Global Warming?

[madmax12]

Madmax it is all about evidence and the ability to test the hypothesis. You are the one with the holier than thou agenda. I just want to see rational programs built on best available science. That goes for AGW and for historic floods.

Careful reading of this thread, will reveal who has the "holier than thou" attitude... of "better-than-you-ness."

The one who truly understands the view I hold, would recognize his lack of goodness... and man's need for redemption. His own, first.

I know I'm not better. I don't claim, or believe, I'm smarter, or better.

There is evidence for the Faith. Historical, literary, archaeological evidence...even present day, evidence.

Global warming and evolution are incomplete science, at best.

IT, you give a lot of freedom for science to err and recover. If it is not fully understood, you allow the science to get there...if it could. On the secular scientific side, you see only the best possible view. In the area of the Creator, you seem to site only the most negative view.

In what way is there the testing of hypothesis in global warming and evolution? To me, they are concepts conceived, followed by a great deal of effort and expense to "prove" them. While incomplete...they are forced upon all dissenters, through education, business, taxes, etc. The big bang? The missing link(ssssssss)?

I ask again. With the preponderance of dissent for those subjects, why are they allowed to stand?

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Sneaking one in? What are you talking about? I was referring to articles placed long before the PC police arrived, and see no reason to spend taxpayer money to ostensibly soothe ones feelings, but which in reality is a play for control.

The seal of the city that I live in (established somewhere in the vicinity of the run of '89) incorporated a Christian cross, prominently displayed in the middle of the seal. It stood for over 100 years until someone objected an took legal action. It has since been removed. Pitiful.

 

[RobertBrown]

Careful reading of this thread, will reveal who has the "holier than thou" attitude... of "better-than-you-ness."

The one who truly understands the view I hold, would recognize his lack of goodness... and man's need for redemption. His own, first.

I know I'm not better. I don't claim, or believe, I'm smarter, or better.

There is evidence for the Faith. Historical, literary, archaeological evidence...even present day, evidence.

Global warming and evolution are incomplete science, at best.

IT, you give a lot of freedom for science to err and recover. If it is not fully understood, you allow the science to get there...if it could. On the secular scientific side, you see only the best possible view. In the area of the Creator, you seem to site only the most negative view.

In what way is there the testing of hypothesis in global warming and evolution? To me, they are concepts conceived, followed by a great deal of effort and expense to "prove" them. While incomplete...they are forced upon all dissenters, through education, business, taxes, etc. The big bang? The missing link(ssssssss)?

I ask again. With the preponderance of dissent for those subjects, why are they allowed to stand?

I'm guessing that this is of little consequence to you however: Your comments and comparisons regarding evolution clearly indicate your lack of objective thinking.
This post alone will leave me to question your credability, I'm truly sorry to say.

 

[IslandTractor]

The seal of the city that I live in (established somewhere in the vicinity of the run of '89) incorporated a Christian cross, prominently displayed in the middle of the seal. It stood for over 100 years until someone objected an took legal action. It has since been removed. Pitiful.

As much as I disagree with having religious symbols and text in public places/monuments, I do favor grandfathering in things that have been in place for a long time. It is the monuments that some people try to set up these days, long after the Supremes made it clear such religious materials are not allowed that I think should be removed. If a city has a seal that is 75 or 100 years old I'd just leave it alone.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

As much as I disagree with having religious symbols and text in public places/monuments, I do favor grandfathering in things that have been in place for a long time. It is the monuments that some people try to set up these days, long after the Supremes made it clear such religious materials are not allowed that I think should be removed. If a city has a seal that is 75 or 100 years old I'd just leave it alone.

I concur.

 

[IslandTractor]

Careful reading of this thread, will reveal who has the "holier than thou" attitude... of "better-than-you-ness."

The one who truly understands the view I hold, would recognize his lack of goodness... and man's need for redemption. His own, first.

I know I'm not better. I don't claim, or believe, I'm smarter, or better.

There is evidence for the Faith. Historical, literary, archaeological evidence...even present day, evidence.

Global warming and evolution are incomplete science, at best.

IT, you give a lot of freedom for science to err and recover. If it is not fully understood, you allow the science to get there...if it could. On the secular scientific side, you see only the best possible view. In the area of the Creator, you seem to site only the most negative view.

In what way is there the testing of hypothesis in global warming and evolution? To me, they are concepts conceived, followed by a great deal of effort and expense to "prove" them. While incomplete...they are forced upon all dissenters, through education, business, taxes, etc. The big bang? The missing link(ssssssss)?

I ask again. With the preponderance of dissent for those subjects, why are they allowed to stand?

Surely you jest! You are planning to go to heaven and you don't think that counts as holier than thou when comparing yourself to someone who thinks he will end up as worm food? Please.

And, with regard to testing of hypotheses with AGW and evolution, of course there are hypotheses that are tested and refined. Darwin established the basic idea but we have learned an awful lot more about mechanisms and examples of evolution over the years which have been incorporated into current theory of evolution. I have little doubt there will continue to be changes based on empiric evidence and experiment. Same goes for AGW models which are becoming more and more sophisticated as they are tested against both current and past data. You seem to fundamentally miss the point that science moves forward and changes constantly. We don't have a "Bible" of immutable facts and theories. We have some very well tested theories and laws that have held up to all manner of scrutiny but when there is good data that contradicts those theories, the theories have to change. With religion if someone disputes a "fact" from the Bible (Noah, walk on water, etc etc) they are considered, by true believers, to be heretics and dismissed or worse. In science, if you dispute a theory you just need to present repeatable experiments that show the theory is wrong. No torture, no burning at the stake, no banishment.

Even "intelligent design" can be tested as a theory (it has been). When data (eg fossils that can be carbon dated to be more than 9000 years old) shows a key tenet of intelligent design doesn't fit with the evidence, the theory is rejected. I don't believe those who proposed intelligent design were hanged either. How simple and civilized is that.

 

[madmax12]

I'm guessing that this is of little consequence to you however: Your comments and comparisons regarding evolution clearly indicate your lack of objective thinking.
This post alone will leave me to question your credability, I'm truly sorry to say.

I do not question your intellect, or that of others, here. However, I, too, see the lack of objectivity in my opposition. It is combined with a superiority complex...far more often than not.

Objectivity. Have you questioned the objectivity of those who agree with you? Am I only objective if I accept global warming and evolution?

Does my acceptance and worship of the Creator reveal a lack of objectivity?

What, specifically, confirmed for you, a lack of objectivity on my part? And...has there been no one on the side of global warming or evolution that has raised a similar concern, in this thread...for you?

 

[IslandTractor]

Does my acceptance and worship of the Creator reveal a lack of objectivity?

What, specifically, confirmed for you, a lack of objectivity on my part?

For me it is the absolute acceptance of the Bible as literally true that is incompatible with "objectivity". Being religious and believing in God is certainly not the same thing as insisting that the Bible must be taken literally. There are many religious scientists but I'd imagine the vast majority accept that the Bible is a religious text written by mortals with a belief system who over centuries refined and added to the text using communal wisdom and individual talent but did it without verbatim dictation from Heaven.