Global Warming...the Movie
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 19:58
VIEWED: 9891
PAGE 1 of 2
http://newsbusters.org/stories/al_gore_used_fictional_video_inconvenie
nt_truth.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth
'The Day After Tomorrow' sucked. He should have picked 'Armageddon' or 'The 300'.
ALGore: "...and as this video shows Global Warming will produce melting Ice Caps and fierce Persian Warriors who will battle Hollywood Actors with civilization in the balance."
Or maybe a clip from 'Serenity'.
ALGore: "This Global Warming is gonna get pretty interesting."
UN Scientist: "Define 'interesting'".
ALGore: [deadpan] "Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die?"
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If only AlGore hadn't lifted fizzy-lifting drinks and gobstoppers....he could have had his own chocolate factory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Eh? They do? Or is this yet another entirely confabulated talking point? (RR talked about "his" experience in the war when it was really just a description of a movie he'd made.)
It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Eh? They do? Or is this yet another entirely confabulated talking point? (RR talked about "his" experience in the war when it was really just a description of a movie he'd made.)
It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.
---------------------------------
So, you completely dismiss the whole 'AlGore lying
thing by talking about Reagan? There's nothing "confabulated " here at all. The shot , which AlGore is passing off as legit is , in fact, 100% fake. Or, as the Visual Effects Supervisor from The Day After Tomorrow states, ...
Quote:
Yeah, that's our shot. That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there.
I fail to see the comparison. AlGore intentionally lied. Big difference.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I hope everyone else had a good Earth Day today. I went out and cut down about 100 small trees to clear the way so I could locate the larger trees on a 3 acre lot. Now that this is done the land owner can apply for a permit to clear-cut the entire lot. I did see in the news though that the Governor planted a tree in a Earth Day ceremony, so I guess it all balances out.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I turned on my AC for the first time this spring. Felt real nice inside , so i took a nap with it running. Awesome! 
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did you folks never hear of illustrating a process ?
Next time you watch a science show that illustrates how cosmic rays travel, how earth's magnetic fields form the van Allen radiation belts, how molecules travel in a fluid
REMEMBER TO TELL YOUR STUPID SELVES THAT THERE'S NO SUCH THINGS BECAUSE YOU SAW AN ILLUSTRATION OF THEM ON TV. Those filthy liars ! Liars I tell you !
Ha ha ha ha ha ha wahta' buncha' idiots.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Did you folks never hear of illustrating a process ?
Next time you watch a science show that illustrates how cosmic rays travel, how earth's magnetic fields form the van Allen radiation belts, how molecules travel in a fluid
REMEMBER TO TELL YOUR STUPID SELVES THAT THERE'S NO SUCH THINGS BECAUSE YOU SAW AN ILLUSTRATION OF THEM ON TV. Those filthy liars ! Liars I tell you !
Ha ha ha ha ha ha wahta' buncha' idiots.
"Global warming - it's not a fact, it just isn't!
Not really relevant to the thread, but thanks for playing anyways.
" That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there."
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah Rap, once again you illustrate just how close you are to PN land. Good luck with that.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Did you folks never hear of illustrating a process ?
Sure, I watched that show about Earth after all the people were gone, yet the next day people were still around.
I think its a tad different when they are claiming what they are showing you is real rather then an illistration or staged.
Its kinda like Dateline rigging the SUVs to explode to illistrate the danger of exploding gas tanks.
All ALGore proved is that Global Warming is a huge problem...just like the Darth Vader, Reavers, Khan (or at least his wrath), Ben Affleck, or Giant Killer Sharks (not to mention Tomatoes).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Yeah Rap, once again you illustrate just how close you are to PN land. Good luck with that.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not a fact, because it isn't ."
No, I'm more involved w/ reality than you even WANT to be. AlGore used a fake image and tried to pass it off as legit. Why? He could have easily found a glacial terminus along the water, but instead, thought so little of his audience or even his own credibility that he instead used a 100 % fake scene to illustrate his point. Fine, but he didn't TELL his audience it was fake, and that makes Gore a liar.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He did ? Really ?
Have either of you buffoons watched 'An Inconvenient Truth' ?
I thought not. The images you claimed to be 'faked' were blatantly computer generated - you'd have to be a real idiot to think they weren't. (Or maybe you need better glasses or better electronics ... Either way, you can solve that little problem by ponying up.) On top of which they were used to illustrate the geography of Antarctica - where the floating ice was, the land ice and the mountains.
Obviously you two don't quite understand the meaning of the word 'illustrate', so I suggest you go look it up.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The images you claimed to be 'faked' were blatantly computer generated - you'd have to be a real idiot to think they weren't.
I watched it in HD. Your right, it is obvious. In fact the entire movie is computer generated with the exception of ALGore who is made of wood.
I hear that in the 'special edition' you get commentary from ALGore and George Lucas explaining how the whole thing started as a big joke and how they laughed and laughed when people "actually believed that shit".
Edited to add: http://www.nysun.com/news/food-crisis-eclipsing-climate-change
Gore is starving us all with his 'let them eat cake' approach to climate change.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
He did ? Really ?
Have either of you buffoons watched 'An Inconvenient Truth' ?
I thought not. The images you claimed to be 'faked' were blatantly computer generated - you'd have to be a real idiot to think they weren't. (Or maybe you need better glasses or better electronics ... Either way, you can solve that little problem by ponying up.) On top of which they were used to illustrate the geography of Antarctica - where the floating ice was, the land ice and the mountains.
Obviously you two don't quite understand the meaning of the word 'illustrate', so I suggest you go look it up.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not a fact, it just isn't ."
No, I didn't waste my $$ on that piece of go se . But what I DID see was the clip in question, and there was no doubt that the cgi shot was intended to be a legit shot of an glacial terminus at waters edge. There was no commentary about " this being a representation of REAL geography of antarctica" . Gore lied.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA - yeah, whatever you gotta do to keep your little world intact.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA - yeah, whatever you gotta do to keep your little world intact.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not a fact, it's just not."
What ever I gotta do ? WTF is that suppose to even mean? I'm not DOING anything, Gore lied. What about that don't you get ???
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What was the lie, exactly ? Was it in saying that there's sea ice, then land ice, then mountains ? Seems like factual geography to me. Was it in saying that people see glaciers calving every day ? That's an indisputable fact. Do you have an issue with him using stock footage to illustrate his points ? Is that the big lie you're claiming ? Well, I guess we can just eliminate any program that uses any kind of illustration as being lies, then.
You really need to get a life, dude.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Was it in saying that people see glaciers calving every day ? That's an indisputable fact. Do you have an issue with him using stock footage to illustrate his points ?
Its not stock footage. Stock footage would be real, not manufactured.
I guess I find it odd that 'people see glaciers calving every day' but those people either have no access to video equipment or the footage would not be compelling enough to support their case.
If he had used stock footage of actual glaciers, we'd not be having this conversation. The used manufactured footage because it best supports their other evidence (most of which is also 'manufactured'). Global warming is just another 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' 'do as we say not as we do' kinda put on that we used to get from the socialists back before the fall of the Soviet Union. All those people didn't just disappear...they just changed color...green is the new red.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stock footage is anything you can pay a fee and get the right to use. And yes, there are plenty of videos of glaciers calving. But they belong to individuals and universities and it's far quicker to go to a commercial source and purchase the rights than to try to dig up bits and pieces from across the globe.
So, what are YOU saying, Hero ? That glaciers AREN'T calving every day ? That they're NOT retreating ? That large sections of the Antarctic ice shelf HAVEN'T collapsed ? Is THAT your claim, now ? Because if it is, then you are lying, or massively, tragically deluded.
And dude, if this stock footage non-issue is a big deal to you, you really, really need to get a life.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Considering he never even watched the thing, Auraptor sure seems to know a lot about it.
I've not watched it either, and I'm disinterested enough in "an Inconvenient Truth" to not want to either. The difference is I'm interested in the science, not what either Gore or Bush tell me to believe. Which is why I don't feel the need to make big sweeping statements about something I've not experienced. I've not watched it, but I heard on Rush Limbaugh that... LOL!
This whole American need to be told what to believe by some talking head, and judging entire subjects based on whose celebrity said what just cracks me up. You guys are all right, in a really amusing to watch kinda way...
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I found 'An Inconvenient Truth' to be a bit like the movies we used to watch in high school earth science, with the exception that Al Gore was the presenter, not some faceless voice-over.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i read a few of Al Gores books when i was a teenager in high school, i guess you could say i was one of these early green people. i probably reached an extreme while living in southern CA, probably based on the poor air quality and predominance of liberalism. but i have since come to a change of heart about the whole subject, mainly because the 'science' is misleading
its almost ridiculous how many scientific facts and theories have been reversed or changed or discredited over the years. science is not necessarily synonymous with fact. MMGW is only a theory, period. just as evolution is only a theory
CO2 is not a pollutant, its an essential building block of life on earth. i personally dont believe humans alone can change the earths climate, without an overlap of a coming cycle of some sort(but thats just my opinion). scientists claim that the earth had its highest Carbon concentrations during the cambrian and early eras, when the earth had an mysterious explosion of life, accommodated by a (graciously) tropical climate.
but were talking many of (alleged) millions of years of separation.. so i think we've got time. last i heard, unless im mistaken, we've only seen less then a degrees difference over the last 100yrs, the peak of the industrial revolution. thats not a very dramatic increase. so where is all this hysteria coming from?
what scares me is the building political (re)action to prevent this 'end of the world' scenario that the GW alarmists propagate. to execute that kind of oversight of the world populace, to minimize their "carbon footprint", it requires a scale of government and authoritarian control beyond what we've seen before. its collectivism out of control, its communism
and we dont even know what will actually happen in the future. the reaction to GW will probably be worse then the warming itself..
and thats why ive come to believe that the green movement is being run by NWO globalists. save an alien invasion, its the perfect excuse to control the behavior of everyone on the planet. why stop at limiting carbon footprints? we need to consider population control and eugenics
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s kind of the impression I get too. The Day After Tomorrow was, for all intents and purposes, a fantasy film. The fact the Gore used footage from this film to express a point suggests that he was going for the sensationalism not fact or science. It’s something like using footage from the Lord of the Rings to express a point about jewelry. This is propaganda, not science. It’s not like footage that was designed as a visual aid to express a point, such as what you might see in a serious documentary. It doesn’t say much too rosy about Gore’s credibility in these matters, but then fair-minded people don’t have any reason to believe he has any credibility on the topic. I don’t think Gore is trying to make fair-minded people believe that - I think he’s preaching to the choir and he’s preaching to the naïve, both of which he's done very effectively with this film. But he certainly hasn't convinced many people willing to question his assertions, I don't think.
Originally posted by Hero:
I guess I find it odd that 'people see glaciers calving every day' but those people either have no access to video equipment or the footage would not be compelling enough to support their case.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Let's say I was showing a movie about safe driving. And the screen shows a red 1991 mustang going to fast for a curve, skidding off the road, and slamming passenger-side into a tree, at 10:21 in the morning, March 23, 1992, headed east at 87.2 mph on a specific portion of Route 20, in Idaho, after a steady 1/4" rainfall over 2 hours, being driven by a stunt car driver named Mark Todd and filmed for the movie, with a specific Idaho license plate 'capital restoration' 18299. Meanwhile a narrator is saying "All too unfortunately, this happens hundreds of times a day in the United States".
Are you going to say - they're LIARS ! because red mustangs with that license plate at that specific time and place and speed and driver don't go off the road hundreds of times ! Only ONCE ! SO THERE !
Or are you going to take the more rational, normal, sane approach and understand that the film was using the footage to illustrate a valid and truthful point, as an alternative to having a blank screen.
HHhhmmm ?
"And dude, if this stock footage non-issue is a big deal to you, you really, really need to get a life."
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I’m going to assume they are using sensationalism to make a point, which is what they would be doing. It doesn’t make any difference whether their point is true or not - its still sensationalism. Now the problem with sensationalism is that it tends to preach to the choir or to the naive. But when it comes to people who aren't convinced already and not willing to just accept your word for it, you might have shot yourself in the foot, because a fair-minded person will at least consider the possibility that you’re using sensationalism because you can’t make the point without it.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"sensationalism" Sensationalism ? You mean illustrating a very common event is sensationalism ?
Sigh. I can see we're going to have one of those discussions where you pretend to not know english.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This from the person who doesn’t know what sensationalism is.
Originally posted by rue:
"sensationalism"
Sensationalism ? You mean showing a very common event is sensationalism ?
Sigh. I can see we're going to have one of those discussions where you pretend to not know english.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Name one. One. That's all. Name one time where 'science' has done a complete U turn.
Originally posted by antimason:
its almost ridiculous how many scientific facts and theories have been reversed or changed or discredited over the years.
Quote:No, it's the search for truth.
science is not necessarily synonymous with fact.
Quote:So's gravity. Do tell us when you start floating off into space old boy. Beyond that, I'm sorry but that's a pretty ignorant thing to say. In science a theory is somewhat different to 'theory' in common usage. What most people mean when they say theory, a scientist would call a hypothesis. A theory requires supporting data, saying something is 'only' a theory indicates you don't have a clue what you're talking about, in science there's no 'only' about a theory.
MMGW is only a theory, period. just as evolution is only a theory
Quote:Yeah, lead is natural, want some in your water? Hey, it's believed that radioactivity keeps the Earth's core hot, which is essential to life on Earth.
CO2 is not a pollutant, its an essential building block of life on earth.
So, you want a Uranium sandwich? It can't be a pollutant, it's natural
.Pollutants aren't something 'unnatural' added into the environment. Oxygen is poisonous, but I'd say it's also pretty key to life on Earth. Pollutants are anything at an abnormally high concentration that upset the natural balance. So yeah, abnormal amounts of CO2 upsetting the natural balance would be pollution.
Quote:You're point is (beyond an appeal to ridicule I mean)?
scientists claim that the earth had its highest Carbon concentrations during the cambrian and early eras, when the earth had an mysterious explosion of life, accommodated by a (graciously) tropical climate.
Quote:Yeah, that's half the point. We don't. The warming is happening at a much faster and unprecedented rate.
but were talking many of (alleged) millions of years of separation.. so i think we've got time.
Quote:The 'peak' of the industrial revolution was actually further back than that. Not that I see the point in talking about it, the we're more polluting now (as a species) than at any other time in our history.
last i heard, unless im mistaken, we've only seen less then a degrees difference over the last 100yrs, the peak of the industrial revolution.
Quote:Err, actually it is. And it's accelerating, especially in the last few years.
thats not a very dramatic increase.
Quote:From the fact that a world wide rise of nearly a degree in only a hundred years (a blip in geological time) is actually alarmingly high and fast, and not something to be brushed off as insignificant.
so where is all this hysteria coming from?
Quote:Yeah, damn them! Trying to stop pollution! Those bastards! I love lead in my lungs and arsenic in my water! Unleaded petrol was one of the most evil crimes forced on the world...
what scares me is the building political (re)action to prevent this 'end of the world' scenario that the GW alarmists propagate.
Quote:Erm, yeah. Communism, for when you're not sure what it really is, but its bad, yeah. Actually I think the stateism your trying to put up as a false dichotomy would be more akin to Fascism than Communism
to execute that kind of oversight of the world populace, to minimize their "carbon footprint", it requires a scale of government and authoritarian control beyond what we've seen before. its collectivism out of control, its communism
.Quote:Is there anything that isn't part of some NWO conspiracy as far as you're concerned? Seriously.
and thats why ive come to believe that the green movement is being run by NWO globalists. save an alien invasion, its the perfect excuse to control the behavior of everyone on the planet. why stop at limiting carbon footprints?
Quote:Didn't they already try eu
we need to consider population control and eugenics
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
No apparently you don't know what sensationalism is. But claiming words mean something other than their actual definition is your game.
BTW, if you want to watch home videos of glaciers calving, you can go to you tube:
As for professional footage of glaciers calving, I'll leave that search up to you.
And BTW, if stock footage is your biggest issue, you really, really need to get a life.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, just them and everyone else in the American media/government
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m going to assume they are using sensationalism to make a point, which is what they would be doing.
.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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’re not helping yourself any. You’re starting to sound like Citizen - like the only thing your interested in is starting a flame war. As long as the only point you can make are personal attacks, then you’re credibility doesn’t seem to be much either. I already know that you think everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, but that kind of belligerent attitude just doesn’t make for very interesting discussion.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn
No apparently you don't know what sensationalism is. But claiming words mean something other than their actual definition is your game.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
You says it's sensationalism. And refuse to back up your claim. If you're looking for intelligent discussion, don't go looking in the mirror, dude. B/c simply making unsupported ridiculous claims isn't intelligent.
BTW, what did you think of ALL THOSE home videos of glaciers calving, from all around the world ? Pretty cool, hunh ? And, uh - what do they do to your (ridiculous unsupported) claim that it isn't happening often enough for people to film ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except you're the one insulting me for no reason. Maybe you're the one that sounds like 'me'...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re not helping yourself any. You’re starting to sound like Citizen - like the only thing your interested in is starting a flame war.
As one of the posters on this forum least interested in discussion, and who has actually accused people of being paedophiles because they don't agree with you, I have to say you saying something like that is pretty funny, if only because of your complete lack of self-awareness.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you expect intelligent discussion, don’t start out using personal attacks. Honestly, what good would is it do to back up any claim to a person who is so closed minded their first response in a discussion is to attack the other person when they hear something that challenges their world view? And if you don't know what sensationalism means, you need to start listening and learning instead of shooting your mouth off.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn
You says it's sensationalism. And refuse to back up your claim. If you're looking for intelligent discussion, don't go looking in the mirror, dude. B/c simply making unsupported ridiculous claims isn't intelligent.
MmmmBubye.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Finn, I see you have no interest in the topic at hand. So since I have the floor all to myself, I'm going to consider a roughly 2 second stock footage clip of a glacier calving.
Since the topic was ABOUT glaciers retreating, it doesn't seem out of place to illustrate what that might look like.
So the first thing to consider is: are glaciers retreating ? Because it would be wildly misleading to portray glaciers calving if it wasn't happening. But since nearly all glaciers ARE retreating worldwide, and the ones that touch water do so by calving, it's fair to say talking about glacier retreat is not only factual and honest, it's instructive. IOW, it wasn't a 'lie' to talk about or illustrate glaciers retreating.
Now, is there a problem with obtaining actual footage ? Is it so rare and so remote that it had to be 'fudged' ? Apparently not, as the many, many clips from YouTube show. So they could have used YouTube clips to portray this common event if they so chose.
There is, however, the slight issue of production values. The real footage is taken by amateurs with amateur equipment, usually on boats moving in some way, sometimes not completely in-frame, with people talking over the sound, the picture out of focus etc. So while it is possible to use any number of real videos, it's clearer to use the computer-generated stock footage already available to illustrate what glacier calving looks like. (And remember, we're talking about a 2 second clip illustrating the fact of glacier retreat within a 100 minute movie.)
Finally, Finn feels it's 'sensationalism'. Since it's been established that glaciers are calving all around the globe, enough to be retreating, one of the aspects of sensationalism - focusing on the extreme or unusual to get attention, is NOT met. (Prurient, which is another part of the definition doesn't apply here.) More subtly, you could wonder if they used a wildly outsized portrayal to exaggerate the point. Having looked at the home videos, I'd say no. Some calving was smaller in scale, some larger (the one from Argentina was monstrous), so the footage used in the movie was middle of the road for that kind of thing.
So, since the footage illustrates a real event of common occurrence without exaggeration, I wonder - why do people like 'Hero', Rap and Finn have such personal issues over it ? Perhaps they can explain.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Citizen-
Name one. One. That's all. Name one time where 'science' has done a complete U turn.
have we learned anything new in the last 500 years? im curious... it seems science is ever changing and evolving, as we learn new information. there are continuously new discoveries being observed in the universe, which is always changing current beliefs and theories in the field. thats my point. im not a scientist, but i found plenty of now discredited or defunct theories, varying in acceptance, which have been improved or surpassed, just do a search. GW may be no different, in matter of the planet and universe, there is still a lot to be learned
Quote:
No, it's(science)(is) the search for truth.
right.. not truth itself. pursuance is not a claim to truth
Quote:
So's gravity. Do tell us when you start floating off into space old boy. Beyond that, I'm sorry but that's a pretty ignorant thing to say. In science a theory is somewhat different to 'theory' in common usage. What most people mean when they say theory, a scientist would call a hypothesis.
i know what an hypothesis is, i believe ive made that point to you before about your sacred evolutionary theory
Quote:
A theory requires supporting data, saying something is 'only' a theory indicates you don't have a clue what you're talking about, in science there's no 'only' about a theory.
hey, tell me exactly how our ancestors managed to crawl out of molten lava? thpse were some mighty intelligent raw elements to have designed all these awfully complex biological organisms we see today. ive never seen any data to support that.. instead, i see a lot of cherry picking of evidence to fit ones own chosen belief
Quote:
Pollutants aren't something 'unnatural' added into the environment. Oxygen is poisonous, but I'd say it's also pretty key to life on Earth. Pollutants are anything at an abnormally high concentration that upset the natural balance. So yeah, abnormal amounts of CO2 upsetting the natural balance would be pollution.
actually, the natural balance says otherwise. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22787
recent data shows warmer temperatures precede higher CO2 concentrations. according to this new research, i could presume that we were amidst a warming cycle before humans began burning fuel
Quote:
You're point is (beyond an appeal to ridicule I mean)?
i had two points:
1- high CO2 concentrations resulted in a rich diversity in life, so whats the problem?
2- a still to present un-explained "explosion" of complex organisms, without any appearance of prior evolution(throughout the pre-cambrian era). ID(i just love to insert it when possible)?
Quote:
Yeah, that's half the point. We don't. The warming is happening at a much faster and unprecedented rate.
NASA and all the major institutes maintain only a .7 degree surface temperature increase over the last 100 years. what constitutes unprecedented? thats beyond the avg lifespan, its unnoticeable
Quote:
The 'peak' of the industrial revolution was actually further back than that. Not that I see the point in talking about it, the we're more polluting now (as a species) than at any other time in our history.
i was making a correlation between the last 100 years of industry, and our oldest current recorded climate data. its still only .7 degrees. no doubt third world countries are operating with less stringent particulate pollution standards, but CO2 just doesn't seem to be the big problem its being made out to be
Quote:
Err, actually it is(a dramatic increase). And it's accelerating, especially in the last few years.
thats a matter of opinion, but either way, i haven't seen any evidence of dramatic increases over the last few years. we're only talking a few hundredths of a fraction of a degree over decades. besides, who's to say what a stable climate is? seriously.. the earth and our universe are beyond our control
Quote:
From the fact that a woNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" ... from top to bottom, and crap all over it at will, till you choke it and yourselves to death on your own waste. Yeah, I remember, that was in there. 
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Al Gore invented Global Warming. And the internet. And pants. And the hanging chad. (note sarcasm)
Bad_karma
Global Warming is a theory, hunger in America is a FACT
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or in other words you can't show a single example. Not one.
Originally posted by antimason:
have we learned anything new in the last 500 years? im curious... it seems science is ever changing and evolving, as we learn new information. there are continuously new discoveries being observed in the universe, which is always changing current beliefs and theories in the field. thats my point. im not a scientist, but i found plenty of now discredited or defunct theories, varying in acceptance, which have been improved or surpassed, just do a search. GW may be no different, in matter of the planet and universe, there is still a lot to be learned
In Science every new theory has to conform to the previous theory, where that theory was confirmed by experiment, this is the Classical Limit. Einstein's Universe conform to Newton's Universe where Newton's theories are confirmed by experiment.
Furthermore I find your attempts to portray the ability of science to incorporate new data, rather than ignoring it, as a weakness pretty funny. It's more a sign of weakness on the observer, than the observed.
Quote:Science is a methodology, a tool for getting at the truth. Which means if you want to know the really real 'truth' you're more likely to find it in Science than in the pages of some book or manuscript that says "an invisible man in the sky did it, and if you ask questions he'll fuck your shit up, bitch".
right.. not truth itself. pursuance is not a claim to truth
Quote:Point one, whether you know what a Hypothesis is or not, it's damn clear you haven't the first clue what a theory is. If you did, you wouldn't have said something as assine as "only a theory".
i know what an hypothesis is, i believe ive made that point to you before about your sacred evolutionary theory
As Nyrath says on his Atomic Rocket website:
Quote:
This generally takes the form of "Well, Einstein's relativity is just a theory, not a fact/scientific law." However, such a statement only demonstrates that the speaker is either severely scientifically illiterate or an evil demagog trying to pull a fast one.
Finally you've really made no points about evolution before. You've tried to pick holes in it that tend to highlight your own lack of knowledge of it and the ancillary subjects surrounding it, but made a point? No you have not. I don't hold evolution as 'Sacred', it's an irrefutable fact, you hold your denial of it as sacred. If you didn't, you wouldn't be so unbelievably evidence proof.
Quote:That's nothing to do with evolution, but thanks for trying.
hey, tell me exactly how our ancestors managed to crawl out of molten lava?
Quote:Actually there's a number of experiments that have shown the spontaneous formation of amino acids, the building blocks of life, in early Earth conditions. One can't see if one keeps one's eyes closed at all times.
thpse were some mighty intelligent raw elements to have designed all these awfully complex biological organisms we see today. ive never seen any data to support that..
Quote:Actually, that's my line.
instead, i see a lot of cherry picking of evidence to fit ones own chosen belief
Quote:Actually, no it doesn't:
actually, the natural balance says otherwise.
Quote:This has been refuted so many times there seems little point doing it again myself:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22787
recent data shows warmer temperatures precede higher CO2 concentrations. according to this new research, i could presume that we were amidst a warming cycle before humans began burning fuel
Quote:
A good example can be found in the last Inhofe hearing. There, Bob Carter pointed out that during the past few hundred thousand years, changes in temperature have preceded changes in carbon dioxide. Carter concluded that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is unclear.
This is hogwash, of course. While Carter is correct that temperature changes precede CO2 chaNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, another bright light of intelligence. The fun just never ends.
Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
Al Gore invented Global Warming. And the internet. And pants. And the hanging chad. (note sarcasm)
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In science, Theory can be FACT.
Originally posted by badkarma00:
Global Warming is a theory, hunger in America is a FACT
Beyond that, if hunger is a fact in America, so is the highest Obesity rate in the world, obviously some people are eating too much and not leaving enough for everyone else.
Greedy fat bastards.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of the issues I have with "man made" global warming is the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. It's difficult to see in the graph below, but the data actually shows that CO2 rises lag temperature increase. In other words, it's not CO2 that raises temperature, it's the other way around, an increase in temperature results in a rise in CO2. Ive heard a few scientists try to explain this fact away, but have yet to hear an explanation that makes sense to me.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Al Gore has manipulated the statistics to cause panic among those not scientifically literate. Another example of his lies is his statement that sea levels will rise up to 20 feet over the next 100 years. Even the UN panel on global warming only predicts a maximum rise of 20 inches.
I recently heard a well known physicist say in a documentary on String/Brane Theory that the consensus in the physics community is beginning to be that there is some validity to String Theory. He followed by saying that the fact that most believe without convincing evidence almost certainly means that they are all wrong.
Even if the evidence eventually shows that Global warming is "man made", All Gore's "lies, damned lies and statistics" aren't helping to convince those with a sceptical scientific mind. I can see why Gore's Global warming propaganda might be bought by the uneducated masses, but the fact that so many educated scientists have been convinced with so little evidence is scary to me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What's not to make sense? The implication is that naturally CO2 levels appear to follow warming because it's functioning as a feedback mechanism, but that doesn't mean CO2 can't cause warming. In fact over a hundred years of research supports the greenhouse effect, and we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How does the functioning of a natural cycle refute that we know CO2 works as a greenhouse gas? That's what doesn't make sense to me.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
One of the issues I have with "man made" global warming is the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. It's difficult to see in the graph below, but the data actually shows that CO2 rises lag temperature increase. In other words, it's not CO2 that raises temperature, it's the other way around, an increase in temperature results in a rise in CO2. Ive heard a few scientists try to explain this fact away, but have yet to hear an explanation that makes sense to me.
Quote:
A good example can be found in the last Inhofe hearing. There, Bob Carter pointed out that during the past few hundred thousand years, changes in temperature have preceded changes in carbon dioxide. Carter concluded that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is unclear.
This is hogwash, of course. While Carter is correct that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, this is well understood and in no way undermines the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to global warming. By presenting a misleading account of this physical phenomenon, Carter is acting to politicize science.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/21/184725/60
Quote:
What most scientists think happens is that the orbital variations cause a small initial warming. This small initial warming leads to CO2 being released, which then leads to further warming.
Thus, CO2 indeed lags the initial warming. However, that does not mean it's not playing a crucial role in the warming. In fact, its role in warming is pivotal.
In making the argument that CO2 is causing global warming, I tend not to talk about this long-time-scale correlation. As you can see from this post, while the correlation looks simple, the causality is more complicated than one might initially think. There's a much better argument anyway, which I laid out in my last post. And there are other problems -- e.g., we do not know with great confidence exactly what mechanism causes CO2 rise in response to the slight orbital-caused warming.
In summary, in the parlance of climate scientists, we would say that CO2 was acting as a "feedback" over the time period in the figure above. In the past century, however, humans have taken over the carbon cycle and now dominate the year-to-year atmospheric changes. Thus CO2 has now become a "forcing."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499
Quote:I personally don't care what Al Gore has to say on the subject. Also if Al Gore is so unscientific and is using lies to support his position, it's hard to see how ignoring the science, and going after the self promotion of some assine politician while ignoring the actual issue, can't only harm ones own position as much, if not more than "An Inconvenient Truth" is supposed to harm the 'opposition'.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Al Gore has manipulated the statistics to cause panic among those not scientifically literate. Another example of his lies is his statement that sea levels will rise up to 20 feet over the next 100 years. Even the UN panel on global warming only predicts a maximum rise of 20 inches.
Quote:That's a rather gross simplification. The question is, which String Theory? Many Physicist see the overarching umbrella of String Theory as having a great deal of potential, and there is certainly some evidence to suggest it could replace Quantum Me
I recently heard a well known physicist say in a documentary on String/Brane Theory that the consensus in the physics community is beginning to be that there is some validity to String Theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As you can see from this post, while the correlation looks simple, the causality is more complicated than one might initially think.
In summary, in the parlance of climate scientists, we would say that CO2 was acting as a "feedback" over the time period in the figure above. In the past century, however, humans have taken over the carbon cycle and now dominate the year-to-year atmospheric changes. Thus CO2 has now become a "forcing"
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm supposed to accept that some magic feedback mechanism is causing CO2 rise to lag temperature, but I just have to take the "experts" word for this because the mechanism is not yet understood. Also, because they don't understand the feedback mechanism it must be a result of humans taking over the carbon cycle. I think if you look at the temperature data you will see that we have been in a relatively stable temperature range for the last 10-15 thousand years. This anomalous stable period is much more interesting to me than the small recent temperature variation. Looking at the data it's not surprising that we would see temperature change. What is more surprising is that the relatively stable temperature period that we are currently in has lasted so long. This does seem to be a anomaly given the temperature data for geologic time periods. It would be great if climatologists could explain how this stable temperature period is related to CO2 given the fact that it began thousands of years before industrialization.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm afraid it's a bit technical, Kirk. How well do you understand chronoton particle interaction?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It would be great if climatologists could explain how this stable temperature period is related to CO2 given the fact that it began thousands of years before industrialization.
Geordiisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't see any support for the conclusion that it's not understood, nor that it's blamed on Human action because it's not understood. In fact the very opposite is true, the feedback isn't being blamed on Humans at all, it's being suggested that the feedback is a natural process. The claim has never been made that Human activity is the only source of CO2.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm supposed to accept that some magic feedback mechanism is causing CO2 rise to lag temperature, but I just have to take the "experts" word for this because the mechanism is not yet understood. Also, because they don't understand the feedback mechanism it must be a result of humans taking over the carbon cycle.
In the natural cycle, the idea is that warming is started by another factor, probably orbital perturbation. The solubility of gases is inversely proportional to temperature, meaning if the temperature of the oceans is doubled, the amount of CO2 gas dissolved in them will be halved. So obviously as Ocean temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 will increase. This is well understood. We also know that CO2 is a green house gas, it causes warming through the greenhouse effect which is similarly well understood. Put the two together: CO2 rises because of increased temperature, raised atmospheric CO2 causes increased temperatures, which releases more CO2, and so on.
The feedback mechanism is understood, it's merely two well known and understood mechanisms tied together in an obvious and straight forward fashion.
The difference between now and the past natural cycles is that us Humans are pumping out CO2, as well as the natural release. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know greenhouse gases cause warming.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
im not gonna bother with any further exchanges with you. like i said Citizen, im not a trained scientist, not even in school to be one(im studying theology). i am however, entitled to think for myself. anyone can search through and find understandings in science which have changed, i didnt post any because its not my field, id be posting things i have no prior acquaintance with. you could easily search yourself, but its easier to lambaste and degrade my intelligence by making me out to be ignorant. as far as im concerned, youre just another goosestepping drone of the neo-scientific dictatorship, that presumes to tell everyone what to think and believe, based on current understandings; just like you know whether a Creator exists( or not), or how all living species crawled from a pre-biotic soup or raw elements.
so when are you due for your nobel prize again? im amazed someone with such knowledge would grace us daily with their presence.. shouldnt you be out saving the world, swapping cars for bicycles, giving speeches to the UN, and informing the lemmings on campuses why they need to be taxed for something they exhale from their lungs? their is plenty of good debate on the subject of MMGW, fortunately for you the globalists have the majority of propaganda published for you to draw from... but in the end, only time will tell. so go ahead and presume to know the immutable truths of the earth and universe, its not my head being swollen with arrogance
anyways, so what is your grand solution? you have apparently diagnosed the problem, man, so what is your solution? youre the new global dictator, whats your plan to save the earth??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This coming from the guy who basis all his opinions on the Bible, and can't decide how old he is. It's easy to call you ignorant about science, because you're displaying your ignorance about science. You can't even manage basic English, describing you as a moron is an accurate description, not an insult. Also, I think you'll find Bible camp isn't "learning theology" (or rather violent theocracy for you), not that memorising passages from the Bible is particularly impressive...
How about you learn how to be a good Christian, instead of a lousy one as you currently are, before arrogantly assuming you're the only one who knows the truth based on nothing more than the say so of someone who should be on medication. You're the kind of person that gives Christians a bad name.
I'm not a Global Dictator, nor do I wish to be, I'm not you, I'm not the one aiming to subjugate all people under an evil and violent theocratic dictatorship. I'm not the one who wishes to end all those who aren't just like me.
You try to insult me, and describe yourself. Go save the world from the NWO Scientist instead of trolling here you unchristian wannabe theocratic dictator, weaselly troll.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Citizen-
This coming from the guy who basis all his opinions on the Bible, and can't decide how old he is.
we both have our opinions, and theyre just that, opinions. you hold my religion against me, because im not willing to accept current understandings as gospel, and base my worldview on beliefs that will likely change in my lifetime. maybe we should burn all the bibles worldwide.. or just outlaw religion, prohibit it to ones own house, in private where no one has to hear about it. that would be better would it
and whats that supposed to mean? i dont think ive ever even mentioned or made reference to my age
Quote:
It's easy to call you ignorant about science, because you're displaying your ignorance about science.
i never claimed to be an expert. what are you, but someone who passes the knowledge of others off as his own
Quote:
You can't even manage basic English, describing you as a moron is an accurate description, not an insult.
i wont bother picking out your spelling error in the first sentence.. im not so shallow as to form an opinion based on an informal message board, or an unintended mistake
Quote:
Also, I think you'll find Bible camp isn't "learning theocracy", not that memorising passages from the Bible is particularly impressive...
thats your opinion.. thankfully people like you havent completely banned the study of it yet. i would think the studies of astronomy, or biology, or chemistry, or any complex information encoded in nature.. would be futile, without considering what encoded it to begin with. i suppose then you yourself, could design something from a handful of elements.. maybe easier then the earth managed, randomly?
Quote:
How about you learn how to be a good Christian, instead of a lousy one as you currently are, before arrogantly assuming you're the only one who knows the truth based on nothing more than the say so of someone who should be on medication. You're the kind of person that gives Christians a bad name.
what would you know about being a good christian, you have absolutely no respect or appreciation for the the bible. judging by your demeanor, i think, you could learn a thing or two from the scripture "do not judge, or you will be judged. for when you pass judgment on another, you condemn yourself'
Quote:
You try to insult me, and describe yourself. Go save the world from the NWO Scientist instead of trolling here you unChristian wannabe theocratic weasel troll.
hey, look at historical precedent: atheism, secularism, your precious green movement.. the big money of the Rothschild and Rockefellers are behind your movement. you want to side with the population control, forced sterilization, one child policy, mandatory vaccination, global government crowd, be my quest.
you dont know me, and im only a troll because you disagree with me. that reflects more on you then it does me
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Citizen- I'm not a Global Dictator, nor do I wish to be,
then whats your solution??? please, enlighten me.. the market does not have alternatives that are viable. do you want to cause a global economic recession? tell me how you enforce your CO2 standards without completely stifling industry, and compromising the western economies?
Quote:
I'm not you, I'm not the one aiming to subjugate all people under an evil and violent theocratic dictatorship.
do you know what a true christian theocracy would be? the Lord is our king, and by his laws alone we would govern ourselves. we have government because people rejected God. what i propose is idealistic and probably impractical, in this age, but its no tyranny. the US constitution and bill of rights was based on the concepts of divine liberty, granted by our Creator, and assured through contract of government.
what you propose, a scientifically dictated, secular government, with the authority to tax and regulate, and micromanage the lives of everyone on the planet, thats tyrannous. besides that there is no higher authority then 'man', and that mob rule and popular opinion decide the law
Quote:
I'm not the one who wishes to end all those who aren't just like me.
thats your own insecurity and prejudice that you are projecting on me. its that same mentality that thinks we ought to give reperations in this country to the ancestors of slaves. i didnt act immorally, individuals in the past chose to act immorally. that has nothing to do with me, or my religion
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I've sent you a PM. You want to show you're not a Troll, do it there. At the moment all I see is a poster who spouts anti-science pseudo Christian Zealotry, on a the forum of a fan site for a Science-Fiction show they've never watched. Which sure as hell sounds like trolling to me.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The solubility of gases is inversely proportional to temperature, meaning if the temperature of the oceans is doubled, the amount of CO2 gas dissolved in them will be halved. So obviously as Ocean temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 will increase. This is well understood.
It seems that although what you say is generally true in a lab, it seems to work in opposite in the oceans.
"Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has dissolved into the world's oceans—with adverse effects for marine life—according to two new studies". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbo
n.html
This absorption has taken place during the time period in which the increase in average temperature should have been causing the oceans to lose CO2. There are many chemical feedback mechanisms that could account for rising CO2, many have latched onto CO2 because it is easy to see a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature on a graph. The direct relationship does not guarantee a cause and effect relationship.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
At the moment all I see is a poster who spouts anti-science pseudo Christian Zealotry, on a the forum of a fan site for a Science-Fiction show they've never watched.
Antimason, dude! Is that true? You've never watched Firefly??!! Tell me Citizen is making things up.
Some of your ideas are far out for me, Antimason. But as a scientist, I don't see you as particularly anti-science. At least not anymore than all these other folks who exploit the word "science" to justify their own ideologies. That's anti-science zealotry as well.
--------------------------
Science is the opposite of zealotry, of any kind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not making it up at all, he admitted as much himself sometime back, I'll try to find the thread.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Antimason, dude! Is that true? You've never watched Firefly??!! Tell me Citizen is making things up.
Quote:He has, before now, blamed science for everything from wars to eugenics (funny how that changes to individuals when it's turned back on him). Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science, AM is a constant proponent of ID (he tries to shoehorn it in everywhere...), how much more anti-science do you need?
But as a scientist, I don't see you as particularly anti-science.
He even tries to portray the very heart of science, inclusion of new evidence and ideas, as a very bad, even evil thing, Q.E.D.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So you're suggesting the laws of physics are different in the lab than in the rest of the world?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems that although what you say is generally true in a lab, it seems to work in opposite in the oceans.
"Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has dissolved into the world's oceans—with adverse effects for marine life—according to two new studies". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbo
n.html
The solubility of gases is still inversely proportional to temperature, the laws of physics in the lab are not different to the laws of physics in nature.
Quote:Why are you assuming the Ocean has reached saturation? It's not that simple, Henry's Law tells us that pressure (or more specifically the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in this case) also affects gas solubility. That is both ocean temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentration effect how much CO2 is in solution in the oceans, whether there's a net gain or a net loss would depend on which factor is dominant, which at the moment is atmospheric CO2 concentration.
This absorption has taken place during the time period in which the increase in average temperature should have been causing the oceans to lose CO2.
Now, there's also evidence to suggest that the Carbon Dioxide sinks aren't taking up as much CO2 as once they did. This, in the case of the Oceans, indicates temperature is moving toward dominance, and also lends credence to the idea of a CO2 positive feedback, because that is exactly what we'd expect to see as one began.
Quote:I've found that CO2 is focused on, because both sides want to focus on it. CO2 also lends it self more readily to emotive (rather than scientific) refutation, such as "it's natural, so how can it be bad?"
There are many chemical feedback mechanisms that could account for rising CO2, many have latched onto CO2 because it is easy to see a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature on a graph.
Quote:Between heating and CO2? No, what indicates a causal relationship between the two is that we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know the greenhouse effect causes warming.
The direct relationship does not guarantee a cause and effect relationship.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:So you're suggesting the laws of physics are different in the lab than in the rest of the world?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems that although what you say is generally true in a lab, it seems to work in opposite in the oceans.
"Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has dissolved into the world's oceans—with adverse effects for marine life—according to two new studies". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbo
n.html
The solubility of gases is still inversely proportional to temperature, the laws of physics in the lab are not different to the laws of physics in nature.
Yes, the laws of physics remain intact outside the laboratory, but the "partial pressure" of CO2 is variable. In a closed system in a lab the "partial pressure" of CO2 in gas above a solution can only change if the solution emits CO2 due to a temperature change. In the "real world" there are many potential sources for CO2 that could cause a increase in the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the atmosphere. But this isn't the point I was making. The oceans ability to absorb CO2 goes up with the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that the ocean has remained a net absorber of CO2 throughout the industrial era. The ocean cannot therefore be out-gassing CO2 into the atmosphere as a feedback mechanism. If this was true then the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere would always continue until the oceans were saturated with CO2. Obviously there's more at work here than just CO2. Possibly methane from methalhydrate frozen on the ocean floor, or maybe increased volcanic activity?
I obviously don't have a complete understanding of all the issues involved with atmospheric change over time. I do know enough to remain sceptical when people like Al Gore tell me it's "decided science". The debate is far from over, and even if I become convinced that the increase in average temperatures is due to man, I still would question the dramatic actions proposed by Gore and others. It might make a lot more sense to spend the money Gore wants to spend on CO2 mitigation on preparations for the coming climate change should it happen. When the science is "decided", then we need to talk about what makes the most economic sense considering our very limited ability to effect atmospheric change over the short term.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science. So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science,
Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.
I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.
--------------------------
Just sayin'.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If the science is so "decided," I'd like someone to answer these questions for me.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I do know enough to remain sceptical when people like Al Gore tell me it's "decided science".
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27459&m=475215#475215
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science. So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science,
Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.
I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.
--------------------------
Just sayin'.
I agree with Citizen on "Intelligent Design". This is a religious belief not based in science. In fact, this "theory" was developed specifically to undermine the teaching of Evolution in US science classrooms. A bunch of religious nuts got together and thought up this scheme as a way of sneaking creationism into the science classroom were it doesn't belong. I don't even have a problem with teaching the existence of this "theory" in school, but it should be taught in social studies or mythology classes, not in science class.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What was the lie, exactly ? Was it in saying that there's sea ice, then land ice, then mountains ? Seems like factual geography to me. Was it in saying that people see glaciers calving every day ? That's an indisputable fact. Do you have an issue with him using stock footage to illustrate his points ? Is that the big lie you're claiming ? Well, I guess we can just eliminate any program that uses any kind of illustration as being lies, then.
You really need to get a life, dude.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not ] a fact, it's just not. "
You're just pissed that Gore lied and you can't do a gorram thing about it, or even deny it. Whether I need a life or not won't change the fact that Gore lied.
Get over yourself.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As I noted, I said the oceans were currently a net absorber, because one factor was dominant over the other. I also said that the evidence indicates that this trend is slowing and reversing, indicating that temperature could be becoming the dominate factor. It hasn't been suggested that positive CO2 feedback is happening yet, but that it explains why CO2 appears to lag behind the temperature record in the past. Which would also indicate that it could occur again in the future.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The oceans ability to absorb CO2 goes up with the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that the ocean has remained a net absorber of CO2 throughout the industrial era. The ocean cannot therefore be out-gassing CO2 into the atmosphere as a feedback mechanism. If this was true then the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere would always continue until the oceans were saturated with CO2.
Quote:I haven't seen much evidence that measures to curb greenhouse gas emmission would harm an economy, it's certainly what 'industry leaders' say, but they tend to say that about anything that means spending money on something other than their bonuses...
It might make a lot more sense to spend the money Gore wants to spend on CO2 mitigation on preparations for the coming climate change should it happen. When the science is "decided", then we need to talk about what makes the most economic sense considering our very limited ability to effect atmospheric change over the short term.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, ID is religion. Yes religion and science exist in different domains. But ID doesn't stop there. ID is a religious philosophy that it's proponents dress up as science, and try to push into the scientific domain, with the very purpose of undermining evolution in a non scientific way. It's the very definition of an anti-science attack.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science.
Quote:Not really no. But thanks for the strawman.
So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."
Quote:Where did I say it was? This is nothing but a further strawman. I have always maintained that Science is only for understanding the How of the universe, and the Why can be left to religion. Having said that Science is not only the best tool we have for how, but pretty much the only tool that gets results in that regard. In other words Science is the only method for obtaining knowledge about how the universe works, but makes no claims on other questions, from the Human condition (philosophy) to why the universe works (religion). It is religion that is trying to extend beyond it's domain, not science, and yes, that is an attack.
Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.
Quote:Very emotive, very sophistic, very made of straw, very pointlessly baiting. I think certain people on this board need to learn that the definition of free thinking isn't automatically thinking the opposite to what the establishment says. An automatic contrarian knee jerk in order to 'prove' one is a free thinker in facts puts an individual more at the whim of the establishment, and makes them even more of an 'unthinking drone' than those they tend to paint as such.
I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We agree on this.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This is a religious belief not based in science.
Quote:ID is a religious concept that says nothing about science. So in and of itself, the concept is not and cannot be "anti-science."
In fact, this "theory" was developed specifically to undermine the teaching of Evolution in US science classrooms. A bunch of religious nuts got together and thought up this scheme as a way of sneaking creationism into the science classroom were it doesn't belong.
Proponents of ID are often anti-science. Proponents of ID like to teach religion in science classrooms. I agree. This is what happens when people exploit and abuse an intellectual inquiry (be it religious or scientific) for political gain.
And to segue back to global warming, we always have to be careful to leave science and politics separate. Mixing the two is what is truly anti-science.
And returning full circle to my point about Antimason's intelligent design and politics, he is as "anti-science" as people who use climate science to justify political policy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, ID is a religious concept that was dressed up from the very outset to look like science, and was made, from the very beginning to be used to attack science. It was designed as a weapon against science, saying it wasn't is just dishonest.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
ID is a religious concept that says nothing about science. So in and of itself, the concept is not and cannot be "anti-science."
Proponents of ID are often anti-science. Proponents of ID like to teach religion in science classrooms. I agree. This is what happens when people exploit and abuse an intellectual inquiry (be it religious or scientific) for political gain.
By your logic a mugger mugging an investment banker isn't attacking the banker, because mugging has nothing to do with banking.
Quote:In so much as we shouldn't politicise science, yes. Politicians, like George Bush, shouldn't be standing up saying "global warming isn't happening", and politicians like Al Gore shouldn't be making films saying "Global Warming definitely is happening".
And to segue back to global warming, we always have to be careful to leave science and politics separate. Mixing the two is what is truly anti-science.
But then to go on to say that:
Quote:ID is anti-science because it seeks to undermine and replace a scientific theory with a religion. Making political policy based on scientific understanding where appropriate is exactly what we should be doing. How on Earth can you possibly justify otherwise? How twisted can the logic be that says that is anti-science? So you think moving to ban CFCs was anti-science because it was based on the scientific assertion that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFCs do you?
And returning full circle to my point about Antimason's intelligent design and politics, he is as "anti-science" as people who use climate science to justify political policy.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You're just pissed that Gore lied"
You keep saying that. What exactly was the lie ? Did he claim something that wasn't true ? Did he exaggerate ? Or did he realistically illustrate a known fact ?
Until you can answer this question with something other than your silly little parrotted mantra, you just look - like a silly little parrot.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or saying it wasn't could simply be a different understanding of ID.
Originally posted by Citizen:
No, ID is a religious concept that was dressed up from the very outset to look like science, and was made, from the very beginning to be used to attack science. It was designed as a weapon against science, saying it wasn't is just dishonest.
I think this discussion of whether ID is anti-science or a direct attack on science belongs on a different thread. Let's just say for now I disagree with you about not distinguishing between the history of ID advocacy with the concept of ID itself; I don't think you can lump the two as synonymous. I reiterate that while many of ID's most vocal proponents have given ID a really bad name, not ALL ID advocates are anti-science assholes. It is possible to support ID and the scientific method at the same time. The ID hypothesis itself is not anti-science. It is anti-natural selection, but the theory of natural selection is not science itself.
Science and politics don't mix well. When the theory of evolution got mixed in with tax-payer money (politics) in public education, you have got to expect that some tax-payers are going to try to counter those politics.
That is one reason I think it would be better for government and taxes to get out of education altogether.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I find your logic quite weird. It was developed to be used to undermine science, the concept was set-up in such away as to facilitate that, other people believing ID, and respecting science is neither here nor there, since they're the ones misusing ID. It was never created to be believed, it was created to be used to undermine science, that's it's purpose and its concept.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Or saying it wasn't could simply be a different understanding of ID.
Either way, we agree that ID is religion, not science. Trying to replace a scientific theory with a religion isn't just an attack on the theory, its an attack on the scientific method, which is an attack on science no matter how you cut it. No matter your thoughts on ID, if your using it to shoehorn it in too science, you're anti-science.
Which brings us back to: Anti-mason, who tries to shoehorn ID in as a replacement to evolution at every opportunity, and in lieu of an opportunity does it any way like a true rabid propagandist. Just like someone rabidly Anti-science would be expected to do...
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science. So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science,
Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.
I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.
--------------------------
Just sayin'.
And worship WHAT, exactly? Science *IS* "some sort of onmiscient authority of Truth" - it is, in fact, THE SEARCH FOR THAT TRUTH.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What was the lie, exactly ? Was it in saying that there's sea ice, then land ice, then mountains ? Seems like factual geography to me. Was it in saying that people see glaciers calving every day ? That's an indisputable fact. Do you have an issue with him using stock footage to illustrate his points ? Is that the big lie you're claiming ? Well, I guess we can just eliminate any program that uses any kind of illustration as being lies, then.
You really need to get a life, dude.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not ] a fact, it's just not. "
You're just pissed that Gore lied and you can't do a gorram thing about it, or even deny it. Whether I need a life or not won't change the fact that Gore lied.
Get over yourself.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
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."
So, even if I concede the point, and say that I agree that Gore's movie made claims and used footage it didn't specifically say were for illustrative purposes only... if I concede all that, how is it worse than Bush lying us into 4000-plus American soldiers dead for no good reason?
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First, searching for truth and being an authority on truth are 2 different things.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Science *IS* "some sort of onmiscient authority of Truth" - it is, in fact, THE SEARCH FOR THAT TRUTH.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why?
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Truths from far in the past or future
Quote:What are you referring too?
truths involving subjective dynamics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, no single party "created" the concept. The idea of intelligent design has been tossed around as long as evolution has.
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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I find it interesting that you would interpret no government education as no education at all.
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?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, ID's been around nearly as long as evolution, give or take a century or so:
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.
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: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'.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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.
And for Antimason, being anti-evolution is not the same thing as being anti-science.
Quote: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.
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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Why?
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Truths from far in the past or future
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: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.Quote:What are you referring too?
truths involving subjective dynamics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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:Then I agree.
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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent genes?
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: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.
If it's not disprovable it ain't science,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Go to your own link in Wikipedia and scroll down to "Origins of the Concept." Note that Charles Darwin himself apparently used that term.
Originally posted by citizen:
Yeah, ID's been around nearly as long as evolution, give or take a century or so:
The exact term "intelligent design" was popularized recently, but the CONCEPT has been around for a long time.
All I am asking is that you make a distinction between the "intelligent design movement" and the concept of "complex systems imply a designer." You can support the latter without the former. I listed my husband, not as an appeal to authority, but as an example of a scientist who does.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First, I cited GW as an example of inference of the FUTURE, not of the past. (Evolution past, GW future, get it?) Secondly, how do you know GW is occurring now, without putting it in context of assumptions about the distant past?
Originally posted by citizen:
Beyond that, you seem to be quite confused with your examples. Global Warming is occurring now, not in the past and is still controversial.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Citizen- You want to show you're not a Troll, do it there. At the moment all I see is a poster who spouts anti-science pseudo Christian Zealotry, on a the forum of a fan site for a Science-Fiction show they've never watched. Which sure as hell sounds like trolling to me.
i guess that makes me a troll.. boo hoo, big deal. luckily, the internet is a free forum, and i can visit whatever sites i choose. shame on me, for not seeing the show before i stumbled on to the site: dismiss everything i say now, out of hand- ive been discredited! im not anti-science, im just not an atheist. just maybe, philosophy and science arent completely distinct studies, but interrelated. how can someone focus all their attention on decoding nature, like picking apart DNA.. and not consider what encoded it? it seems like a pretty major oversight to me.. to relegate everything to mathematical randomness and chance. "chance", is just another way of saying you dont know what happened... so it sounds like theres still a lot to learn about the universe. for that reason, i reserve my judgement
but nevermind that.. you never answered my question: what is your solution to global warming?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Citizen- He has, before now, blamed science for everything from wars to eugenics (funny how that changes to individuals when it's turned back on him). Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science, AM is a constant proponent of ID (he tries to shoehorn it in everywhere...), how much more anti-science do you need?
im not anti-science. im opposed to science as a religion
Quote:
He even tries to portray the very heart of science, inclusion of new evidence and ideas, as a very bad, even evil thing, Q.E.D.
evil? evil presupposes moral absolutes, which wouldnt exist absent a transcendent moral law giver. if we're just animals, explain how you define good and evil? as much as you resent my religion, you cant even separate the theology from your everyday language
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Still sounds exactly like deity ID, “there's an intelligence there because, because, well, there just has to be, doesn't there”. What's the intelligence? Where's it coming from? How's it generated? It still all sounds exactly like some magical and rather unnecessary disembodied god like intelligence, just like standard ID to me.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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.
Nothing you've provided indicates an Intelligent designer to me, not unless you're already looking for it.
Quote:I'd say the assumption of intelligence when there are simpler and better supported explanations brings it in to question though.
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.
Quote:I really don't care. I'm talking specifically about Intelligent Design, which is a specific thing wrapped up in the Intelligent design Movement. You're the one shoe horning "complex systems imply a designer", not me. I'm talking specifically about the religious philosophy dressed up as a science for the purpose of undermining evolution, and nothing outside of that. I'm talking about the thing that first started in the late 1980's, not the very first germination of the idea. The pseudo-science religious "theory" called "Intelligent Design", that was created in 1987 is what I'm talking about, and nothing else.
The exact term "intelligent design" was popularized recently, but the CONCEPT has been around for a long time. All I am asking is that you make a distinction between the "intelligent design movement" and the concept of "complex systems imply a designer." You can support the latter without the former.
Quote:Yeah, that is an appeal to authority. A scientist approving of ID doesn't prove a thing about ID, least of all it being science.
I listed my husband, not as an appeal to authority, but as an example of a scientist who does.
Quote:That wasn't at all clear no. You mentioned them in the same breath with no clarification.
First, I cited GW as an example of inference of the FUTURE, not of the past. (Evolution past, GW future, get it?) Secondly, how do you know GW is occurring now, without putting it in context of assumptions about the distant past?
Saying it's impossible to predict the future with science is just plain silly. Physics does just that, and it's done everyday and all the time.
We don't need to make any assumptions about the distant past to know the Earth is warming, because we've collected empirical data over several years that show a warming trend.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KWIKO
Quote: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 ?
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."
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I sent you a PM, offering to work out our differences peacefully, instead you come back here and in a quite trollish and unchristian manner attempt to reignite a flame war. Yeah, your a really parable of Christian values you, ain't ya.
Quote:Yes you have. You're a troll. You haven't watched the show that this is a fan site for, so what are you doing here except to troll and sow discord? You've come to a Science-Fiction site, where you're likely to find mostly scientifically minded people, and then taken upon yourself to tell us all how evil science is and how anyone who doesn't repent and join your narrow definition of Christianity is evil. You're like an al Qaeda terrorist without the bombs. Actually, I wouldn't put it past you to use bombs...
Originally posted by antimason:
luckily, the internet is a free forum, and i can visit whatever sites i choose. shame on me, for not seeing the show before i stumbled on to the site: dismiss everything i say now, out of hand- ive been discredited!
As I said, I wouldn't go on to a bible site and tell everyone Christians are inherently evil and must be stopped, but then I have an ounce of morality, and I'm not after forcing everyone to live the life I want them to live, unlike you.
Quote:Yet you try to force a religion in to science. You're as anti-science as anti-science gets.
im not anti-science. im opposed to science as a religion
Quote:Are you obtuse or just plain stupid? I was saying YOU were calling it evil, not me.
evil? evil presupposes moral absolutes, which wouldnt exist absent a transcendent moral law giver. if we're just animals, explain how you define good and evil? as much as you resent my religion, you cant even separate the theology from your everyday language
But you've answered my question, you're not a Christian (I especially enjoyed you telling me not to judge, while starting that very sentence by judging me), and certainly not a good one. You're a troll and worthy of no further involvement.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You never answered my question, When did science do a complete U-Turn?
Originally posted by antimason:
but nevermind that.. you never answered my question: what is your solution to global warming?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
you couldnt answer the question: define evil? you cant. there is no evil, isnt that your world view? i defy you to determine how morality is decided
and what preceded the big bang? even you have to admit that we dont know the 'cause'. at this point, there is no science. all you know, or believe, is that time + chance, created everything we see in front of us.
well I disagree. theres not enough time in eternity to produce the abundance of complexity we see in front of us. skepticism in this regard doesnt make me ignorant, or anti-science, that makes me an individual, with a mind that is capable of thinking independently. slander me all you like, you dont have all the answers either
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It wasn't a question aimed at me. I wasn't using the term, I was saying you were. I realise such a simple concept is beyond your closed off extremist mind's ability to grasp.
You're a Troll. You've slandered me (actually it's Libel here, but never mind), you preside in judgement over anyone and anything not of your very narrow definition of Christianity, then presume to tell others to "judge not". The most important one for you would be "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", because without sin sure doesn't include you.
Thank god most Christians are nothing like you.
You don't think for yourself, you just parrot what some extremist tells you to think, I've never pretended to have all the answers, you have, that is your lie. In fact your post, like the most of them, is nothing but a stream of lies. You don't know what I think or believe, but presume to judge me on what you want me to be. I don't know where to begin with pointing out the lack of basic Christian precepts in that.
You are anti-Science, a statement like "there is no science" does more to prove that than anything I've ever said. You are no Christian, you are the most immoral person I have ever met either on-line, or anywhere else. I take solace only in the fact that you are most likely some trollers construct, and not a real human being.
"i guess that makes me a troll.." AntiMason
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
let me give you an example: are clinical trials considered scientific? yet there are variables which cannot be accounted for, that can alter the outcome of the tests. cigarettes effect different people in different ways. i dont see how we could know for sure, that we've incorporated all the different variables to produce the proper results(regarding MMGW). i see conflicting stories all the time!
i never suggested scientific laws have changed, nor would i, i believe God created everything with purpose. my point was that our understandings change with time. what small fraction of observable climate data we can extract, we make predictions from. in the early 90s when this issue of CO2 became relevant, the impact of solar activity and underwater volcanoes was not even well known; now their scientists who attribute climate changes to this, and are MMGW skeptics. that was my point. whos to say what we will discover, and how it will change our understandings
lets not get in a frenzy, and do something rash, before we know the full story. its not as if people want a polluted environment, but they want a house and a sustainable lifestyle for their families. right now, the world economies are not ready for anything drastic
thats why i ask what your solution is?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But...you've seen it now, right?
Originally posted by antimason:
shame on me, for not seeing the show before i stumbled on to the site
Cmon, Antimason. You've got to watch the show, man. Not saying you're not welcome if you don't, but...it's kinda tacky. Like going to a birthday party without bringing a present, or going to a convention just to eat their free hors d'oeuvres.
Please tell me you've seen the show by now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It wasn't a question aimed at me. I wasn't using the term, I was saying you were. I realise such a simple concept is beyond your closed off extremist mind's ability to grasp.
You're a Troll. You've slandered me (actually it's Libel here, but never mind), you preside in judgement over anyone and anything not of your very narrow definition of Christianity, then presume to tell others to "judge not". The most important one for you would be "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", because without sin sure doesn't include you.
Thank god most Christians are nothing like you.
You don't think for yourself, you just parrot what some extremist tells you to think, I've never pretended to have all the answers, you have, that is your lie. In fact your post, like the most of them, is nothing but a stream of lies. You don't know what I think or believe, but presume to judge me on what you want me to be. I don't know where to begin with pointing out the lack of basic Christian precepts in that.
You are anti-Science, a statement like "there is no science" does more to prove that than anything I've ever said. You are no Christian, you are the most immoral person I have ever met either on-line, or anywhere else. I take solace only in the fact that you are most likely some trollers construct, and not a real human being.
"i guess that makes me a troll.." AntiMason
does anyone else see this? id love for someone to come forward, whos been offended by me
you are delusional. and what are your beliefs? you are so critical of mine, yet you wont put forth yours for scrutiny.
i asked a philosophical question directly related to ID: how do you define morality? you cant, no one can answer it, even the most ardent atheists like Dawkins and Nietzsche couldnt. is that not relevant?
answer me about the big bang, what was its cause? what makes your hypothesis better then ours, but your own bias
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Cmon, Antimason. You've got to watch the show, man. Not saying you're not welcome if you don't, but...it's kinda tacky. Like going to a birthday party without bringing a present, or going to a convention just to eat their free hors d'oeuvres.
im not gonna lie, i looked it up only once on youtube, after i had been on the site for awhile, and it seemed intriguing, but i didnt sit through it all. truth be known, i dont watch a lot of television anymore, and havent watched a tv series since the x-files. i wasnt about to to go out and buy the series, no offense to you all. and i havent watched any firefly since
so.. should i leave now? i thought this was good company
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's like saying "I asked for a debate on color: So what do you think of mosquitoes?"
i asked a philosophical question directly related to ID: how do you define morality?
AFA defining morality... It's however people define it. Sometimes it involves sacrificing little kids. Sometimes not. I know you WANT morality to have the certitude of some sort of immutable law of nature, but human history tells us that it just ain't so.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You demand answers from me, but won't return the favour.
Originally posted by antimason:
thats why i ask what your solution is?
What's my solution? I haven't got one, that is, I haven't got a single all encompassing simple plan to fix everything. But contrary to your assertion that "the market has nothing" there's plenty of products on the market or in development in fact. Personally at the moment I'm saving money for a solar hot water heating system, I use energy saving light bulbs, and turn off lights when I'm not in the room. I would give incentives to buy and operate such systems. I would also put an emphasis on renewable energy supplies such as wind, wave, solar and geothermal.
Quote:You're the one who sees NWO conspiracies in you porridge, not me. You're the delusional one. You're the one who's told me what I think, if you've seen evidence for half the things you say I think and promote, then you're delusional.
Originally posted by antimason:
you are delusional.
Quote:They're mine and none of your damn business is what they are. Unlike you I don't use my beliefs to beat others around the head with. I hold myself to my standards and no one else, and god knows I'm not perfect and don't always succeed, but I'd not presume to force my own beliefs on others.
and what are your beliefs?
Quote:You still got get it do you. I'm critical of yours when your critical of others, when you make some assine statement, I send it back at you. You should examine why you find your attitude thrown back at you so insulting. Why shouldn't I be critical anyway, your critical of me and mine, and everyone else's. You're telling me to judge not while being judgemental. Your holding yourself up as the consummate Christian, while telling others to hold themselves to values you don't hold yourself to.
you are so critical of mine, yet you wont put forth yours for scrutiny.
Beyond that, you don't get it, you act like religion and belief is some sort of competition, like I've got to give you mine so you can tell me how wrong or right I am.
Quote:No, it isn't.
is that not relevant?
Quote:The direction of work. You decide what happened, and never question it, Science tries to find out what happened. Even if science never gets it right, the journey is a hell of a lot better than making something up and insisting that's the way it is, don't ask questions.
answer me about the big bang, what was its cause? what makes your hypothesis better then ours, but your own bias
"i guess that makes me a troll.." AntiMason
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i dont beat anyone over the head with my beliefs, if i have an opinion, im entitled to it. because i have strong beliefs, i should keep them to myself in other words? my opinion, and what you know to be true, have to coincide, or im a zealout.
you make me out to be some fire and brim stone extremist, ive never told you to "go to hell", let alone 'youre going to hell'.
the reason we get into it, is because i strongly believe that there is a God, thats hes relevant, thats his work is blatant, that there is a plan for humanity and that we are not merely products of time + matter + chance. why is that so offensive to you?
i dont think a good believer just shuts up, and pretends that 'IF God exists, we wouldnt have any way to "prove" it'? the denial of God is why the world is in this mess
and in my eyes, science is the study of Gods creation. you will never convince me that the two are separate
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's not what I said, but I'm sure that's how you wish to portray it.
Originally posted by antimason:
i dont beat anyone over the head with my beliefs, if i have an opinion, im entitled to it. because i have strong beliefs, i should keep them to myself in other words? my opinion, and what you know to be true, have to coincide, or im a zealout.
But yes, you do beat other people over the head with your beliefs. You did it to me earlier, you told me to live up to standards even you didn't in the exact same sentence.
Quote:Oh, so you don't say Atheism and Secularism are evil? You don't want a Christian Theocracy? You don't redefine Christianity to be only your interpretation and all others to be wrong?
you make me out to be some fire and brim stone extremist, ive never told you to "go to hell", let alone 'youre going to hell'.
Quote:Your beliefs are not offensive to me. Your desire to shoehorn them into science and force them on others is what is offensive.
the reason we get into it, is because i strongly believe that there is a God, thats hes relevant, thats his work is blatant, that there is a plan for humanity and that we are not merely products of time + matter + chance. why is that so offensive to you?
Quote:Forcing ones own beliefs down other peoples throats is 'why we're in this mess'. Secularism is about the best thing anyone came up with. It's not just good for those evil atheists, but everyone else as well.
i dont think a good believer just shuts up, and pretends that 'IF God exists, we wouldnt have any way to "prove" it'? the denial of God is why the world is in this mess
Quote:That would be one of the reasons you are anti-science. You say you're against science being turned into a religion, yet will not separate God from science. Hello? Earth calling Antimason, God is a religious concept. You're not against science being religion, your for science being replaced by your religion. God is not a scientific concept, never has been, never will be.
and in my eyes, science is the study of Gods creation. you will never convince me that the two are separate
If you want to force your religion on science where it doesn't belong, what right do you have to decry science, or anything else being forced on your religion.
"i guess that makes me a troll.." AntiMason
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
signym- That's like saying "I asked for a debate on color: So what do you think of mosquitoes?"
why? we dont know the cause to the universe, but that it required something external to initiate it. even with the 'big bang theory', there's philosophy involved in every hypothesis, even the sacred evolutionary theory. so why not bring the human psyche into it, it seems relevant...
Quote:
AFA defining morality... It's however people define it. Sometimes it involves sacrificing little kids. Sometimes not. I know you WANT morality to have the certitude of some sort of immutable law of nature, but human history tells us that it just ain't so.
so, we dont have to determine right and wrong(there is none)? thats not something that should be taken lightly, those are significant questions with significant ramifications. there is some horrifically obscene depravity and wickedness in the world, are you telling me thats not evil(just in bad taste)?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But yes, you do beat other people over the head with your beliefs. You did it to me earlier, you told me to live up to standards even you didn't in the exact same sentence.
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
Quote:
Oh, so you don't say Atheism and Secularism are evil? You don't want a Christian Theocracy? You don't redefine Christianity to be only your interpretation and all others to be wrong?
i never implicitly called atheism evil.. i think its a philosophical mistake, but thats my opinion i can only offer my arguments
Quote:
Your beliefs are not offensive to me. Your desire to shoehorn them into science and force them on others is what is offensive.
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?
Quote:
Forcing ones own beliefs down other peoples throats is 'why we're in this mess'. Secularism is about the best thing anyone came up with. It's not just good for those evil atheists, but everyone else as well.
maybe, but what have we ever known? dictators, emperors, monarchs? im not opposed to secularism, but that it provides no higher authority then 'man'
Quote:
That would be one of the reasons you are anti-science. You say you're against science being turned into a religion, yet will not separate God from science. Hello? Earth calling Antimason, God is a religious concept. You're not against science being religion, your for science being replaced by your religion. God is not a scientific concept, never has been, never will be.
maybe i should clarify: personally, im against science being turned into an atheistic religion. im not anti-science, but i dont believe the concept of God itself is strictly religious. we may never know what caused the universe!! but to me, it is too incredible and beautiful to be merely accidental
Quote:
If you want to force your religion on science where it doesn't belong, what right do you have to decry science, or anything else being forced on your religion.
well, youre making an assertion and setting your own premise. maybe there is no God, and youre right. but maybe there is a God, and im right. am i missing something?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME