Atheism as a concept has nothing to do intrinsically with evolutionary biology so I dont know why you yap to me trivial stuffs I can just ask a PhD biologist colleague at UTokyo about. While odd, there is no inherent contradiction with the concept of an atheist denying evolutionary biology as it was presented originally by Darwin. Science as a discipline is currently built on falsifiability. There is along history why is it this way going way back from Humean induction problem. If you think you know better than contemporary/current researchers in this field, you are always free to publish your own thoughts for peer review.
You dont group people as such. The greatest logician in history, Kurt Godel, is a theist. Doesnt mean every theist is as smart as him.
Since you seem to have such great confidence about your understanding of science, how deep is your understanding of at least the formal mathematics behind most of modern physics ? If you dont know at the very least differential geometry, topology, group theory etc then you are not as informed as you think you are
Calculus and newtonian mechanics are kindergarten games to grad level physics
whats false about my post? specifically?
This old man in the vid hasn’t touched a mathematics paper in his life. You speak to a real logician who scrutinize the fundamentals of other fields and your response so far was incoherent writing and a YouTubevideo of a cranky old man with 0 idea of what he's talking about. I was 16 when I've read papers Stephen Hawking called 'very difficult' in his writings so pre-academia I'm quite overturned like the warlock. It is kinda insulting that the best argument you have here is a youtube video of someone I will literally eat alive in a logical argument.
Peer review does not mean 'everybody agrees X is correct". It means the paper meets the minimum standard for rigour, coherence, and even consistency. This isn't intersubjective agreement, especially for mathematics.
Peer review efficiently weeds out the cranks (someone who persistently and annoyingly promotes ideas that claim to overturn established knowledge but fail basic standards of reasoning, evidence, or mathematical rigor). A large volume of submissions to journals, universities, and researchers come from people who sincerely believe they have overturned modern physics, solved impossible problems, or disproved established mathematics while severely lacking the technical, most basic background needed to even attempt at not failing at grad school. We get these people a lot. These insane discoveries in science and mathematics do indeed require thinking 'outside the box' but one must also understand what is already 'in the box'. Revolutionary science is never produced by ignorance of the field. In other words I usually test people how much they understand the fundamentals first. You cannot do research in modern physics without the most basic of the basic of the mathematics required to even comprehend the most basic of the basic of concepts enough to have a chance not to fail grad school. So it's a simple question, how much topology, vector algebra, functional analysis, and differential geometry do you know?
you miss the point of the vid entirely. he is claiming kids out of university have no thought process of their own. they defer to "peer review" as some kind of gospel.
curious my list doesnt include RNA world hypothesis. a "peer" reviewed paper so bad it was retracted when tested
1980's rna world hypothesis
RNA WORLD HYPOTHESIS was the 'atheists answer to abiogenesis. O and how smug the 'atheists guffawing and pushing it in everyones face.
the lack of being scientific rigorous when the experiment (that was already passed peer reviewed)was tested for "repeatable" it miserably failed and was retracted.
the 'atheist clown show repeated it self once again. being sloppy in science methodology and now has contaminated the peer review process.
but i can give some credit as the person responsible for the paper said in a rare honest moment rarely seen in 'atheist science
The authors—one of them a Nobel Laureate—later confessed, “In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief” and “we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been.
‘RNA World’ Paper Retracted
https://larshaukeland.com/bits-pieces/scientific-articles/rna-world-paper-retracted/This post was edited by TiStuff on May 12 2026 03:37pm