Global Warming?

[locknut]

And show a _very_ unusually fast rate - a FACT you keep trying to ignore.

Harry K

Would you get with the program and stop repeating this Warmista diatribe?

Seems ole Jimmy Hansen at NASA has been using his "rubber ruler" tricks again,changing the entire temperature record database to show a steeper rise since 1963 to keep the "scare" alive.

Blog: NASA's Rubber Ruler

Blog: NASA's Rubber Ruler Scandal

I just love hammering Obots

[turnkey4099]

Those previous facts were also brought to you by the top scientist of their day.

No, they were brought to us by dawn age people trying to explain nature. Apparantly from your post you are against science correcting errors. This is part of the scientific method, exam and correct where needed as new information is found. Religion works backward. Never question or exam and make a corrections only when _forced_ to do so because their stance has become laughable.

Harry K

[toppop52]

No, they were brought to us by dawn age people trying to explain nature. Apparantly from your post you are against science correcting errors. This is part of the scientific method, exam and correct where needed as new information is found. Religion works backward. Never question or exam and make a corrections only when _forced_ to do so because their stance has become laughable.

Harry K

Just when I thought a more ignorant conclusion drawn from fact, could not be posted, you fooled me!
Where do you get "dawn age" from, these weren't Neanderthals, The scientists before Copernicus were working with the best tools and knowledge of their day, same as they are today. The scientists of the future will laugh at many conclusions of today's science. If you are fool enough to believe we are at some peak of possible scientific knowledge, perhaps you could be the next president of The Flat Earth Society.

[madmax12]

No, they were brought to us by dawn age people trying to explain nature. Apparantly from your post you are against science correcting errors. This is part of the scientific method, exam and correct where needed as new information is found. Religion works backward. Never question or exam and make a corrections only when _forced_ to do so because their stance has become laughable.

Harry K

Inaccurate representation.

There are scientists who regard the Text as true, based upon scientific evidence. The Mt St Helens event provides a very real, recent, studied experiment... That presents great challenges to the assumption of TIME in your view.

If the assumption of TIME is a miscalcultion in your view, all of your facts that involve TIME, are false.

That is a true and very real inconvenient truth.

So, you mock it.

If you truly understand that science can miss something, you would look at all information. Science is knowledge. If you ignore information, you lack knowledge. Thus you negate science.

By your own words, you should be reluctant to take a dogmatic view based solely upon the limited understanding of science you possess, as the current view may be proven false in the future.

That is inconvenient with the direction those of your view want the human race to go. So you mock any science that contradicts your dogma. And you label it religious, because you assume anything connected to religion is automatically false.

There is no science in your approach.

You mock what you don't like and don't understand.

You are dogmatic about what you believe.

Your approach, based upon your belief... Puts you in the category that you seem to hate. You hate that someone would shut out knowledge based upon a preset belief...and that they would refuse to look at information that contradicts their dogma. That, sir, is a description...of yourself.

[IslandTractor]

Inaccurate representation.

There are scientists who regard the Text as true, based upon scientific evidence. The Mt St Helens event provides a very real, recent, studied experiment... That presents great challenges to the assumption of TIME in your view.

If the assumption of TIME is a miscalcultion in your view, all of your facts that involve TIME, are false.

That is a true and very real inconvenient truth.

So, you mock it.

If you truly understand that science can miss something, you would look at all information. Science is knowledge. If you ignore information, you lack knowledge. Thus you negate science.

By your own words, you should be reluctant to take a dogmatic view based solely upon the limited understanding of science you possess, as the current view may be proven false in the future.

That is inconvenient with the direction those of your view want the human race to go. So you mock any science that contradicts your dogma. And you label it religious, because you assume anything connected to religion is automatically false.

There is no science in your approach.

You mock what you don't like and don't understand.

You are dogmatic about what you believe.

Your approach, based upon your belief... Puts you in the category that you seem to hate. You hate that someone would shut out knowledge based upon a preset belief...and that they would refuse to look at information that contradicts their dogma. That, sir, is a description...of yourself.

With all due respect, the example of the "Mt Saint Helen's" experience you keep referencing is not remotely an example of hypothesis driven, evidence tested, experimental science. Where is the work published with supportive data and methods available for critical review? What do other scientists in the field say about his hypothesis and whether the data support his theory?

I watched the video. It is a blatant example of someone trying to find an example that fits his creationist theory and then concluding his theory is correct. It is not in any way experimental science.

[madmax12]

With all due respect, the example of the "Mt Saint Helen's" experience you keep referencing is not remotely an example of hypothesis driven, evidence tested, experimental science. Where is the work published with supportive data and methods available for critical review? What do other scientists in the field say about his hypothesis and whether the data support his theory?

I watched the video. It is a blatant example of someone trying to find an example that fits his creationist theory and then concluding his theory is correct. It is not in any way experimental science.

When you say you watched the video, do you mean the 2 minute youtube commercial?

Or do you mean you have actually watched his full video presentation?

[Egon]

Just when I thought a more ignorant conclusion drawn from fact, could not be posted, you fooled me!
Where do you get "dawn age" from, these weren't Neanderthals, The scientists before Copernicus were working with the best tools and knowledge of their day, same as they are today. The scientists of the future will laugh at many conclusions of today's science. If you are fool enough to believe we are at some peak of possible scientific knowledge, perhaps you could be the next president of The Flat Earth
Society.

Please, let's not knock the Neanderthal's.! Many of us have Neanderthal Genes present!

Also note that the Scientist of this moment are all at the peak of their scientific knowledge.

Anybody know how Noah got all those animals and food into the Ark?

[madmax12]

Please, let's not knock the Neanderthal's.! Many of us have Neanderthal Genes present!

Also note that the Scientist of this moment are all at the peak of their scientific knowledge.

Anybody know how Noah got all those animals and food into the Ark?

ALL knowledge about it? No.

Thoughts:

He had @ 100 years to get it done.

And... it was really BIG.

And, my limited understanding indicates he had help. Or, he was simply the instrument used, by the One accomplishing the task. Noah, was the lead helper. He wasn't entirely on his own.

[/pine]

"science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

Richard Feynman

[EE_Bota]

Anybody know how Noah got all those animals and food into the Ark?

Why yes, I know. Thanks for asking.

If an all-powerful God commanded me to repeat it, I'd show you first hand.