Global Warming...the Movie

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 19:58
VIEWED: 9891
PAGE 8 of 12

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:15 PM

Quote:
That is one reason I think it would be better for government and taxes to get out of education altogether.

That's a nice thought, but what kind of education system would you replace it with? None at all? How exactly would a LESS-educated populace help us out?

Howsabout we agree to let "Intelligent Design" be taught in public school science classes - so long as all the churches agree to let us teach science in their Sunday schools!

Intelligent Design is, by its very nature and name, a religious theory. It presupposes that there is indeed a "Creator" or "Designer" who is responsible for all life and all of the universe. If that's not in and of itself a religious message, I don't know what is.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Science *IS* "some sort of onmiscient authority of Truth" - it is, in fact, THE SEARCH FOR THAT TRUTH.

First, searching for truth and being an authority on truth are 2 different things.

But that aside, science is a search for only one facet of Truth. It is best suited for searching for current and material aspects of Truth. Truths from far in the past or future, and truths involving subjective dynamics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry.

The less well suited a topic is for scientific investigation, the more debate there is on exactly how correct scientific consensus is on that topic. That is, scientific authority diminishes the more it strays from its areas of strength.

So no, science is not omniscient, unless you think 1) Truth is material and ONLY material, 2) Truth from the distant past and distant future can be authoritatively and unequivocally deduced from a small window of data from the present.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Truths from far in the past or future

Why?

Quote:
truths involving subjective dynamics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry.

What are you referring too?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It was never created to be believed, it was created to be used to undermine science, that's it's purpose and its concept.

First of all, no single party "created" the concept. The idea of intelligent design has been tossed around as long as evolution has.

Second of all, you need to be able to distinguish the purpose behind the popularization of a concept, and the concept itself. If you can't see the difference, there is no point to our continuing the conversation.

Thirdly, ID is usually religious, but not always religious since it does not define the "intelligence" behind the design. I prefer to think of the debate as intelligent selection vs. random selection (commonly "natural" selection). The selection could be done with no supernatural entities at all, but by the organisms themselves. As such, I think it is a speculative concept, but not necessarily unscientific and not unnecessarily religious.

And for Antimason, being anti-evolution is not the same thing as being anti-science. I personally like the theory of evolution. But my PhD chemist husband, who worked for years as a professional scientist and researcher, thinks it's a load of crap. He is definitely an intelligent design supporter, who thinks it is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis.

ID is a bigger idea and a bigger world than the pushy assholes who go to court.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's a nice thought, but what kind of education system would you replace it with? None at all? How exactly would a LESS-educated populace help us out?

I find it interesting that you would interpret no government education as no education at all.

ASIANSOLO

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:00 PM

In ten thousand years it wouldn't really matter .
Enjoy it now , for later it will be gone. Who knows maybe Firefly will become real because of Global Warming, now where did I put my brown coat ?

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
First of all, no single party "created" the concept. The idea of intelligent design has been tossed around as long as evolution has.

Yeah, ID's been around nearly as long as evolution, give or take a century or so:

Quote:
"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.[17] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Quote:
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (published 1859) is a seminal work in scientific literature and arguably the pivotal work in evolutionary biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Quote:
Second of all, you need to be able to distinguish the purpose behind the popularization of a concept, and the concept itself. If you can't see the difference, there is no point to our continuing the conversation.

I can do that fine. Just because you don't want to see it as an attack, doesn't mean it isn't. You've yet to come up with one reason why it isn't beyond "because I say so". ID was created to attack science, it was constructed precisely to facilitate that end. The way it's concept was formed, the very concept itself, is aimed at being used to attack science. I can distinguish between them, but I can also tell that they're all aimed at the stated purpose, if you aren't willing to realise that, then there probably isn't a point in continuing this 'conversation'.

Quote:
Thirdly, ID is usually religious, but not always religious since it does not define the "intelligence" behind the design. I prefer to think of the debate as intelligent selection vs. random selection (commonly "natural" selection). The selection could be done with no supernatural entities at all, but by the organisms themselves. As such, I think it is a speculative concept, but not necessarily unscientific and not unnecessarily religious.

That's as weak an excuse as I've ever heard. Intelligent genes? Or is this intelligent cells? If it's not disprovable it ain't science, and your weird assertion that it's innate intelligent critters seems to be as much handwavium as any other explanation of who/what this intelligent designer is.

Quote:
And for Antimason, being anti-evolution is not the same thing as being anti-science.

I'll say it a third time. Trying to replace any scientific theory with a non scientific dogmatic religion is anti-science. If you can't understand that, I'd question your own understanding of the scientific method.

Quote:
But my PhD chemist husband, who worked for years as a professional scientist and researcher, thinks it's a load of crap. He is definitely an intelligent design supporter, who thinks it is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis.

Wow, an appeal to authority, now I'm convinced. I don't care if you're married to Stephen Hawking's hyper intelligent clone, if he thinks a religious doctrine, that is based at it's heart on something that can't be tested is science, he desperately needs a refresher course in what makes a scientific theory. Would an intelligent designer by any other name still be God? Put simply, yes.

I'm sorry if you find what I said about your husband insulting, but you brought him in as a subject of discussion, not me. You stated how he's a PhD with this that and the other, so you bring his credentials in for discussion also. If however, you or your husband can come up with criteria by which the existence of an intelligent designer can be verified, I'll retract my above statement.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Truths from far in the past or future
Why?

Because we cannot get empirical data from the past or future, only the present. Using certain assumptions, we then INTERPRET current data to deduce conclusions of the past and future. The more assumptions and interpretation one has to do, the more deductions one has to do, the more uncertain one's conclusions become. The more directly one can make an observation, the less uncertain a conclusion is. That is why evolution and global warming are controversial topics, whereas the current shape of the earth is largely not.

Quote:
Quote:
truths involving subjective dynamics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry.
What are you referring too?
Questions such as what is beauty or consciousness, what does knowledge mean, who is God, etc has a lot of subjectivity and interpretation. These topics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry as material and natural topics such as say, the shape of the earth or the composition of sea salt.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Because we cannot get empirical data from the past or future, only the present. Using certain assumptions, we then INTERPRET current data to deduce conclusions of the past and future. The more assumptions and interpretation one has to do, the more deductions one has to do, the more uncertain one's conclusions become. The more directly one can make an observation, the less uncertain a conclusion is. That is why evolution and global warming are controversial topics, whereas the current shape of the earth is largely not.

That's not true though is it. We can obtain data from the past. Testing Arctic ice is every bit as empirical as testing today's atmosphere composition. Just because we don't go back in time with dinosaur bones, doesn't mean we can't get empirical data from them. Most of the time, the only assumptions made, are that the way the universe works is substantially the same then as now, it's not a damning assumption. As Assumptions go, its about the same level as me assuming you really exist, and that the whole universe isn't merely in my head.

Beyond that, you seem to be quite confused with your examples. Global Warming is occurring now, not in the past and is still controversial. Evolution is a fact, the theory of the mechanisms is picked at (though I'd put the controversy at about the same level as the shape of the Earth due to the existence of the flat Earth society), but that species change over time really isn't.

Quote:
Questions such as what is beauty or consciousness, what does knowledge mean, who is God, etc has a lot of subjectivity and interpretation. These topics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry as material and natural topics such as say, the shape of the earth or the composition of sea salt.

Then I agree.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent genes?

That would be a crude oversimplification, but for the sake of argument...something like that. There is increasing evidence to suggest that adaptive genetic changes are a lot more complex and purposeful (intelligent?) than the random mutations in conventional evolutionary theory. I prefer to think of my husband's sympathies as "intelligent selection" rather than "intelligent design." But design is a distinct possibility, even when no deity is involved in the hypothesis.

At the lowest level, there is transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_inheritance

Then there is increased mutation rates in response to environmental changes. Example:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/120/4/887.pdf

Then there is horizontal gene transfer (HGT).
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=105&pgt
ype=1

Finally, there are observations of apparent inheritability of acquired characteristics. Here are some examples of these types of observations. Of course, there are always alternative explanations, but until more research is done, examining these observational anomalies isn't exactly unscientific.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/5/2871
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/6/2590

Quote:
If it's not disprovable it ain't science,

Of course not. However, nothing in the hypotheses above render them outside of the purview of science. Scientific investigation of the above phenomena and anomalies that challenge natural selection dogma is being done as we speak.

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE