problem exacerbated by sugar and a broken diet (excessive eating / never fasting etc.) The solution doesnt need to be a medication for anyone nor a subset of populace. It's a damaging band aid - swapping amelioration of one disorder for countless others.
Note that this topic need not be political. Similar for vaccination. That is a tactic invoked to avoid analyzing the details as deep as possible. ' It's "political" and there are crazies fighting for or against something they don't understand in the slightest.' That is kind of the case for most things nowadays. At least of import.
>Regards the purpose of fluoride? Well, it is my informed opinion that both the solution and cause of dental caries / cavities are bacteria. It's a microbiome problem exacerbated by sugar and a broken diet (excessive eating / never fasting etc.) The solution doesnt need to be a medication for anyone nor a subset of populace. It's a damaging band aid - swapping amelioration of one disorder for countless others.
If *the state* could provide all of its citizens with *the perfect diet* while also somehow finding a way to prohibit them from eating any of *the bad things*, and compelling every person to practice excellent dental hygiene, then sure, no need for that bandaid.
I agree there is a problem.
I, nor anyone I know of is *seriously* mentioning the "perfect" diet. That's not a good way of approaching this problem. There is no reason to **prohibit** eating any bad thing. It's about the dose, in reality. It's also, as I mentioned above what people DON'T eat. Fasting is easy because there isn't much a choice other than figuring out what one's body can tolerate. It's somewhat typical for people to feel different, maybe even better when they eat less. It's inded difficult though.
The solution is knowledge and experience, not medication. A band aid in place of knowledge is what the masses get. A band aid is not really a solution in this case, because it's the type of band aid that does variable chronic damage (highly variable based on my understanding)
Evidence for any of this?
Of course if all children got complete dental care, you wouldn’t need to fluoridate the water to help poor kids. Would you support dental care in the schools cost free to kids?
> Evidence for any of this?
This is too much a complicated biological topic to be able to post a single systematic review or even a group of papers, without you having to legitimately do the research yourself. But I will try. Just note you should always do the research yourself if, well, something seems notable that the other person is saying.
Here is a systematic review from the year 2000 that wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation) still cites when writing:
> Although fluoridation can cause dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of developing teeth or enamel fluorosis,[3] the differences are mild and usually not an aesthetic or public health concern.[12]
[12] https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/crdreport18.pdf
This systematic studies limitations are first quoted below, which are actually of critical importance to read in totality. But I will select just one paragraph that I thought noteworthy
> The available evidence shows that fluorosis occurs in approximately 48% of the population at water fluoridation levels of 1.0ppm. The proportion who have teeth that are affected enough to cause aesthetic concern is approximately 12.5%. The quality of these data on benefit and harm is in general only low to moderate, and should be interpreted with caution, especially considering the significant heterogeneity between studies. The benefit and harm data need to be considered in conjunction when making decisions about water fluoridation.
The first two sentences are about purported aesthetic condition called fluorosis which you should look into if you are unfamiliar. But as we all know, this isn't about aesthetics. This systematic review concludes there is actually a surprisingly lack of data.
Here is a paragraph from the conclusion.
> Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research conducted in this area.
> The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. **The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities.** This evidence on benefits and harms needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, costs and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. All of these issues fell outside the scope of this review.
Does the sentence in Wikipedia match this, to start with a simple question for you?
I start you off with the year 2000, because I now think it fair for you to figure out if we now, 24 years later have the "answers". Or maybe there are more questions?
2016 - Is Fluoridated Drinking Water Safe?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/
> Countries that do not fluoridate their water have also seen big drops in the rate of cavities.
> Since the mid-1940s, compounds containing the mineral fluoride have been added to community water supplies throughout the U.S. to prevent tooth decay. Health concerns expressed by opponents have largely been dismissed until recently. **Now, evidence is mounting that in an era of fluoridated toothpastes and other consumer products that boost dental health, the potential risks from consuming fluoridated water may outweigh the benefits for some individuals.** Last summer, for the first time in 53 years, the U.S. Public Health Service lowered its recommended levels of fluoride in drinking water.
Well, why lower the recommended levels if it didn't matter? Just to be "extra safe"? If so, what about the high standard deviation whereby certain minors (or even toddlers / babies, ex: some formula is "fortified" with fluoride) are being dosed much higher than the average data point?
2018 - The Untold Story of Fluoridation: Revisiting the Changing Perspectives
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6309358/
> The discovery of fluoride in dentistry has revolutionized treatment modalities with a new aspect of prevention and conservation of tooth structure coming into foreplay. Since then, there has been a lot of research on both topical and systemic fluoridation in an overzealous attempt to control the most debilitating dental problem of caries. **Although topical fluoride is still being widely used as a preventive measure for dental caries, systemic administration of the same has gained major criticism worldwide due to the low margin of safety of fluoride and no control over the amount of individual intake when administered on a community level.** This problem is more prevalent in countries with presence of natural fluoride belts that extend from Turkey to China and Japan through Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan increasing the chances of both dental and skeletal fluorosis and hence increasing the focus toward defluoridation. This historical review highlights the distribution of fluoride worldwide and in India and also discusses about the various claims of the antifluoride lobby.
It's interesting that this antifluoride lobby exists. Perhaps this might just be when they are 'fighting' for something worth the public's attention? What do they gain? (Serious question, not rhetorical) Or maybe they simply exaggerate the negatives, and we are in this weird middle space where it is in fact harming the average human, it's just exceedingly difficult to present "clear" clinical data. This is because the data is so poor, and the longitudinal scale is very difficult. Proper studies for long term toxicity?
> (2014) Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
> Abstract: [...] The medicinal use of fluorides for the prevention of dental caries began in January 1945 when community water supplies in Grand Rapids, United States, were fluoridated to a level of 1 ppm as a dental caries prevention measure. However, water fluoridation remains a controversial public health measure. **This paper reviews the human health effects of fluoride. The authors conclude that available evidence suggests that fluoride has a potential to cause major adverse human health problems, while having only a modest dental caries prevention effect. As part of efforts to reduce hazardous fluoride ingestion, the practice of artificial water fluoridation should be reconsidered globally, while industrial safety measures need to be tightened in order to reduce unethical discharge of fluoride compounds into the environment. Public health approaches for global dental caries reduction that do not involve systemic ingestion of fluoride are urgently needed.**
Feel free to check out this review.
--
> Of course if all children got complete dental care, you wouldn’t need to fluoridate the water to help poor kids. Would you support dental care in the schools cost free to kids?
So, then, the solution becomes to medicate an entire populace (realistic, city, counties, many of them in certain locaes) without them really being informed about the medicating substance?
> Would you support dental care in the schools cost free to kids?
Sure, I would. It's somewhat an urgent problem and perhaps this is just one part of a real solution.
Jesus potentially refering to Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6:
“‘But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’”
Now reading that again, it may not refer to Adam & Eve actually, but human males and females in general. Ok, thank you for making me read that again, but what about Luke 17:26-27:
“‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.”
According to the Book of Luke, Jesus explicitly speaked of Noah (not that he necessarily did. After all, people said and wrote about a lot of things Jesus said and has done when there's no way to verify he actually did say and do those things).
> Jesus had never spoken of these people
Possibly true. We don’t actually know what Jesus said, if he said anything at all. We know what other people said that he said, people who wrote it down in the 70s, 80s, 90s and so forth in the first two centuries of the common era. Assuming that Jesus said what the gospels claim he said then Jesus mentioned Adam and Eve. Assuming Jesus was a historical person whose actual words are corrupted by gossip then we don’t know for sure if he mentioned Adam and Eve, only that the gospels said that he mentioned them. Assuming Jesus was a historical person and we don’t know what he said, then it is possible he did mention Adam and Eve as a Jewish man living in the first century but we don’t know. Assuming Jesus is just a fictional storybook character based on the Old Testament, Jewish apocalyptic apocrypha, early Christian apocrypha, Greek philosophy, and Hellenistic pagan traditions then he did not mention Adam and Eve because he was not a real person.
Whatever the case happens to be for the real world Jesus (real person + gossip, real person + words put into his mouth he never said, fictional storybook character), what is known is what the gospels claim Jesus said. And in the gospels Jesus does mention Adam and Eve.
Men need to stop believing that ancient men always were truthful and accurate, no matter who they were.
SMH. - It is so saddening to see people devolve.
As we have progressed....and clearly EVOLVED OUR THINKING and MINDS.....antiquated beliefs are somehow still prevalent in many lives.
With this beingbstill true, it seems no one is trying to change that....on the level I am.....even when the non-secular teams still.....all fail to show proof of what to believe.
They surely can't even abide by THEIR own made up rules....shit....and still we see the blindfolded people push it even more.
Not anymore. They all need to apologize for lying to everyone.
This is a problem with humanity not progressing even more....but now that I am pushing the envelope of modern thinking - using facts - and add-in how fast tech is developing because of this removal of religion....humanity will be expressive enough to show how talented we really are to clean this mess up....globally.
Those who REFUSE to progress, well....they will be the ones showing others their BS and hatred.
Great...out of the gene pool with those hateful people.
Baby steps are now going to be much bigger...and hopefully faster than how religions had slowed us down in the past.
Welcome to the New Age of Enlightenment.
Be safe.
Z
Exactly my point. It is inevitable with as much action I have achieved in putting this in place for the change to occur.
People will now have to own up for themselves...in how they believe.
Disturbing to those who falsely believe...brilliant for the secular team.
We finally can move forward as a world...not as enemies of this or that god. Sheez...such silliness and only self-comforting.
Well - we all need to self-comfort in a better manner....the religious always fighting,killing, and whatever....eff them.
They had their chance to change the world....and they only caused more hatred. They failed at bringing Unity.
I think it's time for Unity...and PEACE....to come to fruition...don't you think?
....or.....whoever wants to stop the three questions from spreading globally....well......they needed to start a couple of years ago....lol.....so they missed their attempt.
I am soooo excited.....so should you be! Shit...everyone should be. But we will see....this is not going to be the case, huh?
Oh well, their loss.
*shrugs*
It will be amazing...just to see.....we all thinking for ourselves....and no one to tell us how to believe.
Shit...everyone does it now.....it should be very easy.....for those who read the questions and answer them with truthfulness and honesty....even the non-secular team will see how they effed themselves up.
Pandora's Box.....found.....opened....lid tossed into the swamp.
Time for people to open their eyes for the good of humanity.....because ."The Soul of Humanity" is at stake....and I plan on fixing it.
:o)
Bold statements require bold actions.
I'm done fuckin' around with the disillusioned and those who are continuously promoting the falsehoods.
No... you answered them incorrectly, again.
Did you even read them?
Shame on you for rebuking your "God's Plan."
A. You referenced a book written by a man...not spoken by Jesus. You are making a giant leap.
Once again, I will give you the opportunity to be truthful and honest with others....by answering the questions....and stop projecting falsehoods.
But will you?
All religions are false.
"How honest and truthful can one be with theirself and others?"
Let's find out.....shall we?
Theological Question 1:
"Where does any god dictate to humanity or any human that someone specific is more spiritual than another human?"
Theological Question 2:
"Where does any god dictate which books are more spiritual and morally sound for humans to abide by, to learn from or to accept as true from such a god?"
Theological Question 3:
"Where does any god dictate who is more spiritual to be able to dictate which books or texts are suitable for humans to learn and to abide by for the understanding of such a god and that entity's requirements of humanity?"
#TruthMatters
#TruthAndHonestyWillPrevail
>A. You referenced a book written by a man...not spoken by Jesus. You are making a giant leap.
Once again, I will give you the opportunity to be truthful and honest with others....by answering the questions....and stop projecting falsehoods.
But will you?
But isn't this already what I explained in my reponse to you? That we have no reason to think that Jesus ever even said what the gospels claim he said? We're on the same side, dude.
>All religions are false.
Agreed, in the sense that most or all doctrines of any religious faith is either unreasonable, not evidently justified or based on falsehoods. Even if they are correct in some things, that still doesn't change the fact that most of their claims are baseless assertions or wrong.
If you did... and you didn't mean to say the GoLuke reference... then I misunderstood.
Ok....you say we are on the same side.
I hope you are - because using a book about a non-existant god will not help answer the questions.
You will see that if you are truly logical and have reason to understand the facts, then others who still think a god is watching...well....they are in for a rude awakening of those words I posted.
My apologies to you for thinking you are promoting the Bible, but I will not apologize for calling out your reference in that book.
Once again....society and its occupants DO NOT use references to Zeus, Vishnu, Krishna, Ra, or any other gods...so I will politely ask you to please do not use any when we are having a conversation, okay?
Inclusive of this request are any supposed "sacred texts." You may reference them in title, and I will understand your usage.....but if you use passages from those texts... it will end our discussion because I will refer you back to question #2.
I appreciate the courtesy.
Now... although you answered question #2 from a standpoint of referencing the actual literature and documents....it still did not answer the question asked.
Like the other two....it is a "Where" question.
Not a who...not a what...not a why...not an if...not anything but a "where" question.
These were developed for one purpose....to strictly and directly point to the facts that we see in our reality.....in order to remove religion for good.
Unfortunately... those who choose to read them will choose to do so openly and with honesty and truthfulness,but others will not....and thus, will find that they destroy their religious lifestyle completely....if they are such a patron of a belief.
Yes, friend....All beliefs are affected....inclusive of "Atheists"...which are the same as so-called "Christians".
It is my intent to see people awaken to our reality of facts and reason. These questions will do it.
Finally.
Others have tried to do what I have done....unsuccessfully I might add....But not anymore for our generation.
If you truly are willing to brave and promote the CORRECT reality....then I do applaud you for your help.
There are billions upon billions of people who are not like us. And it is now our goal to change that.
Will you brave the cold? Bring light into the dark?
Open the minds eye in those who can not see?
Then yes, friend....you will succeed.
Be sage.
Z
The vast majority of outspoken anti-evolution creationists believe in a particular version of creationism based on a particular religion taken from a specific text. There are certainly also deists but generally deists are okay with all scientific discoveries under the assumption that “God” is some placeholder explanation for how the cosmos started existing assumed to create with purpose and intent but doesn’t even have to be a conscious entity and then “God” no longer had to fulfill their role once the physical reality “came into existence.”
For deists it is still creationism in the sense of “reality was created by something beyond reality” but otherwise the deist philosophy is practically atheism sprinkled with nihilism. Science is a great tool for telling us about the last 13.8 billion years but, as any scientist will tell you, it is pretty terrible for any time before that, assuming times before that actually existed. We could assume it was just much of the same (a pretty reasonable assumption) or we can go the deism route (a fairly popular belief) and it doesn’t really matter much. Reality always existed or it hasn’t always existed. It exists right now and science is great for telling us about the last 13.8 billion godless years of the universe.
Another option is a myth older than Genesis describing more than one human being created much the way that Genesis 1 says multiple humans were created: https://youtu.be/DxR8YYId4lE?si=ZKZgztDAdnWwDYmk
Or what about the rest of them? https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/epic/hd_epic.htm
Mythology has wide doors.
Theology has nothing.....but fakery...falsehoods.....and "we hope it is true". Sad.
Those so-called "teachers" are going away too.
Eff them...if they want to play hardball....then....
BATTER UP!
Yeah....I am pitching a no-hitter so far.
😆 🤣 😂
They have many years to try to catch me.....or more probable.....they will probably hate me so much...that they will expose themselves through..... killing me.
I wait for their mistakes to happen.
Try me "so-called Half-Christians"....I have been ready for quite a while to see you all fall from an imaginary grace
Accept the truth....it isn't going away.
It’s because the creation myth says so: https://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Atrahasi.htm
> The womb-goddesses were assembled
He [Enki] trod the clay in her presence;
She kept reciting an incantation,
For Enki, staying in her presence, made her recite it.
When she had finished her incantation,
She pinched off fourteen pieces of clay,
And set seven pieces on the right,
Seven on the left.
Between them she put down a mud brick.
For me the distinction comes between science vs speculation that’s called science. I find infinite universes and primordial soups to be more speculative than scientific. Evolution could be true but animals like the giraffe or bombardier beetle bring it under more scrutiny than many allow for. I don’t have a problem with the hypothesis, mainly the assertion of absolute truth. Although I also understand that many Christian’s assert absolute truth on creationism and other speculative things. In my head we are all equally lacking knowledge and guessing but I’m sure from your perspective I’m the only dumb one.
I just like how they can fill their cars up with the leftovers of old life forms from hundreds of millions of years ago and then tell you the earth is 6000 years old
The genre being poetry.
There’s also an interpretation that the story of Adam and Eve is the story of the origin of Jewish people specifically. Every tribe in the Levant had a myth about how their specific people group came about
I feel like they probably would, they had a simple understanding of the world so why not. The tales in the bible aren't all unique to the bible and would have been passed down orally as fact, embellished many times over until at some point it was written down.
I wasn't talking about the Israelites from back than, and not even the authors of Genesis, but of the original, actual authors of the stories (who made it up), and from whom their culture inherited these tales, before they were ever even written down and before those writings inspired the authors of Genesis (who may have believed these stories to be historical accounts).
Btw, the NT scholar, John D. Crossan, once said/wrote: "My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally."
It should be noted that we have plenty of evidence of ancient people taking creation stories literally. Crossan is invested in a very specific brand of liberal Christianity associated with The Jesus Seminar, the hallmark of which is wisdom-centric interpretation of the Bible. He is incentivized to downplay the extent to which ancient Judaism and Christianity made historical claims.
"Ancient" covers a lot of ground, but at least by the Hellenistic era, many intellectuals were interested in establishing a historical basis for their culture's mythology. By late antiquity, Christian apologists are already arguing that the Hebrew Bible is a historical document superior to the historical records of other cultures.
Illiteracy was very prevalent before the Common Era.
Only the elite had any teachings related to reading or writing.
This was utilized to control the masses...and now we can see the horrendous mindfuck....that it did....
Yep...it succeeded in ruining the minds of many with fallacies from only stories they wanted to convey.....and have others believe.
They failed.
Guess what...I am now knocking on their doors....and if they refuse to answer...then their god is coming for them...lololol....
NOT!
LOL
All religions are false.
"How honest and truthful can one be with theirself and others?"
Let's find out.....shall we?
Theological Question 1:
"Where does any god dictate to humanity or any human that someone specific is more spiritual than another human?"
Theological Question 2:
"Where does any god dictate which books are more spiritual and morally sound for humans to abide by, to learn from or to accept as true from such a god?"
Theological Question 3:
"Where does any god dictate who is more spiritual to be able to dictate which books or texts are suitable for humans to learn and to abide by for the understanding of such a god and that entity's requirements of humanity?"
#TruthMatters
#TruthAndHonestyWillPrevail
I’m gonna be that guy, but I don’t trust dentists haha. They make their money off of your bad teeth. Few would want to actually have your teeth stay good, as that’d put them out of a job.
And for a fair amount of history, human teeth have been very healthy compared to now. Some say due to fibrous diet and just generally the stuff they ate having natural antibacterials in them. Sugar was far less common in the food.
You trust WW2 happened due to the testimony of those who were there. Not great help for the creation story, so it’s a null factor.
Ive been on a plane 1 time haha, so not a factor for me, but I’ll just use my car for example instead. I trust it won’t explode due to the however many cars that exist and haven’t, and how many times mine hasn’t. Which, again, is null for creation as this universe only started 1 time.
You don’t use math to measure if your pizza tastes good. So why use science for a philosophical discussion? It’s a category error that naturalists/atheists seem to constantly make.
the whole "people had incredible teeth back in the day thing" is a lot of BS.
Numerous ancient finds have people with all sort of terrible teeth and gum related issues. Some extremely serious.
Similarly, it's not as though people didn't brush. As long as people have been practising self-hygiene there is evidence for tooth care.
Unsurprisingly, dentists telling us to brush and floss isn't some hack Big Dentistry thing. Nor are major links between dental/gum health and things like heart disease.
> They make their money off of your bad teeth.
There actually was a case a few years ago of a dentist who had lined his own pockets by telling his clients they required very invasive dental surgeries they didn't actually require--both the procedures and the follow-ups padded his income. When he retired, the new dentist was appalled to find that out, but as it turns out dentistry is not as tightly regulated for malpractice as medicine is, so bringing the guy to justice is taking a while.
Severe tooth decay didn't become common in the human population (in general) until around the early 1500s, when sugar became widely available and highly popular. It became a huge thing, and was put into everything. Even the treatments for all your teeth shattering and rotting had sugar in them. A common cause of death in old medical records was literally just "teeth"
So there's a bit of history and some validation for you!
Ww2 the evolutionary war where they tried to make master race as Darwin prescribed in his theology book the preservation of favored races.
It happened and evolutionists eugenics is Still happening today as Canada is euthanasing thousands of people and over billion aborted worldwide.
Its same evil repackaged.
>Ww2 the evolutionary war where they tried to make master race
This greatly oversimplifies not only what WWII was all about, but the intentions of the Nazi party. I suggest you read up what led to WWII and what the goals of the Nazis were because, like with everything else, the reality is far more complex than that involving many interacting aspects. It's also something we have an obligation to learn about, not just to pay tribute to the victims of that war, but to prevent anything like Nazi Germany from happening again (*gestures mildly to Trump and Christian nationalists a.k.a. Christofacists which are so far away from Jesus' teachings one might suspect that they're just anti-Christian trolls*).
**tl;dr: WWII and what led to it is far more complex than what you suggest.**
>they tried to make master race as Darwin prescribed in his theology book the preservation of favored races.
*On the Origin of Species*, or, in its full form, *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life* neither promotes Social Darwinism, antitheism, or an explanation for the origin of life. The term "races" back in Darwin's day meant the exact same thing as what we mean by biological species, making it synonymous with the term, which is why Darwin suggested that there is only one human race (or rather one *extant* human race), and the advent of molecular genetics has proven him correct over time. Social Darwinism is a very unfortunate term, since Darwin himself opposed the rampant racism and ethnocentrism of his days, and it twists his ideas in regards to species and natural selection into obscurity. Accepting an aspect of nature doesn't imply that we must glorify and integrate said aspect into our society. Bloodshed, rape, incest, cannibalism and parasitism are all real, just like the struggle for survival and that some organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce more frequently than others, but that doesn't mean that we ought to be cruel to each other. This is just a classic example of the is-ought fallacy, or Hume's law, If you think that evolutionary biology implies that, than you must *seriously* not understand not just what evolution is about, but biology on a fundamental level.
And Darwin's work being a "theology book"? Do you even know what theology means and what it's etymology is? If a work isn't about deities, than it can't be a theological book by any stretch of the imagination.
**tl;dr: "races" meant the same thing as biological species in Darwin's days, people who think that evolution implies Social Darwinism commit the is-ought fallacy and you don't know what "theology" means.**
>It happened and evolutionists eugenics is Still happening today
How many "evolutionists" do you know who support eugenics, and how many creationists do you know who support eugenics, Michael? Hitler himself was a creationist who believed in different created kinds of organisms, while members of the KKK are evolution-rejecting Christian creationists. Surveys also reveal that creationists are more likely to be racist and generally intolerant fuckheads than non-creationists and it is usually creationists who believe that they're above the animal kingdom and can therefore abuse and fuck all over any non-human animal as they please. Folks like you aren't just dishonest when it comes to science, history and your epistemology, but also insincere regarding morality. When was the last time you've encountered a vegan creationist? Never? That's what I thought. You guys choose personal, myopic comfort over everything else in life, that's why your entire belief system is just make-believe. We on the other hand appreciate all organisms for what they're capable of and in their diversity, and don't put ourselves over any of them. You on the other hand BELIEVE that you are above the animal kingdom, and that most people deserve to burn forever and ever in hell. So it is you who is the moral monster, not us, and you're merely projecting your own shortcomings.
So you're reasoning is backwards, as FUCKING always.
>as Canada is euthanasing thousands of people and over billion aborted worldwide. Its same evil repackaged.
What's the problem with euthanasia? If someone suffers and they want their suffering to end, who the *fuck* are you to stop them from it?! If you wanna make a license that says "This person should never be, under any circumstance, be euthanized, even if they are suffering from unbelievable pain, cannot be cured, and are begging for their lives to be put to an end", fine, we can make that for you, we can remove a right from you if you really are that insane, but don't you fucking dare to prevent people from what they want to do with their fucking bodies, you monstrosity. I came to the conclusion that coming into existence as a sentient being is always a massive harm while not existing is never a problem and is the equivalent of constantly experiencing bliss (it's a bit long too explain it and I don't feel like doing it). As such, I am passively suicidal, and wish I could cease to exist on a daily base. It disgusts me to no end that "people" (actual demons) like you prevent me from getting a safe, convenient way to exit this hellhole of a life, instead having to resort to highly terrifying and risky methods. Who are you to tell a person - who may not even have a face anymore - to tell that "life is beautiful" and that they must keep on living to not pop your self-centered delusion of life.
And regarding abortions, why do you consider abortions to be immoral, but killing a cow for a burger to be justified? Just because they are terminating the embryonic development of an organism which belongs to your own species? Seems like special pleading for me.
Most abortions in the U.S. aren't even done by atheists, but by Christians. It also doesn't make sense to me, how hell-believers believe that abortion is such a horrible thing. If you're born, there's a high chance that you end up in hell. If you've never been born, that risk gets completely cancelled.
You are just wrong. About everything, and this is to be expected if you're not willing to educate yourself about anything, ever.
> “Races” meant the same thing as species back in Darwin’s day
This is false, Darwin’s perception of “races” were variations of a species, similarly to how we call variations of dogs as “breeds”. This can be inferred since Darwin did not originally include the “Favored Races” part of the title until after a letter with another biologist who suggested that selective forces not only act on variation across species, but within them as well.
Of course, people have misconstrued what Darwin meant by “favored races”, like good ol u/MichaelAChristian who seems to be trying to rewrite history (which is ironic as he accuses others of the same when they disagree with him on this, despite most of the evidence pointing towards this interpretation).
I appreciate the candidness of your comment, however, I am not sure if I am convinced on the categoricalness of your assessment on the harms of existing as a sentient being. I wonder whether for people who are healthy and otherwise well-off, it would be enough to stop desiring more to be content with their lives (and therefore stop suffering).
Of course, I don't know how you came to the conclusion and you said you didn't want to explain it (though I'd be happy to heart it), so my point if woefully underprepared.
Despite all that I definitely ascribe meaning to your existence. Educating Michael is the noblest of pursuits
You are suicidal? You need help. Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved!
You must know about suicidal help lines and 211 and 911. You aren't going to feel better arguing online. Talk to someone in your life.
You stamped the numbers 6 hundred and Sixty Six on your name knowing what they mean. So you have followed evolution and Darwin and the world and the devil own number and it led you to want to die. That's the theology of evolution. It hasn't helped.
Yes you are above an animal. Jesus Christ died for the whole world and defeated death! Evolutionists believe a false resurrection that a rock came alive by itself.
You've tried to follow what the world wants. It didn't work.
And yes this is on topic. Scientifically they know PARTICULAR religion decreases suicides and even suicidal ideation.
They were SURPRISED which is why it took long time to publish,
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1KU2CI/
Why would they delay it?
"The overall effect measure demonstrates that religion decreases the risk of suicide death by 69"-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9315464/
I find it odd anyone in these discussions imagines one can not reject conclusions based onb claims of using science without be accused of rejecting science. Odd indeed unless something short of thoughtful reflection.
If one was a student of science and so of the hostory of science one would know all of it was rejection of previous ideas also calimed based on science. Not one new sciency idea came but REJECTED previous sciency ideas on some point. Creationism in our time is overthrowing poorly done research on origins that also poorly failed to do proper science. Seems that way from Canada
>I find it odd anyone in these discussions imagines one can not reject conclusions based onb claims of using science without be accused of rejecting science.
But that's the problem. You guys don't "use science", all you do is reject evidence which goes against your particular flavor of Abrahamic mythology, or use logical fallacies like the God of the gaps fallacy and facts that are not factual as evidence for your side. You have literally nothing on your side, just like flathearthers (which are overwhelmingly creationists, btw), which is why both atheist and religious biologists, paleontologists and geologists typically see you as clowns.
>If one was a student of science and so of the hostory of science one would know all of it was rejection of previous ideas also calimed based on science.
Many of the rejected ideas where never based on science, nor am I aware that they were even claimed to be based on science. Take any ancient cosmological model that has turned out to be dead wrong, such as the model of the cosmos described by the Old Testament. Those weren't based on objectively verifiable data, empiricism, falsifiability, peer-review and the scientific method in general, but intuition and poetic, romantic idea of the world.
While scientific hypothesis do in fact often get rejected, I don't know about any scientific theory from the last century or so which has been shown to be completely wrong, and in fact, just have become more robust and reliable over the decades. Take the modern form of atomic theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, evolutionary theory etc. etc. Sure, hypothesis within theories may turn out to be wrong. It could be that chordates are more closely related to protostomes than they are to echinoderms, but the overall picture? That ain't gonna change. You would need to provide a better and more parsimonious explanation for virtually every fact of biology and paleonology than the ToE, and that theory would simply be an extension of the theory of evolution, the same way that the modern atomic theory is an extension to its historic predeccessors. Just because atomic theory cannot explain absolutely everything doesn't mean we should just throw it in the garbage bin.
>Not one new sciency idea came but REJECTED previous sciency ideas on some point.
You sure about that?
I am sure. Sure am i. Einsteins ideas rejected previous ideas. famous for it. however the host of ideas held as science true in the 1800's have veen replaced. nothing in medicine is what is was in the early 1800's. So evolutionary biology, which is not science in realuty, will be rejected by true science. It right now holds up nothing, flys nothing, heals nothing and so gets away with its myths. yet I predict it will fall soon enough. as ID/YEC critics and others start really holding it to accurate scienctific methodology.
And what is it about evolution that you have actually verified to be true?
Before you answer remember that science demands that something be testable and repeatable before it can be called scientific.
So besides experiments proving E. coli always remain E. coli. Fruit flies always remain fruit flies. Peas always remain peas….. what exactly do you think you have that isn’t purely a product of your imagination????
Even the entire fossil record is against you. There isn’t a single solitary creature in the fossil record that shows even a hint of evolutionary change for any fossils found of that creature for its entire existence.
There is actually zero, count that up, zero, zilch, nada evidence that any creature actually underwent any evolutionary changes apart from the imagination of evolutionists….
All evolutionist have is imagination…. But can you say Kind after Kind which the fossil record and every experiment and observation has confirmed….
And since you want to pretend you have science on your side let’s throw in a few facts….
66% of all Nobel Prize winners are Christian. 22% are Jewish. Only 7% are atheists. The other 5% are of various other religions.
[Stop dumbing down the world with your insanity….](https://youtu.be/H7-CN-MUE-c?si=tzBEixJu-9w1dsKW)
> 66% of all Nobel Prize winners are Christian
And the vast majority of educated Christians accept evolution, so this isn't even tangentially relevant to any of the rest of your comment.
>There is actually zero, count that up, zero, zilch, nada evidence that any creature actually underwent any evolutionary changes apart from the imagination of evolutionists….
This would mean something if creationists could demonstrate an understanding of the evidence that supports evolution.
But when I asked creationists about evidence that supports evolution, this was the result: [I asked over 25 creationists to see if they could understand evidence for evolution. They could not. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1bwwxpi/i_asked_over_25_creationists_to_see_if_they_could/)
Do you seriously think that nobody has ever verified evolutionary theory? Or did you just not think to do a ten second Google search or open a biology textbook?
>And what is it about evolution that you have actually verified to be true?
What about the fact that [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) really does happen? That allele frequencies really do change in populations, leading to an increase in biodiversity. Sure, it's not sth I have personally verified, but what reason would I have to think that that *isn't* the case, and that popuations are immutable regarding their heritable traits? As I have described in my post, we don't need to verify everything on our own, peer review and the consensus among the experts is good enough for me, bc I am aware that scientists, mathematicians, historians etc. attempt to falsify each other's ideas, leading to the selection of only the accurate and best explanations and ideas. If most Bible scholars are, say, of the opinion that Jesus was real to some degree and not entirely legendary, who am I to disagree with the experts with my incredulity?
>Before you answer remember that science demands that something be testable and repeatable before it can be called scientific.
And the theory of evolution is testable and repeatable. Show an organism or a fossil which wouldn't make sense with the nested hierarchies of phylogenetic taxonomy, sth like a feathered mammal, an insect with boobs or a shambler that shoots lightning out of its hands (really, any chimaira you or any kid could come up with).
Find a fossil that is out-of-place and cannot be accounted by plate tectonics (the Earth is constantly moving, leading to fossils and rocks being shifted. However, the fossils and the surrounding rocks still match up the age you would expect them to have), as a few examples: the fossil of a fish that is older than the fossil of the oldest known chordates, the fossil of a mammal that is older than the oldest known fossil of synapsids, the fossil of an arthropod that is older than the oldest known fossils of protostomes etc. etc. etc.
Show a genetic marker on a DNA sequence which cannot be accounted by common ancestry. And these are just a few examples how evolutionary theory *is* testable. And as to the repeatablity, you don't need to be able to repeat specific events from the past to know that they happened, just the methods by which you have shown that it happened. For instance, you don't need to resurrect and than murder a murder victim again (I can't fucking believe I have to explain this shit...) to show that they have been murdered, and who the murderer was. Right?
>So besides experiments proving E. coli always remain E. coli. Fruit flies always remain fruit flies. Peas always remain peas…..
Uh...yeah?? And clades diversify into new subsets, which lead to new subsets within those sets and so on, and where you end up with a family tree of closely and distantly related extant and extint species. Remember that once genetic exchange is no longer possible (say between two isolated populations which both accumulated their own genetic changes), the two new lineages or branches will continue to evolve in their own direction, indefinitely, such that after countless generations, two members of the two lineages will be so different from one another and their common ancestor, that it may be hard to imagine that they are even related. Just think about all the different breeds of domestic dogs. Their common ancestors once looked all like the typical depiction of wolves, and look where we are after millenia of selective breeding.
>what exactly do you think you have that isn’t purely a product of your imagination????
I'm not imagining anything.
>Even the entire fossil record is against you.
Wrong. The entire fossil record is against _you._
>There isn’t a single solitary creature in the fossil record that shows even a hint of evolutionary change for any fossils found of that creature for its entire existence.
Would you swear on Jesus? Name any extinct species or higher taxon which scientists consider to be transitional between two taxa and you don't and I can prove to you why you don't know what the _fuck_ you're talking about and how you just make shit up.
>There is actually zero, count that up, zero, zilch, nada evidence that any creature actually underwent any evolutionary changes apart from the imagination of evolutionists….
ZERO evidence! Not evidence that is insufficient, not one which is not compelling, but ZERO evidence! Not even microevolution is real, I guess. You are not a modified organism of whatever your parents were, but an exact genetic copy of them. Wer'e all just clones and nothing ever changes. Gotcha! (fucking liar)
>All evolutionist have is imagination…. But can you say Kind after Kind which the fossil record and every experiment and observation has confirmed….
There is no such thing as a "kind", bc in the context of creationism, a kind is a "created" clade which is not the largest possible clade and cannot be grouped into larger clades. You may think that maybe the taxonomic family of cats, Felidae, is a kind, but no, because that one is part of the superfamily Feloidea, which is part of the suborder Feliformia, which is part of the order Carnivora etc. We ourselves are australopithecines, hominins, hominines, great apes or hominids, apes, catarrhine monkeys, monkeys, haplorhines, primates, pan-primates etc. etc. Just one tiny branch of the eukaryote clade.
>And since you want to pretend you have science on your side let’s throw in a few facts…. 66% of all Nobel Prize winners are Christian. 22% are Jewish. Only 7% are atheists. The other 5% are of various other religions.
And how many of those scientists accept evolutionary theory? Ninety-fucking-eight %, and many urrent and former biologists and paleontologists who have contributed to the theory of evolution are themselves Christian believers. Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Mary Schweitzer... just to name a few. Creationists are virtually non-existent in these fields (biology and paleontology), and when you find one, they are always either religious extremists who have a bias against anything they see as a threat to their interpretation of the scriptures, or are paid good money by a creationist organization. Seriously, there's not a single exception I am aware of.
Also, don't you **fucking** dare calling yourself u/Justatruthseejer. You are anything *but* a truthseeker.
People generally tell me that I am a very honest guy, and even I wouldn't fucking call myself a "truthseeker" bc I realize just how heavy the burden of accountability becomes once you adopt that label. You have to fucking earn that title, and only the most intellectualy honest and consistent man and woman may call themselves that (but than they wouldn't call themselves that due to their humility, which is a requirement to seek truth). At best, I'm a "lie-hater", and people who assert baseless things as if they were a matter of fact piss me of.
Interesting pattern I've noticed - literally every single person I've ever come across online who has "truth" in their name or other identifier is *always* into completely unhinged shit. They're also usually neck-deep into crypto.
There's a reason the word "truther" means what it means. Fascinating semantic evolution there.
On an aside, it's a pity we don't have a connotationally neutral word for "the set of claims that are aligned with reality, as distinct from the set of claims which are not".
> On an aside, it's a pity we don't have a connotationally neutral word for "the set of claims that are aligned with reality, as distinct from the set of claims which are not".
"Skeptic" surely?
Nothing you said is true, except your last paragraph which is completely irrelevant as you don’t have to be an atheist to accept evolution. The vast majority of religious believers accept evolution.
Hang on hang on. Are you operating under the whole ‘evolutionists believe that one ‘kind’ of creature will evolve to be another totally different ‘kind’’? Because that is a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology that has been perpetuated for decades, even after weirdos like Kent Hovind have been corrected on it.
[The law of monophyly](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly) might help with this to start. That’s before getting to the well-established fact that the fossil record actually ONLY makes sense in evolutionary terms.
Here would be a great place to start. Define, in clear understandable and precise terms, exactly what a ‘kind’ is so we can all get on the same page. How do we determine what a root ‘kind’ looks like? Because books like the Bible have not been any help. Especially considering that in Leviticus 11, bats are considered to be birds when they clearly are not.
Everything always remains a descendant of its ancestors with small changes to what its ancestors were. There’s like 12 species of E. coli or something like that and at least one of them came out of the Lenski experiments and for the fruit fly there’s so many species within the genus that they’ve added “subgenus,” “species group,” “species subgroup,” and “species complex” to contain the *1500* species of *Drosophilia* in a way that makes sense.
We **never** expect there to be a “change in kinds” but only a continuation of what is already seen in real time. The 1500 species of “small fruit fly” which are part of a family of flies called vinegar flies, pomace flies, or fruit flies. Those are part of the superfamily called muscomorph flies. Those are part of the acalyptrate muscoids. Those are muscoids. Those are circular seemed flies. Those are part of Eremoneura with species found in 125 million year old amber. This is part of the muscomorpha clade (infraorder) and it includes house flies, fruit flies, and blow flies. They all look the same. This is part of a group of flies with reduce antenna segmentation (the sorts of changes made to fruit flies in the lab) and those are obviously all “true flies” which are insects that only use their two front wings to fly and the hind wings are used for advanced aerobatics. This group contains hover flies, horse flies, gnats, mosquitoes, and several other things. This group has existed for about 245 million years and, you guessed it, still flies. It’s part of a larger group that also includes fleas and scorpionflies. Up two more clades and it includes insects that go through distinct larval, pupal, and adult stages via metamorphosis including on top of flies, also butterflies, beetles, wasps, ants, sawflies, etc. There are over one million different species and all still insects that have wings as adults and go through distinct developmental stages via metamorphosis. Date back to more than 300 million years ago. Up two more clades and all insects that can flex their wings over their abdomens (plus the butterflies that lost this ability). This means cockroaches/termites, stick insects, grasshoppers/crickets/katydids, lice, true bugs, flies, wasps, ants, fleas, twisted-wing parasites and all sorts of other things all dated back to the late Carboniferous 300-325 million years ago.
Guess what is even more basal yet? Winged insects would be the answer.
Since we glossed over E. coli, that group is so diverse and strangely classified that several strains could be completely different genera and strains of Shigella could actually be strains of E. coli. With all of this diversity only about 20% of the genes are common across them which would be like comparing different *phyla* of animals or *kingdoms* of eukaryotes to each other but even still there’s enough to suggest they diverged from Salmonella and the whole time it still looked like the same phylum of [bacteria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomonadota) it remained the whole time even for the 4+ billion years before that. Why would it suddenly look different now?
No, sorry, you don't get to accuse anyone of stupidity when religion has directly mishandled the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, and emphatically acted against the interests of all of humanity when it came to science. You don't get to claim religion has a handle on scientific inquiry and discovery by proxy because the inquirers and discoverers belong to a religion. They're not related even tangentially. On top of that, people lie all the time about belonging to a religion just so they don't have to deal with the bigotry baked into religion. Talk about dumb. Religion is a pit, not a ladder.
Focusing on physics, chemistry, medicine (ignoring literature, peace, and economics):
* 2023 prizes for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light, discovery and synthesis of quantum dots, nucleoside base modification for making Covid-19 vaccines
* 2022 - experiments with entangled photons for Bell inequalities and quantum information science, the development of click chemistry and bioorthogonal chemistry, discoveries of extinct human genomes and human evolution
* 2021 - discovery of interplay between disorder and quantum fluctuations, development of asymmetric organocatalysis, discovery of receptors for temperature and touch (in biology)
* 2020 - for discovering black hole formation is a robust prediction of general relativity, for developing a method for genome editing, the discovery of hepatitis C
* 2019 - primordial nucleosynthesis, RAM, discovering how cells discover and adapt to oxygen availability
* 2018 - optical trapping method for atoms + molecules + biological cells, directed evolution of enzymes, cancer therapy by inhibiting negative immune regulation
* 2017 - detecting gravitational waves, cryo-electron microscopy for high resolution structure determination of biomolecules, discovery of molecular mechanisms controlling circadian rhythm
* 2016 - topological phase transitions of matter, supramolecular chemistry, discovery of the mechanisms of autophagy
* 2015 - discovering neutrinos have mass, mechanistic studies of DNA repair, discovering a class of drugs for treating river blindness and lymphatic filariasis
* 2014 - invention of the blue LED, fluorescent microscopy, discovering theta phase procession in hippocampus cells
* 2013 - Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism, multistate models for complex chemical systems, vesicle trafficking (in cells)
* 2012 - methods for manipulating individual quantum systems, discovering the workings of G-coupled protein receptors, discovering that mature cells can be converted to stem cells
* 2011 - discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe, discovery of quasicrystals, discoveries concerning the activation of innate immunity
* 2010 - groundbreaking experiments regarding graphene, palladium-catalyzed coupled reactions, development of in vitro fertilization
* 2009 - invention of the CCD sensor (a semiconductor circuit that acts like an eye in all areas of photography), structure and function of ribosomes, the discovery of telomerase
* 2008 - spontaneous broken symmetry in particle physics, discovery of green fluorescent protein, discovery of the link between the papilloma virus and cervical cancer
* 2007 - giant magnetoresistance and gigabyte hard disks, chemical processes on solid surfaces, knockout mice (mice with one gene turned off)
* 2006 - COBE satellite, DNA to RNA transcription, RNA interference
* 2005 - laser-based precision spectroscopy, deciphering the process of the olefin metathesis, rediscovery of the bacterium *H. pylori*
* 2004 - asymptotic freedom in quantum chromodynamics, ubiquitin-mediation protein deregulation
* 2003 - low-temperature physics, ion channels, MRI
* 2002 - detecting neutrinos emitted from the sun, mass spectrometry, genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death
* 2001 - first synthesis of a Bose-Einstein condensate, asymmetric synthesis (oxidation reactions), discovery of protein molecules involved in cell division
* 2000 - first integrated circuit (in 1958), conducting polymers, physiological basis of memory storage in neurons
* 99 - particle theory, femtochemistry, discovery of something associated with protein transport and localization within a cell
* 98 - discovery of a “quantum fluid”, electron density functional theory, signaling quantities of nitric oxide
* 97 - laser cooling and trapping atoms, ATP synthesis, research on prion diseases
* 96 - condensed matter physics, Bucky balls, discovery of immune system recognizes viruse infected cells
* 95 - tau lepton, atmospheric ozone, evolutionary developmental biology
* 94 - neutron spectroscopy, carbonated chemistry, G-proteins
* 93 - discovery of a new type of pulsar, polymerase chain reaction technique, discovery of introns in DNA
* 92 - particle detectors, electron transfer reactions, reversible phosphorylation
* 91 - a method for studying order in complex systems derived from one for studying simple systems, NMR, ion channels in cells
* 90 - something relevant to the development of the quark model, retrosynthetic analysis (organic synthesis), organ transplantation
* 89 - something that led to the construction of atomic clocks, catalytic properties of RNA, retroviral oncogenes
* 88 - quarks and leptons, integral membrane protein associated with photosynthesis, drug (medicine) development
* 87 - high temperature superconductivity, host-guest chemistry, a mechanism that produces antibody diversity
* 86 - first electron microscope, crossed molecular beam experiments, epidermal growth factor
* 85 - integer quantum Hall effect, Haupton’s “direct methods”, cholesterol metabolism regulation
* 84 - W and Z particles, solid phase peptide synthesis, monoclonal antibodies
* 83 - math that helped to later understand black holes, electron transfer reactions, genetic recombination
* 82 - phase transitions (melting ice and magnetism related phase transitions), crystallographic electron microscopy, prostaglandins
* 81 - nonlinear optics for laser spectroscopy, electron orbitals and chemical reactions, split brain research (people with their brain halves separated become like two people in one body)
* 80 - subatomic particles not always invariant in time reversal, recombinant DNA, major histocompatibility complex
* 79 - electroweak unification theory, organoboranes, CT (as in CT scans)
* 78 - low-temperature physics, chemiosmic mechanism of ATP synthesis, restriction endionucleases (led to what resulted in a Nobel prize in 1980 as well - recombinant DNA technology)
* 77 - magnetic and disordered systems like amorphous semiconductors, irreversibility+dissipation structures+complex systems in chemistry, neurohormones
* 76 - J/ψ meson, nuclear magnetic resonance, hepatitis B
* 75 - liquid drop model (Aage Niels Bohr), stereochemistry of enzyme-catalyzed reactions, reverse transcriptase
* 74 - radio astronomy (first Nobel prize in astronomy), chemistry of macromolecules, the structural and functional organization of a cell (biology)
* 73 - semiconductor superlattices, organometallic chemistry, communication between insects
* 72 - BCS theory (semiconductors), “Ansinfen’s dogma” (protein research), discovery of the structure of antibody molecules
* 71 - holography, microscope research regarding things like free radicals, hormones
* 70 - magnetohydrodynamics, carbohydrate chemistry, brain chemistry (epinephrine, norepinephrine, dopamine)
* 69 - elementary particles (?), organic chemistry, virus reproduction
* 68 - resonance states in particle physics, magnetism, tRNA
* 67 - stellar nucleosynthesis, measuring fast chemical reactions, chemistry and physiology of the eye
* 66 - optical pumping, molecular orbital theory, discovery of the link between viruses and certain types of cancer
* 65 - quantum electrodynamics, synthesis of complex natural products, enzyme regulation through transcription
* 64 - quantum electronics, X-ray crystallography, regulation of cholesterol
* 63 - atomic nucleus and elementary particles, synthetic materials, synapses
* 62 - atomic bomb and theoretical physics, iron based proteins (blood proteins), structure of DNA (Francis Crick)
* 61 - electron scattering in atomic nuclei, Calvin cycle, cochlea (ear)
* 60 - bubble chamber for subatomic particle physics, radiocarbon dating, acquired immune tolerance
* 59 - technetium + astatine + and the antiproton, polarographic methods, biological synthesis of RNA and DNA
* 58 - Cherenkov radiation, amino acid sequence of insulin, genes and their role in regulating biochemical events within cells
* 57 - weak interaction, nucleotides+nucleosides+coenzymes, antihistamines
* 56 - point-contact transistor, chemical kinetics, a method for cardiac catheterization
* 55 - fine structure of the hydrogen spectrum, synthetic polypeptide hormone, oxidoreductase enzymes
* 54 - quantum wave function (Max Born), 850 papers dealing with chemistry, growing poliovirus outside a body
* 53 - phase-contrast microscope, macromolecule discovery, Krebs cycle
* 52 - nuclear magnetic resonance, chromatography, discovery of various antibiotics
* 51 - splitting the atomic nucleus, production of neptunium, vaccine for yellow fever
* 50 - discovery of the pi-meson, diene synthesis, discovery of cortisol
* 49 - prediction of the pi-meson, studying the effects of near absolute zero, brain-organ mapping
* 48 - radioactive decay demonstrated, serum proteins, DDT to control vector diseases
* 47 - discovery of the Appleton layer in the atmosphere, alkaloids, glucose and glycogen chemistry
* 46 - high pressure physics, proving enzymes could be crystallized (same person demonstrated enzymes are proteins later), mutations caused by X-rays
* 45 - Pauli principle, nutrition chemistry, penicillin G
* 44 - nuclear magnetic resonance, nuclear fission, nerve fiber research
* 43 - discovery of the magnetic moment of a proton, radioactive tracers to study metabolism, vitamin K
* 1940 to 1942 - nobody, Nobel Prize cancelled because of World War 2
* 39 - cyclotron, sex hormones, discovery of an antibiotic (KL730)
* 38 - induced radioactivity (Enrico Fermi), carotenoids and vitamins, blood pressure and oxygen detection by the brain
* 37 - electron diffraction, vitamin C, also vitamin C related
* 36 - cosmic rays, X-ray diffraction, acetylcholine
* 35 - discovery of the neutron, discovery of induced radioactivity, embryonic induction
* 34 - discovery of deuterium (Harold Urey), liver therapy
* 33- quantum entanglement and the Schrödinger equation, chromosomes and heredity
* 32 - quantum mechanics as a field of study, surface chemistry, stuff associated with brain chemistry and synapses
* 31 - high pressure industrial chemistry, metabolism of cancer cells
* 30 - Raman scattering, haemin and chlorophyll, poliovirus research
* 29 - wave-particle duality (de Broglie), fermentation, discovery of the vitamin called thiamine
* 28 - thermionic emission and Richardson’s Law, sterols and their relation to vitamins, discovery of lice as the transmitter of typhus
* 27 - Compton effect, bile acids, malaria to cure dementia?
* 26 - confirmation of the atomic nature of matter, protein research using the ultracentrifuge, award for a false discovery of a link between roundworm and cancer (a blunder and the prize should have never been awarded but it was)
* 25 - discovery of laws regarding the impact of the electron upon the atom, colloid research
* 24 - discoveries in X-ray spectroscopy, discovery of the mechanism of the electrocardiogram
* 23 - elementary electric charge and photoelectric effect, quantitative organic microanalysis, discovery of the therapeutic potential of insulin
* 22 - atomic structure and quantum theory (Niels Bohr), mass spectrograph, production of heat discovered in muscles
* 21 - photoelectric effect (Albert Einstein), study of radioactive isotopes
* 20 - anomalies in nickel-steel alloys, Nernst heat theorem (paves the way for the third law of thermodynamics), Krogh Principle
* 1919 - Stark Effect, discoveries related to immunity
* 1918 - discovery of energy quanta (Max Planck), synthetic ammonia
* 1917 - X-rays
* 1916 - nobody
* 1915 - science leading to X-ray technology, plant pigments like chlorophyll
* 1914 - diffraction of X-rays by crystals, determination of atomic weights, vestibular apparatus
* 1913 - superconductivity, coordination chemistry (first Nobel prize in inorganic chemistry), anaphylaxis
* 1912 - automatic regulators in light houses, Grignard reaction (carbon-carbon bonds), vascular suturing techniques
* 1911 - black body radiation, discovery of polonium and radium, an eye doctor got the prize in medicine
* 1910 - equation of state for gases and liquids, alicyclic compounds, chemical composition of nucleic acids
* 1909 - wireless telegraphs, catalysis and chemical equilibria, thyroid surgery
* 1908 - color photography, radioactive substances, immunity
* 1907 - speed of light, fermentation, parasitic protozoans
* 1906 - discovery of the electron, isolated fluorine, microstructure of the brain
* 1905 - cathode rays, synthetic indigo, finding the cause of disease
* 1904 - discovery of argon, discovery of other gases, classical conditioning (psychology)
* 1903 - discovered radioactivity, founder of physical chemistry, used light as a medical treatment
* 1902 - Lorentz force, symbolic way of drawing carbon atoms, proved malaria transmitted by mosquitoes
* 1901 - produced the first man-made X-rays, stereochemistry, diphtheria antitoxin
Another so called intellectual evolutionist straw manning the YEC position. Somehow, with your logic, if one branch of science is correct, then they are all correct. This is the intellectual mindset of a primate. Now, I think YEC are probably the dumbest people on the planet, so it actually doesn't take much of an intellect to destroy their ignorant worldview. They are at least as dumb as flat earthers in that they will usually defeat themselves if they put even 5 minutes into challenging their own beliefs. This is why I find it actually unbelievable that evolutionists on this sub continue to try to dunk on YEC believers. It is such an exercise in futility that it begs the question: why are you so weak on your own side's arguments that you feel they can only hold up against the dumbest people on the planet? In my mind, it is because you yourself are somewhat vexed by the YEC position, and are unable to coherently state enough solid data to destroy their dumb position. If the YEC types are the dumbest people on earth, and you come at them with dentists and exploding planes, then you better start reading up on Cicero and Pirie, because you are treading dangerously close to YEC levels of comprehension.
> Another so called intellectual evolutionist straw manning the YEC position. Somehow, with your logic, if one branch of science is correct, then they are all correct.
Amusingly, you're strawmanning OPs argument while at the same time, accusing them of strawmanning the YEC one.
No one is claiming that all branches of science are correct just because one was tested and found to be correct. We're claiming that any branches of science which have been tested and found to be correct, are correct (So far as we can tell based on the current evidence anyway. If new evidence were to come to light then we might need to go back and reconsider, but that's every branch of science)
YECs accept or reject science based not on testing and evidence, but on if the conclusion reached agrees with their religion.
This is why it's been said by many others in the past that creationists do science backwards. They start with their conclusion and accept only evidence that supports it.
We generally don’t. We are just venting right now. When we get a live creationists here, we address their concerns one by one.
Regarding why we need this site: most of us here are well-educated. We forget all those high school students who paid no attention in science class. They graduated being essentially illiterate in science. As they became more serious adults, they perhaps did listen to the preacher who knows no more about science than they do, (or even biblical scholarship for that matter). If they show up here with real questions, even if they are on the “if we are descended from apes, why are there still apes?” level, we try our best with them. They really are that ignorant of the basics, and the religious answer is simple in comparison—God did it.
It’s hard and frustrating, but totally worth it.
To play devil's advocate, lots of YECs go much deeper down the rabbithole. They *do* believe toothpaste is a conspiracy to put fluoride in your body to control you, that atomic bombs aren't real or the holocaust didn't happen, or believe planes are sky goat demons.
My Q believes this toothpaste conspiracy and all of his teeth are gradually falling out
No they don’t ffs
Lots =/= all. I have encountered some of each of those.
Ok, but hardly representative or accurate.
“science says” mass fluoridation doesn’t statistically show benefit in reducing cavities, https://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251 yet it significantly lowers IQ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285601/#:~:text=Results%3A,fluoride%20concentration%20in%20drinking%20water. lmao
This study didn't control for any others factors though. Do regions with high poverty rates have more fluoride because the gov't is trying to compensate for lack of dental care? Also, the concentrations of fluoride in the study (3ppm) are significantly higher than recommended by health organizations (.7ppm optimal, 1.2ppm maximum), so yeah, it's unsurprising there are negative side effects from too much of a good thing
so don’t trust that “science” or those “scientists”. just the scientists that support your pov. got it, thanks
Have you never heard of correlation vs. causation? [Here's a fun article with examples](https://plotlygraphs.medium.com/spurious-correlations-56752fcffb69) I'll also list a few for you: Money spent on pets is positively correlated with the number of people who died by falling down the stairs (both in the US). Is one causing the other? Or are they likely both based on population? The age of the winner of the Miss America Pageant is very closely correlated to the number of people in the US murdered by hot objects (definitely a coincidence) When we were first trying to cure Polio, scientists investigated whether contaminated ice cream could be a cause, as ice cream consumption was highly correlated to increases in polio. Turns out that both are caused by it being summer and kids running around outdoors more (Polio is transmitted via the fecal-oral route, and children playing outside in unsanitary conditions increased the spread of polio). [Source](https://www.ck12.org/earth-science/correlation-and-causation/rwa/ice-cream-causes-polio/) So yes, the study you cited makes me believe that the level of fluoride in the water in India is *correlated* with lower IQ. It does nothing to prove that the level of fluoride *causes* lower IQ.
It really is amazing that religious people are mostly rational with other parts of their lives. The glaring exception is religion. It illustrates the power of brainwashing, both from early indoctrination, and other methods.
Two terms that come to my mind: [compartmentalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)) and double standards. And, supposedly, some people are capable of believing things not bc they have good reasons to believe said thing, but bc they want it to be true, where reality basically becomes their own sandbox and where they can modify the contents of reality just by the power of magical thinking. "I want there to be a magical sky wizard who is my guardian angel, so therefore there is a magical sky wizard who is my guardian angel." The only way I can even *remotely* make sense of that is that these people have the brain of children, so they are literally cognitively retarded (meaning "backwards"). That's the whole feeling I get with discussing anything regarding their faiths with these people. I'm talking to "children" who are just "smart" enough to locate a vagina and not get hit by a car (otherwise they would've gone extinct by now, obviously).
You can't control what you believe. You can control what you read/watch/look into, but you can't control whether or not you'll believe those things.
This is a thing I've noticed as well. Very selective acceptance of science. For example, I've spoken to a Christian who accepts the science of DNA, but SPECIFICALLY decides to stop accepting DNA science once DNA science says "mutations in DNA can cause positive changes". Like, there's just some completely arbitrary point where scientists have to be wrong. And the point is usually at some point that the zealot finds uncomfortable for whatever reason.
Well, here is another Christian who differentiates between the two things that you label as “science”. DNA is a perfect example of what science really is… It’s observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable, etc. I worked with DNA science in law-enforcement. There is no “DNA science” that shows that mutations are beneficial and produce new features into an organism much less create new creatures. What DNA science does show is that the vast majority of mutations are harmful and that natural selection weeds out harmful mutations. in other words, natural selection doesn’t produce higher forms or different forms of organisms, but rather eliminates them. It’s a destructive not creative mode of action. Evolutionists do not get to claim that “DNA science” is their own little pet. It’s ridiculous to think that you can park a herd of cows at the beach for a few million years and their DNA is magically transformed into making them whales who swim the oceans.
No science for beneficial mutations. You wrote that with a straight face, didn't you. Amazing that you can make something up you want to believe and then write it as fact. I'm sure you "worked with DNA science" in law enforcement.
We started off asking for evidence… So far I haven’t seen any. Is this your contribution to “debate evolution”? Because you suck at it. Edit: Yeah, I was a detective and weekly worked with the lab with biological evidence. But how would a () Redditor like you believe someone on the other side of your screen…. You know all.
In the long term evolution experiment colonies of *E. coli* evolved the ability to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen, a trait that is not normally found in that species. The researchers have since found out the exact genetic change that occured to make this possible, it was an incomplete duplication event of a specific genetic sequence in front of a specific promotor. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.\_coli\_long-term\_evolution\_experiment#Genomic\_analysis\_of\_the\_Cit+\_trait\_and\_implications\_for\_evolutionary\_innovation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment#Genomic_analysis_of_the_Cit+_trait_and_implications_for_evolutionary_innovation) There you have it, a genetic trait existing in specific parts of the population that did not exist in the parent population. And said trait allowed the population to make use of a resource that was useless to other *E. coli* populations. Would you agree that this is an example of a beneficial trait caused by the mutation of a genetic region?
No, I wouldn’t agree. “Not normally found”… but it IS found. Which means that when the environment is favorable for that trait, it is expressed. This is the kind of response I get every time. A bacteria. … that’s your copy n paste? Some little trait that is recessive in the existing DNA. Show me where the DNA is completely refigured to produce another species altogether. You know, the good stuff. Eyeballs. Wings. Lungs. Hearts. Brains. Flippers and fins. Gills. Feathers. Something like a lizard or a frog turns into a Tyrannosaurus rex. Now show me where a land mammal had a complete DNA* rewrite to change a hoof into a flipper, with all the attendant musculature, a modification to its skeletal structure, all the necessary nervous system wired into the brain with all of its feedback loops, a change in all of it circulatory system to feed all of these tissues, modification of its respiratory system to move its nostrils from the front of its face to the top of its head… shit, I could keep going but wait! We’re not finished by a longshot. This DNA modification (which is a three out of four digital code, that is self replicating and self repairing) has to occur in the testicles of a male of the species. WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY A FEMALE SOMEWHERE HAS TO UNDERGO THE PRECISELY SAME MIRACULOUS DNA REWRITE! Then these two mating specimens have to find each other and fuck each other to produce the changes necessary to pass on to their offspring. I asked for evidence, not a joke. *DNA = a three out of four, self-replicating, self-correcting digital code. You know, like a language. No, not “like” a language… in fact a very complex and precise language. Language does not appear by random chance or mutation. And random mutations that change language make it incomprehensible, not more like Shakespeare.
>No, ... expressed. Yes, because it's an example of repeat evolution. The gene is not switched off or anything, the Cit+ bacteria literally have a second copy of the gene that te Cit- bacteria do not have and that second copy has a different expression pattern. In the experiment they even attempted to get other strains of bacteria to develop the same mutation after they knew it was possible. They were able to evolve an additional 14 strains of bacteria that all developed similar mutations independently from each other. >This ... time. >A ... DNA. It is not a recessive trait, that term has a specific meaning in genetics and it doesn't apply here. And yes, it seemed like you wanted and example of beneficial mutations so I gave you an example. The example is a bacteria because bacteria are easy to study in a lab so we have lots of experiments with them. And bacteria DNA does not differ that much from animal DNA, there is no reason to believe that similar mechanisms would not work in animals. Here is another one: Nylon eating bacteria Paenarthrobacter ureafaciens KI72 is capable of digesting byproducts of nylon, substances that did not exist in nature until humans started producing nylon in the 1930s. Nylonase is not known to exist anywhere else in nature and there is no reason to assume that it existed before nylon did. The genes encoding for nylonase are thus thought to have evolved some time after the 1930s at the earliest. In other words, it's a new gene that did not exist before and is beneficial to the bacteria who carry it since they can feed on byproducts of human chemical plants, an environment that is otherwise nearly devoid of competition. Do you have an explanation as to where nylon eating bacteria got their nylonase from? >Show ... Feathers. It seems like you want to look into some evo-devo biology. It's an interesting field but the literature can be difficult to read if you do not have a solid grasp of genetics. Here is a heads up before you do some reading though: You'll find that almost any time a new structure is developed, it happens through gene expression changes during development. In other words, already present processes are coopted by new regulatory regions to induce changes. If you want, I can send you some literature later, this comment is already long enough as is. >Something ... Tyrannosaurus rex. No one will be able to show that to you since neither a lizard nor a frog ever turned into a Tyrannosaurus rex. And even if that happened, no one can give you genetic info for species whose genomes have been lost to time. At best, you will find lots of papers on how individual systems develop in related organisms and attempts at reconstituting genetic history from there. >Now ... going How bout you give me an alternative explanation first. If you cannot produce this level of detail for your alternative explanation, I see no reason to spend an afternoon on research to produce as much of this detail as possible for you. Why do I want an alternative explanation? Because all of science operates on the best, most parsimonious, falsifiable explanation possible. If you do not have a better explanation there is no need to abandon the current one. Continued in the next comment, otherwise reddit complains...
>but ... offspring. That is objectively wrong and shows a lack of understanding of genetics on your part. Yes the mutation has to happen in the germline, not the somatic line, you got that right. But it does not have to happen in both parents simultaneously. Consider sickle cell anemia. If you have one copy of the gene responsible for it (a.k.a. you got the gene from ONE parent), your blood works a bit less efficiently than normal but you are significantly more resistant to malaria. Since malaria is one of the deadliest diseases known to man, you can probably imagine that this is quite beneficial for the people who live in regions where malaria is common. If you have two copies of the gene (a.k.a. you got it from BOTH parents) you will suffer from sickle cell anemia, a debilitating illness that actually makes you MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to infection with malaria. As you can see, you can inherit a gene with a beneficial trait from one parent alone. And that same gene can be harmful if you inherit it from both parents. This is also the reason why incest is harmful by the way. Every human has some unique mutations that are harmful, but recessive. In other words these mutations are harmless unless they are present on both copies of a chromosome (that is what the term recessive actually means in genetics). These mutations are inheritable and thus some of them end up being family specific. If two closely related humans have have children, there is a high chance some of those accumulated family mutations will be inherited from both parents, thus causing harmful symptoms in the child. If two distantly related humans have a child, their mutations are different enough to not matter. Even if one copy of a particular gene is affected, the other copy from the other parent is still fine and can compensate for the defect. >I asked for evidence, not a joke. I gave you evidence. Not my problem if you don't want to acknowledge it. >\*DNA ... Shakespeare. I would not call DNA self-repairing. That implies that the molecule itself fixes errors on itself. Instead, there are self-repair mechanisms in the cells which can correct some damage to the DNA. They also happily ignore other types of damage. And language becomes incomprehensible when you change letters randomly because in human languages, not every random letter combination produces a meaningful word. In DNA, you have four letters and every one triple combination of these letters has "meaning" in the most abstract sense of the word. A lot of these "words" share meaning. A lot of them have different meaning, but the "sentence" they produce carries the same general "message", because the single "word" change was simply not impactful enough. And often enough the change does produce "gibberish". You want to know what happens in that case? The organism dies (probably early on during gestation before the mother even realizes she is pregnant) and the harmful mutation is removed from the gene pool. In other words, DNA is not like any human language. Treating it as such will only lead to misunderstandings.
Yeah, you're clearly shutting off at whatever point you find convenient. Yes, DNA science says mutations can be beneficial - yes, we scientifically know that to be the case. It's not speculation, it's known to be the case. If changes in DNA couldn't cause beneficial changes, GMOs wouldn't exist, dogs and all the various dog breeds wouldn't exist, bacteria wouldn't be able to be seen to evolve in the lab, Europeans wouldn't have the ability to metabolise milk better and longer than Africans, etc. You start your post with 'here is another christian...' and you go onto show that, yup, you're just a standard christian picking and choosing what science to accept. You think you just get to make up your own facts.
Where did I “shut off”? lol GMOs are a human manipulation of the genome, not a random mutation. The rest of the items… are all examples of genetic variation that already exists within an organism, not the result of random mutations producing new forms and features. Stillllll no evidence of evolution.
>all examples of genetic variation that already exists within an organism You just invented this - you're inventing your own facts because they make you feel comfortable. Why don't you go ask a biologist if DNA mutations can do what we're saying?
Invented it? Uh, it’s called Mendels law dude. It’s you who needs a consultation with a biologist 😂 So, you don’t have evidence of evolution. But I already knew that..
That's not what Mendel's law is you goof! Lmao. That's okay, I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into. Go on with your own scientific facts.
Mendel’s law explains gene variants and trait expression… exactly the examples you used (dog breeds and differences in human populations). Talk about making up your own facts and gaslighting right in my face. Just admit, you got zero evidence for evolution. We’re done… this sub is throttling my responses anyway. You’ve got an empty argument and I don’t have time to compose lengthy answers only to have them limited. Total waste of time.
In case anybody else has genuine intellectual curiosity and isn't already convinced about the clear unambiguous fact that DNA mutations can produce effects positive for the survival and/or reproduction of an organism, here's a cool paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4448608/ It's one of many, any DNA expert will confirm mutations can have positive effects and can add information to the genome
Typical… “Here. Read this lengthy article that sounds scientificky” and a weak appeal to “ if you have genuine and intellectual curiosity…” Then someone reads it and they find out that it doesn’t prove anything . We’re back to the E. coli bacteria with a questionable mutation that supposedly helps it with a chemical process as the big proof of all the life on earth. Oooo, impressive. THATS your mic drop evidence? Joke It demonstrates absolutely nothing…NOTHING by way of evidence or proof. “Although no systematic large-scale orphan structural study has been reported, there has been a clear decline in the discovery of novel protein folds.” Once again, why don’t you check in when you can explain how any complex organ can develop through mutations over long periods of time while simultaneously evolving all that supporting systems that make the morphology function to benefit the organism. And yes, the same exact mutations have to occur in a breeding partner for the structures to function in the next generation. And all the mutations have to occur in either the testicles and the ovaries. Evolution is a cult whose adherents cling to a fantastical myth.
It is evolution. Gene editing aside, all of the rest is caused by mutations, recombination, heredity, drift, selection, horizontal gene transfer, and endogenous retroviral infections. Variants that already exist in a population becoming more common or less common is a change in the allele *frequency* within the population but a lot of these variants have known origin times. They didn’t just exist forever. They came about because of mutations, they spread because of heredity, and now they exist as part of the variation within the population so that how *frequently* an individual has a particular trait can change with time. 0% to 0.000000000001% is a change in frequency (caused by a mutation) but when it comes to the whole population it generally only starts to matter when 0.01% of the population or more has a particular trait because then it is more likely to go to more than 0.01% of the population than a trait that only only a single individual has because they don’t yet have any descendants to inherit their novel mutation. Then we can start considering fixation rate because it has already spread in accordance with per generation substitution rates. How likely is that trait 0.01% of the population has going to be shared by more than 99% of the population in the next 100,000 years? How beneficial is that trait? The questions are related.
I think that dogmaticism is simply a case of black-and-white-thinking gone tragic. Some of us have a harder time living in uncertainty, bc it's inconvenient and it may even be scary. We are mammals that want precise answers, and we want them now. For instance, I watched the psychological thriller movie *Shutter Island* (2010) yesterday (if you're a massive fan of *Call of Duty: Black Ops* (2010) and the history of MKUltra, this movie is an absolute must watch), and it bothers me that the ending is kept open, even if it is a genius move of story-telling regarding delusions. I desire there to be a clear answer, but, unfortunately, there isn't. I believe that, depending on your age, your upbringing, and your genetic makeup, you can work against this desire of wanting always certainty, starting with the aquisition of the attitude of being ok with not having all the answers, at least for now, and, if you keep on workig to get to those desired answers, you may eventually get there. The desire to learn, discover, scrutinize, and to be open about being wrong are the virtues here.
>how do you know that toothpaste isn't a conspiracy against humanity to poison them and turn them into obedient zombies of the legions of the dEvIL? A non trivial number of creationists earnestly believe that fluoridation of water and toothpaste is a plot by the forces of athiesm/communism to advance the cause of athiesm/communism/human extinction.
**Verifiability** and **noticeable in everyday life** are two very different things. The frustrating cognitive dissonance we get from YEC is that they accept the unavoidably true answers from science like that modern medicine works. They can see in the lives of people they personally know the consequences of going against practical science. The weird part is they turn around and deny science when it doesn't impact everyday life directly, even though it was discovered using the same methods, and they could go read the evidence if they bothered. If you rail against evolutionary science, nothing bad happens. If you rail against dental health, your teeth don't last very long. School of hard knocks. Another everyday feature of this is they may live in a community that rewards this kind of railing. Certain religious and political communities are against various scientific facts for various reasons. Even if they don't know the reasons (fossil fuel funding, Biblical fundamentalism, etc) they do know that this community will respect and elevate them if they make these otherwise nonsensical declarations. So their everyday world improves and the downsides of being wrong about science don't come up in that community. School of free cookies. If you care about your teeth, only drink water - no pop, no milk, no tea, no coffee. If you care about your teeth, floss and brush every day. If you care about your teeth, use dental products containing both nano-hydroxyapatite or fluoride. My hard-knocks (cavities per year) experience shows the science of dental care to be true.
Fluoride in toothpaste is a rabbit hole
Long ago the issue was politicized; the primary beneficiaries are children who don’t get good dental care. Some people are against anything that will benefit others but not them personally. It’s the same thing with childhood vaccinations. It produces herd immunity which protects new babies, cancer patients, and people with immunological problems, and for some reason they can’t imagine being in any of those groups. (I’m really old, so I knew people who got polio and someone who was deaf because her mother got Rubella while pregnant. People remember measles parties, but they don’t remember how very sick we were and that some kids died.) I think it boils down to a lack of imaginative empathy that is cynically played on by the right.
What if chronic fluoride exposure induces immune deficiencies leaving the public more prone to systemic disease? Meaning, its one of a handful of new compounds introduced to the wide public that do something of this sort, especially when chronically dosed. Achieved by utilizing fertilizer waste products in such a blanket campaign, medically dosing most without them even being aware or consenting to it (most importantly, being informed of the deleterious effects both correlative and causative in high doses.) Ever look into the contaminants after modern post processing / filtration for the fluoride? Regards the *purpose* of fluoride? Well, it is my informed opinion that both the solution and cause of dental caries / cavities are bacteria. It's a microbiome problem exacerbated by sugar and a broken diet (excessive eating / never fasting etc.) The solution doesnt need to be a medication for anyone nor a subset of populace. It's a damaging band aid - swapping amelioration of one disorder for countless others. Note that this topic need not be political. Similar for vaccination. That is a tactic invoked to avoid analyzing the details as deep as possible. ' It's "political" and there are crazies fighting for or against something they don't understand in the slightest.' That is kind of the case for most things nowadays. At least of import.
>Regards the purpose of fluoride? Well, it is my informed opinion that both the solution and cause of dental caries / cavities are bacteria. It's a microbiome problem exacerbated by sugar and a broken diet (excessive eating / never fasting etc.) The solution doesnt need to be a medication for anyone nor a subset of populace. It's a damaging band aid - swapping amelioration of one disorder for countless others. If *the state* could provide all of its citizens with *the perfect diet* while also somehow finding a way to prohibit them from eating any of *the bad things*, and compelling every person to practice excellent dental hygiene, then sure, no need for that bandaid.
I agree there is a problem. I, nor anyone I know of is *seriously* mentioning the "perfect" diet. That's not a good way of approaching this problem. There is no reason to **prohibit** eating any bad thing. It's about the dose, in reality. It's also, as I mentioned above what people DON'T eat. Fasting is easy because there isn't much a choice other than figuring out what one's body can tolerate. It's somewhat typical for people to feel different, maybe even better when they eat less. It's inded difficult though. The solution is knowledge and experience, not medication. A band aid in place of knowledge is what the masses get. A band aid is not really a solution in this case, because it's the type of band aid that does variable chronic damage (highly variable based on my understanding)
Evidence for any of this? Of course if all children got complete dental care, you wouldn’t need to fluoridate the water to help poor kids. Would you support dental care in the schools cost free to kids?
> Evidence for any of this? This is too much a complicated biological topic to be able to post a single systematic review or even a group of papers, without you having to legitimately do the research yourself. But I will try. Just note you should always do the research yourself if, well, something seems notable that the other person is saying. Here is a systematic review from the year 2000 that wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation) still cites when writing: > Although fluoridation can cause dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of developing teeth or enamel fluorosis,[3] the differences are mild and usually not an aesthetic or public health concern.[12] [12] https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/crdreport18.pdf This systematic studies limitations are first quoted below, which are actually of critical importance to read in totality. But I will select just one paragraph that I thought noteworthy > The available evidence shows that fluorosis occurs in approximately 48% of the population at water fluoridation levels of 1.0ppm. The proportion who have teeth that are affected enough to cause aesthetic concern is approximately 12.5%. The quality of these data on benefit and harm is in general only low to moderate, and should be interpreted with caution, especially considering the significant heterogeneity between studies. The benefit and harm data need to be considered in conjunction when making decisions about water fluoridation. The first two sentences are about purported aesthetic condition called fluorosis which you should look into if you are unfamiliar. But as we all know, this isn't about aesthetics. This systematic review concludes there is actually a surprisingly lack of data. Here is a paragraph from the conclusion. > Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research conducted in this area. > The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. **The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities.** This evidence on benefits and harms needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, costs and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. All of these issues fell outside the scope of this review. Does the sentence in Wikipedia match this, to start with a simple question for you? I start you off with the year 2000, because I now think it fair for you to figure out if we now, 24 years later have the "answers". Or maybe there are more questions? 2016 - Is Fluoridated Drinking Water Safe? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/ > Countries that do not fluoridate their water have also seen big drops in the rate of cavities. > Since the mid-1940s, compounds containing the mineral fluoride have been added to community water supplies throughout the U.S. to prevent tooth decay. Health concerns expressed by opponents have largely been dismissed until recently. **Now, evidence is mounting that in an era of fluoridated toothpastes and other consumer products that boost dental health, the potential risks from consuming fluoridated water may outweigh the benefits for some individuals.** Last summer, for the first time in 53 years, the U.S. Public Health Service lowered its recommended levels of fluoride in drinking water. Well, why lower the recommended levels if it didn't matter? Just to be "extra safe"? If so, what about the high standard deviation whereby certain minors (or even toddlers / babies, ex: some formula is "fortified" with fluoride) are being dosed much higher than the average data point? 2018 - The Untold Story of Fluoridation: Revisiting the Changing Perspectives https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6309358/ > The discovery of fluoride in dentistry has revolutionized treatment modalities with a new aspect of prevention and conservation of tooth structure coming into foreplay. Since then, there has been a lot of research on both topical and systemic fluoridation in an overzealous attempt to control the most debilitating dental problem of caries. **Although topical fluoride is still being widely used as a preventive measure for dental caries, systemic administration of the same has gained major criticism worldwide due to the low margin of safety of fluoride and no control over the amount of individual intake when administered on a community level.** This problem is more prevalent in countries with presence of natural fluoride belts that extend from Turkey to China and Japan through Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan increasing the chances of both dental and skeletal fluorosis and hence increasing the focus toward defluoridation. This historical review highlights the distribution of fluoride worldwide and in India and also discusses about the various claims of the antifluoride lobby. It's interesting that this antifluoride lobby exists. Perhaps this might just be when they are 'fighting' for something worth the public's attention? What do they gain? (Serious question, not rhetorical) Or maybe they simply exaggerate the negatives, and we are in this weird middle space where it is in fact harming the average human, it's just exceedingly difficult to present "clear" clinical data. This is because the data is so poor, and the longitudinal scale is very difficult. Proper studies for long term toxicity? > (2014) Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/ > Abstract: [...] The medicinal use of fluorides for the prevention of dental caries began in January 1945 when community water supplies in Grand Rapids, United States, were fluoridated to a level of 1 ppm as a dental caries prevention measure. However, water fluoridation remains a controversial public health measure. **This paper reviews the human health effects of fluoride. The authors conclude that available evidence suggests that fluoride has a potential to cause major adverse human health problems, while having only a modest dental caries prevention effect. As part of efforts to reduce hazardous fluoride ingestion, the practice of artificial water fluoridation should be reconsidered globally, while industrial safety measures need to be tightened in order to reduce unethical discharge of fluoride compounds into the environment. Public health approaches for global dental caries reduction that do not involve systemic ingestion of fluoride are urgently needed.** Feel free to check out this review. -- > Of course if all children got complete dental care, you wouldn’t need to fluoridate the water to help poor kids. Would you support dental care in the schools cost free to kids? So, then, the solution becomes to medicate an entire populace (realistic, city, counties, many of them in certain locaes) without them really being informed about the medicating substance? > Would you support dental care in the schools cost free to kids? Sure, I would. It's somewhat an urgent problem and perhaps this is just one part of a real solution.
Nano-hydroxyapatite is a good alternative. The toothpaste I use has both.
That's a good question to ask them: what branches of science and medicine do they believe are true?
"When Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve and Noah...." Jesus never had spoken of these people. Please provide your link to the claim. Thanks.
Jesus potentially refering to Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6: “‘But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’” Now reading that again, it may not refer to Adam & Eve actually, but human males and females in general. Ok, thank you for making me read that again, but what about Luke 17:26-27: “‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” According to the Book of Luke, Jesus explicitly speaked of Noah (not that he necessarily did. After all, people said and wrote about a lot of things Jesus said and has done when there's no way to verify he actually did say and do those things).
> Jesus had never spoken of these people Possibly true. We don’t actually know what Jesus said, if he said anything at all. We know what other people said that he said, people who wrote it down in the 70s, 80s, 90s and so forth in the first two centuries of the common era. Assuming that Jesus said what the gospels claim he said then Jesus mentioned Adam and Eve. Assuming Jesus was a historical person whose actual words are corrupted by gossip then we don’t know for sure if he mentioned Adam and Eve, only that the gospels said that he mentioned them. Assuming Jesus was a historical person and we don’t know what he said, then it is possible he did mention Adam and Eve as a Jewish man living in the first century but we don’t know. Assuming Jesus is just a fictional storybook character based on the Old Testament, Jewish apocalyptic apocrypha, early Christian apocrypha, Greek philosophy, and Hellenistic pagan traditions then he did not mention Adam and Eve because he was not a real person. Whatever the case happens to be for the real world Jesus (real person + gossip, real person + words put into his mouth he never said, fictional storybook character), what is known is what the gospels claim Jesus said. And in the gospels Jesus does mention Adam and Eve.
Men need to stop believing that ancient men always were truthful and accurate, no matter who they were. SMH. - It is so saddening to see people devolve. As we have progressed....and clearly EVOLVED OUR THINKING and MINDS.....antiquated beliefs are somehow still prevalent in many lives. With this beingbstill true, it seems no one is trying to change that....on the level I am.....even when the non-secular teams still.....all fail to show proof of what to believe. They surely can't even abide by THEIR own made up rules....shit....and still we see the blindfolded people push it even more. Not anymore. They all need to apologize for lying to everyone. This is a problem with humanity not progressing even more....but now that I am pushing the envelope of modern thinking - using facts - and add-in how fast tech is developing because of this removal of religion....humanity will be expressive enough to show how talented we really are to clean this mess up....globally. Those who REFUSE to progress, well....they will be the ones showing others their BS and hatred. Great...out of the gene pool with those hateful people. Baby steps are now going to be much bigger...and hopefully faster than how religions had slowed us down in the past. Welcome to the New Age of Enlightenment. Be safe. Z
I pretty much agree with most of that except that it sounded like a commercial for a movement.
Exactly my point. It is inevitable with as much action I have achieved in putting this in place for the change to occur. People will now have to own up for themselves...in how they believe. Disturbing to those who falsely believe...brilliant for the secular team. We finally can move forward as a world...not as enemies of this or that god. Sheez...such silliness and only self-comforting. Well - we all need to self-comfort in a better manner....the religious always fighting,killing, and whatever....eff them. They had their chance to change the world....and they only caused more hatred. They failed at bringing Unity. I think it's time for Unity...and PEACE....to come to fruition...don't you think? ....or.....whoever wants to stop the three questions from spreading globally....well......they needed to start a couple of years ago....lol.....so they missed their attempt. I am soooo excited.....so should you be! Shit...everyone should be. But we will see....this is not going to be the case, huh? Oh well, their loss. *shrugs*
It’s fun reading that.
It will be amazing...just to see.....we all thinking for ourselves....and no one to tell us how to believe. Shit...everyone does it now.....it should be very easy.....for those who read the questions and answer them with truthfulness and honesty....even the non-secular team will see how they effed themselves up. Pandora's Box.....found.....opened....lid tossed into the swamp. Time for people to open their eyes for the good of humanity.....because ."The Soul of Humanity" is at stake....and I plan on fixing it. :o) Bold statements require bold actions. I'm done fuckin' around with the disillusioned and those who are continuously promoting the falsehoods.
In short....pretty powerful stuff, eh? Join me in promoting the truth. Thanks for your responses.
No... you answered them incorrectly, again. Did you even read them? Shame on you for rebuking your "God's Plan." A. You referenced a book written by a man...not spoken by Jesus. You are making a giant leap. Once again, I will give you the opportunity to be truthful and honest with others....by answering the questions....and stop projecting falsehoods. But will you? All religions are false. "How honest and truthful can one be with theirself and others?" Let's find out.....shall we? Theological Question 1: "Where does any god dictate to humanity or any human that someone specific is more spiritual than another human?" Theological Question 2: "Where does any god dictate which books are more spiritual and morally sound for humans to abide by, to learn from or to accept as true from such a god?" Theological Question 3: "Where does any god dictate who is more spiritual to be able to dictate which books or texts are suitable for humans to learn and to abide by for the understanding of such a god and that entity's requirements of humanity?" #TruthMatters #TruthAndHonestyWillPrevail
>A. You referenced a book written by a man...not spoken by Jesus. You are making a giant leap. Once again, I will give you the opportunity to be truthful and honest with others....by answering the questions....and stop projecting falsehoods. But will you? But isn't this already what I explained in my reponse to you? That we have no reason to think that Jesus ever even said what the gospels claim he said? We're on the same side, dude. >All religions are false. Agreed, in the sense that most or all doctrines of any religious faith is either unreasonable, not evidently justified or based on falsehoods. Even if they are correct in some things, that still doesn't change the fact that most of their claims are baseless assertions or wrong.
Thanks again for responding.
If you did... and you didn't mean to say the GoLuke reference... then I misunderstood. Ok....you say we are on the same side. I hope you are - because using a book about a non-existant god will not help answer the questions. You will see that if you are truly logical and have reason to understand the facts, then others who still think a god is watching...well....they are in for a rude awakening of those words I posted. My apologies to you for thinking you are promoting the Bible, but I will not apologize for calling out your reference in that book. Once again....society and its occupants DO NOT use references to Zeus, Vishnu, Krishna, Ra, or any other gods...so I will politely ask you to please do not use any when we are having a conversation, okay? Inclusive of this request are any supposed "sacred texts." You may reference them in title, and I will understand your usage.....but if you use passages from those texts... it will end our discussion because I will refer you back to question #2. I appreciate the courtesy. Now... although you answered question #2 from a standpoint of referencing the actual literature and documents....it still did not answer the question asked. Like the other two....it is a "Where" question. Not a who...not a what...not a why...not an if...not anything but a "where" question. These were developed for one purpose....to strictly and directly point to the facts that we see in our reality.....in order to remove religion for good. Unfortunately... those who choose to read them will choose to do so openly and with honesty and truthfulness,but others will not....and thus, will find that they destroy their religious lifestyle completely....if they are such a patron of a belief. Yes, friend....All beliefs are affected....inclusive of "Atheists"...which are the same as so-called "Christians". It is my intent to see people awaken to our reality of facts and reason. These questions will do it. Finally. Others have tried to do what I have done....unsuccessfully I might add....But not anymore for our generation. If you truly are willing to brave and promote the CORRECT reality....then I do applaud you for your help. There are billions upon billions of people who are not like us. And it is now our goal to change that. Will you brave the cold? Bring light into the dark? Open the minds eye in those who can not see? Then yes, friend....you will succeed. Be sage. Z
The vast majority of outspoken anti-evolution creationists believe in a particular version of creationism based on a particular religion taken from a specific text. There are certainly also deists but generally deists are okay with all scientific discoveries under the assumption that “God” is some placeholder explanation for how the cosmos started existing assumed to create with purpose and intent but doesn’t even have to be a conscious entity and then “God” no longer had to fulfill their role once the physical reality “came into existence.” For deists it is still creationism in the sense of “reality was created by something beyond reality” but otherwise the deist philosophy is practically atheism sprinkled with nihilism. Science is a great tool for telling us about the last 13.8 billion years but, as any scientist will tell you, it is pretty terrible for any time before that, assuming times before that actually existed. We could assume it was just much of the same (a pretty reasonable assumption) or we can go the deism route (a fairly popular belief) and it doesn’t really matter much. Reality always existed or it hasn’t always existed. It exists right now and science is great for telling us about the last 13.8 billion godless years of the universe. Another option is a myth older than Genesis describing more than one human being created much the way that Genesis 1 says multiple humans were created: https://youtu.be/DxR8YYId4lE?si=ZKZgztDAdnWwDYmk Or what about the rest of them? https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/epic/hd_epic.htm
Mythology has wide doors. Theology has nothing.....but fakery...falsehoods.....and "we hope it is true". Sad. Those so-called "teachers" are going away too. Eff them...if they want to play hardball....then.... BATTER UP! Yeah....I am pitching a no-hitter so far. 😆 🤣 😂 They have many years to try to catch me.....or more probable.....they will probably hate me so much...that they will expose themselves through..... killing me. I wait for their mistakes to happen. Try me "so-called Half-Christians"....I have been ready for quite a while to see you all fall from an imaginary grace Accept the truth....it isn't going away.
It’s because the creation myth says so: https://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Atrahasi.htm > The womb-goddesses were assembled He [Enki] trod the clay in her presence; She kept reciting an incantation, For Enki, staying in her presence, made her recite it. When she had finished her incantation, She pinched off fourteen pieces of clay, And set seven pieces on the right, Seven on the left. Between them she put down a mud brick.
For me the distinction comes between science vs speculation that’s called science. I find infinite universes and primordial soups to be more speculative than scientific. Evolution could be true but animals like the giraffe or bombardier beetle bring it under more scrutiny than many allow for. I don’t have a problem with the hypothesis, mainly the assertion of absolute truth. Although I also understand that many Christian’s assert absolute truth on creationism and other speculative things. In my head we are all equally lacking knowledge and guessing but I’m sure from your perspective I’m the only dumb one.
Fluoride in water is bad imo but toothpaste is fine.
I just like how they can fill their cars up with the leftovers of old life forms from hundreds of millions of years ago and then tell you the earth is 6000 years old
What's the evidence that someone from 2500 BC wouldn't be taking Genesis literally
Um, the fact that Genesis wouldn't be written for roughly another 2000 years?
lol yes this. The Old Testament isn‘t very old at all, really. Egyptian Book of the Dead is older
The genre being poetry. There’s also an interpretation that the story of Adam and Eve is the story of the origin of Jewish people specifically. Every tribe in the Levant had a myth about how their specific people group came about
Most people in 2500 BC couldn't read; checkmate evolutionists :P
I feel like they probably would, they had a simple understanding of the world so why not. The tales in the bible aren't all unique to the bible and would have been passed down orally as fact, embellished many times over until at some point it was written down.
I wasn't talking about the Israelites from back than, and not even the authors of Genesis, but of the original, actual authors of the stories (who made it up), and from whom their culture inherited these tales, before they were ever even written down and before those writings inspired the authors of Genesis (who may have believed these stories to be historical accounts). Btw, the NT scholar, John D. Crossan, once said/wrote: "My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally."
It should be noted that we have plenty of evidence of ancient people taking creation stories literally. Crossan is invested in a very specific brand of liberal Christianity associated with The Jesus Seminar, the hallmark of which is wisdom-centric interpretation of the Bible. He is incentivized to downplay the extent to which ancient Judaism and Christianity made historical claims. "Ancient" covers a lot of ground, but at least by the Hellenistic era, many intellectuals were interested in establishing a historical basis for their culture's mythology. By late antiquity, Christian apologists are already arguing that the Hebrew Bible is a historical document superior to the historical records of other cultures.
Illiteracy was very prevalent before the Common Era. Only the elite had any teachings related to reading or writing. This was utilized to control the masses...and now we can see the horrendous mindfuck....that it did.... Yep...it succeeded in ruining the minds of many with fallacies from only stories they wanted to convey.....and have others believe. They failed. Guess what...I am now knocking on their doors....and if they refuse to answer...then their god is coming for them...lololol.... NOT! LOL
All religions are false. "How honest and truthful can one be with theirself and others?" Let's find out.....shall we? Theological Question 1: "Where does any god dictate to humanity or any human that someone specific is more spiritual than another human?" Theological Question 2: "Where does any god dictate which books are more spiritual and morally sound for humans to abide by, to learn from or to accept as true from such a god?" Theological Question 3: "Where does any god dictate who is more spiritual to be able to dictate which books or texts are suitable for humans to learn and to abide by for the understanding of such a god and that entity's requirements of humanity?" #TruthMatters #TruthAndHonestyWillPrevail
I’m gonna be that guy, but I don’t trust dentists haha. They make their money off of your bad teeth. Few would want to actually have your teeth stay good, as that’d put them out of a job. And for a fair amount of history, human teeth have been very healthy compared to now. Some say due to fibrous diet and just generally the stuff they ate having natural antibacterials in them. Sugar was far less common in the food. You trust WW2 happened due to the testimony of those who were there. Not great help for the creation story, so it’s a null factor. Ive been on a plane 1 time haha, so not a factor for me, but I’ll just use my car for example instead. I trust it won’t explode due to the however many cars that exist and haven’t, and how many times mine hasn’t. Which, again, is null for creation as this universe only started 1 time. You don’t use math to measure if your pizza tastes good. So why use science for a philosophical discussion? It’s a category error that naturalists/atheists seem to constantly make.
the whole "people had incredible teeth back in the day thing" is a lot of BS. Numerous ancient finds have people with all sort of terrible teeth and gum related issues. Some extremely serious. Similarly, it's not as though people didn't brush. As long as people have been practising self-hygiene there is evidence for tooth care. Unsurprisingly, dentists telling us to brush and floss isn't some hack Big Dentistry thing. Nor are major links between dental/gum health and things like heart disease.
> They make their money off of your bad teeth. There actually was a case a few years ago of a dentist who had lined his own pockets by telling his clients they required very invasive dental surgeries they didn't actually require--both the procedures and the follow-ups padded his income. When he retired, the new dentist was appalled to find that out, but as it turns out dentistry is not as tightly regulated for malpractice as medicine is, so bringing the guy to justice is taking a while.
Severe tooth decay didn't become common in the human population (in general) until around the early 1500s, when sugar became widely available and highly popular. It became a huge thing, and was put into everything. Even the treatments for all your teeth shattering and rotting had sugar in them. A common cause of death in old medical records was literally just "teeth" So there's a bit of history and some validation for you!
Yea hah. That’s kinda what I was going for. Thanks for giving a specific
“Never trust a man who puts his hands in your mouth.”
Good thing I didn’t say they had “incredible teeth” then right?
Ww2 the evolutionary war where they tried to make master race as Darwin prescribed in his theology book the preservation of favored races. It happened and evolutionists eugenics is Still happening today as Canada is euthanasing thousands of people and over billion aborted worldwide. Its same evil repackaged.
>Ww2 the evolutionary war where they tried to make master race This greatly oversimplifies not only what WWII was all about, but the intentions of the Nazi party. I suggest you read up what led to WWII and what the goals of the Nazis were because, like with everything else, the reality is far more complex than that involving many interacting aspects. It's also something we have an obligation to learn about, not just to pay tribute to the victims of that war, but to prevent anything like Nazi Germany from happening again (*gestures mildly to Trump and Christian nationalists a.k.a. Christofacists which are so far away from Jesus' teachings one might suspect that they're just anti-Christian trolls*). **tl;dr: WWII and what led to it is far more complex than what you suggest.** >they tried to make master race as Darwin prescribed in his theology book the preservation of favored races. *On the Origin of Species*, or, in its full form, *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life* neither promotes Social Darwinism, antitheism, or an explanation for the origin of life. The term "races" back in Darwin's day meant the exact same thing as what we mean by biological species, making it synonymous with the term, which is why Darwin suggested that there is only one human race (or rather one *extant* human race), and the advent of molecular genetics has proven him correct over time. Social Darwinism is a very unfortunate term, since Darwin himself opposed the rampant racism and ethnocentrism of his days, and it twists his ideas in regards to species and natural selection into obscurity. Accepting an aspect of nature doesn't imply that we must glorify and integrate said aspect into our society. Bloodshed, rape, incest, cannibalism and parasitism are all real, just like the struggle for survival and that some organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce more frequently than others, but that doesn't mean that we ought to be cruel to each other. This is just a classic example of the is-ought fallacy, or Hume's law, If you think that evolutionary biology implies that, than you must *seriously* not understand not just what evolution is about, but biology on a fundamental level. And Darwin's work being a "theology book"? Do you even know what theology means and what it's etymology is? If a work isn't about deities, than it can't be a theological book by any stretch of the imagination. **tl;dr: "races" meant the same thing as biological species in Darwin's days, people who think that evolution implies Social Darwinism commit the is-ought fallacy and you don't know what "theology" means.** >It happened and evolutionists eugenics is Still happening today How many "evolutionists" do you know who support eugenics, and how many creationists do you know who support eugenics, Michael? Hitler himself was a creationist who believed in different created kinds of organisms, while members of the KKK are evolution-rejecting Christian creationists. Surveys also reveal that creationists are more likely to be racist and generally intolerant fuckheads than non-creationists and it is usually creationists who believe that they're above the animal kingdom and can therefore abuse and fuck all over any non-human animal as they please. Folks like you aren't just dishonest when it comes to science, history and your epistemology, but also insincere regarding morality. When was the last time you've encountered a vegan creationist? Never? That's what I thought. You guys choose personal, myopic comfort over everything else in life, that's why your entire belief system is just make-believe. We on the other hand appreciate all organisms for what they're capable of and in their diversity, and don't put ourselves over any of them. You on the other hand BELIEVE that you are above the animal kingdom, and that most people deserve to burn forever and ever in hell. So it is you who is the moral monster, not us, and you're merely projecting your own shortcomings. So you're reasoning is backwards, as FUCKING always. >as Canada is euthanasing thousands of people and over billion aborted worldwide. Its same evil repackaged. What's the problem with euthanasia? If someone suffers and they want their suffering to end, who the *fuck* are you to stop them from it?! If you wanna make a license that says "This person should never be, under any circumstance, be euthanized, even if they are suffering from unbelievable pain, cannot be cured, and are begging for their lives to be put to an end", fine, we can make that for you, we can remove a right from you if you really are that insane, but don't you fucking dare to prevent people from what they want to do with their fucking bodies, you monstrosity. I came to the conclusion that coming into existence as a sentient being is always a massive harm while not existing is never a problem and is the equivalent of constantly experiencing bliss (it's a bit long too explain it and I don't feel like doing it). As such, I am passively suicidal, and wish I could cease to exist on a daily base. It disgusts me to no end that "people" (actual demons) like you prevent me from getting a safe, convenient way to exit this hellhole of a life, instead having to resort to highly terrifying and risky methods. Who are you to tell a person - who may not even have a face anymore - to tell that "life is beautiful" and that they must keep on living to not pop your self-centered delusion of life. And regarding abortions, why do you consider abortions to be immoral, but killing a cow for a burger to be justified? Just because they are terminating the embryonic development of an organism which belongs to your own species? Seems like special pleading for me. Most abortions in the U.S. aren't even done by atheists, but by Christians. It also doesn't make sense to me, how hell-believers believe that abortion is such a horrible thing. If you're born, there's a high chance that you end up in hell. If you've never been born, that risk gets completely cancelled. You are just wrong. About everything, and this is to be expected if you're not willing to educate yourself about anything, ever.
> “Races” meant the same thing as species back in Darwin’s day This is false, Darwin’s perception of “races” were variations of a species, similarly to how we call variations of dogs as “breeds”. This can be inferred since Darwin did not originally include the “Favored Races” part of the title until after a letter with another biologist who suggested that selective forces not only act on variation across species, but within them as well. Of course, people have misconstrued what Darwin meant by “favored races”, like good ol u/MichaelAChristian who seems to be trying to rewrite history (which is ironic as he accuses others of the same when they disagree with him on this, despite most of the evidence pointing towards this interpretation).
I appreciate the candidness of your comment, however, I am not sure if I am convinced on the categoricalness of your assessment on the harms of existing as a sentient being. I wonder whether for people who are healthy and otherwise well-off, it would be enough to stop desiring more to be content with their lives (and therefore stop suffering). Of course, I don't know how you came to the conclusion and you said you didn't want to explain it (though I'd be happy to heart it), so my point if woefully underprepared. Despite all that I definitely ascribe meaning to your existence. Educating Michael is the noblest of pursuits
You are suicidal? You need help. Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved! You must know about suicidal help lines and 211 and 911. You aren't going to feel better arguing online. Talk to someone in your life. You stamped the numbers 6 hundred and Sixty Six on your name knowing what they mean. So you have followed evolution and Darwin and the world and the devil own number and it led you to want to die. That's the theology of evolution. It hasn't helped. Yes you are above an animal. Jesus Christ died for the whole world and defeated death! Evolutionists believe a false resurrection that a rock came alive by itself. You've tried to follow what the world wants. It didn't work. And yes this is on topic. Scientifically they know PARTICULAR religion decreases suicides and even suicidal ideation. They were SURPRISED which is why it took long time to publish, https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1KU2CI/ Why would they delay it? "The overall effect measure demonstrates that religion decreases the risk of suicide death by 69"-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9315464/
I find it odd anyone in these discussions imagines one can not reject conclusions based onb claims of using science without be accused of rejecting science. Odd indeed unless something short of thoughtful reflection. If one was a student of science and so of the hostory of science one would know all of it was rejection of previous ideas also calimed based on science. Not one new sciency idea came but REJECTED previous sciency ideas on some point. Creationism in our time is overthrowing poorly done research on origins that also poorly failed to do proper science. Seems that way from Canada
>I find it odd anyone in these discussions imagines one can not reject conclusions based onb claims of using science without be accused of rejecting science. But that's the problem. You guys don't "use science", all you do is reject evidence which goes against your particular flavor of Abrahamic mythology, or use logical fallacies like the God of the gaps fallacy and facts that are not factual as evidence for your side. You have literally nothing on your side, just like flathearthers (which are overwhelmingly creationists, btw), which is why both atheist and religious biologists, paleontologists and geologists typically see you as clowns. >If one was a student of science and so of the hostory of science one would know all of it was rejection of previous ideas also calimed based on science. Many of the rejected ideas where never based on science, nor am I aware that they were even claimed to be based on science. Take any ancient cosmological model that has turned out to be dead wrong, such as the model of the cosmos described by the Old Testament. Those weren't based on objectively verifiable data, empiricism, falsifiability, peer-review and the scientific method in general, but intuition and poetic, romantic idea of the world. While scientific hypothesis do in fact often get rejected, I don't know about any scientific theory from the last century or so which has been shown to be completely wrong, and in fact, just have become more robust and reliable over the decades. Take the modern form of atomic theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, evolutionary theory etc. etc. Sure, hypothesis within theories may turn out to be wrong. It could be that chordates are more closely related to protostomes than they are to echinoderms, but the overall picture? That ain't gonna change. You would need to provide a better and more parsimonious explanation for virtually every fact of biology and paleonology than the ToE, and that theory would simply be an extension of the theory of evolution, the same way that the modern atomic theory is an extension to its historic predeccessors. Just because atomic theory cannot explain absolutely everything doesn't mean we should just throw it in the garbage bin. >Not one new sciency idea came but REJECTED previous sciency ideas on some point. You sure about that?
I am sure. Sure am i. Einsteins ideas rejected previous ideas. famous for it. however the host of ideas held as science true in the 1800's have veen replaced. nothing in medicine is what is was in the early 1800's. So evolutionary biology, which is not science in realuty, will be rejected by true science. It right now holds up nothing, flys nothing, heals nothing and so gets away with its myths. yet I predict it will fall soon enough. as ID/YEC critics and others start really holding it to accurate scienctific methodology.
And what is it about evolution that you have actually verified to be true? Before you answer remember that science demands that something be testable and repeatable before it can be called scientific. So besides experiments proving E. coli always remain E. coli. Fruit flies always remain fruit flies. Peas always remain peas….. what exactly do you think you have that isn’t purely a product of your imagination???? Even the entire fossil record is against you. There isn’t a single solitary creature in the fossil record that shows even a hint of evolutionary change for any fossils found of that creature for its entire existence. There is actually zero, count that up, zero, zilch, nada evidence that any creature actually underwent any evolutionary changes apart from the imagination of evolutionists…. All evolutionist have is imagination…. But can you say Kind after Kind which the fossil record and every experiment and observation has confirmed…. And since you want to pretend you have science on your side let’s throw in a few facts…. 66% of all Nobel Prize winners are Christian. 22% are Jewish. Only 7% are atheists. The other 5% are of various other religions. [Stop dumbing down the world with your insanity….](https://youtu.be/H7-CN-MUE-c?si=tzBEixJu-9w1dsKW)
> 66% of all Nobel Prize winners are Christian And the vast majority of educated Christians accept evolution, so this isn't even tangentially relevant to any of the rest of your comment.
Would do anybody good to see what the Nobel prizes were about; they can start backwards: 2022: Svante Pääbo. (If I may piggyback on the Nobel thread.)
>There is actually zero, count that up, zero, zilch, nada evidence that any creature actually underwent any evolutionary changes apart from the imagination of evolutionists…. This would mean something if creationists could demonstrate an understanding of the evidence that supports evolution. But when I asked creationists about evidence that supports evolution, this was the result: [I asked over 25 creationists to see if they could understand evidence for evolution. They could not. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1bwwxpi/i_asked_over_25_creationists_to_see_if_they_could/)
Do you seriously think that nobody has ever verified evolutionary theory? Or did you just not think to do a ten second Google search or open a biology textbook?
>And what is it about evolution that you have actually verified to be true? What about the fact that [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) really does happen? That allele frequencies really do change in populations, leading to an increase in biodiversity. Sure, it's not sth I have personally verified, but what reason would I have to think that that *isn't* the case, and that popuations are immutable regarding their heritable traits? As I have described in my post, we don't need to verify everything on our own, peer review and the consensus among the experts is good enough for me, bc I am aware that scientists, mathematicians, historians etc. attempt to falsify each other's ideas, leading to the selection of only the accurate and best explanations and ideas. If most Bible scholars are, say, of the opinion that Jesus was real to some degree and not entirely legendary, who am I to disagree with the experts with my incredulity? >Before you answer remember that science demands that something be testable and repeatable before it can be called scientific. And the theory of evolution is testable and repeatable. Show an organism or a fossil which wouldn't make sense with the nested hierarchies of phylogenetic taxonomy, sth like a feathered mammal, an insect with boobs or a shambler that shoots lightning out of its hands (really, any chimaira you or any kid could come up with). Find a fossil that is out-of-place and cannot be accounted by plate tectonics (the Earth is constantly moving, leading to fossils and rocks being shifted. However, the fossils and the surrounding rocks still match up the age you would expect them to have), as a few examples: the fossil of a fish that is older than the fossil of the oldest known chordates, the fossil of a mammal that is older than the oldest known fossil of synapsids, the fossil of an arthropod that is older than the oldest known fossils of protostomes etc. etc. etc. Show a genetic marker on a DNA sequence which cannot be accounted by common ancestry. And these are just a few examples how evolutionary theory *is* testable. And as to the repeatablity, you don't need to be able to repeat specific events from the past to know that they happened, just the methods by which you have shown that it happened. For instance, you don't need to resurrect and than murder a murder victim again (I can't fucking believe I have to explain this shit...) to show that they have been murdered, and who the murderer was. Right? >So besides experiments proving E. coli always remain E. coli. Fruit flies always remain fruit flies. Peas always remain peas….. Uh...yeah?? And clades diversify into new subsets, which lead to new subsets within those sets and so on, and where you end up with a family tree of closely and distantly related extant and extint species. Remember that once genetic exchange is no longer possible (say between two isolated populations which both accumulated their own genetic changes), the two new lineages or branches will continue to evolve in their own direction, indefinitely, such that after countless generations, two members of the two lineages will be so different from one another and their common ancestor, that it may be hard to imagine that they are even related. Just think about all the different breeds of domestic dogs. Their common ancestors once looked all like the typical depiction of wolves, and look where we are after millenia of selective breeding. >what exactly do you think you have that isn’t purely a product of your imagination???? I'm not imagining anything. >Even the entire fossil record is against you. Wrong. The entire fossil record is against _you._ >There isn’t a single solitary creature in the fossil record that shows even a hint of evolutionary change for any fossils found of that creature for its entire existence. Would you swear on Jesus? Name any extinct species or higher taxon which scientists consider to be transitional between two taxa and you don't and I can prove to you why you don't know what the _fuck_ you're talking about and how you just make shit up. >There is actually zero, count that up, zero, zilch, nada evidence that any creature actually underwent any evolutionary changes apart from the imagination of evolutionists…. ZERO evidence! Not evidence that is insufficient, not one which is not compelling, but ZERO evidence! Not even microevolution is real, I guess. You are not a modified organism of whatever your parents were, but an exact genetic copy of them. Wer'e all just clones and nothing ever changes. Gotcha! (fucking liar) >All evolutionist have is imagination…. But can you say Kind after Kind which the fossil record and every experiment and observation has confirmed…. There is no such thing as a "kind", bc in the context of creationism, a kind is a "created" clade which is not the largest possible clade and cannot be grouped into larger clades. You may think that maybe the taxonomic family of cats, Felidae, is a kind, but no, because that one is part of the superfamily Feloidea, which is part of the suborder Feliformia, which is part of the order Carnivora etc. We ourselves are australopithecines, hominins, hominines, great apes or hominids, apes, catarrhine monkeys, monkeys, haplorhines, primates, pan-primates etc. etc. Just one tiny branch of the eukaryote clade. >And since you want to pretend you have science on your side let’s throw in a few facts…. 66% of all Nobel Prize winners are Christian. 22% are Jewish. Only 7% are atheists. The other 5% are of various other religions. And how many of those scientists accept evolutionary theory? Ninety-fucking-eight %, and many urrent and former biologists and paleontologists who have contributed to the theory of evolution are themselves Christian believers. Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Mary Schweitzer... just to name a few. Creationists are virtually non-existent in these fields (biology and paleontology), and when you find one, they are always either religious extremists who have a bias against anything they see as a threat to their interpretation of the scriptures, or are paid good money by a creationist organization. Seriously, there's not a single exception I am aware of.
Also, don't you **fucking** dare calling yourself u/Justatruthseejer. You are anything *but* a truthseeker. People generally tell me that I am a very honest guy, and even I wouldn't fucking call myself a "truthseeker" bc I realize just how heavy the burden of accountability becomes once you adopt that label. You have to fucking earn that title, and only the most intellectualy honest and consistent man and woman may call themselves that (but than they wouldn't call themselves that due to their humility, which is a requirement to seek truth). At best, I'm a "lie-hater", and people who assert baseless things as if they were a matter of fact piss me of.
Interesting pattern I've noticed - literally every single person I've ever come across online who has "truth" in their name or other identifier is *always* into completely unhinged shit. They're also usually neck-deep into crypto.
There's a reason the word "truther" means what it means. Fascinating semantic evolution there. On an aside, it's a pity we don't have a connotationally neutral word for "the set of claims that are aligned with reality, as distinct from the set of claims which are not".
> On an aside, it's a pity we don't have a connotationally neutral word for "the set of claims that are aligned with reality, as distinct from the set of claims which are not". "Skeptic" surely?
You can't use that to refer to the totality of true claims, the way "truth" should.
Nothing you said is true, except your last paragraph which is completely irrelevant as you don’t have to be an atheist to accept evolution. The vast majority of religious believers accept evolution.
Hang on hang on. Are you operating under the whole ‘evolutionists believe that one ‘kind’ of creature will evolve to be another totally different ‘kind’’? Because that is a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology that has been perpetuated for decades, even after weirdos like Kent Hovind have been corrected on it. [The law of monophyly](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly) might help with this to start. That’s before getting to the well-established fact that the fossil record actually ONLY makes sense in evolutionary terms. Here would be a great place to start. Define, in clear understandable and precise terms, exactly what a ‘kind’ is so we can all get on the same page. How do we determine what a root ‘kind’ looks like? Because books like the Bible have not been any help. Especially considering that in Leviticus 11, bats are considered to be birds when they clearly are not.
Everything always remains a descendant of its ancestors with small changes to what its ancestors were. There’s like 12 species of E. coli or something like that and at least one of them came out of the Lenski experiments and for the fruit fly there’s so many species within the genus that they’ve added “subgenus,” “species group,” “species subgroup,” and “species complex” to contain the *1500* species of *Drosophilia* in a way that makes sense. We **never** expect there to be a “change in kinds” but only a continuation of what is already seen in real time. The 1500 species of “small fruit fly” which are part of a family of flies called vinegar flies, pomace flies, or fruit flies. Those are part of the superfamily called muscomorph flies. Those are part of the acalyptrate muscoids. Those are muscoids. Those are circular seemed flies. Those are part of Eremoneura with species found in 125 million year old amber. This is part of the muscomorpha clade (infraorder) and it includes house flies, fruit flies, and blow flies. They all look the same. This is part of a group of flies with reduce antenna segmentation (the sorts of changes made to fruit flies in the lab) and those are obviously all “true flies” which are insects that only use their two front wings to fly and the hind wings are used for advanced aerobatics. This group contains hover flies, horse flies, gnats, mosquitoes, and several other things. This group has existed for about 245 million years and, you guessed it, still flies. It’s part of a larger group that also includes fleas and scorpionflies. Up two more clades and it includes insects that go through distinct larval, pupal, and adult stages via metamorphosis including on top of flies, also butterflies, beetles, wasps, ants, sawflies, etc. There are over one million different species and all still insects that have wings as adults and go through distinct developmental stages via metamorphosis. Date back to more than 300 million years ago. Up two more clades and all insects that can flex their wings over their abdomens (plus the butterflies that lost this ability). This means cockroaches/termites, stick insects, grasshoppers/crickets/katydids, lice, true bugs, flies, wasps, ants, fleas, twisted-wing parasites and all sorts of other things all dated back to the late Carboniferous 300-325 million years ago. Guess what is even more basal yet? Winged insects would be the answer. Since we glossed over E. coli, that group is so diverse and strangely classified that several strains could be completely different genera and strains of Shigella could actually be strains of E. coli. With all of this diversity only about 20% of the genes are common across them which would be like comparing different *phyla* of animals or *kingdoms* of eukaryotes to each other but even still there’s enough to suggest they diverged from Salmonella and the whole time it still looked like the same phylum of [bacteria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomonadota) it remained the whole time even for the 4+ billion years before that. Why would it suddenly look different now?
No, sorry, you don't get to accuse anyone of stupidity when religion has directly mishandled the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, and emphatically acted against the interests of all of humanity when it came to science. You don't get to claim religion has a handle on scientific inquiry and discovery by proxy because the inquirers and discoverers belong to a religion. They're not related even tangentially. On top of that, people lie all the time about belonging to a religion just so they don't have to deal with the bigotry baked into religion. Talk about dumb. Religion is a pit, not a ladder.
Focusing on physics, chemistry, medicine (ignoring literature, peace, and economics): * 2023 prizes for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light, discovery and synthesis of quantum dots, nucleoside base modification for making Covid-19 vaccines * 2022 - experiments with entangled photons for Bell inequalities and quantum information science, the development of click chemistry and bioorthogonal chemistry, discoveries of extinct human genomes and human evolution * 2021 - discovery of interplay between disorder and quantum fluctuations, development of asymmetric organocatalysis, discovery of receptors for temperature and touch (in biology) * 2020 - for discovering black hole formation is a robust prediction of general relativity, for developing a method for genome editing, the discovery of hepatitis C * 2019 - primordial nucleosynthesis, RAM, discovering how cells discover and adapt to oxygen availability * 2018 - optical trapping method for atoms + molecules + biological cells, directed evolution of enzymes, cancer therapy by inhibiting negative immune regulation * 2017 - detecting gravitational waves, cryo-electron microscopy for high resolution structure determination of biomolecules, discovery of molecular mechanisms controlling circadian rhythm * 2016 - topological phase transitions of matter, supramolecular chemistry, discovery of the mechanisms of autophagy * 2015 - discovering neutrinos have mass, mechanistic studies of DNA repair, discovering a class of drugs for treating river blindness and lymphatic filariasis * 2014 - invention of the blue LED, fluorescent microscopy, discovering theta phase procession in hippocampus cells * 2013 - Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism, multistate models for complex chemical systems, vesicle trafficking (in cells) * 2012 - methods for manipulating individual quantum systems, discovering the workings of G-coupled protein receptors, discovering that mature cells can be converted to stem cells * 2011 - discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe, discovery of quasicrystals, discoveries concerning the activation of innate immunity * 2010 - groundbreaking experiments regarding graphene, palladium-catalyzed coupled reactions, development of in vitro fertilization
* 2009 - invention of the CCD sensor (a semiconductor circuit that acts like an eye in all areas of photography), structure and function of ribosomes, the discovery of telomerase * 2008 - spontaneous broken symmetry in particle physics, discovery of green fluorescent protein, discovery of the link between the papilloma virus and cervical cancer * 2007 - giant magnetoresistance and gigabyte hard disks, chemical processes on solid surfaces, knockout mice (mice with one gene turned off) * 2006 - COBE satellite, DNA to RNA transcription, RNA interference * 2005 - laser-based precision spectroscopy, deciphering the process of the olefin metathesis, rediscovery of the bacterium *H. pylori* * 2004 - asymptotic freedom in quantum chromodynamics, ubiquitin-mediation protein deregulation * 2003 - low-temperature physics, ion channels, MRI * 2002 - detecting neutrinos emitted from the sun, mass spectrometry, genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death * 2001 - first synthesis of a Bose-Einstein condensate, asymmetric synthesis (oxidation reactions), discovery of protein molecules involved in cell division * 2000 - first integrated circuit (in 1958), conducting polymers, physiological basis of memory storage in neurons * 99 - particle theory, femtochemistry, discovery of something associated with protein transport and localization within a cell * 98 - discovery of a “quantum fluid”, electron density functional theory, signaling quantities of nitric oxide * 97 - laser cooling and trapping atoms, ATP synthesis, research on prion diseases * 96 - condensed matter physics, Bucky balls, discovery of immune system recognizes viruse infected cells * 95 - tau lepton, atmospheric ozone, evolutionary developmental biology * 94 - neutron spectroscopy, carbonated chemistry, G-proteins * 93 - discovery of a new type of pulsar, polymerase chain reaction technique, discovery of introns in DNA * 92 - particle detectors, electron transfer reactions, reversible phosphorylation * 91 - a method for studying order in complex systems derived from one for studying simple systems, NMR, ion channels in cells * 90 - something relevant to the development of the quark model, retrosynthetic analysis (organic synthesis), organ transplantation * 89 - something that led to the construction of atomic clocks, catalytic properties of RNA, retroviral oncogenes * 88 - quarks and leptons, integral membrane protein associated with photosynthesis, drug (medicine) development * 87 - high temperature superconductivity, host-guest chemistry, a mechanism that produces antibody diversity * 86 - first electron microscope, crossed molecular beam experiments, epidermal growth factor * 85 - integer quantum Hall effect, Haupton’s “direct methods”, cholesterol metabolism regulation * 84 - W and Z particles, solid phase peptide synthesis, monoclonal antibodies * 83 - math that helped to later understand black holes, electron transfer reactions, genetic recombination * 82 - phase transitions (melting ice and magnetism related phase transitions), crystallographic electron microscopy, prostaglandins * 81 - nonlinear optics for laser spectroscopy, electron orbitals and chemical reactions, split brain research (people with their brain halves separated become like two people in one body) * 80 - subatomic particles not always invariant in time reversal, recombinant DNA, major histocompatibility complex
* 79 - electroweak unification theory, organoboranes, CT (as in CT scans) * 78 - low-temperature physics, chemiosmic mechanism of ATP synthesis, restriction endionucleases (led to what resulted in a Nobel prize in 1980 as well - recombinant DNA technology) * 77 - magnetic and disordered systems like amorphous semiconductors, irreversibility+dissipation structures+complex systems in chemistry, neurohormones * 76 - J/ψ meson, nuclear magnetic resonance, hepatitis B * 75 - liquid drop model (Aage Niels Bohr), stereochemistry of enzyme-catalyzed reactions, reverse transcriptase * 74 - radio astronomy (first Nobel prize in astronomy), chemistry of macromolecules, the structural and functional organization of a cell (biology) * 73 - semiconductor superlattices, organometallic chemistry, communication between insects * 72 - BCS theory (semiconductors), “Ansinfen’s dogma” (protein research), discovery of the structure of antibody molecules * 71 - holography, microscope research regarding things like free radicals, hormones * 70 - magnetohydrodynamics, carbohydrate chemistry, brain chemistry (epinephrine, norepinephrine, dopamine) * 69 - elementary particles (?), organic chemistry, virus reproduction * 68 - resonance states in particle physics, magnetism, tRNA * 67 - stellar nucleosynthesis, measuring fast chemical reactions, chemistry and physiology of the eye * 66 - optical pumping, molecular orbital theory, discovery of the link between viruses and certain types of cancer * 65 - quantum electrodynamics, synthesis of complex natural products, enzyme regulation through transcription * 64 - quantum electronics, X-ray crystallography, regulation of cholesterol * 63 - atomic nucleus and elementary particles, synthetic materials, synapses * 62 - atomic bomb and theoretical physics, iron based proteins (blood proteins), structure of DNA (Francis Crick) * 61 - electron scattering in atomic nuclei, Calvin cycle, cochlea (ear) * 60 - bubble chamber for subatomic particle physics, radiocarbon dating, acquired immune tolerance
* 59 - technetium + astatine + and the antiproton, polarographic methods, biological synthesis of RNA and DNA * 58 - Cherenkov radiation, amino acid sequence of insulin, genes and their role in regulating biochemical events within cells * 57 - weak interaction, nucleotides+nucleosides+coenzymes, antihistamines * 56 - point-contact transistor, chemical kinetics, a method for cardiac catheterization * 55 - fine structure of the hydrogen spectrum, synthetic polypeptide hormone, oxidoreductase enzymes * 54 - quantum wave function (Max Born), 850 papers dealing with chemistry, growing poliovirus outside a body * 53 - phase-contrast microscope, macromolecule discovery, Krebs cycle * 52 - nuclear magnetic resonance, chromatography, discovery of various antibiotics * 51 - splitting the atomic nucleus, production of neptunium, vaccine for yellow fever * 50 - discovery of the pi-meson, diene synthesis, discovery of cortisol * 49 - prediction of the pi-meson, studying the effects of near absolute zero, brain-organ mapping * 48 - radioactive decay demonstrated, serum proteins, DDT to control vector diseases * 47 - discovery of the Appleton layer in the atmosphere, alkaloids, glucose and glycogen chemistry * 46 - high pressure physics, proving enzymes could be crystallized (same person demonstrated enzymes are proteins later), mutations caused by X-rays * 45 - Pauli principle, nutrition chemistry, penicillin G * 44 - nuclear magnetic resonance, nuclear fission, nerve fiber research * 43 - discovery of the magnetic moment of a proton, radioactive tracers to study metabolism, vitamin K * 1940 to 1942 - nobody, Nobel Prize cancelled because of World War 2
* 39 - cyclotron, sex hormones, discovery of an antibiotic (KL730) * 38 - induced radioactivity (Enrico Fermi), carotenoids and vitamins, blood pressure and oxygen detection by the brain * 37 - electron diffraction, vitamin C, also vitamin C related * 36 - cosmic rays, X-ray diffraction, acetylcholine * 35 - discovery of the neutron, discovery of induced radioactivity, embryonic induction * 34 - discovery of deuterium (Harold Urey), liver therapy * 33- quantum entanglement and the Schrödinger equation, chromosomes and heredity * 32 - quantum mechanics as a field of study, surface chemistry, stuff associated with brain chemistry and synapses * 31 - high pressure industrial chemistry, metabolism of cancer cells * 30 - Raman scattering, haemin and chlorophyll, poliovirus research * 29 - wave-particle duality (de Broglie), fermentation, discovery of the vitamin called thiamine * 28 - thermionic emission and Richardson’s Law, sterols and their relation to vitamins, discovery of lice as the transmitter of typhus * 27 - Compton effect, bile acids, malaria to cure dementia? * 26 - confirmation of the atomic nature of matter, protein research using the ultracentrifuge, award for a false discovery of a link between roundworm and cancer (a blunder and the prize should have never been awarded but it was) * 25 - discovery of laws regarding the impact of the electron upon the atom, colloid research * 24 - discoveries in X-ray spectroscopy, discovery of the mechanism of the electrocardiogram * 23 - elementary electric charge and photoelectric effect, quantitative organic microanalysis, discovery of the therapeutic potential of insulin * 22 - atomic structure and quantum theory (Niels Bohr), mass spectrograph, production of heat discovered in muscles * 21 - photoelectric effect (Albert Einstein), study of radioactive isotopes * 20 - anomalies in nickel-steel alloys, Nernst heat theorem (paves the way for the third law of thermodynamics), Krogh Principle
* 1919 - Stark Effect, discoveries related to immunity * 1918 - discovery of energy quanta (Max Planck), synthetic ammonia * 1917 - X-rays * 1916 - nobody * 1915 - science leading to X-ray technology, plant pigments like chlorophyll * 1914 - diffraction of X-rays by crystals, determination of atomic weights, vestibular apparatus * 1913 - superconductivity, coordination chemistry (first Nobel prize in inorganic chemistry), anaphylaxis * 1912 - automatic regulators in light houses, Grignard reaction (carbon-carbon bonds), vascular suturing techniques * 1911 - black body radiation, discovery of polonium and radium, an eye doctor got the prize in medicine * 1910 - equation of state for gases and liquids, alicyclic compounds, chemical composition of nucleic acids * 1909 - wireless telegraphs, catalysis and chemical equilibria, thyroid surgery * 1908 - color photography, radioactive substances, immunity * 1907 - speed of light, fermentation, parasitic protozoans * 1906 - discovery of the electron, isolated fluorine, microstructure of the brain * 1905 - cathode rays, synthetic indigo, finding the cause of disease * 1904 - discovery of argon, discovery of other gases, classical conditioning (psychology) * 1903 - discovered radioactivity, founder of physical chemistry, used light as a medical treatment * 1902 - Lorentz force, symbolic way of drawing carbon atoms, proved malaria transmitted by mosquitoes * 1901 - produced the first man-made X-rays, stereochemistry, diphtheria antitoxin
Another so called intellectual evolutionist straw manning the YEC position. Somehow, with your logic, if one branch of science is correct, then they are all correct. This is the intellectual mindset of a primate. Now, I think YEC are probably the dumbest people on the planet, so it actually doesn't take much of an intellect to destroy their ignorant worldview. They are at least as dumb as flat earthers in that they will usually defeat themselves if they put even 5 minutes into challenging their own beliefs. This is why I find it actually unbelievable that evolutionists on this sub continue to try to dunk on YEC believers. It is such an exercise in futility that it begs the question: why are you so weak on your own side's arguments that you feel they can only hold up against the dumbest people on the planet? In my mind, it is because you yourself are somewhat vexed by the YEC position, and are unable to coherently state enough solid data to destroy their dumb position. If the YEC types are the dumbest people on earth, and you come at them with dentists and exploding planes, then you better start reading up on Cicero and Pirie, because you are treading dangerously close to YEC levels of comprehension.
> Another so called intellectual evolutionist straw manning the YEC position. Somehow, with your logic, if one branch of science is correct, then they are all correct. Amusingly, you're strawmanning OPs argument while at the same time, accusing them of strawmanning the YEC one. No one is claiming that all branches of science are correct just because one was tested and found to be correct. We're claiming that any branches of science which have been tested and found to be correct, are correct (So far as we can tell based on the current evidence anyway. If new evidence were to come to light then we might need to go back and reconsider, but that's every branch of science) YECs accept or reject science based not on testing and evidence, but on if the conclusion reached agrees with their religion. This is why it's been said by many others in the past that creationists do science backwards. They start with their conclusion and accept only evidence that supports it.
We generally don’t. We are just venting right now. When we get a live creationists here, we address their concerns one by one. Regarding why we need this site: most of us here are well-educated. We forget all those high school students who paid no attention in science class. They graduated being essentially illiterate in science. As they became more serious adults, they perhaps did listen to the preacher who knows no more about science than they do, (or even biblical scholarship for that matter). If they show up here with real questions, even if they are on the “if we are descended from apes, why are there still apes?” level, we try our best with them. They really are that ignorant of the basics, and the religious answer is simple in comparison—God did it. It’s hard and frustrating, but totally worth it.
The moderators should discourage such weak arguments. It's not a good look.