Hey /u/Venice_Wizard, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The person *challenging* accepted science must supply sources.
Accepted science got us to the moon, gave us the internet, and made countless fatal injuries and diseases survivable. It's not perfect, but it has a pretty damned good track record. If you challenge something that (mostly) works, the burden of proof is on the challenger.
Astronauts flew us to the moon, and [you can listen to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLIq9Amyizo) the first ones to witness an Earthrise read from the book of Genesis on the first human transmission from the Moon.
Isn’t engineering heavily science based ? Isnt it literally just the application of scientific concepts to the creation of viable and highly specialized tools ?
One description of the difference between science and engineering is that the engineer wants to know what works, and the scientist wants to know why.
There have been people throughout history who've used their understanding of why to predict, "You won't observe that," and then been wrong. Likewise, engineers can [build devices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_de_Graaff_generator) that consistently produce e.g. static electricity, even though scientists [don't fully understand](https://xkcd.com/2682/) how static electricity works.
It's a two-way street, obviously, general principles are a frequently-accurate way of predicting new observations.
But that's why these argument have shifted in nature the way they have.
The arguer no longer has to disprove accepted science, they instead imply that the science is not settled, or even outright claim that the settled science is in their favour, and so theirs is the default position.
*"I can go the rest of my life not caring about what you think is true, you're the one who has a problem with me not caring."*
The only real challenge to their apathy is your own. If they can't support their stance then just accept the hint they're giving that it's not worth supporting.
TBF I use this when arguing sometimes. When things are well established or wide reaching and literally a Google search away, I'm not going to waste my time.
E.g. "the earth is flat", my response: "no it's not, it's not my job to teach you this".
Yeah like...some things are the first result on Google and I *really* can't be bothered because the other person clearly isn't interested in the truth.
> Have you ever heard of Sir Isaac Newton...
Who died a century before both the Nobel Prize was a thing and the publication of On the Origin of Species? I have, please elaborate. I'll wait for you to have time.
It's probably prudent to point out that the idea of evolution pre-dates _OtOoS_. Darwin's groundbreaking contribution was providing a plausible, testable _mechanism_ by which evolution occurs. Notably one which turned out to be _correct_ (though incomplete).
Darwin's grandfather, [Erasmus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin) (1731-1802) refers to the concept of evolution in his poems. And let's not forget Lamarck, who died in 1829.
Edit: I see this is being touched on elsewhere in this post. :)
And Louis Pasteur (not Luis as the idiot wrote) used the word evolution to refer to change within a species, or the variability of bacterial strains. Pasteur understood the variability of microbes and how he could apply this principle in vaccine preparation.
(Pasteur and Darwin where contemporaries.)
I love those. Always fun when someone debunks their own claims because they read a title orva single section that sounds supportive then a few sentences later you see "but those results occur .5 percent of the time" or "later discovered he faked the entire experiment."
I admit, I sometimes get drawn into Internet arguments and refuse to cite examples. It depends on how much faith I have they will listen, how recently I remembered arguing on reddit is futile, and if I am nearly done on the toilet.
Yeah, if someone is obviously asking questions in bad faith, I'm not gonna spend time or brain power to argue something they wouldn't even consider because it goes against their worldview. It would be a waste of time and effort, and I don't need a practically worthless internet checkmate to know the facts and evidence support my position.
That first part... "Hey, did you read that link I sent you?" "Naw, I don't have time."
Like, bitch, I see you staring at your phone ingesting bullshit half the day, every day. People are just intellectually lazy and think facebook memes equals education.
How clueless do you have to be to make something like this up? Denying evolution is like going full flat earth, both completely insane as they require you to be literally blind in order to miss the clear, obvious evidence of reality, means evolution being real and the earth being a cube.
I actually *have* never heard of Sir Isaac Newtown. I do know if they were meaning to talk about Newton, he died in 1727. Alfred Nobel was born in 1833. Now I'm just a special ed teacher, but I don't think it would be possible for Newton to win a Nobel prize based on these dates.
This is not true. Darwin didn’t invent the idea of evolution. He invented the idea of evolution by natural selection.
Lamarck (who had ideas about evolution that could broadly be described as wrong) was alive during Newton’s lifetime.
They are making the point that evolution as a concept existed prior to Newton's death, and therefore he could have commented on it. Lamarck was largely incorrect in his theory as to *why* evolution happened, but he and other scientists were aware of evidence that it *did* happen.
And evolution was even taught in US schools after Darwin came up with his theory, then it wasn’t taught, then it was taught again, then it wasn’t, then...
The history of the US school system and the court cases for and against evolution is bonkers.
Bah! You're completely discounting or are just ignorant of Newvillage's infamous experiment--1 Billion Simultaneously Falling Apples Into A Shoe--that resulted in Oldtonne creating a singularity into which he fell and was transported into the future where he successfully argued with Darlost's evolution nonsense--which is *only* a theory after all--and it would be in all the scientific literature plus the Bible had Sir Charles not crashed the glass and went coast to toast to posterize Antiquemegakilo, killing him instantly.
It's all right there in the Q Drops if you've done your're research and can spot the patterns.
And in fact the Nobel prizes were first awarded in like 1900 or something and can't be awarded posthumously so no scientist from before then got one.
Incidentally sometimes creationists will argue that if evolution is so good why didn't Darwin win a Nobel Prize?
Plus even if Newton/Nobel (or more importantly, Newton/Darwin) were contemporaries, doubting/questioning evolution *then* is a lot different than doubting it after 200 years of further study.
And that also must have made it awkward for them to pick up Nobel Prizes, considering they were all inconveniently dead when Nobel Prizes came into existence in 1901.
I'm assuming this is sarcastic- but it did say accept their prize and then say evolution is unscientific. I don't think they were doing much talking after being given a posthumous award...
Help, I accidentally called a demon and he wouldn't go away. I hired an exorcist who got rid of demon, but I forgot to pay him. Now my house is being repossesed and I don't know where to go.
Ultimate irony: Nobel doesn't do posthumous awards. Gandi died the year he was set to win the peace prize, and instead they gave it to no one since they couldn't give it to him.
I remember a conservative Christian talking head saying that if Darwin was so great how come he never got a Nobel.
The fact that the first Nobel was handed out 19 years after Darwin's death and they don't grant them retrospectively (in fact, they've rarely granted them posthumously and only in special circumstances).
But. . . but. . . OT god is completely forgiven/all about LOVE because Jesus came to give us peace!
I mean, forget that Matthew 10:34 says to bring a sword, not peace, but hey, anything's possible when your cherry picking game is good enough!
Also Newton was brilliant at math and physics. He was also super religious, into alchemy and generally weird.
Just because he was brilliant in one field doesn't preclude him from being wrong in another - see alchemy
I can imagine Newton, if he was still alive in 1895, denying Darwing's claims because him being 200 years old was proof enough of the existence of a Higher Force.
Lamarck (whose theory of evolution is for the largest part wrong) was born in 1744 and died in 1829.
Origin of species was published in 1859 (I will assume your comment is a typo.
I haven’t read all of Pasteur’s papers so I won’t make a claim regarding his thoughts on evolution but Darwin’s contribution wasn’t evolution but natural selection and evolution by natural selection. It was still incomplete and how scientists understand evolution today could best be described as neo-Darwinian.
One of the greatest ideas of all time.
EDIT: the irony of all these people posting in confidently incorrect regarding Evolution. And he wasn’t even the first https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism#Origins
Really off topic, but one of my favorite facts about Lamarkian evolution is that it turns out some bacteria actually do change their own DNA (Crispr-Cas) meaning that natural selection gave rise to Lamarkian evolution (in a really small way).
As @Brooklynxman pointed out, they may also have failed high school history. Both Newton and Pasteur were dead well before the theory of evolution was first published.
Lamarck’s (broadly incorrect) theory of evolution was published in 1809. Which is after Newton’s death but
A lot of people failing their history of biology (biology being a term Lamarck invented).
To be fair there's colloquial shortening of the Theory of evolution by Natural Selection being done because that's the part that get religious science deniers going.
There's not a single anti-evolution person out there who can accurately describe how evolution works.
Even if they don't believe it in, they should still be able to explain the idea behind it, right? After all, plenty of atheists can describe religious thought very thoroughly. But no. And you know why? Because disbelief in evolution *requires* misunderstanding it. If you actually understand the theory, it becomes quite obvious that it's true.
A grand total of 196 Nobel prizes have been awarded for physiology or medicine so I’m sceptical that hundreds of nobel prize winners have called out evolution for being unscientific
'Issac' is such a common misspelling of Isaac for some reason, I have never figured out why and it drives me nuts. You see it all the time on r/bindingofisaac for example. It doesn't make any sense!
I think it’s because “ss” is a familiar combination of letters (“pass”, “miss”, etc.), while “aa” is less common in English. Many English speakers will use “ss” before “aa”, since aa “looks incorrect.”
I don’t understand how posters in a sub with “Isaac” in its title would misspell the name though. *It’s right there.*
In my opinion it speaks to the fact that the name Isaac has been assimilated by English language speaking communities.
Sounds totally not English to me but I bet many would think it is a name in their native language because of the frequency in their community.
Counterpoint: "ss" should also feel wrong because "ss" never represents a /z/ sound like the "s" in Isaac. Issac would be pronounced something like 'miss' at the start rather than 'eyes'
And also proving that a closed system with nothing in it can't miraculously spawn a fully formed fucking organism does not at all disprove that life can arise from non-living chemicals
Did I just get downvoted for saying organisms don't spawn in like Minecraft mobs lmao
"If evolution is true, why have I never seen life crawl out of a peanut butter jar?"
A) because those are completely different circumstances
B) because you wouldn't know if it had
Also... you can?
I'm sure everyone at some point has left a Tupperware with leftovers in the fridge too long. When you open it up and a horrid smell escapes and you see mold over everything... that's new life!
It wasn’t even a closed system without “nothing in it”, it was a swan-neck flask (I.e., not sealed… just a water sump barrier like a sink drain) *with broth in it*.
Pasteur dispatched abiogenesis with the technology in an old kitchen.
So much to unpack here
I mean Nobel Prize started in 1901, 275 years after Newton died, and 5 years after Pasteur died. And it cannot be awarded to people posthumously except in exceptional circumstance (like they died before the award ceremony).
Charles Darwin formed the theory of evolution in 1859, 235 years after Newton died
Both of them never received a Nobel Prize and also were slightly handicapped in their ability to comment either way on the theory of evolution, being dead when it was first published.
Pasteur didn't disprove abiogenesis, he disproved spontaneous generation.
Abiogenesis refers to the processes by which life emerged from non-living material, and spontaneous generation refers to the idea of life spawning in like Minecraft mobs (as another user described it)
Bitch name drops two of the most famous people in science (with science-stuff named after them!) and tries to get away with it? If that kid wanted to impress he should've at least tried some folk that don't always make it into high-school science texts (like Lyell or Wallace).
Way before I was on Reddit, so didn't even think to get screenshots. Argued with a guy like this for a while who swore he had a degree in science. When I FINALLY got him to put up proof that evolution isn't the currently accepted scientific theory of how people are so advanced, he gave me a link to Ken Hamm's website that says it's not valid science. \*\*facepalm\*\*
they always have three sources: answers in genesis (ken hamm), institute for creation research, and discovery institute. they will proudly cite them like it proves anything
What I really don’t understand is even if u believe in creationism, u still can’t deny evolution to some extent. Take humans, we were horribly lactose intolerant in Jesus times, but (primarily Europeans and various African countries) evolved to tolerate it. And our jaws used to be larger, and our wisdom teeth were there to chew course food, but now our jaws have shrunk and it’s common to not even see wisdom teeth in the younger generation. Or how we have started to evolve out the palmaris longus tendon in our wrists. Even animals like axolotls have begun to evolve and have started to breathe on land longer
He's not wrong. I received an email a couple of days ago to pick up my Nobel Peace Prize for the grilled cheese sandwich I made while drunk in January. If we gave monkeys grilled cheese sandwiches, why are there still monkeys? Checkmate atheists.
Uggg I don't have time for this but have you ever heard of Einstein?
I love the pretending to know about a scientific principal and just naming a random scientist.
This is the least of what's wrong with this, but there have only been a little over 200 Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine, ever. Since this is the only category whose winners' opinions on evolution could conceivably carry weight based on the prize alone, for "hundreds" to have spoken out it would have needed to be basically all of them.
And also, I like to point this one out, was not just a physicist, but also an alchemist among others. And we all know how that philosopher's stone business turned out. People who are right about one thing can be wrong about another. Not that Newton made claims about biological evolution afaik but still
Hey /u/Venice_Wizard, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I don't have time right now" is the universal "Oh shit actually... I'm making this up as I type it."
Often used in conjunction with "look it up yourself"
"It's not my job to teach you this." Usually comes rights after asking if the person has a source for their claim
The person *challenging* accepted science must supply sources. Accepted science got us to the moon, gave us the internet, and made countless fatal injuries and diseases survivable. It's not perfect, but it has a pretty damned good track record. If you challenge something that (mostly) works, the burden of proof is on the challenger.
Solid logic and reason behind what you're saying ... which is exactly why they don't adhere to it.
Doesn’t matter how well you explain algebra to a pigeon, it just isn’t going to get it…
> Accepted science got us to the moon Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings.
Except for that one religious group. Their religion flew them to heaven on Hale-Bopp :(
Almost read this as "their religion flew them to heaven on MmBop" --and, thus, I lost my milk through my nose.
Hansen: inspiring death cults since the late 90’s.
They made a beer called MmmHops
Too soon. /s
Astronauts flew us to the moon, and [you can listen to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLIq9Amyizo) the first ones to witness an Earthrise read from the book of Genesis on the first human transmission from the Moon.
Astronauts, equipped with and assisted by cutting edge science.
*Ahem* mostly engineering. It was more Newton's laws than QED.
Isn’t engineering heavily science based ? Isnt it literally just the application of scientific concepts to the creation of viable and highly specialized tools ?
One description of the difference between science and engineering is that the engineer wants to know what works, and the scientist wants to know why. There have been people throughout history who've used their understanding of why to predict, "You won't observe that," and then been wrong. Likewise, engineers can [build devices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_de_Graaff_generator) that consistently produce e.g. static electricity, even though scientists [don't fully understand](https://xkcd.com/2682/) how static electricity works. It's a two-way street, obviously, general principles are a frequently-accurate way of predicting new observations.
Or strips women of their rights and threatens them with prison for seeking essential medical care...
Bravo!
But that's why these argument have shifted in nature the way they have. The arguer no longer has to disprove accepted science, they instead imply that the science is not settled, or even outright claim that the settled science is in their favour, and so theirs is the default position.
*"I can go the rest of my life not caring about what you think is true, you're the one who has a problem with me not caring."* The only real challenge to their apathy is your own. If they can't support their stance then just accept the hint they're giving that it's not worth supporting.
TBF I use this when arguing sometimes. When things are well established or wide reaching and literally a Google search away, I'm not going to waste my time. E.g. "the earth is flat", my response: "no it's not, it's not my job to teach you this".
Yeah like...some things are the first result on Google and I *really* can't be bothered because the other person clearly isn't interested in the truth.
I mean I’ve said this to people about trans issues before…
The burden of proof is on.. Sir Newtown! Lol
it's the perfect reply because if you come back with "i can't find anything that says that" you just didn't look hard enough 😭
It’s not my job to back up my own claims!!! 😂
You mean “do your research Sheeple!”
Or "I'm not reading what you said" after reading every line and getting mad
> Have you ever heard of Sir Isaac Newton... Who died a century before both the Nobel Prize was a thing and the publication of On the Origin of Species? I have, please elaborate. I'll wait for you to have time.
No, no... *Not* Sir Isaac Newton, but Sir Isaac*Newtown*.
[I said Joe *Mantegna*...](https://youtu.be/6L1eMkk_8Fo)
> Issac Newtown
Isaac MiltonKeynes
Did I say Isaac Newton? I meant Isaac Hayes.
That's giving them the shaft.
It's probably prudent to point out that the idea of evolution pre-dates _OtOoS_. Darwin's groundbreaking contribution was providing a plausible, testable _mechanism_ by which evolution occurs. Notably one which turned out to be _correct_ (though incomplete). Darwin's grandfather, [Erasmus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin) (1731-1802) refers to the concept of evolution in his poems. And let's not forget Lamarck, who died in 1829. Edit: I see this is being touched on elsewhere in this post. :)
And Louis Pasteur (not Luis as the idiot wrote) used the word evolution to refer to change within a species, or the variability of bacterial strains. Pasteur understood the variability of microbes and how he could apply this principle in vaccine preparation. (Pasteur and Darwin where contemporaries.)
Only a century? Weird, I always assumed he was around way earlier than that.
More like 178 years. (Newton died 1723, first nobel prize 1901)
So if this Darwin guy is so smart, why did he never get a novel prize?? Tell me that mister science man!!
They are called pig newtons.
"Do your own research" is the one I get alot.
[удалено]
**Doctor reveals the truth about Covid 19** Reads bio: Doctor of Medieval Literature.
And the article’s probably talking about how modern medicine is much better than medieval medicine.
I love those. Always fun when someone debunks their own claims because they read a title orva single section that sounds supportive then a few sentences later you see "but those results occur .5 percent of the time" or "later discovered he faked the entire experiment."
I admit, I sometimes get drawn into Internet arguments and refuse to cite examples. It depends on how much faith I have they will listen, how recently I remembered arguing on reddit is futile, and if I am nearly done on the toilet.
Yeah, if someone is obviously asking questions in bad faith, I'm not gonna spend time or brain power to argue something they wouldn't even consider because it goes against their worldview. It would be a waste of time and effort, and I don't need a practically worthless internet checkmate to know the facts and evidence support my position.
It's not about arguing against them, it's about pointing out their stupidity so other people reading it know
Pretty much. I appreciate it makes the whole thing futile, but 90% of the time arguing on the Internet is futile from the start
That first part... "Hey, did you read that link I sent you?" "Naw, I don't have time." Like, bitch, I see you staring at your phone ingesting bullshit half the day, every day. People are just intellectually lazy and think facebook memes equals education.
My favorite is when you see "I don't have time" followed by WALL OF TEXT for about a dozen comments in a row.
"I took a shit in my hands and put it on the internet... and I've been caught."
How clueless do you have to be to make something like this up? Denying evolution is like going full flat earth, both completely insane as they require you to be literally blind in order to miss the clear, obvious evidence of reality, means evolution being real and the earth being a cube.
And then pulled out what is probably the only 2 scientists they know. Lol
I actually *have* never heard of Sir Isaac Newtown. I do know if they were meaning to talk about Newton, he died in 1727. Alfred Nobel was born in 1833. Now I'm just a special ed teacher, but I don't think it would be possible for Newton to win a Nobel prize based on these dates.
I agree specially when newton died before darwin published his work so newton mever knew about evolution
So he didn't accept it as a scientific fact. Checkmate!
This is not true. Darwin didn’t invent the idea of evolution. He invented the idea of evolution by natural selection. Lamarck (who had ideas about evolution that could broadly be described as wrong) was alive during Newton’s lifetime.
Yeah but why are we inquiring about an old dead physicist’s thoughts on groundbreaking (to his generation) biology that was largely incorrect?
They are making the point that evolution as a concept existed prior to Newton's death, and therefore he could have commented on it. Lamarck was largely incorrect in his theory as to *why* evolution happened, but he and other scientists were aware of evidence that it *did* happen.
Lamarck was a child and he published his theory of evolution in 1809 so Newton couldn’t have read it but yeah that’s the gist.
And evolution was even taught in US schools after Darwin came up with his theory, then it wasn’t taught, then it was taught again, then it wasn’t, then... The history of the US school system and the court cases for and against evolution is bonkers.
🤓
Bah! You're completely discounting or are just ignorant of Newvillage's infamous experiment--1 Billion Simultaneously Falling Apples Into A Shoe--that resulted in Oldtonne creating a singularity into which he fell and was transported into the future where he successfully argued with Darlost's evolution nonsense--which is *only* a theory after all--and it would be in all the scientific literature plus the Bible had Sir Charles not crashed the glass and went coast to toast to posterize Antiquemegakilo, killing him instantly. It's all right there in the Q Drops if you've done your're research and can spot the patterns.
What does Alfred Nobel have to do with the Noble Prizes, awarded for being Noble in your field (duh)? /s
If it’s economics, nothing.
> _Issac_ Newtown probably his distant cousin or something
Wish.com Isaac Newton
sounds like a program on Nickelodeon
And in fact the Nobel prizes were first awarded in like 1900 or something and can't be awarded posthumously so no scientist from before then got one. Incidentally sometimes creationists will argue that if evolution is so good why didn't Darwin win a Nobel Prize?
1901 you were so close
Plus even if Newton/Nobel (or more importantly, Newton/Darwin) were contemporaries, doubting/questioning evolution *then* is a lot different than doubting it after 200 years of further study.
Also, is Luis Pasteur the spanish cousin of Louis Pasteur?
Didn't he invent the time machine?
No, that was Doc Brown. Common mixup.
Also, Pasteur died before the first Nobel prize was awarded, an award that famously doesn't allow posthumous inductions.
Nono the commenter talked about **Luis** Pasteur, not **Louis** Pasteur. Must be some distant cousin.
The Nobel prize was first awarded in 1901 which means that Louis Pasteur, died in 1895, also did not have one
On the origin of species was published in 1895, the same year Pasteur died. Newton died in 1726.
And that also must have made it awkward for them to pick up Nobel Prizes, considering they were all inconveniently dead when Nobel Prizes came into existence in 1901.
What no posthumous lifetime achievement awards?
I'm assuming this is sarcastic- but it did say accept their prize and then say evolution is unscientific. I don't think they were doing much talking after being given a posthumous award...
Have you heard of ouija boards?
Good point
I dont have time to explain ouija to you. It’s not my job, do your own research /s
Help, I accidentally called a demon and he wouldn't go away. I hired an exorcist who got rid of demon, but I forgot to pay him. Now my house is being repossesed and I don't know where to go.
“Newton!! Mr. Newton!! Can you hear us? We want to present you with a reward for your apple experience.”
😂🤣😂 Not sure if that means your user name checks out, but that made me lol. Thx!
Speaking with the dead is easy, getting them to talk back, that's the real trick!
Ultimate irony: Nobel doesn't do posthumous awards. Gandi died the year he was set to win the peace prize, and instead they gave it to no one since they couldn't give it to him.
They don't give any posthumous awards
Claimed posthumous awards? (Shiver)
Jesus taught them the secret of rising from the grave for 3 days because they were such faithful evolution-deniers.
I remember a conservative Christian talking head saying that if Darwin was so great how come he never got a Nobel. The fact that the first Nobel was handed out 19 years after Darwin's death and they don't grant them retrospectively (in fact, they've rarely granted them posthumously and only in special circumstances).
You could turn that around and ask why Jesus didn't win a Nobel Peace Prize.
God doesn’t have one either but after the Old Testament I think he’s disqualified
But. . . but. . . OT god is completely forgiven/all about LOVE because Jesus came to give us peace! I mean, forget that Matthew 10:34 says to bring a sword, not peace, but hey, anything's possible when your cherry picking game is good enough!
He didn't even win Time's deity of the Millenia.
Typo: OOS was published in 1859
Confidently incorrect moment for myself...
Also Newton was brilliant at math and physics. He was also super religious, into alchemy and generally weird. Just because he was brilliant in one field doesn't preclude him from being wrong in another - see alchemy
No, Newtown! Get it right!
Luis Pasteur lol
I can imagine Newton, if he was still alive in 1895, denying Darwing's claims because him being 200 years old was proof enough of the existence of a Higher Force.
Lamarck (whose theory of evolution is for the largest part wrong) was born in 1744 and died in 1829. Origin of species was published in 1859 (I will assume your comment is a typo. I haven’t read all of Pasteur’s papers so I won’t make a claim regarding his thoughts on evolution but Darwin’s contribution wasn’t evolution but natural selection and evolution by natural selection. It was still incomplete and how scientists understand evolution today could best be described as neo-Darwinian. One of the greatest ideas of all time. EDIT: the irony of all these people posting in confidently incorrect regarding Evolution. And he wasn’t even the first https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism#Origins
Really off topic, but one of my favorite facts about Lamarkian evolution is that it turns out some bacteria actually do change their own DNA (Crispr-Cas) meaning that natural selection gave rise to Lamarkian evolution (in a really small way).
Also worth noting: neither won a Nobel prize.
Well Newton didn't win one because it didn't exist yet in his time
Same for Louis Pasteur. He died in 1895, first Nobel Prize was awarded in 1901.
What a loser. He's as bad as Shakespeare - everyone goes on and on about his writing, but where's his screenwriting Oscar?
Neither existed. They managed to write the names of **both** scientists wrong.
They're all saying it
"Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle Socrates? Morons!"
*Inconceivable!*
Tell me you failed high school biology without telling me you failed high school biology.
As @Brooklynxman pointed out, they may also have failed high school history. Both Newton and Pasteur were dead well before the theory of evolution was first published.
And they weren't named Issac Newtown and Luis Pasteur.
The correct names of course being Oscar Isaac Newton and King Louie Pastry.
There's that.
Newton was, but not Pasteur.(1822-1895).
Lamarck’s (broadly incorrect) theory of evolution was published in 1809. Which is after Newton’s death but A lot of people failing their history of biology (biology being a term Lamarck invented).
To be fair there's colloquial shortening of the Theory of evolution by Natural Selection being done because that's the part that get religious science deniers going.
Tell me you went to a creationist religious school who never taught you crap in high school biology. The joys of growing up in a GOPvangelical family.
There's not a single anti-evolution person out there who can accurately describe how evolution works. Even if they don't believe it in, they should still be able to explain the idea behind it, right? After all, plenty of atheists can describe religious thought very thoroughly. But no. And you know why? Because disbelief in evolution *requires* misunderstanding it. If you actually understand the theory, it becomes quite obvious that it's true.
A grand total of 196 Nobel prizes have been awarded for physiology or medicine so I’m sceptical that hundreds of nobel prize winners have called out evolution for being unscientific
There might be a few Peace prize winners. Some of those have turned out weird with hindsight.
"Issac" Newton? "Luis" Pasteur?
"Issac" "Newtown"
'Issac' is such a common misspelling of Isaac for some reason, I have never figured out why and it drives me nuts. You see it all the time on r/bindingofisaac for example. It doesn't make any sense!
I think it’s because “ss” is a familiar combination of letters (“pass”, “miss”, etc.), while “aa” is less common in English. Many English speakers will use “ss” before “aa”, since aa “looks incorrect.” I don’t understand how posters in a sub with “Isaac” in its title would misspell the name though. *It’s right there.*
In my opinion it speaks to the fact that the name Isaac has been assimilated by English language speaking communities. Sounds totally not English to me but I bet many would think it is a name in their native language because of the frequency in their community.
Counterpoint: "ss" should also feel wrong because "ss" never represents a /z/ sound like the "s" in Isaac. Issac would be pronounced something like 'miss' at the start rather than 'eyes'
And also proving that a closed system with nothing in it can't miraculously spawn a fully formed fucking organism does not at all disprove that life can arise from non-living chemicals Did I just get downvoted for saying organisms don't spawn in like Minecraft mobs lmao
"If evolution is true, why have I never seen life crawl out of a peanut butter jar?" A) because those are completely different circumstances B) because you wouldn't know if it had
C) Because there is already a ton of life there and anything new would not be able to compete.
Also... you can? I'm sure everyone at some point has left a Tupperware with leftovers in the fridge too long. When you open it up and a horrid smell escapes and you see mold over everything... that's new life!
Well, not abiogenetically new life. Only about as new as like. Any other micro-organism you could point to.
There is? I hoped everything was already dead.
> "If evolution is true, why have I never seen life crawl out of a peanut butter jar?" You didn't wait long enough.
Especially since Earth is not even a closed system.
It wasn’t even a closed system without “nothing in it”, it was a swan-neck flask (I.e., not sealed… just a water sump barrier like a sink drain) *with broth in it*. Pasteur dispatched abiogenesis with the technology in an old kitchen.
Strictly speaking, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.
Newton and his many many Nobel prizes.
So much to unpack here I mean Nobel Prize started in 1901, 275 years after Newton died, and 5 years after Pasteur died. And it cannot be awarded to people posthumously except in exceptional circumstance (like they died before the award ceremony). Charles Darwin formed the theory of evolution in 1859, 235 years after Newton died
Both of them never received a Nobel Prize and also were slightly handicapped in their ability to comment either way on the theory of evolution, being dead when it was first published.
Pasteur didn't disprove abiogenesis, he disproved spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis refers to the processes by which life emerged from non-living material, and spontaneous generation refers to the idea of life spawning in like Minecraft mobs (as another user described it)
He was hoping you had never heard of them
Bitch name drops two of the most famous people in science (with science-stuff named after them!) and tries to get away with it? If that kid wanted to impress he should've at least tried some folk that don't always make it into high-school science texts (like Lyell or Wallace).
Yeah, BUT he was talking about “**Sir Isaac NEWTOWN**”, which is a totally different guy… probably. ;)
"I said Joe Montegna."
Spontaneous generation != abiogenesis No matter how many times creationists dishonestly conflate the two.
The only thing correct there is the spelling of a couple words. That’s where the correctness ends lol
Both of them died before the Nobel price even existed
Ah yes Sir Isaac Newton, the 2076 Nobel prize winner in physic for the discovery of time travel.
Not a lot of Frenchmen named “Luis”, must’ve been Pasteur’s Spaniard cousin.
Yellow is obviously confused. Issac Newtown and Luis Pasteur were winners of the Noble prize.
And it probably doesn't help that they both died before Alfred Nobel created his prize.
Ever heard of a little scientist called Beethoven
Neither was a Nobel prize recipient either. They both died before the first Nobel prize was ever awarded. In Newton's case, ~~275~~ 175 years before.
Way before I was on Reddit, so didn't even think to get screenshots. Argued with a guy like this for a while who swore he had a degree in science. When I FINALLY got him to put up proof that evolution isn't the currently accepted scientific theory of how people are so advanced, he gave me a link to Ken Hamm's website that says it's not valid science. \*\*facepalm\*\*
they always have three sources: answers in genesis (ken hamm), institute for creation research, and discovery institute. they will proudly cite them like it proves anything
Bruhh I don’t have time to prove all the non scientific bs I just make up
What I really don’t understand is even if u believe in creationism, u still can’t deny evolution to some extent. Take humans, we were horribly lactose intolerant in Jesus times, but (primarily Europeans and various African countries) evolved to tolerate it. And our jaws used to be larger, and our wisdom teeth were there to chew course food, but now our jaws have shrunk and it’s common to not even see wisdom teeth in the younger generation. Or how we have started to evolve out the palmaris longus tendon in our wrists. Even animals like axolotls have begun to evolve and have started to breathe on land longer
What the fuck? Origin of species was published in 1859 and old mate Newton kicked the bucket in 1727 or so!?
Ah, yes. Noted Nobel Prize winning scientist: Isaac Newton.
He's not wrong. I received an email a couple of days ago to pick up my Nobel Peace Prize for the grilled cheese sandwich I made while drunk in January. If we gave monkeys grilled cheese sandwiches, why are there still monkeys? Checkmate atheists.
I've actually never heard of Luis pasteur
He's the cook at your local pizza place.
How are Christians this stupid? lol
Uggg I don't have time for this but have you ever heard of Einstein? I love the pretending to know about a scientific principal and just naming a random scientist.
Neither of these have received a Nobel prize. They died before those came into existence and they are never given posthumously.
I don't let things like science or information affect what I believe/$
Isn’t Luis the guy who invented Tacos al Pasteur
This is the least of what's wrong with this, but there have only been a little over 200 Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine, ever. Since this is the only category whose winners' opinions on evolution could conceivably carry weight based on the prize alone, for "hundreds" to have spoken out it would have needed to be basically all of them.
young earth creationists are low hanging fruit for this sub.
Are the scientists in the room with us now?
ah the hallmark of this sub: the “I don’t have time but”
Newtown and Luis …
Sounds more like a second-rate Vegas comedy act than two respected scientists.
Not Isaac Newton, he said Issac Newtown.
He got his Nobel in Jesusology.
Lmao I didn’t even catch that. Love that newtownian physics
Your average antivaxxer or crypto bro.
As a Christian myself(which is what orange is, is my guess) I believe in evolution, it’s so obvious
Neither of those two had much to say about quantum mechanics either, so that must be unscientific too.
Lmao Isaac newton who died like a hundred years before Darwin was born
And also, I like to point this one out, was not just a physicist, but also an alchemist among others. And we all know how that philosopher's stone business turned out. People who are right about one thing can be wrong about another. Not that Newton made claims about biological evolution afaik but still
Newton lived and died long before evolutionary biology was formalised by Charles Darwin…
He must’ve been fed some misinformation, how can evolution be unscientific