HOME | DD
squiggledog — Who is worse at science?
#aig #creation #creationism #david #evolution #ham #ken #musuem #nutrition #wolfe #pseudoscience #creationmuseum #answersingenesis #kenham #davidwolfe #science
Published: 2016-09-18 05:36:37 +0000 UTC; Views: 2132; Favourites: 4; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
Here in exhibit we have young-earth creationist Ken Ham. He is whom runs the fundamentalist organization Answers in Genesis. Known for hosting a debate with Bill Nye at his Creation Museum, he has become famous for for his quite reconciled fundelematist beliefs. He does have, the erroneous belief, that the Earth is merely 6,000 years old. He has also made quite radical reconciliations of his beliefs with biological evolution.On the right is David Wolfe. A flat-earther, many of the things he says will make your head explode. He is also totally anti-vaccine. (For those who've met such people, they are pretty crazy.) If this wasn't enough, he believes cancer is all for profit, and is just a busnies. Anti-GMO, and a chemtrail conspiracist as well. He's a total tinfoil-hat conspiracy hippie that is everything in one.
Related content
Comments: 8
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They're both equally bad at science. Both just run their mouths and let shit pour out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Most anti science are businessmen who make money out of stupid religious public
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're conflating unconnected issues that have zero to do with each other, and dismissing them on the circular argument of that conflation. This is dishonest and not logical. You'd have a better case if you stuck to what was relevant with a more narrow focus. Otherwise, what you say is too easy to refute on the basis of it's dishonesty. Just because an idiot believes something, doesn't mean that it's not true, it's the evidence that should matter not who presents it and nor do their other opinions or beliefs have any relevance.
You earn a F.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All I did was ask who was worse at science.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then ask the right questions, not conflate entirely different things. It's intentionally deceptive to conflate many of those things together.
For example, you call those who are anti-vaccine 'crazy' but are they really or do they have evidence to base their caution upon? I suspect you never saw these USA Congressional Hearings on TV; Watch the whole thing, those are your government's Congress lawmakers discussing the real evidence, contradicting the official bullshit stories about vaccine safety and finding that the CDC had lied repeatedly.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2M5LA…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGRjn_…
If you want peer-reviewed papers, I can link to 130 or more, showing just how dangerous those commercial vaccines approved in the USA are. The medical industry is filled with fraud these days, there's too much money, and a lot of greedy people want some of it.
How do you know that cancer treatments aren't for profit? Logically, they must be a hugely profitable business which pharmaceutical corporations would have no motivation for ending (by finding a "cure" as that would kill off their business model).
Dr Linus Pauling, double Nobel Laureate, declared: 'Everyone should know that the "War on Cancer" is, largely, a fraud.'
'The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse...for decades - and it simply didn't work in people'.
Dr Richard Klausner, Head of the National Cancer Institute,
LA Times May 1998.
'If you have cancer and you are a mouse, we can take good care of you.'
Dr Judah Folkman US cancer vivisector.
Time mag. May 1998
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah. You're an anti-vaxxer yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Experience a really bad result, or see it directly happen to a child, you would be too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0