Global Warming?

[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?