Real World Event Discussions

Global Warming...the Movie

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 19:58
VIEWED: 9891
PAGE 11 of 12

FLETCH2

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
but nevermind that.. you never answered my question: what is your solution to global warming?
You never answered my question, When did science do a complete U-Turn?

Actually I can think of one, and it's a nice one because it neatly illustrates the scientific method. At one point physicists believed that electromagnetic waves needed a medium to propagate in, much like physical waves propagate through a material. They theorized that this material --- which they called the "Luminiferous aether" existed everywhere in order to support em waves. As theories go it always had problems but it did form a framework that bits and pieces of late 19th century physics fit into.

In 1887 Michelson and Morley devised an experiment to detect the "aether wind" the change in the direction of the aether flow caused by the motion of the Earth around the sun. If the aether existed then it was possible to predict the magnitide of such a wind effect based on the speed of the earth's orbit relative to light speed. An experiment was devised in which a beam of light was split int two beams at right angles to each other and then recombined. An aether wind effect would act on one beam more than the other and thus cause a mismatch that could be seen when the two beams recombined and interfered with each other.

The experiment was conducted, and repeated many times by various researchers to the same effect, there was no interference effect cause by the aether wind acting on one of the light beams but not the other as was predicted by the aether theory. Since the theory failed to survive the experiment designed to test it, new theories were proposed. One of these is special relativity which is the new dominant theory until someone can devise an experiment to disprove it.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
you sit in judgment of me constantly. i cant quote a bible verse? if it gets you to open one up, if even to throw it back in my face, then i accomplished something

I judge you, because you judge me. But whatever, I never told you that you need to stop judging people. You preside in judgement over me, you tell me I need to live up to the principals of your religion that YOU don't live up to. I'm making no claim as to whether people should judge one another, you are, and failing to live up to your own damn standards.

Quote:
i never implicitly called atheism evil.. i think its a philosophical mistake, but thats my opinion i can only offer my arguments

I'm pretty sure you have, if not said it outright, certainly implied it. You've flat out stated that without God to spank the naughty children everyone would be immoral, so you've said that Atheists are all immoral, much the same thing.

Quote:
once again, you arent looking at this from any other perspective then your own. if God exists, there would be evidence. maybe, its all around us. you dont know that it isnt. maybe, we will unequivocally prove it one day.. thats the beauty of "science", is it not?

Neither are you, stop being so hypocritical. There is no scientific evidence for God, and there can't be. Science tests nature, God is supernatural, the clues in the name. God has no place in science, a fact YOU yourself even admit when it doesn't serve your purposes to deny it:

Quote:
God is a theory, just as evolution. whereas my theory cannot be proven, because God would have to exist beyond creation..

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24573&m=448158

God can not be proven or disproved using scientific criteria, thus the concept of God is not Scientific, and has no place in Science.

You have to back up your assertion that God belongs in Science, if God belongs in Science, God is testable. Until you can describe a physical experiment with well explained criteria for existence and non-existence, drop it.

Quote:
maybe, but what have we ever known? dictators, emperors, monarchs? im not opposed to secularism, but that it provides no higher authority then 'man'

Dictators, Emperors, Monarchs? what do any of those have to do with secularism? I can't think of one Emperor or Monarch that hasn't claimed divine ascendency, and is thus not secular in the least, and most Dictators at least derive legitimacy from some religion or other. Secularism is merely keeping God out of our worldly government, take a look, a real look, at what its achieved. For all your bluster about the American Founding Fathers being Christian, many weren't, and they're system of Government was based on secularism, not Christianity. Separation between Church and state means all religions have a fair go. A government that is inherently one religion or other, tends to (as in nearly always) suppress any other religion. Secular governments tend to allow religious freedom for all religions.

It is not the governments job to provide a higher authority than man, that's religions job. If government has divine providence, suddenly all sorts of terrible actions can be passed on higher, God moves in mysterious ways, that's why we can kill all these people. Giving Government God, is like giving a Child a box of matches, and expecting that Child to act responsibly with them, expecting them not to burn down the house.

I have no problem with religion when it's doing it's job, providing for our spiritual needs, giving us meaning to the universe, but I do have a problem with it when it starts pushing out from its domain in to everyone else's. And that's the problem I have with you too, you're not satisfied providing for your own spiritual needs, providing the question as to why, you want to push into Science's How as well. You're not satisfied with your slice of the pie, you want the whole thing, leaving none for anyone else.

Quote:
maybe i should clarify: personally, im against sc

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:53 PM

Quote:
but that it required something external to initiate it. even with the 'big bang theory'

I have my doubts about the "big bang" theory, which is coming under well-deserved scientific (not religious) scrutiny lately. In any case I can imagine a form of universal oscillation that requires no initiation.

Quote:
there's philosophy involved in every hypothesis, even the sacred evolutionary theory. so why not bring the human psyche into it, it seems relevant...

And mosquitoes are colored, so why not bring mosquitoes into the discussion of color?

Are you familiar with set theory? The basis of the scientific philosopy ... it's "set", if you will... does not intersect in any way with religious philosophy. They have no common elements, other than that they both start with assumptions that exclude each other. Calling them both "philosophies" still doesn't create a commonality between them, other than they're both the product of human thought.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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.

I find it interesting that you would abolish any form of public education, but offer NO elaboration on exactly what kind of education system you WOULD support in its absence.

Would I love it if all children were given a first-rate education? Sure. Who's paying for it? The same corporations who are falling all over themselves to clean up the environment and make the world a better, safer place? Oh yeah - those corporations don't exist!

What I *don't* want is for children to be "educated" in what are, essentially, madrasas - theological indoctrination centers disguised as "schools".

So tell me: How exactly do you plan to do away with public education, taxes to support education, AND ensure a good education that's not religion-based? I'd love to know, because I'd love to stop paying my property taxes - but we all know that's never gonna happen...

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
KWIKO
Quote:
Kind of like when George W. Bush lied - er, I mean "illustrated" - about Saddam having WMD, even down to inventing and doctoring photos to "prove" his point. Oh - I mean "illustrate" his point, as in, "this is what it would look like IF Saddam had WMD."
The difference between a lie and an illustration is whether or not it is based on fact. That would seem to be a simple concept - no ?

In this case, it is a FACT that glaciers are in retreat all around the globe, and the ones that contact water retreat by calving. DUH.

Now, since Bush never let on that they just thought there might possibly be WMDS - poor Colin Powell went before the UN saying they were there, damn it ! - he did, er, lie.

***************************************************************
Oh, and thanks for proving my opinion that this is all about a lame attempt at childish payback for those non-existant WMDs. Instead of pouting, it would be more helpful - to you - to perhaps learn from your mistakes, like for example, the mistake of sticking to a silly talking point instead of learning the facts.

Rue:

Sorry - I should've clearly had the "Sarcasm ON" filter activated. I was making a joke, pointing out that filk like "Hero" and ErrrCrapper start screaming and getting up in arms about Gore "lying" - and if you should EVER point out that Bush is a liar, and a liar with a BODY COUNT, they'll continue to claim that he never lied, and that his claims, photos, diagrams, and "intelligence" that there were WMD in Saddam's possession weren't lies... they were "illustrations".

And yes, I agree with you that this is indeed a lame attempt by Bush's 20-percenters to lash out in retaliation for Bush's ever-worsening place in American history.

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:29 PM

Quote:
What's my solution? I haven't got one, that is, I haven't got a single all encompassing simple plan to fix everything.

Bastard! How DARE you not have a complete, all-encompassing plan! :)

I think this just points out that not having a complete solution doesn't mean we should just assume nothing's going on, and continue to do nothing at all about it. That would be like treating cancer by ignoring it - if you don't diagnose it, it doesn't exist, right? ;)

The problem is, there ISN'T a simple solution. There are lots of LITTLE things that we can all do that will help - or at the very least, that won't HURT our planet, our environment, or ourselves. The way I see it, cleaning up the entire Barton Creek Greenbelt is beyond my abilities, but if I leave there with even one more piece of trash than I took in, I've helped in some tiny way to make it better.

I'm not asking anyone to give up cars, indoor plumbing, electricity, or (heavens forbid) even TV - I'm simply pointing out that we could all use these things more intelligently, and with more of an eye towards renewing our resources.

Think about it this way:

Gas prices are up. Does this automatically mean that every single one of us will give up our cars tomorrow? Of course not. We all have different tastes, needs, and levels of income, as well as levels of "convenience" we're willing to pay for. Gas hits one price, a few here will ride the bus. It hits a little higher price, some will start biking it to work. It gets higher still, a few others will walk. Some will go diesel or bio-fuel, some will go hybrid or electric car. There's no ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL solution to something as complex and massive as an energy crisis or a global climate change.

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

RUE

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:38 PM

Oh, it was a joke.

***************************************************************
Humor challenged, is all

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I find it interesting that you would abolish any form of public education, but offer NO elaboration on exactly what kind of education system you WOULD support in its absence.

It's called private schools.

Quote:
Would I love it if all children were given a first-rate education? Sure. Who's paying for it?

Parents of the children. They pay for other necessities that children are entitled to: food, clothing, shelter. Why not education as well? Imagine that. Children need to eat. Parents buy the food. Children need to learn. Parents buy the education.

Quote:
What I *don't* want is for children to be "educated" in what are, essentially, madrasas - theological indoctrination centers disguised as "schools".

Who are you to say what should be allowed to be taught in schools and what should not? Freedom of education is part and parcel of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. People are supposed to be free to think what they want, believe what they want, and say what they want. This includes learning what they want, and teaching their children what they want. If you want to teach your children to avoid religion, that is your prerogative. If I want to teach my children to embrace religion, that is my prerogative. The children themselves, having been raised in a society where freedom of thought and expression is a right, will embrace whatever ideology they want when they are old enough to exercise their sovereignty.

Quote:
So tell me: How exactly do you plan to do away with public education, taxes to support education, AND ensure a good education that's not religion-based?

Why do I need to ensure any kind of education?

Put education in context of other needs such as food, shelter, and emotional nurturing. Education is but one of many aspects of child rearing that parents and guardians are responsible for. Education does not need to be singled out as a public responsibility or a entitlement right any more than food, shelter, or clothing. We don't have free public cafeterias, we don't have free public housing, we don't have free public clothing warehouses--we don't need free public schools. You see?

--------------------------
For what is meant by saying that a government ought to educate the people? Why should they be educated? What is the education for? Clearly, to fit the people for social life — to make them good citizens. And who is to say what are good citizens? The government: there is no other judge. And who is to say how these good citizens may be made? The government: there is no other judge. Hence the proposition is convertible into this — a government ought to mold children into good citizens, using its own discretion in settling what a good citizen is and how the child may be molded into one.
— Herbert Spencer, 1850

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:50 PM

Quote:
but if I leave there with even one more piece of trash than I took in, I've helped in some tiny way to make it better.

It's those tiny little things, multiplied by millions, which can make the world a better place, but too many folk are so self-absorbed or so miserable they don't even try.

Case in point, I NEVER take a shopping cart from the rack, never ever.

I always snag one left out in the parking lot, and I ALWAYS put it in the collection corral when done with it, a very tiny (in the grand scheme of things) courtesy to the poor sodder who has to go round up the carts.

People want great, grand, all encompassing solutions that require no personal effort on their part, but that's just the hero myth redux.

It's those tiny little things, added up among us all, over time, that really MATTER.

-F

RUE

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:09 PM

"Put education in context of other needs such as food, shelter, and emotional nurturing."

Simple in concept, and then you run into parents who don't feed or clothe or educate or nurture their children or provide medical care, or worse, actively abuse them in some way. And then what do you propose ? Laws and jail ? Turning a blind eye to 'solve' the problem ? Or what ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."