Global Warming?

[tcreeley]

Applying scientific method to religion is a waste of time--- unless you have nothing else to do. Magical thinking- not exactly useful.

 

[madmax12]

Applying scientific method to religion is a waste of time--- unless you have nothing else to do. Magical thinking- not exactly useful.

I read that to mean u believe there is ZERO way to research the subject. Respectfully, for reasons previously posited, I think u r mistaken.

 

[madmax12]

If there were ever a subject appropriate to look into, regarding climate change...

Is it not the Flood of Noah's day?

That is the truest extreme of climate change...

To think that people viewing things from a perspective similar to myself, are unable to fathom the concept of climate change... that's just odd.

 

[IslandTractor]

I have a different view from yours, so u may have a hard time hearing me. That said, science is not magical. It's not even English. It is a transliterated word... translated it would be "knowledge". The concept of the thread, is theory. Not knowledge. The global warming/cooling/climate change debate... is just that. A debate. It is not a hard science. Same for evolution. Theories. Ideas. Wonderments... Faith, even. You have yours. I have mine.

Your statement: "Second, scientists with religious faith virtually never apply the scientific method to testing their own religious beliefs." Can u show me the data that verifies your belief, in that sentence? From your belief, there, you arrived at a conclusion... "This demonstrates, to me at least, the fundamental difference between science (testable hypotheses) and religion (faith based belief, no evidence needed beyond scripture and none rigorously sought)."

"I believe you referred earlier to evidence that there were two dinosaurs on Noah's Arc."
We have exchanged, what... 3 posts? And u do not accurately know what I said, and u could have easily scrolled up the computer screen to know for sure. But, alas, you did not. I do not think the dinosaurs were on the ark. I think they were wiped out in the flood. My post on that was very short, and, I thought, very clear. But...you did not "know" (scientia) even my short post, from mere moments ago.

"Are climate data and dinosaurs on Noah's Arc both verifiable through scientific testing or not?" That depends. For both subjects, the data would have to be purely, truthfully, unbiasedly collected. For both subjects, that is debated. Do I think I will change your thinking? no. But, I will say this... The Bible is proved in many areas:

Literary validity testing. As u would test works of shakespeare, etc... u can test the Bible for literary historical credability.
Historical testing. There are cultures mentioned in the Bible who were thought to be mythical, until the cultural remains were discovered.
Archeological testing. Where the Bible refers to cities or events long gone, they are found, when digging based on biblical location references.

Researching the Noaic flood. Amazon.com: Mount St. Helens: Seeing Noah's Flood Through Geology: Dr. Steve Austin, Kyle Justice: Amazon Instant Video

Assumption of TIME in evolutionary theory. Mount St. Helens by Steve Austin - YouTube
I have seen the full length video, though it has been a while. It is a useful tool for researching the opposing view, from the one you hold.

"One belongs in a Sunday school discussion and the other belongs in a public policy debate. We do not (should not!) develop public policy on unverifiable faith based science." That quote sums up many of the world's troubles. It is a presuppositional assumption. Such an attitude will destroy true science. Knowledge is cast down by assumption... not learned.

I'm sorry but you miss the point completely. Science is different from faith and you cannot simply state they are just different opinions. Attempting to obfuscate the point with muddled semantics doesn't do much to bring clarity. Science is based on evidence and theory and is always open to revision if evidence contradicts theory. Religion is based on faith, not evidence, and almost never allows significant revision of its core beliefs without splintering (which is why we have separate Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths).

Evidence used in science cannot be equated to comparative literature. Of course the Bible references some real events passed down by oral tradition. The Bible is a magnificent example of cooperative literature with elements added and subtracted through the years as best suited for the audience. Your Shakespeare analogy is perfect. It is brilliant and engaging literature. It is not however testable theory and is fundamentally divorced from scientific thought. There undoubtable was a major flood in some area where the Jews or their predecessors lived. I imagine that people living through a Katrina like storm would have literally seen their little part of the world washed away by flood. Not that hard to understand where some of the biblical stories originated. If however the dinosaurs were killed by the flood (sorry for my confusion earlier), then where are the fossils that show the end of T rex right about the hypothesized time of Noah? The scientific evidence for dinosaurs (minus chickens etc) ends millions of years before fossil evidence of modern mammals or mankind. That's a problem for your biblical tale vis a vis dinosaurs.

U tube videos are not scientific evidence. We can create Star Wars realities with video if we choose to ignore the need for confirmation by scientific testing. Where's the data and why do only faith based non scientists believe it? Find me a Nobel laureate who thinks the dinosaurs were wiped out by Noah's flood. There are adventurers (including an astronaut I believe) who go on periodic searches for the Ark. That is not rigorous field science, that is religion inspired adventure tourism.

 

[EE_Bota]

Applying scientific method to religion is a waste of time--- unless you have nothing else to do. Magical thinking- not exactly useful.

If it were not useful, we would not have a genetic predisposition toward religious belief. You not only don't believe in God, but you seem quick to abandon science at the boundary.

 

[DarkBlack]

I've noticed a trend towards the prehistoric era of dinosaurs to make some kind of point? I don't get it. A comet or asteroid collision with Earth killed 'em off because the air pollution the impact caused heated up the planet. Duh!

Yes, I see you didn't "get it". My underlying point, you totally missed.
I don't like typing, but I'll give it quick more direct wording. Take a deep breath before you read on to be open minded, it might pees you off:

If you are one of the "global warming", then changed to "climate change" people who try to interfere with businesses, and peoples livelelyhoods...How can you know, with absolute confidence, beyond a 50/50 chance that any change in climate, be it real, or percecived, be it man-made or made by other means... How can you assert yourselves to say that the change is wrong and should not happen? How can you speak for millions of people on this planet, and say that you are the almighty ones, who can say for sure that the big picture for this planet is for it to stay exactly as it is, while you are alive on it?

I'm intelligent enough to know that I, for one, can't say that. Can you?

How do you know that the "big picture" isn't for it to change as it always has? Why do you think millions and billions of years of change should stand still at the stage of your time on the planet?

 

[tcreeley]

If it were not useful, we would not have a genetic predisposition toward religious belief. You not only don't believe in God, but you seem quick to abandon science at the boundary.

Science at the boundary? of what...faith?

My wife is always telling me that prayer works.....but it is always akin to magical thinking.
I try to live in reality- and use a scientific approach- cause and effect to apprehend reality. Now when you throw faith in- it is a wild card- and you have magical thinking. Some people enjoy this- that's fine...why not. But it is like taking Dungeons and Dragons seriously, or video games seriously- ---for an entertainment...of a sort I am not interested in.

 

[tcreeley]

Yes, I see you didn't "get it". My underlying point, you totally missed.
I don't like typing, but I'll give it quick more direct wording. Take a deep breath before you read on to be open minded, it might pees you off:

If you are one of the "global warming", then changed to "climate change" people who try to interfere with businesses, and peoples livelelyhoods...How can you know, with absolute confidence, beyond a 50/50 chance that any change in climate, be it real, or percecived, be it man-made or made by other means... How can you assert yourselves to say that the change is wrong and should not happen? How can you speak for millions of people on this planet, and say that you are the almighty ones, who can say for sure that the big picture for this planet is for it to stay exactly as it is, while you are alive on it?

I'm intelligent enough to know that I, for one, can't say that. Can you?

How do you know that the "big picture" isn't for it to change as it always has? Why do you think millions and billions of years of change should stand still at the stage of your time on the planet?

You are doing the very thing you accuse global warming people of doing....speaking for millions of people - as if what you think or believe is the correct accounting. You may be wrong.....what then....how many dollars and lives might have been saved...........!

Instead of turning our backs on the questions- we should at least be trying to ameliorate the effects of our current climate change.

 

[madmax12]

I'm sorry but you miss the point completely. Science is different from faith and you cannot simply state they are just different opinions. Attempting to obfuscate the point with muddled semantics doesn't do much to bring clarity. Science is based on evidence and theory and is always open to revision if evidence contradicts theory. Religion is based on faith, not evidence, and almost never allows significant revision of its core beliefs without splintering (which is why we have separate Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths).

Evidence used in science cannot be equated to comparative literature. Of course the Bible references some real events passed down by oral tradition. The Bible is a magnificent example of cooperative literature with elements added and subtracted through the years as best suited for the audience. Your Shakespeare analogy is perfect. It is brilliant and engaging literature. It is not however testable theory and is fundamentally divorced from scientific thought. There undoubtable was a major flood in some area where the Jews or their predecessors lived. I imagine that people living through a Katrina like storm would have literally seen their little part of the world washed away by flood. Not that hard to understand where some of the biblical stories originated. If however the dinosaurs were killed by the flood (sorry for my confusion earlier), then where are the fossils that show the end of T rex right about the hypothesized time of Noah? The scientific evidence for dinosaurs (minus chickens etc) ends millions of years before fossil evidence of modern mammals or mankind. That's a problem for your biblical tale vis a vis dinosaurs.

U tube videos are not scientific evidence. We can create Star Wars realities with video if we choose to ignore the need for confirmation by scientific testing. Where's the data and why do only faith based non scientists believe it? Find me a Nobel laureate who thinks the dinosaurs were wiped out by Noah's flood. There are adventurers (including an astronaut I believe) who go on periodic searches for the Ark. That is not rigorous field science, that is religion inspired adventure tourism.

Clearly, we will talk passed each other. It is unfortunate.

A youtube video of a scientist teaching, is not the same as a star wars movie. Very sad perspective from u.

"Religion is based on faith, not evidence, and almost never allows significant revision of its core beliefs without splintering (which is why we have separate Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths)."
The separate faiths u reference... are not as separate as u suggest. The Muslims and Jews both (and they are not friendly with one another) trace themselves back to the same historical person. Abraham. The Muslims from his son Ishmael. The Jews from his son Isaac. That is not a mythical, ficticious coincidence. It is a historical marker. That they hate each other... is actually another point to it being more likely reality, than myth. It is also the fulfillment of prophecy. Another interesting marker.

The christian faith...IS...the Jewish faith... Jesus "was" Jewish. The early christians were Jewish. The new testament?... written by Jews. And the Jews are waiting for Jesus, they just don't think He ... was the Him, they are waiting for.

The Flood. I have heard it argued that every backwoods culture discovered anywhere, has a historical version of the flood... and the argument continues, "so that's more proof why it never happened. Because every culture has some imagined story about it." REALLY??? I see that oppositely (I know that comes as a shock)... that all these cultures never had contact with the others, yet all know of the flood, is a proof... another historical marker.

Fossils in the right places for the evolutionary timeline? That is why I offered those links to a scientist teaching on the subject. Not even my dumb-butt tractor forum opinion... an actual scientist. But... he's on video, so, for you, that is enough to debunk his research. :thumbsup:

You have your beliefs. You are not interested in scientific evidence. Rereading our correspondence, is proof of that.

What many fail to understand, is that people of faith have usually been taught your faith in elementary, middle, high school, undergrad, graduate, and even doctoral level education. Many on your side, have never researched the other side... which has been clearly revealed in our discussion.

That, is sad.

It is also, unscientific.

 

[DarkBlack]

You are doing the very thing you accuse global warming people of doing....speaking for millions of people - as if what you think or believe is the correct accounting. You may be wrong.....what then....how many dollars and lives might have been saved...........!

Instead of turning our backs on the questions- we should at least be trying to ameliorate the effects of our current climate change.

No you didn't really read it very well. I only posed the deep questions.
As far as I know this planet has never had an element or animal species, make the deterination that the planet's current state of progress and evolution, was at the point of perfection and should be held stagnant at that point. My state of intelligence dictates that I am not capable of knowing if the planet and ice pack depths etc... should stay at recent levels or not. Anyone who knows this anwser for sure isn't on the forum.

 

[Rainbody]

Which thing would you like to rebuff without playing into a progressive rant?

 

[DarkBlack]

What if man is causing plant warming? Who can say with certanty that it isn't in the plans and already expected,and planned on by minds/gods beyond our intelligence? If an astroid hit earth and casued the extinxtion of dinosours, was the astroid "bad" for our planet as we view ourselves "bad"?
Do we have the long term plan to know what to allow to develop, and what to stop?

 

[IslandTractor]

Clearly, we will talk passed each other. It is unfortunate.

A youtube video of a scientist teaching, is not the same as a star wars movie. Very sad perspective from u. .

Where is the peer reviewed publication that critically analyzes the data and debunks the past 150 plus years of paleontology and evolution research? Science is not done via YouTube or via lectures. Where is the data?

I am well aware of the inter related history of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions. My point was that these and other religions are unable to permit a modification of theory when new evidence is presented (why didn't all the Rabbi's just accept Jesus when he said he was the savior?) and that this inherent conservatism and utter disregard for evidence is typical of a faith rather than evidenced based thought process.

You are correct about how faith is learned. It is inherited from and taught by your family most often with no choice in the matter and certainly no broad ranging education into different religious ideas before making a personal choice. Where you are born is the most important and predictive factor in what religion you will practice or what team you will support. How many Redskins fans are there in Green Bay? As I recall Sunday schools do not engage in open discussion about which faith makes the most sense based on available data, they simply teach exactly what was taught before from the perfect Bible or Koran etc. It is not an iterative process like science. So science changes and tries to develop theories that are more accurately predictive over time. In the few instances where religion has changed due to scientific evidence (Galileo etc), it is a very political and difficult process. To be sure scientific theory changes are not always simple either but generally after a definitive experiment or review the change happens rather quickly and quietly. Religion aims to keep the faith and avoid change to dogma.

Edit: Geologist Steve Austin seems to be quite alone in his theories to support creationism. The videos are pure hogwash. There is no data presented for discussion at all in the Mt St Helens video. I'd like to see him defend his ideas at a conference of peers just as other scientists need to do. Instead he is a YouTube professor and creationist shill. Not science.

 

[madmax12]

Where is the peer reviewed publication that critically analyzes the data and debunks the past 150 plus years of paleontology and evolution research? Science is not done via YouTube or via lectures. Where is the data?

I am well aware of the inter related history of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions. My point was that these and other religions are unable to permit a modification of theory when new evidence is presented (why didn't all the Rabbi's just accept Jesus when he said he was the savior?) and that this inherent conservatism and utter disregard for evidence is typical of a faith rather than evidenced based thought process.

You are correct about how faith is learned. It is inherited from and taught by your family most often with no choice in the matter and certainly no broad ranging education into different religious ideas before making a personal choice. Where you are born is the most important and predictive factor in what religion you will practice or what team you will support. How many Redskins fans are there in Green Bay? As I recall Sunday schools do not engage in open discussion about which faith makes the most sense based on available data, they simply teach exactly what was taught before from the perfect Bible or Koran etc. It is not an iterative process like science. So science changes and tries to develop theories that are more accurately predictive over time. In the few instances where religion has changed due to scientific evidence (Galileo etc), it is a very political and difficult process. To be sure scientific theory changes are not always simple either but generally after a definitive experiment or review the change happens rather quickly and quietly. Religion aims to keep the faith and avoid change to dogma.

Edit: Geologist Steve Austin seems to be quite alone in his theories to support creationism. The videos are pure hogwash. There is no data presented for discussion at all in the Mt St Helens video. I'd like to see him defend his ideas at a conference of peers just as other scientists need to do. Instead he is a YouTube professor and creationist shill. Not science.

Hmmm... since the video is decades old... how is a youtube commercial for it making him a "YouTube professor and creationist shill."

You have a very strange way of reviewing/researching...

 

[/pine]

Still no reply from you regarding how this quote is relevant to the discussion. Me thinks you thought it was cute but never went any further.

To be sure, Richard Feynman was a remarkable scientist and philosopher. Los Alamos, Caltech, NASA, Nobel Prize, etc etc. He never disparaged science. Quite the opposite. He was a confirmed atheist who rejected his families faith quite openly and always believed that science should be critically pursued and honestly communicated. I find it fascinating that you like to use his quote to imply the opposite.

Here is a more relevant quote from him on belief and science:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. "

Richard Feynman

First off...I have more important things to do than sit around a message board replying to gullible, misguided dimwits and *try* like you have (ad nauseam) to make myself appear to be more intelligent than those I disagree with...

Secondly...I have some news for you...The ONLY thing that is "cutsie" in this entire thread is *your* failed and misguided attempts to make anyone with differing views than you appear to be inferior intellectually...IMO...mentioning the word intellectual and anything you have posted is a contradiction of terms...

Just how many of those "thousands" of *experts* (climate scientists) make their living off entities that would have no business at all if AGW was proven to be the myth that it may very well may be?

If you think about it long enough you *may* be able to figure out what "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" means...obviously to date it's beyond your comprehension abilities (regardless of your lame attempts to prove otherwise)...
And FYI...I have never made any correlation to faith/religion and the current climate change/season shift we are experiencing...

 

[tcreeley]

Ice core samples are more than a 100 years back!

 

[madmax12]

Edit: Geologist Steve Austin seems to be quite alone in his theories to support creationism. The videos are pure hogwash. There is no data presented for discussion at all in the Mt St Helens video. I'd like to see him defend his ideas at a conference of peers just as other scientists need to do. Instead he is a YouTube professor and creationist shill. Not science.

Would www.ICR.org offer any information worthy of your review?

It might require a little more investment of time than u allotted to your earlier YouTube study.

If the information in the biblical record is accurate, it has a direct connection to the climate change debate, especially regarding the Flood...as the most catastrophic global climate event.

 

[tcreeley]

Clearly, we will talk passed each other. It is unfortunate.

A youtube video of a scientist teaching, is not the same as a star wars movie. Very sad perspective from u.

"Religion is based on faith, not evidence, and almost never allows significant revision of its core beliefs without splintering (which is why we have separate Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths)."
The separate faiths u reference... are not as separate as u suggest. The Muslims and Jews both (and they are not friendly with one another) trace themselves back to the same historical person. Abraham. The Muslims from his son Ishmael. The Jews from his son Isaac. That is not a mythical, ficticious coincidence. It is a historical marker. That they hate each other... is actually another point to it being more likely reality, than myth. It is also the fulfillment of prophecy. Another interesting marker.

The christian faith...IS...the Jewish faith... Jesus "was" Jewish. The early christians were Jewish. The new testament?... written by Jews. And the Jews are waiting for Jesus, they just don't think He ... was the Him, they are waiting for.

The Flood. I have heard it argued that every backwoods culture discovered anywhere, has a historical version of the flood... and the argument continues, "so that's more proof why it never happened. Because every culture has some imagined story about it." REALLY??? I see that oppositely (I know that comes as a shock)... that all these cultures never had contact with the others, yet all know of the flood, is a proof... another historical marker.

Fossils in the right places for the evolutionary timeline? That is why I offered those links to a scientist teaching on the subject. Not even my dumb-butt tractor forum opinion... an actual scientist. But... he's on video, so, for you, that is enough to debunk his research. :thumbsup:

You have your beliefs. You are not interested in scientific evidence. Rereading our correspondence, is proof of that.

What many fail to understand, is that people of faith have usually been taught your faith in elementary, middle, high school, undergrad, graduate, and even doctoral level education. Many on your side, have never researched the other side... which has been clearly revealed in our discussion.

That, is sad.

It is also, unscientific.

The flood has been posited to be the formation of the Mediterranean Sea when the Atlantic Ocean burst in at Gibraltar.

 

[madmax12]

The flood has been posited to be the formation of the Mediterranean Sea when the Atlantic Ocean burst in at Gibraltar.

That does not sound quite like the record I'm familiar with.

If the supernatural is assumed to be fake, then those with that assumption seek more normal possible explanations of events in the text we r debating. However, they wipe away much of the recorded account to make the normal explanation fit...thus nullifying the text...which was both the beginning pretext and the ultimate goal. A convenient package for the denier of the textual account.

Hey... Now I got to use that fancy word. Denier. That gives my view credibility now, right?