|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 5:07:15 GMT
In Religion, Faith and Spirituality we often find science topics challenging religion as if that made any sense. I suspect that's because so many people speak for science who shouldn't. That can give science a bad name. Who then should speak more often in more places for science to clean up its reputation? You may select up to 3 from the list or name others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Aug 24, 2020 5:10:11 GMT
I voted for a dead representative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 5:16:23 GMT
I voted for a dead representative. That would be funny, except, you know, "dead" isn't so funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 24, 2020 11:47:42 GMT
Just about anyone but you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 12:05:41 GMT
Just about anyone but you. Truth be told I was considering putting you on the list. Would you have liked to be? I thought not since you have never been the most loquacious member of this board. One might think that science skills presume communication skills but that has not been forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Aug 24, 2020 13:24:59 GMT
I didn’t know it needed representation. And this is the Religion, Faith and Spirituality board, not the Science Board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 24, 2020 14:15:05 GMT
. Who then should speak more often in more places for science to clean up its reputation? Science's reputation is not dirtied that it needs a cleaning. But it does always need someone who can effectively push back against those who do try to disparage the work of scientists. The person in a position to be the most effective in that role is the next president of the US. And then the president that comes after him.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 24, 2020 15:25:22 GMT
What reputation exactly, pray tell?
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 24, 2020 15:44:17 GMT
I didn’t know it needed representation. And this is the Religion, Faith and Spirituality board, not the Science Board. Awww, sh!t, Paul, don't send him to the Science board! I would really like that board to focus more on actual science. Is there an Abnormal Psychology board to send him to? Or is that the Soapbox, lol!  I voted for Dr. Fauci (for medical science), Stephen Hawking (science in general) and other, for the many scientists in their field that daily work on finding the answers, the facts, of how this world works. Edit: Had his name been on the list, I would have voted for Dr. Don Francis: blogs.library.ucsf.edu/broughttolight/tag/don-francis/
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 24, 2020 17:42:06 GMT
Someone that doesn't lie and make stuff up. So naturally that would exclude you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 22:28:34 GMT
I didn’t know it needed representation. And this is the Religion, Faith and Spirituality board, not the Science Board. You should get out more. There's a lot of people out there with all sorts of notions, more or less well formed. It is charming that use "science" like it's some magic word. If you'd like to stop throwing science like it's a weapon at religion that would be fine with me, speaking of this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 22:29:49 GMT
Someone that doesn't lie and make stuff up. So naturally that would exclude you. Make stuff up? Examples?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 24, 2020 22:31:28 GMT
Someone that doesn't lie and make stuff up. So naturally that would exclude you. Make stuff up? Examples? Your constant insistence that there's no evidence for evolution for one. And no, I don't wanna hear you pivot to abiogenesis, that's a seperate discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 22:35:46 GMT
Your constant insistence that there's no evidence for evolution for one. Aha, that it explains it. You have have no idea who I am. I am the person on this board who constantly reminds people that there is a description of evolution in the Bible in Genesis 30:31 to 31:13 and that is not surprising because people were breeding plants and animals centuries before that, never mind Darwin. Try again?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 24, 2020 22:40:07 GMT
Your constant insistence that there's no evidence for evolution for one. Aha, that it explains it. You have have no idea who I am. I am the person on this board who constantly reminds people that there is a description of evolution in the Bible in Genesis 30:31 to 31:13 and that is not surprising because people were breeding plants and animals centuries before that, never mind Darwin. Try again? So as I predicted, you're doing a bait and switch. I'm not talking about humans purposely making different breeds of animals, I'm talking about natural selection (an idea proposed by Darwin), random mutations, and how biodiversity came about though these means (including humans) over millions of years. Do you accept the overwhelming evidence for this? Try to actually answer this time and not pivot to something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 22:42:14 GMT
. Who then should speak more often in more places for science to clean up its reputation? Science's reputation is not dirtied that it needs a cleaning. But it does always need someone who can effectively push back against those who do try to disparage the work of scientists. The person in a position to be the most effective in that role is the next president of the US. And then the president that comes after him. I suppose in some platonic "ideal" realm there is a "perfect" science. Few things manifest from there though. In reality things of that wide of use are often corrupted. In reality science is not administered by angels and you sure are no angel. Deal with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 22:44:00 GMT
Aha, that it explains it. You have have no idea who I am. I am the person on this board who constantly reminds people that there is a description of evolution in the Bible in Genesis 30:31 to 31:13 and that is not surprising because people were breeding plants and animals centuries before that, never mind Darwin. Try again? So as I predicted, you're doing a bait and switch. I'm not talking about humans purposely making different breeds of animals, I'm talking about natural selection (an idea proposed by Darwin), random mutations, and how biodiversity came about though these means (including humans) over millions of years. Do you accept the overwhelming evidence for this? Try to actually answer this time and not pivot to something else. If you mean I am going to mock Darwin followers for never breeding anything worthy of note, no I would never do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 22:45:17 GMT
What reputation exactly, pray tell? Contributing to the breakdown of morality maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 24, 2020 22:46:43 GMT
So as I predicted, you're doing a bait and switch. I'm not talking about humans purposely making different breeds of animals, I'm talking about natural selection (an idea proposed by Darwin), random mutations, and how biodiversity came about though these means (including humans) over millions of years. Do you accept the overwhelming evidence for this? Try to actually answer this time and not pivot to something else. If you mean I am going to mock Darwin followers for never breeding anything worth no note, no I would never do that. So you're not going to actually answer my question, predictable. You've got to be the most intellectually cowardice person on this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 24, 2020 22:51:17 GMT
If you mean I am going to mock Darwin followers for never breeding anything worth no note, no I would never do that. So you're not going to actually answer my question, predictable. You've got to be the most intellectually cowardice person on this board.
|
|