People with extreme anti-science views know the least, but think they know the

Doesn’t require a study to conclude, if you ask me, but it sure is gratifying.


See also the Bruce Salem conjecture…

1 Like

Don’t let @Patrick see this. :laughing:


I like these studies. its simply that dumber people draw dumber conclusions. its a intelligence curve.
The article also said it was not just about food but gene therapy. it mentioned climate stuff biut switch it. tHey seemed to say climate change denial/support was about groups .
There is no climate change from people. its a error and a upper class establishment desire to make a greener, cleaner, world before the third world, china/india/indonesia etc etc, start driving cars/ or two of them relative to their populations.
Yet I do agree that smarter people should get things right relative to dumber people.
We adults in comparison to children , on thirty issues of contention, will be right 29, or 30, of them. Its not a roll of the dice. Its not each contention is independent of each other. Instead we are smarter and will beat them every time.

I think origin issues show this also.
Its always those who are creationist tend to be consrvative, republican.
Its these same identities that in history were right about things relative to liberal democrats.
they got the economic stuff right which now rules the world. They got the international stuff right like fighting the soviets and now all the soviets are broken up and free and better and no more a military/nuke threat. in law/order the conservative side has prevailed better, not enough yet, but made a safer, wee bit more juster, society.
Then these conservative republicans tend still to come from the yankee protestant stock. not including the southern and urban ethnic Catholic types.
While the liberal democrat comes from very ethnic types and left wing types…
so the side that has been more right, more smart, is more creationist friendly.
its about intelligence and not mere lack of knowledge.
Science is about smarter awareness of things. So smarter people would do a better job.
the future can be predicted on origin issues and climate change or anything.

I hope the irony isn’t lost on anyone Robert Byers has the wordiest response to this OP. :slightly_smiling_face:


I suspect he’s already very familiar with this! :rofl:


Followed by . . .

Bob owes me a new irony meter.


Careful. you don’t want to make my point eh. watch the urves in these things.

Just out of curiosity, do you understand how the greenhouse effect works and the 150 years of scientific research that describes it? Do you understand why carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Are you aware of the historic measurements of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?

Greenhouse stuff/150 years says nothing about a real time earth. its impossible for man to affect the earth with his puffs of smoke. its a humbug.
its not warmer anywhere anymore then the historic differences in even historic times. its a humbug.
its dumb. Its hilarious.
its as nuts as saying vaccinations are bad for people.

Robert, you know there are a lot of scientists here. You also know that scientists like to formulate opinions based on factual evidence. Would you like to provide evidence to substantiate your claim? Or do you prefer arguing with absolutely no basis?


It is facts. I’m aware of them. No other facts were presented here. So why me first?
Anyways its not the main point of the subject. Its just a example.
By the way its common knowledge "scientists’ opinions are usually not well supported by facts. This is a problem in publishing . I just watched about this yesterday.
Any awareness of historic climates teaches they have switched about rapidly just within the last two thousand years. So even if we were getting warmer, we are not, it would be chump change relative to dozens of times since Christ.
Global warming is a humbug. by humans its an absurdity. Its hilarious.

“People with extreme anti-science views know the least, but think they know the most.” Really take some time to ponder the meaning of those words Robert.


Your saying your wise to accuse!
first creationists , or anyone, DON’t have anti-science views. Nobosy thinks they do or say that. its an accusation against them if they disagree with a conclusion otherwise agreed to by the relevant folks in that specific "science’ dealing with the question.
most scientific revolution leaders were accused of being anti-science from what I read in history.

So for many its just disagreeing with a conclusion.
Creationism(s) claim to be doing BETTER science. We are not oposed. Thats just dumb sour grapes by our opponents. We know that!

What should be said is people who are dumber about science proven facts are more likely to think they know the most. Naw. Its never that way. dumber people know they know nothing about science.
I think its just a curve in intelligence.
More intelligent are more careful about conclusions since they know there is so much to know.
less intelligent people are just leas careful about conclusions as they don’t know how much there is to know.
I find evolution supporting folks in the public JUST accept evolution because they think there is no other options or discussion about options.
smarter people know there is loads of contentions and have a more open heart to weigh things.
Creationism moves upon a intelligence curve in the population. it seeks thoughtful people who are not yet creationists but know all science contentions are up for grabs.

If creationism(s0 is true it would be true that smarter people would first figure this out.
If creationism criticisms etc are not true then it would mean smarter people figure this out.
Yet its apparent that the ignoring or censorship of creationism doesn’t allow many people to judge it.
So the smarter people is a unknown.
However ID/YEC do appeal to people who got the extra step in thinking about origins outside the normal establishment. So I see this as evidence creationism moves in a more intelligent curve of people since its so enduring.
Just by probability math its unlikely creationism9S0 will not prevail. We have the house advantage.

Yes, obviously very few people would outright say “I’m anti-science”. They prefer to think that they’re the ones with “true science” on their side, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re anti-science in the sense that they disagree with the best-supported conclusions in science. Creationists, just like anti-vaxxers, flat earthers etc, claim that mainstream science is wrong, and offer nothing substantive in the way of evidence to support that position.

It’s completely different from cases where scientific revolutions take place. Revolutions happen when new evidence is brought to light, it grows and becomes accepted by mainstream science, and then makes its way into the public sphere. Creationists have skipped that first step, and go straight to trying to convince the public with demonstrably false arguments instead. If ever there was a diagnostic for quackery, that would be it.

Anyway, the point of my comment was for you to reflect on the title of the article, since you, as a creationist, hold “anti-science views” extremely confidently, yet are objectively one of the least informed about it on this forum. That should give you pause.


Do you think the laws of physics have changed in the last 150 years? If you don’t even know the basics of how the greenhouse effect works, aren’t you the type of person the opening post is talking about?

For example, they found that carbon dioxide absorbed certain wavelengths of light in the infrared spectrum. Do you think this observation has changed in the last 150 years?

Let’s start with these facts. Here are the emission spectra for the Sun and Earth, and various absorbance spectra for constituents found in the atmosphere:

You will notice that the Earth emits light in the infrared, and carbon dioxide absorbs some of that outgoing heat radiation. Do you doubt these facts?

1 Like

You accuse, i defend, but you don’t learn.
Creationists, or anybody, are not anti-science.
they have another hypothesis. Thats what revolutions in science is about.
New hypothesis in science DISAGREE with others ones. Well sepported is just another opinion.
Creationists deny its well supported… What is MAINSTREAM science? Origin subjects in reality are quite obscure ones where tiny numbers of people actually get paid to do it.
creationism is fighting very small numbers of people and thats why we are now in a revolution.
Or a coup!
its not just new evidence that brings revolutions but a new way of looking at the evidence. they say this all the time. creationists look at it better.
I don’t hold ANTI-SCIENCE views.I’m not in PAUSE mode.
I will place my science competence with you or anyone.
on the merits of the evidence will conclusions in science fall.

I heard you the first time, and I already went over this. Of course you won’t proudly label yourself “anti-science”, but that doesn’t change the fact that when you reject scientific conclusions in favour of unsupported ones, you’re being anti-science by any meaningful definition of the term.

Are flat-earthers “anti-science” do you think? Or do they just “have another hypothesis”?

Lol OK…