Jump to content
IGNORED

What things do the Duggers use that they deny the science


doggie

Recommended Posts

I can't find the reference at the moment, but I believe that former senator Sam Brownback who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 is a geocentrist. Yep, some guy who wanted to be President believed the sun orbited the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I can't find the reference at the moment, but I believe that former senator Sam Brownback who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 is a geocentrist. Yep, some guy who wanted to be President believed the sun orbited the earth.

This doesn't surprise me. 2012 and this doesn't surprise me. Jesus, save me from your (supposed) followers. :pray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't surprise me. 2012 and this doesn't surprise me. Jesus, save me from your (supposed) followers. :pray:

or frothy and wanting creationism in schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read an article about conversapedia.com, which is the fundie version of wikipedia. Its an "encylcopedia" of sorts which is HEAVILY monitered and edited to ensure that everything aligns with biblical ideals. I checked it out and whoa, crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight:

1. the Duggars think the whole population of Earth can fit in Jacksonville

2. the Duggars think the world is 6000 years old and that evolution is a lie

3. the fundies think that relativity is not real

4. some fundies (?all) believe the sun revolves around the earth

5. the fundies believe that global climate change is a lie

wow, stupider than I thought

Really. Just when you think they can't get any dumber....

But seriously, they believe the sun revolves around the earth? NO EFFING WAY!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they take their kids to this museum which tells people dinosaurs came after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden? This all happening in the past 6000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they take their kids to this museum which tells people dinosaurs came after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden? This all happening in the past 6000 years.

Yup that trip was filmed for the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's the Creation Museum. I'd love to write on the museum's facebook page asking if they think the Flintstones is a documentary but I'm afraid they would report it as spam. I don't want my account deactivated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they dont believe in evolution then they need to stick to first generation antibiotics.

Doonesbury+Creationism.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's the Creation Museum. I'd love to write on the museum's facebook page asking if they think the Flintstones is a documentary but I'm afraid they would report it as spam. I don't want my account deactivated.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pathetic! One of the sources they use to argue against GPS systems using relativity is an article THAT EXPLAINS HOW GPS SYSTEMS USE RELATIVITY. Not only that, but the author of the article is probably the worst person they could have associated themselves with, considering that he's the author of a 42 page paper that describes in depth the influence of general relativity on GPS systems using experimental proof.

Unbelievable. Their average reader must have a very low level of education if their sources are this easy to debunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pathetic! One of the sources they use to argue against GPS systems using relativity is an article THAT EXPLAINS HOW GPS SYSTEMS USE RELATIVITY. Not only that, but the author of the article is probably the worst person they could have associated themselves with, considering that he's the author of a 42 page paper that describes in depth the influence of general relativity on GPS systems using experimental proof.

Unbelievable. Their average reader must have a very low level of education if their sources are this easy to debunk.

Thanks for answering that Visionoyahweh! I am not surprised there are deniers, but I am surprised they go to that much trouble to do it. I will never get why faith isn't good enough for these so called believers, why the need to attack science and collect 'proofs' of their own.

Copy on source failure. I Also picked at random one of their citations to check. I chose the citation following "at least one study shows..." to check the source of the study; source: NY Times article that is, although in the Science section, still a speculative entertaining summary of a scholarly book. Not an academic publication of the study itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering that Visionoyahweh! I am not surprised there are deniers, but I am surprised they go to that much trouble to do it. I will never get why faith isn't good enough for these so called believers, why the need to attack science and collect 'proofs' of their own.

Copy on source failure. I Also picked at random one of their citations to check. I chose the citation following "at least one study shows..." to check the source of the study; source: NY Times article that is, although in the Science section, still a speculative entertaining summary of a scholarly book. Not an academic publication of the study itself.

The first four footnotes for the lack of evidence section barely hold up. #16 is used to argue that relativity isn't used in GPS. It cites a paper that is both 16 years old and about how future GPS systems will need to use relativity in order to meet upcoming accuracy standards. You can't use a snippet of a paper to prove your point when that paper then goes on to disprove the point you were trying to make. #17 is basically an opinion since it's not backed up. #18 is used to quote an actual tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist who believes not only that GPS technology disregards relativity, but that Einstein fabricated his theory. However, the quote is taken from a Salon article in which the conspiracy theorist's theories are solidly torn apart by experts in the field, and in which his alleged "source" who was close to Einstein is contacted and tells Salon they said nothing of the sort. #19 is for the same Salon article, and is supposed to support Conservapedia's assertion that the people who contradict Mr. Conspiracy (and, it is implied, everyone who says GPS uses relativity) are "obscure physicists". More sketchy sourcing, because the article identifies these physicists as specializing in gravitation, and in one case the practical applications of general relativity. They are experts in the field, Mr. Conspiracy is the "obscure physicist" in this case.

I could go on, but I think we've both made it very clear that Conservapedia doesn't make facts accessible (like Wikipedia), it twists them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first four footnotes for the lack of evidence section barely hold up. #16 is used to argue that relativity isn't used in GPS. It cites a paper that is both 16 years old and about how future GPS systems will need to use relativity in order to meet upcoming accuracy standards. You can't use a snippet of a paper to prove your point when that paper then goes on to disprove the point you were trying to make. #17 is basically an opinion since it's not backed up. #18 is used to quote an actual tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist who believes not only that GPS technology disregards relativity, but that Einstein fabricated his theory. However, the quote is taken from a Salon article in which the conspiracy theorist's theories are solidly torn apart by experts in the field, and in which his alleged "source" who was close to Einstein is contacted and tells Salon they said nothing of the sort. #19 is for the same Salon article, and is supposed to support Conservapedia's assertion that the people who contradict Mr. Conspiracy (and, it is implied, everyone who says GPS uses relativity) are "obscure physicists". More sketchy sourcing, because the article identifies these physicists as specializing in gravitation, and in one case the practical applications of general relativity. They are experts in the field, Mr. Conspiracy is the "obscure physicist" in this case.

I could go on, but I think we've both made it very clear that Conservapedia doesn't make facts accessible (like Wikipedia), it twists them.

I think I am in love with you, Minerva.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.