Evolution Theory Existed Long Before Darwin

[HarleyER]

You may not care, but that is hardly the point. A neutral reader will want to know on precisely what basis do you reject the consensus that science does not require "repeatability". So, what is your argument against this? Why should a neutral reader believe you against the majority of trained experts?

As for your vaccine analogy, vaccines are indeed always tested in the conventional "run an experiment" sense. So it is not really analogous to something like evolution where, for obvious reasons, we cannot "run a 4 billion year experiment".

You state that the "neutral reader....". That is a hoot when "Scientific American" infers one view and demands evidence for another.

If there was TRUE scientific study to present to a neutral reader, then it would present various points of views and let the reader make up their own mind. Scientists could view various options and should be free to make their own decision and base their research on their thought process.

Instead, like much of what we are presented, we get one side and the other side is told to shut up. When was the last time Intelligent Design was allowed in the schools, text books, even publications. Ironically, a quick search and I don't see any articles in Scientific American as to where the Covid virus came from. Why not? Lots of articles on why one should get the vaccine and a few telling people that they should urge others to take the vaccine. None on why you should not take the vaccine. And the Covid vaccine was NOT tested in a conventional manner. I see you're from Canada. Do you agree with all the other "scientists" that transgenderism is normal? Now how "scientific" is that! What do evolutionists say about that? Is that the next evolutionary step?

What the world is presented with these days is nothing more than scientific bias opinions driven by political maneuvering, masquerading as legitimate science.

I can appreciate Christians who work in the scientific environment these days. It is difficult. But for those believers to get out on a Christian website and try to convince others that the Scriptures are wrong and evolution is right, then these people need to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. They have made science their god, and have dismissed the Holy Scriptures of what God is telling them.

 

[expos4ever]

You state that the "neutral reader....". That is a hoot when "Scientific American" infers one view and demands evidence for another.

Again, you mislead. I have already pointed out to "infer" can mean to draw a conclusion based on evidence. You are selectively restricting the range of meanings of the word "infer" to suit your purposes - you know that "infer" can mean to draw a conclusion based on very sketchy grounds. And you, apparently, are trying to ride that horse as far as you can.

As I have pointed out, the specific wording of the Scientific American article is beside the point - it is simply a fact that you will not be able to refute that the consensus of experts is that "repeatability" is not necessary for something to be classified as legitimate science.

If there was TRUE scientific study to present to a neutral reader, then it would present various points of views and let the reader make up their own mind. Scientists could view various options and should be free to make their own decision and base their research on their thought process.

No. We do not expect Scientific American, nor should we, to present the case for a flat earth or a moon made of green cheese. You are taking a policy of Scientific American - to not present "woo" - and trying to spin it into a dark conspiracy to muffle alternative views. Scientific American is under no obligation, nor should they be, to present crackpot ideas.

None on why you should not take the vaccine.

I doubt this - the experts frequently warned people about possible side effects of the vaccine. You are, again, being rather unreasonable in your expectations. Since the scientific evidence favours taking the vaccine despite the side effects, you are not going to get a "You should not take the vaccine" article in a reputable publication like Scientific American.

And the Covid vaccine was NOT tested in a conventional manner.

It was not tested with the same rigour as for other vaccines. But there was a very good reason for that.

I see you're from Canada. Do you agree with all the other "scientists" that transgenderism is normal? Now how "scientific" is that! What do evolutionists say about that? Is that the next evolutionary step?

What scientists are those? Let's have some names. And what do you mean by "normal"? Scientists are not in the business of making moral pronouncements. And when they do, they are straying out of their lane, as it were. I can pretty much guarantee that you are inventing a mythical bunch of scientists who are making moral judgements about transgenderism.

But for those believers to get out on a Christian website and try to convince others that the Scriptures are wrong and evolution is right,

Deeply misleading. The reality of what is going on, I suggest, is this - you insist that only a literalist reading of Scripture is correct, and you thereby, without a supporting argument, dismiss the large swath - in fact the majority I suggest, of Christians worldwide who accept evolution and very reasonably understand that the Bible was never intended by its authors to be taken literally in every word.

 

[Diamond7]

Why does this matter? Of what relevance is the song lyrics of someone who likely knows as much about evolution / science as I know about songwriting (which is zilch)?

Forbes magazine would not agree with you.

When Joni Mitchell Sang About Stardust, She May Have Been Right About The Origins Of Life On Earth. In 15 Facts.

There’s an old Joni Mitchell song that claims, “We are stardust” — and then almost right away equates stardust with “billion-year-old carbon.” Was Ms. Mitchell speaking accurately?

www.forbes.com

 

[expos4ever]

Forbes magazine would not agree with you.

When Joni Mitchell Sang About Stardust, She May Have Been Right About The Origins Of Life On Earth. In 15 Facts.

There’s an old Joni Mitchell song that claims, “We are stardust” — and then almost right away equates stardust with “billion-year-old carbon.” Was Ms. Mitchell speaking accurately?

www.forbes.com

You have to know this is entirely besides the point. What Joni Mitchell believes, whether correct or not, is a distraction.

What matters is what qualified experts believe.

And earlier, you misleadingly told readers that Carl Sagan "copied" Joni Mitchell. That is clearly false.

 

[Diamond7]

And earlier, you misleadingly told readers that Carl Sagan "copied" Joni Mitchell. That is clearly false.

I never said that. YOU need to get your facts straight before you start to accuse and attack the brethren.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't mean to tell you what to think. I'm just presenting another, more scriptural, view.

Thanks.

2 Tim 3:5

I'm not against a "more scriptural" emphasis, but I'm not as cognitively fortunate as some other Christians----for myself, I'm just a crippled realist who can't see how other people find reading the Bible to be such a simple task, especially since I've studied so many more educated individuals from all points of view. My only lament is that I'm not as educated as they are ... and I wish I was.

Anyway, if other Christians think they see indicia of Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" all around them, then so be it. I don't really care if they do. That's fine by me. I just hope they'll go easy on those of us who don't see that complexity as easily as they do.

 

[expos4ever]

I never said that. YOU need to get your facts straight before you start to accuse and attack the brethren.

The transcript of the thread shows that this objection of yours is not well-founded.

In response to another poster, I initially posted "The idea that Carl Sagan's ideas about evolution / how humans developed was based on Joni Mitchell is wild speculation on your part".

You then quoted me and cited the NY Times as saying that "he copied her". In context, if you were not invoking the Times as a credible source to support the claim that Sagan indeed did get his ideas from Joni Mitchell, what exactly was your point in posting that the Times said he copied her?

In any event, your claim about the Time article was incorrect - it does not say he copied her.

Second, you posted an article from Forbes, claiming that this article showed I was wrong in my claim that what Joni Mitchell thinks about evolution is not important since she is not an expert. This, again, is a distraction. Even if Ms. Mitchell is "right", we should not take lessons on science from her.

And you have evaded this question from me: "Are you trying to convince readers that because some people - people who are not experts in the relevant domains - have historically embraced some form of "evolution / naturalism" for dubious reason, this casts doubt on the soundness of evolutionary theory?"

So, yes, strictly speaking, you did not directly say that Sagan copied Mitchell. If you can explain to us exactly why you invoked the Times statement "he copied" her and show us that your intent was not to suggest that he indeed borrowed ideas from her, then I will apologize for what will, in that case, have been an unfair statement by me.

 

[HarleyER]

Again, you mislead. I have already pointed out to "infer" can mean to draw a conclusion based on evidence. You are selectively restricting the range of meanings of the word "infer" to suit your purposes - you know that "infer" can mean to draw a conclusion based on very sketchy grounds. And you, apparently, are trying to ride that horse as far as you can.

As I have pointed out, the specific wording of the Scientific American article is beside the point - it is simply a fact that you will not be able to refute that the consensus of experts is that "repeatability" is not necessary for something to be classified as legitimate science.

No. We do not expect Scientific American, nor should we, to present the case for a flat earth or a moon made of green cheese. You are taking a policy of Scientific American - to not present "woo" - and trying to spin it into a dark conspiracy to muffle alternative views. Scientific American is under no obligation, nor should they be, to present crackpot ideas.

I doubt this - the experts frequently warned people about possible side effects of the vaccine. You are, again, being rather unreasonable in your expectations. Since the scientific evidence favours taking the vaccine despite the side effects, you are not going to get a "You should not take the vaccine" article in a reputable publication like Scientific American.

It was not tested with the same rigour as for other vaccines. But there was a very good reason for that.

What scientists are those? Let's have some names. And what do you mean by "normal"? Scientists are not in the business of making moral pronouncements. And when they do, they are straying out of their lane, as it were. I can pretty much guarantee that you are inventing a mythical bunch of scientists who are making moral judgements about transgenderism.

Deeply misleading. The reality of what is going on, I suggest, is this - you insist that only a literalist reading of Scripture is correct, and you thereby, without a supporting argument, dismiss the large swath - in fact the majority I suggest, of Christians worldwide who accept evolution and very reasonably understand that the Bible was never intended by its authors to be taken literally in every word.

"you know that "infer" can mean to draw a conclusion based on very sketchy grounds."

Well, then by your definition, couldn’t Intelligent Design be a viable alternative?​

“As I have pointed out, the specific wording of the Scientific American article is beside the point –“

And I’ve tried to point out, it isn’t beside the point. It is deliberately stilting their argument. Any opposition to their belief structure is not publicized. I don’t expect Scientific American to present the moon being made of green cheese. However, there are legitimate scientists who firmly believe in Intelligent Design. They are treated with distain. They are never allow to publish because they believe there is a creator behind creation. And, some of them aren’t Christians, but the simply are looking at the evidence (oops, there’s that word).​

And there is that word again…”conspiracy”. I knew this would come up. When one brings up what is obvious, this is the typical reaction. All one has to do is go to Scientific American and see what they have to say about Intelligent Design.​

“I doubt this [sic Covid] - the experts frequently warned people about possible side effects of the vaccine.”

Have there been any government studies done on the number and causes of deaths due to the Covid vaccine? Wouldn’t this be proper procedure under any vaccine on the market? Why was the government insistent that everyone take the drug to the extent that if you didn’t, you could lose your job?​

“What scientists are those? Let's have some names.”

Well, here in the US we have lots of “scientists” in the CDC to name but a few (go to their website). I’m sure there is a similar Canadian organization that promotes this as well. And don’t tell me, “Well, these scientist have their field and we have ours.” If they can be wrong, than any scientist can be wrong. That is unless you agree with them.​

“the majority I suggest, of Christians worldwide who accept evolution and very reasonably understand that the Bible was never intended by its authors to be taken literally in every word.”

This I think we both would agree with. That is why the church is where it is today. People don’t wish to believe the Bible is the literal Word of God given to us for teaching, reproof, and correction. Instead, there is reason and logic-not faith.​

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

 

[HarleyER]

I'm not against a "more scriptural" emphasis, but I'm not as cognitively fortunate as some other Christians----for myself, I'm just a crippled realist who can't see how other people find reading the Bible to be such a simple task, especially since I've studied so many more educated individuals from all points of view. My only lament is that I'm not as educated as they are ... and I wish I was.

Anyway, if other Christians think they see indicia of Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" all around them, then so be it. I don't really care if they do. That's fine by me. I just hope they'll go easy on those of us who don't see that complexity as easily as they do.

Everything in this life is tainted except the Scriptures. So we are warned by God. Peter was called an ignorant fisherman. Paul was told his great learn had driven him mad. They both were realists. Yet both men came to be able to proclaim Jesus Christ as Savior, because this is the reality of life.

Psalm 19

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;​

The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.​

8 The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;​

The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.​

9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;​

The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.​

10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;​

Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.​

11 Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;​

In keeping them there is great reward.​

 

[expos4ever]

"you know that "infer" can mean to draw a conclusion based on very sketchy grounds."

Well, then by your definition, couldn’t Intelligent Design be a viable alternative?​

I do not know anything about the intelligent design theory. But that is really not the point. Maybe it explains the observations as well as the evolution hypothesis - that is certainly a possibility in my view. I am not going to discuss the Scientific American article further since I believe you are using it as a distraction. My case can be made completely independent of that article.

“I don’t expect Scientific American to present the moon being made of green cheese. However, there are legitimate scientists who firmly believe in Intelligent Design. They are treated with disdain. They are never allow to publish because they believe there is a creator behind creation.

How do you know that this is the reason they are not allowed to publish? Please be precise in your answer. On the surface you are presenting an hypothesis with no evidence to support it. You might be right - perhaps the intelligent design theory is not being given fair treatment. But if you're going to claim bias, you need to make a case to support it.

Have there been any government studies done on the number and causes of deaths due to the Covid vaccine?​

I'm pretty sure there have been such studies. And I am equally sure all studies show the number of deaths due to the covid vaccine are very small. And, more to the point, the risk of death due to the vaccine is substantially less than the risk of death due to covid. In short, I am quite convinced that the evidence is clear - for most people, the covid vaccine is worth it from a risk benefit perspective.

Why was the government insistent that everyone take the drug to the extent that if you didn’t, you could lose your job?​

Please support this claim. You may be right, perhaps people did lose their job if they did not take the vaccine. Private employers are free to do whatever they want - they can come to the conclusion that employees who refuse to take the vaccine pose a health threat to the rest of the workers, and fire them on that basis. That is totally within their right..

As far as governments are concerned, a similar case could be made. Just as an employer is not obliged to retain an employee who threatens the lives of others through violent action, I suspect they are not obliged to retain employees who refuse a virtually no risk medical intervention that would reduce the risk to other employees.

“What scientists are those? Let's have some names.”

Well, here in the US we have lots of “scientists” in the CDC to name but a few (go to their website).​

You made the claim, you need to name the scientists. This is a strategy we see often in this forum. A claim is made by person A, and when person B challenges them to defend their claim, person A expects person B to do their homework for them. This is a burden of proof issue - you made a claim, you need to defend it by providing names.

You claimed that some scientists claim that transgenderism is "normal". When I ask you to support this claim, you evade providing an answer and expect me to look one up on your behalf. A neutral reader was suspect the obvious - there really are no such scientists.

As for your choice to interpret all scripture literally, you have merely claimed that this is the right way to see scripture and blame the state of the world on those who do not see things the way you do. I could do the exact opposite.

 

[Diamond7]

I was wrong

If your wrong then your wrong. Why blame me for that?

 

[expos4ever]

If your wrong then your wrong. Why blame me for that?

You are obviously cherry-picking. Any reader who has their wits about them and is reading carefully will know that this is a gross misrepresentation of my most recent post. In my post, I was extremely clear that my being in the wrong is contingent upon your answer to a very specific question I asked.

 

[Diamond7]

You are obviously cherry-picking.

The point is I am not going to try to figure out what you are saying because it is just not important enough. Maybe you need to use Bing to write for you so you are more clear and concise. Let me give you an example.

Let’s distill the key points from your discussion:

1. Carl Sagan and Joni Mitchell: Both popularized the saying “We are stardust,” emphasizing that our elements come from dying stars.
2. Observational Evidence: Astronomer Paul Willard Merrill’s discovery of technetium in a red giant star provided evidence for our stardust origins 1.
3. Technetium Spectrum: Merrill’s colleague, William Meggers, contributed to identifying technetium’s spectrum.
4. Forbes Article: The relevance of Joni Mitchell’s views on evolution is debatable, even if she were “right”.

In summary, while Sagan didn’t directly copy Mitchell, their shared message about stardust resonates through science and music alike.

 

[expos4ever]

The point is I am not going to try to figure out what you are saying because it is just not important enough. Maybe you need to use Bing to write for you so you are more clear and concise.

I am a professional writer - I am confident my post was quite clear.

You have evaded at least 2 questions. First, I asked you whether you were trying to imply that just because some people have adopted evolution/naturalism for bad reasons, that this therefore casts doubt on the soundness of evolutionary theory. I do not believe you answered this question. Then, I asked you whether your invocation of the Times article, where you erroneously said that the article indicated that Sagan had copied from Mitchell, was intended to endorse the view that Sagan based his ideas on those of Joni Mitchell. You have not answered that question either.

Let me give you an example.

Let’s distill the key points from your discussion:

1. Carl Sagan and Joni Mitchell: Both popularized the saying “We are stardust,” emphasizing that our elements come from dying stars 1.
2. Observational Evidence: Astronomer Paul Willard Merrill’s discovery of technetium in a red giant star provided evidence for our stardust origins 1.
3. Technetium Spectrum: Merrill’s colleague, William Meggers, contributed to identifying technetium’s spectrum 1.
4. Forbes Article: The relevance of Joni Mitchell’s views on evolution is debatable, even if she were “right” 2.

In summary, while Sagan didn’t directly copy Mitchell, their shared message about stardust resonates through science and music alike.

Ok, but so what? Why is this in any way relevant? No reasonable person would look to a singer as an authority on matters related to evolution/naturalism.

 

[HarleyER]

I do not know anything about the intelligent design theory. But that is really not the point. Maybe it explains the observations as well as the evolution hypothesis - that is certainly a possibility in my view. I am not going to discuss the Scientific American article further since I believe you are using it as a distraction. My case can be made completely independent of that article.

How do you know that this is the reason they are not allowed to publish? Please be precise in your answer. On the surface you are presenting an hypothesis with no evidence to support it. You might be right - perhaps the intelligent design theory is not being given fair treatment. But if you're going to claim bias, you need to make a case to support it.

I'm pretty sure there have been such studies. And I am equally sure all studies show the number of deaths due to the covid vaccine are very small. And, more to the point, the risk of death due to the vaccine is substantially less than the risk of death due to covid. In short, I am quite convinced that the evidence is clear - for most people, the covid vaccine is worth it from a risk benefit perspective.

Please support this claim. You may be right, perhaps people did lose their job if they did not take the vaccine. Private employers are free to do whatever they want - they can come to the conclusion that employees who refuse to take the vaccine pose a health threat to the rest of the workers, and fire them on that basis. That is totally within their right..

As far as governments are concerned, a similar case could be made. Just as an employer is not obliged to retain an employee who threatens the lives of others through violent action, I suspect they are not obliged to retain employees who refuse a virtually no risk medical intervention that would reduce the risk to other employees.

You made the claim, you need to name the scientists. This is a strategy we see often in this forum. A claim is made by person A, and when person B challenges them to defend their claim, person A expects person B to do their homework for them. This is a burden of proof issue - you made a claim, you need to defend it by providing names.

You claimed that some scientists claim that transgenderism is "normal". When I ask you to support this claim, you evade providing an answer and expect me to look one up on your behalf. A neutral reader was suspect the obvious - there really are no such scientists.

As for your choice to interpret all scripture literally, you have merely claimed that this is the right way to see scripture and blame the state of the world on those who do not see things the way you do. I could do the exact opposite.

"How do you know that this is the reason they are not allowed to publish? Please be precise in your answer."

Well, all one has to do is Google it to find discrimination about Intelligent Design. Just the fact that you don't know anything about Intelligent Design, something that one would think you would be aware of, should tell you something. Here is one paper that was published on Religious Discrimatioin by those scientist who believe in Intelligent Design (https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=icc_proceedings)​

"I'm pretty sure there have been such studies. And I am equally sure all studies show the number of deaths due to the covid vaccine are very small. ...Please support this claim."

Do you know of any government studies? I can find some by private groups but none by the government. Doesn't this look a wee bit suspicious?​

​

"When I ask you to support this claim ("scientists supporting transgenderism"), you evade providing an answer and expect me to look one up on your behalf. "

Transgender stigma and health: A critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953615302185)​

Rigorous science demands support of transgender scientists (https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00187-9# )​

​

These are only a few. I hesitate to post any more but feel free to Google "Science opinion on transgender".​

​

"As for your choice to interpret all scripture literally, you have merely claimed that this is the right way to see scripture and blame the state of the world on those who do not see things the way you do. I could do the exact opposite."

Not everything is to be taken literally in scripture. I don't expect in the last days some giant beast is going to pop out of the ocean. But, yes, I do blame the state of the world on not following the scriptures. The scriptures states this:​

​

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.​

​

People will not honor God. It just that simple. And those who believe in Scripture are counted a fool. One simply has to choose.​

​

​

 

[expos4ever]

Well, all one has to do is Google it to find discrimination about Intelligent Design.

Well then, please do so - find evidence that there is such discrimination and present it. Remember - it is your claim that there is discrimination; it is incumbent on you to present the evidence for this claim.

Just the fact that you don't know anything about Intelligent Design, something that one would think you would be aware of, should tell you something.

Tell me what? Why do you expect that I would know about intelligent design? Are you suggesting that my not knowing about intelligent design undermines the points I have made? If so, please explain how. I have made no claims about intelligent design.

Here is one paper that was published on Religious Discrimatioin by those scientist who believe in Intelligent Design (https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=icc_proceedings)

Again, you are asking me to do your homework for you. If this paper - written by a known creationist - really makes a case that there is unfair discrimination against the publication of their work, then you need to present the case. It is not up to me to read this paper - you need to point us to where in this paper a case is made that unfair discrimination has taken place.

 

[expos4ever]

"I'm pretty sure there have been such studies. And I am equally sure all studies show the number of deaths due to the covid vaccine are very small. ...Please support this claim."

Do you know of any government studies? I can find some by private groups but none by the government. Doesn't this look a wee bit suspicious?​

I am not sure what your point is. Are you asking me to defend my claim that the number of deaths due to the covid vaccine is very low? Happy to oblige:

From the Center For Disease Control (CDC):

Although deaths after COVID-19 vaccination have been reported to VAERS, there have been few studies done to evaluate the mortality not associated with COVID-19 among vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. To analyze this, researchers conducted a study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink, comparing those who received COVID-19 vaccines and those who did not between December 2020 through July 2021. This study included data from 11 million people; 6.4 million received either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or Janssen COVID-19 vaccine and 4.6 were unvaccinated. The analysis showed that those who received COVID-19 vaccinations had lower rates of mortality for non-COVID-19 causes than those unvaccinated. These findings provide evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and support current vaccination recommendations.

And this from the reputable Globe and Mail newspaper in Ontario:

As updated COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out across the country, fresh evidence confirms that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, with only a small percentage of people reporting serious reactions.

More than 38 million COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered since 2020 in Ontario alone as of Oct. 8, with 23,002 reports of adverse reactions, an incidence of 0.06 per cent, according to a report from Public Health Ontario.

The report, published earlier this month, is based on surveillance data collected from patients since the start of COVID-19 vaccinations in December, 2020.

It found that 94.5 per cent of those adverse reactions were not serious, with allergic skin reactions and redness or pain at the injection site among the most common complaints.

Just 5.5 per cent of adverse events linked to the vaccines were considered serious and included conditions that required an admission to hospital or resulted in death.

But Public Health Ontario says that doesn’t mean the vaccines were the cause. The surveillance program captures all medical events that occur after vaccination, so those that would have happened anyway are included in the report, even if there’s a small likelihood of a link.

“I see this very positively – that there’s been 38 million doses in arms, very small numbers of adverse events reported, less than 0.1 per cent of doses, and the vast majority of those, close to 95 per cent, are non-serious,” said Reed Morrison, a public health physician with Public Health Ontario who has expertise in vaccine-preventable diseases.

 

[expos4ever]

Transgender stigma and health: A critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953615302185)

Rigorous science demands support of transgender scientists (https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00187-9# )​

Remember your original claim: It was this:

Do you agree with all the other "scientists" that transgenderism is normal? Now how "scientific" is that!

You are claiming that scientists are saying that transgenderism is "normal". Here are the highlights from this report:

- Stigma contributes to widespread health inequities in US transgender communities.

- We review the multiple levels at which stigma towards transgender people operates.

- The stress mechanisms through which stigma contributes to health are discussed.

- Intervention strategies to reduce transgender stigma are outlined at each level.

- Multi-level interventions are needed to reduce transgender stigma in the US.

How does any of this support your claim that scientists believe transgenderism is normal? Yes, the scientists are reporting that transgender people are stigmatized. But this has nothing to do with whether scientists are making value judgments about being transgender.

Do I believe that people who pick their noses in public stigmatized? Yes, I believe they are stigmatized. Does that mean that I believe they are normal? No it does not - my saying they are stigmatized tells you nothing about I believe about whether I consider nose-picking to be normal.

 

[Diamond7]

I am a professional writer

Then why don't I understand what you are saying?

The soundness of evolutionary theory should not be judged solely based on how some individuals adopt or misuse it. Evolutionary theory is a scientific framework that explains the diversity of life on Earth through natural processes such as natural selection, mutation, and genetic variation. It has undergone rigorous testing, scrutiny, and validation by the scientific community.

you erroneously said that the article indicated that Sagan had copied from Mitchell,

I do not think I said that. You must have me confused with someone else. My hypotheses would be that Joni Mitchel and Carl Sagan got their information from a common source. Not from each other.

Stephen Ornes, in his book “Math Art: Truth, Beauty, and Equations”, delves into the fascinating intersection of mathematics and art. He explores how mathematical concepts inspire contemporary artists, resulting in a diverse array of captivating creations.

Ornes’s book celebrates the intrinsic aesthetic of mathematics and its eternal truths. Through the lens of these artists, we glimpse the beauty hidden within mathematical patterns and concepts, even if most of us cannot fully grasp their mathematical basis.

You can not divorce science and the Bible, you can not divorce art and science. Both Carl Sagan and Joni Mitchell recognized our shared cosmic heritage, emphasizing that we are indeed made of stardust. Their beliefs may have diverged in other aspects, but this particular idea unites them across disciplines and generations

Vincent van Gogh’s “Starry Night” isn’t just a mesmerizing masterpiece; it also conceals scientific mysteries within its swirling brushstrokes.

 

[expos4ever]

Then why don't I understand what you are saying?

Perhaps because you are not paying close enough attention? Remember, you have erroneously stated a New York Times article declared that Sagan copied Mitchell. Your words:

According to the New York Times, he copied her.

But the article says no such thing. If you are not paying careful enough attention, mistakes can be made. To be fair, I may have made a mistake in thread as well.

The soundness of evolutionary theory should not be judged solely based on how some individuals adopt or misuse it. Evolutionary theory is a scientific framework that explains the diversity of life on Earth through natural processes such as natural selection, mutation, and genetic variation. It has undergone rigorous testing, scrutiny, and validation by the scientific community.

On this we agree

I do not think I said that. You must have me confused with someone else.

No you said it. Again:

According to the New York Times, he copied her.

Refer to post 27

My hypotheses would be that Joni Mitchel and Carl Sagan got their information from a common source. Not from each other.

Stephen Ornes, in his book “Math Art: Truth, Beauty, and Equations”, delves into the fascinating intersection of mathematics and art. He explores how mathematical concepts inspire contemporary artists, resulting in a diverse array of captivating creations.

Ornes’s book celebrates the intrinsic aesthetic of mathematics and its eternal truths. Through the lens of these artists, we glimpse the beauty hidden within mathematical patterns and concepts, even if most of us cannot fully grasp their mathematical basis1.

You can not divorce science the the Bible, you can not divorce art and science. Both Carl Sagan and Joni Mitchell recognized our shared cosmic heritage, emphasizing that we are indeed made of stardust. Their beliefs may have diverged in other aspects, but this particular idea unites them across disciplines and generations

Ok, I have no problem with this and have no disagreement with you on anything you have posted (other than your claim that the Times said Sagan copied Mitchell - the article does not say this). Here is why I thought you needed to be corrected.

1. When you said that the Times article said that Sagan copied Mitchell, this was in response to my statement to another poster where I said "The idea that Carl Sagan's ideas about evolution / how humans developed was based on Joni Mitchell is wild speculation on your part". So when you then reported (erroneously but that is not the point) that the Times article said Sagan copied Mitchell, I interpreted this(erroneously as it turns out) as you agreeing with this claim of copying.

2. You did not answer this question of mine to you from post 37: Are you trying to convince readers that because some people - people who are not experts in the relevant domains - have historically embraced some form of "evolution / naturalism" for dubious reason, this casts doubt on the soundness of evolutionary theory? You never answered this question and I, perhaps rashly, interpreted your silence as a tacit admission that this is precisely what you were trying to do. Assuming your answer to my question is "no", then I have no disagreement with you.