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.