Do You Accept Evolution as a Fact?

[Nem]

fatslob-:O said:

Ka-pi96 said:

Well considering you seem to strongly believe in the idea of "if you don't like how someone else does it, then do it yourself"... what are you waiting for?

Then I guess I'll take up on that challenge but first I have to find a biologist in the specialty of genetics since that's not my area of expertise and who's arguably open minded of what is perceived to be negative ... 

Nem said:

Other than religion? How do you know this? Of course it was religion. Even giving the benefit of the doubt would put you in the aim of inquisitions.
Also, if you lick their boots, you will gain bigger standing with the religious power. Religion was the law back then. You can't compare those times to today's times where people have the freedom to defend their opinion without their life beeing at risk. For the most part anyways.

You are mixing this with politics again. They are not the same. Bernie is not a scientist. I'm pretty sure he knows more about science than Trump, for example. Probably, more than every right wing leader.

Religion doesnt claim to be more honest because it's demonstrable that they aren't. Theres recorded history events of it. Religion just focuses on selling you a dream and trying to make you forget about details.

The expert generalisation... i dunno what to tell you. I think you are just looking at the wrong places and assuming what is true science from what is hypothesis. I saw so called scientists presenting their "proof" of creationism, wich involved ignoring all that science knows is true and questioning every dating method, even though the evidence corroberates itself. Theres too much proof to the contrary to just grab some circusntancial data and claim something outrageous. This is why i said before that you need more than just circunstancial evidence.

Eugenics, if you mean in humans, it's morally reprehensable. What you are sugesting is human experimentation with steralisation. Who do you think has the moral authority or right to do that to someone else?

It was more than religion, he got ridiculed by his peers but to be fair to his doubters Galileo had no way to conclusively show that the earth revolved around the sun until maybe Newton came along ... (Even then Galileo's model of heliocentrism is still very wrong by today's modern standards.) 

Science isn't an iota about concensus (popularity contest), it's about empirical evidence much like how Einstein didn't get approval from his peers to validate both special and general relativity ... 

@Bold It's partisanship like this that can destroy years of valuable research while throwing it under the bridge. You're telling me Bernie Sanders knows more about science than the likes of former Dr Ben Carson who went to medical school to specialize in neurosurgery, Bobby Jindal who majored in honours Biology, Rick Perry who got a degree in animal science,  or even former Dr Rand Paul who was a physician ? (It's kinda funny to see you to scapegoat Trump as anti-science when Bernie is equally dishonest in that regard. (His anti-GMO, anti-fracking and anti-nuclear energy stance is based out of sheer stupidity than of real evidence.) 

I already said religion doesn't claim to be academically honest but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold science and it's (fake) representatives like democrats to a higher standard ... 

You only need evidence to prove or disprove a theory, peer review can go screw itself as that's not what science is about since it is susceptible to group think ... 

As for the ethics about eugenics, i don't care about that shit. Scientists shouldn't have to give a damn about ethics and any scientists that put ethics over obtaining data is a total fraud in my eyes ... (Just like how every "progressive" scientist that tries to hinder the field of genetics by censoring any publications about the relationship between race and IQ.) 

Talk about a spin. Of course science is about evidence. Peer review is the double checking of the evidence/experiment.

And depends. Carson may know alot about medecine, but not necessarely about physics or biology as he still buys into the god stuff. Well... assuming he is beeing honest that is. Also, this is assuming he didn't go to any crazy catholic university, wich i'm guessing is the case. 

If any of those people tell you evolution isn't a fact, sorry, but they are outright dumb and Bernie knows more than them. Tbh, i'm assuming Bernie is an intelligent person, beeing as he is american, if he buys into religious stuff, then he is dumb aswell. I don't know him that well.

 

I don't know what the heck you mean as science representitives. Science doesn't have priests or whatever. It's not a religion. Democrats don't represent science. There just seems like theres more educated people in the democratic camp. Might be my impression though, as i have no proof of that. Just the fact that they take envyronmental issues seriously puts them over republicans for sure.

Cool, go volunteer for eugenics experimentation then. Talk is cheap. Go get yourself steralised. 

I'm gonna be completely honest here, what you are saying is not only disgusting and inhumane but makes me worry about your mental health when you are incapable of empathasing with why that is something that shouldn't be done.

There have been multiple studies about race and IQ correlation. That is not nearly on the same level.