Global Warming?

[RobertBrown]

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.

Calm down, I'm not questioning your intelect or your integrity. If I did not respect you I would have not posted my opinion or at least not as I did.
I cannot respond as I would like because of the device I using, besides it looks like you have your hands full right now. I be back tomorrow.......on my pc.

 

[madmax12]

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.

Carbon dating has its own issues...does it not?

And your opening line in this post...shows a complete lack of understanding of my view and attitude. You mock the entire concept... It has zero chance to be weighed by you...because you determine the view to be a pathetic joke.

Heaven. I will never get there because I deserve it. I don't. I will have to be carried in by the One Who can bring me there. That's my only chance. To accuse me of pride on the matter, reveals your own misunderstanding of my view and attitude.

And so much of what you write makes it sound as if science is the holy of holies and those who follow the Creator have committed every evil that has ever happened. Many have been slaughtered for their faith. Burning at the stake? Nero lit his garden with Christians...burning at the stake.

Objectivity is absent when you consider your opposition to be fools...and their subject a joke.

I see many flaws in religion and the church, specifically. And the Bible hides none of those flaws. There is no polishing up of the church by the Creator. A careful reading of the Bible you mock, would be a great step toward objectivity... As you can't evaluate what you have never studied.

Thoughts you won't care about, because I am the fool who posts them:

1. Climate change. Predicted. Thousands of years ago...in the Bible you mock. If the Bible is true...hold on tight. It is worth a read. I'm not promoting it because I wrote it (wouldn't want my motives questioned).

2. You start simple. Where did everything come from? And why is it so carefully put together in an intelligent, organized fashion? The chicken comes from the egg. But the egg comes from the chicken. Evolution answers none of that. You may pretend it does. It does not. Evolution is a distraction from the most simple questions.

3. I have learned a lot, communicating like this. A few simple passages make more sense to me, than they did before. They are, "The intelligence of the intelligent, I will frustrate," said by the Creator. And, "God chose the foolish things of the world, to shame the wise."

Clearly I amuse you. When I started reading the Bible...I was offended by those passages. The older I get...the more clear they become.

I'll be the fool.

That's fine.

I don't doubt for a second that you are all very intelligent. Perhaps, that is the reason for the pride.
Pride can be like a disease...which causes blindness.
If you are as smart as I think you are, you'll understand that.

 

[toppop52]

Objectivity only exists if all sides see possibility in all sides, any preclusion that there cannot be one supreme being or that AGW is impossible renders the person holding that exclusionary thought, non objective.

 

[EE_Bota]

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.

Just because you don't believe in such things, that doesn't mean you should change the rule set associated with such beliefs. That's what many of you were attempting to do regarding Noah and the flood.

 

[madmax12]

Objectivity only exists if all sides see possibility in all sides, any preclusion that there cannot be one supreme being or that AGW is impossible renders the person holding that exclusionary thought, non objective.

Is there an American religious person that has not studied evolution for at least a decade? Everyone in America has been studying evolution since they started science classes in their education. It's in classes outside of science. Like history. Suppose you want to study psychology...wow, all based upon evolution. It permeates society. We have all studied that subject. We have even been tested, thoroughly, on our knowledge of the subject. You must learn that subject.

Objectivity. For many years the church has wrestled with the subject. The church, at large, has not dismissed the subject. The religious side strains for objectivity. And the religious side...has options.

The non-religious has no where else to turn. To be objective, and consider the Creator...is not a possibility for the non-religious.

The religious study both the scientific secular and religious. The non-religious study one side...while mocking the other.

Climate change. Is there an American religious person that has not been studying climate change since its conception? This, too, permeates society...from kindergarten on. In some homes, earlier, still.

For the secularist, its man or accident. The case for chance causing climate change, is strong. I see agenda, because the case for happenstance is largely ignored. Then there is another option for the religious. But that is summarily dismissed, by those who oppose the Creator. The religious studies all. The secularist can not. Much of the secularist solutions align with the agenda. Objectivity forces one to consider the connection.

Objectivity?

It is present in my learning.

The non-religious has no other option... To dismiss the secular view would be more difficult. Thus, it is harder for the secular scientist... to be objective.

 

[turnkey4099]

Why oh why do the theists keep trying to insert religion into a thread about science?

Correction "Why do they keep doing it?". And why do we keep biting on their thread hijacking?

Harry K

 

[madmax12]

Why oh why do the theists keep trying to insert religion into a thread about science?

Correction "Why do they keep doing it?". And why do we keep biting on their thread hijacking?

Harry K

You illustrate my point well.

 

[IslandTractor]

Just because you don't believe in such things, that doesn't mean you should change the rule set associated with such beliefs. That's what many of you were attempting to do regarding Noah and the flood.

You are correct that acceptance of Biblical stories requires a different set of "rules" than scientific inquiry. That is at the core of my disagreement with several posters here. I don't accept the notion that we use evidence and rules of logic to guide just about everything in our lives but that religion requires a suspension of such rules. Instead of being able to verify the correctness of any finding through empirical testing, religion tells us to just believe. It doesn't work for me. Plato described how it is sometimes necessary to tell a "noble lie" to provide a background myth that underpins good order in society. The Bible, to me, is such a "noble lie". It is well intended and has worked well for many many people and communities to provide a foundation for both community and individual guidance. In an era before astrophysics, DNA and paleontology, it could not be challenged with science. For me it is now a relic and I cannot accord it the same rank as scientific method in determining how best to understand the world we live in. If you believe the Bible is literally true then the inconsistencies with what science tells us means that either 1) the Bible is not literally true and modern science provides better explanations for our natural world and history, or 2) Science is unreliable and the Bible is correct on any point that disagrees with current or future scientific theory. As modern life is built on scientific discovery and engineering, I would prefer to have airplanes and cars and elevators designed, built and operated by people who trust and rely on the underpinning science. If carbon dating is fundamentally flawed, then a lot of science and engineering that underpin it are also flawed. And, there are other, non carbon 14 based dating systems that give equivalent results to C14 so presumably those are also based on flawed science. As the principles used to measure global climate changes over many thousands and millions of years refer to events that occurred more than 9000 years ago I suppose we should just completely reject all that science too as it is inconsistent with Biblical teachings simply by claiming there was even such a thing as earth or a climate before Adam and Eve. Bottom line for me: it is much easier to reject the Bible as literally true than to reject huge amounts of well documented and consistent science simply because it disagrees with a book patched together thousands of years ago doing their best to explain the world as best they could. I don't reject the Bible as a source of collected wisdom but I do reject it as literally true. I don't believe any rational scientist could do otherwise.

 

[Loren49]

Loren, you seem to somehow think that Jefferson's private beliefs matter, they don't. At least beyond EXACTLY what is in the Constitution. He could believe elephants fly in private, but unless flying elephants were constitutionally mandated, they are irrelevant.
The Treaty is just that, a treaty, post Constitution. What some prof at a university says, doesn't change the document, it's an opinion.

It's beyond comprehension that you think you know exactly what the Constitution says. As if there are no "gray" areas. Its clear that for some who know EXACTLY what is in the Constitution that, if a court ruling is in conflict with your belief then the judge(s) were simply wrong.
Now does the right to bear arms mean we all have the right to furry appendages? How many arms and of what kind and does the bearer of such arms have to actually "bear" them in order to possess them? Also if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed we clearly all have the right to own nuclear and chemical weapons along with anything else we desire in armaments. By the way, please define "bear" and "arms" exactly as they are written or maybe there is a huge "gray" area as to what the intent of the authors was. The actions of Adams and Jefferson (and other contributors) satisfies me (and many others including judges) that the intent was "A Wall of Separation" of Church and State.

It seems reasonable to look at the actions and writings of the founding fathers in order to apply the Constituion's intent to the changing world....Or we could refer all questions to you. I argue that Jefferson's actions indicate his intent and clearly do matter.

Loren

 

[2LaneCruzer]

You are correct that acceptance of Biblical stories requires a different set of "rules" than scientific inquiry. That is at the core of my disagreement with several posters here. I don't accept the notion that we use evidence and rules of logic to guide just about everything in our lives but that religion requires a suspension of such rules. Instead of being able to verify the correctness of any finding through empirical testing, religion tells us to just believe. It doesn't work for me. Plato described how it is sometimes necessary to tell a "noble lie" to provide a background myth that underpins good order in society. The Bible, to me, is such a "noble lie". It is well intended and has worked well for many many people and communities to provide a foundation for both community and individual guidance. In an era before astrophysics, DNA and paleontology, it could not be challenged with science. For me it is now a relic and I cannot accord it the same rank as scientific method in determining how best to understand the world we live in. If you believe the Bible is literally true then the inconsistencies with what science tells us means that either 1) the Bible is not literally true and modern science provides better explanations for our natural world and history, or 2) Science is unreliable and the Bible is correct on any point that disagrees with current or future scientific theory. As modern life is built on scientific discovery and engineering, I would prefer to have airplanes and cars and elevators designed, built and operated by people who trust and rely on the underpinning science. If carbon dating is fundamentally flawed, then a lot of science and engineering that underpin it are also flawed. And, there are other, non carbon 14 based dating systems that give equivalent results to C14 so presumably those are also based on flawed science. As the principles used to measure global climate changes over many thousands and millions of years refer to events that occurred more than 9000 years ago I suppose we should just completely reject all that science too as it is inconsistent with Biblical teachings simply by claiming there was even such a thing as earth or a climate before Adam and Eve. Bottom line for me: it is much easier to reject the Bible as literally true than to reject huge amounts of well documented and consistent science simply because it disagrees with a book patched together thousands of years ago doing their best to explain the world as best they could. I don't reject the Bible as a source of collected wisdom but I do reject it as literally true. I don't believe any rational scientist could do otherwise.

I don't know how we got here, but I subscribe to your scenario #1. I do not hold the bible to be literally true, but that does not detract from my own beliefs in God and things of the spirit. It took me some time to come to this conclusion, but the rules of science and engineering do not apply well to things of the spirit; that realm has it's own rules, and you are lost if you don't approach it from that perspective...unless you accept it all on faith. If you believe the bible to be literally true, you close the door on any basis upon which you can discuss evolution, or science in general. If you believe that science has the all the answers or the only answers, you also close that door. Island Tractor and I agree on about 95% of the issues we discuss here; while I believe that AGW is not proven to my satisfaction, it provides another viewpoint that must be considered, even with all its warts and foibles. Mankind's ideas and conclusions must be approached from different avenues and different viewpoints, else we become set in our ways and autocratic. Religion and science do not pose a problem for me, nor does the viewpoint of AGW, as long as we have another viewpoint and they are both aired in an honest and fair manner.

P.S. Anyone read the book "Dear and Glorious Phsician"?