Global Warming...the Movie by Hero

Well, I've sent you a PM. You want to show you're not a Troll, do it there. At the moment all I see is a poster who spouts anti-science pseudo Christian Zealotry, on a the forum of a fan site for a Science-Fiction show they've never watched. Which sure as hell sounds like trolling to me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 10:54 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The solubility of gases is inversely proportional to temperature, meaning if the temperature of the oceans is doubled, the amount of CO2 gas dissolved in them will be halved. So obviously as Ocean temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 will increase. This is well understood.

It seems that although what you say is generally true in a lab, it seems to work in opposite in the oceans.
"Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has dissolved into the world's oceans—with adverse effects for marine life—according to two new studies". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbo
n.html
This absorption has taken place during the time period in which the increase in average temperature should have been causing the oceans to lose CO2. There are many chemical feedback mechanisms that could account for rising CO2, many have latched onto CO2 because it is easy to see a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature on a graph. The direct relationship does not guarantee a cause and effect relationship.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
At the moment all I see is a poster who spouts anti-science pseudo Christian Zealotry, on a the forum of a fan site for a Science-Fiction show they've never watched.

Antimason, dude! Is that true? You've never watched Firefly??!! Tell me Citizen is making things up.

Some of your ideas are far out for me, Antimason. But as a scientist, I don't see you as particularly anti-science. At least not anymore than all these other folks who exploit the word "science" to justify their own ideologies. That's anti-science zealotry as well.

--------------------------
Science is the opposite of zealotry, of any kind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Antimason, dude! Is that true? You've never watched Firefly??!! Tell me Citizen is making things up.

I'm not making it up at all, he admitted as much himself sometime back, I'll try to find the thread.

Quote:
But as a scientist, I don't see you as particularly anti-science.

He has, before now, blamed science for everything from wars to eugenics (funny how that changes to individuals when it's turned back on him). Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science, AM is a constant proponent of ID (he tries to shoehorn it in everywhere...), how much more anti-science do you need?

He even tries to portray the very heart of science, inclusion of new evidence and ideas, as a very bad, even evil thing, Q.E.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems that although what you say is generally true in a lab, it seems to work in opposite in the oceans.
"Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has dissolved into the world's oceans—with adverse effects for marine life—according to two new studies". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbo
n.html

So you're suggesting the laws of physics are different in the lab than in the rest of the world?

The solubility of gases is still inversely proportional to temperature, the laws of physics in the lab are not different to the laws of physics in nature.

Quote:
This absorption has taken place during the time period in which the increase in average temperature should have been causing the oceans to lose CO2.

Why are you assuming the Ocean has reached saturation? It's not that simple, Henry's Law tells us that pressure (or more specifically the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in this case) also affects gas solubility. That is both ocean temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentration effect how much CO2 is in solution in the oceans, whether there's a net gain or a net loss would depend on which factor is dominant, which at the moment is atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Now, there's also evidence to suggest that the Carbon Dioxide sinks aren't taking up as much CO2 as once they did. This, in the case of the Oceans, indicates temperature is moving toward dominance, and also lends credence to the idea of a CO2 positive feedback, because that is exactly what we'd expect to see as one began.

Quote:
There are many chemical feedback mechanisms that could account for rising CO2, many have latched onto CO2 because it is easy to see a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature on a graph.

I've found that CO2 is focused on, because both sides want to focus on it. CO2 also lends it self more readily to emotive (rather than scientific) refutation, such as "it's natural, so how can it be bad?"

Quote:
The direct relationship does not guarantee a cause and effect relationship.

Between heating and CO2? No, what indicates a causal relationship between the two is that we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know the greenhouse effect causes warming.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 2:06 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems that although what you say is generally true in a lab, it seems to work in opposite in the oceans.
"Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has dissolved into the world's oceans—with adverse effects for marine life—according to two new studies". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbo
n.html
So you're suggesting the laws of physics are different in the lab than in the rest of the world?

The solubility of gases is still inversely proportional to temperature, the laws of physics in the lab are not different to the laws of physics in nature.

Yes, the laws of physics remain intact outside the laboratory, but the "partial pressure" of CO2 is variable. In a closed system in a lab the "partial pressure" of CO2 in gas above a solution can only change if the solution emits CO2 due to a temperature change. In the "real world" there are many potential sources for CO2 that could cause a increase in the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the atmosphere. But this isn't the point I was making. The oceans ability to absorb CO2 goes up with the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that the ocean has remained a net absorber of CO2 throughout the industrial era. The ocean cannot therefore be out-gassing CO2 into the atmosphere as a feedback mechanism. If this was true then the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere would always continue until the oceans were saturated with CO2. Obviously there's more at work here than just CO2. Possibly methane from methalhydrate frozen on the ocean floor, or maybe increased volcanic activity?

I obviously don't have a complete understanding of all the issues involved with atmospheric change over time. I do know enough to remain sceptical when people like Al Gore tell me it's "decided science". The debate is far from over, and even if I become convinced that the increase in average temperatures is due to man, I still would question the dramatic actions proposed by Gore and others. It might make a lot more sense to spend the money Gore wants to spend on CO2 mitigation on preparations for the coming climate change should it happen. When the science is "decided", then we need to talk about what makes the most economic sense considering our very limited ability to effect atmospheric change over the short term.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science,

Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science. So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."

Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.

I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.

--------------------------
Just sayin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I do know enough to remain sceptical when people like Al Gore tell me it's "decided science".

If the science is so "decided," I'd like someone to answer these questions for me.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27459&m=475215#475215

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 3:24 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science,
Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science. So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."

Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.

I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.

--------------------------
Just sayin'.

I agree with Citizen on "Intelligent Design". This is a religious belief not based in science. In fact, this "theory" was developed specifically to undermine the teaching of Evolution in US science classrooms. A bunch of religious nuts got together and thought up this scheme as a way of sneaking creationism into the science classroom were it doesn't belong. I don't even have a problem with teaching the existence of this "theory" in school, but it should be taught in social studies or mythology classes, not in science class.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 4:39 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What was the lie, exactly ? Was it in saying that there's sea ice, then land ice, then mountains ? Seems like factual geography to me. Was it in saying that people see glaciers calving every day ? That's an indisputable fact. Do you have an issue with him using stock footage to illustrate his points ? Is that the big lie you're claiming ? Well, I guess we can just eliminate any program that uses any kind of illustration as being lies, then.

You really need to get a life, dude.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not ] a fact, it's just not. "

You're just pissed that Gore lied and you can't do a gorram thing about it, or even deny it. Whether I need a life or not won't change the fact that Gore lied.

Get over yourself.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The oceans ability to absorb CO2 goes up with the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that the ocean has remained a net absorber of CO2 throughout the industrial era. The ocean cannot therefore be out-gassing CO2 into the atmosphere as a feedback mechanism. If this was true then the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere would always continue until the oceans were saturated with CO2.

As I noted, I said the oceans were currently a net absorber, because one factor was dominant over the other. I also said that the evidence indicates that this trend is slowing and reversing, indicating that temperature could be becoming the dominate factor. It hasn't been suggested that positive CO2 feedback is happening yet, but that it explains why CO2 appears to lag behind the temperature record in the past. Which would also indicate that it could occur again in the future.

Quote:
It might make a lot more sense to spend the money Gore wants to spend on CO2 mitigation on preparations for the coming climate change should it happen. When the science is "decided", then we need to talk about what makes the most economic sense considering our very limited ability to effect atmospheric change over the short term.

I haven't seen much evidence that measures to curb greenhouse gas emmission would harm an economy, it's certainly what 'industry leaders' say, but they tend to say that about anything that means spending money on something other than their bonuses...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2008 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science.

Yes, ID is religion. Yes religion and science exist in different domains. But ID doesn't stop there. ID is a religious philosophy that it's proponents dress up as science, and try to push into the scientific domain, with the very purpose of undermining evolution in a non scientific way. It's the very definition of an anti-science attack.

Quote:
So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."

Not really no. But thanks for the strawman.

Quote:
Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.

Where did I say it was? This is nothing but a further strawman. I have always maintained that Science is only for understanding the How of the universe, and the Why can be left to religion. Having said that Science is not only the best tool we have for how, but pretty much the only tool that gets results in that regard. In other words Science is the only method for obtaining knowledge about how the universe works, but makes no claims on other questions, from the Human condition (philosophy) to why the universe works (religion). It is religion that is trying to extend beyond it's domain, not science, and yes, that is an attack.

Quote:
I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.

Very emotive, very sophistic, very made of straw, very pointlessly baiting. I think certain people on this board need to learn that the definition of free thinking isn't automatically thinking the opposite to what the establishment says. An automatic contrarian knee jerk in order to 'prove' one is a free thinker in facts puts an individual more at the whim of the establishment, and makes them even more of an 'unthinking drone' than those they tend to paint as such.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This is a religious belief not based in science.

We agree on this.

Quote:
In fact, this "theory" was developed specifically to undermine the teaching of Evolution in US science classrooms. A bunch of religious nuts got together and thought up this scheme as a way of sneaking creationism into the science classroom were it doesn't belong.

ID is a religious concept that says nothing about science. So in and of itself, the concept is not and cannot be "anti-science."

Proponents of ID are often anti-science. Proponents of ID like to teach religion in science classrooms. I agree. This is what happens when people exploit and abuse an intellectual inquiry (be it religious or scientific) for political gain.

And to segue back to global warming, we always have to be careful to leave science and politics separate. Mixing the two is what is truly anti-science.

And returning full circle to my point about Antimason's intelligent design and politics, he is as "anti-science" as people who use climate science to justify political policy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
ID is a religious concept that says nothing about science. So in and of itself, the concept is not and cannot be "anti-science."

Proponents of ID are often anti-science. Proponents of ID like to teach religion in science classrooms. I agree. This is what happens when people exploit and abuse an intellectual inquiry (be it religious or scientific) for political gain.

No, ID is a religious concept that was dressed up from the very outset to look like science, and was made, from the very beginning to be used to attack science. It was designed as a weapon against science, saying it wasn't is just dishonest.

By your logic a mugger mugging an investment banker isn't attacking the banker, because mugging has nothing to do with banking.

Quote:
And to segue back to global warming, we always have to be careful to leave science and politics separate. Mixing the two is what is truly anti-science.

In so much as we shouldn't politicise science, yes. Politicians, like George Bush, shouldn't be standing up saying "global warming isn't happening", and politicians like Al Gore shouldn't be making films saying "Global Warming definitely is happening".

But then to go on to say that:

Quote:
And returning full circle to my point about Antimason's intelligent design and politics, he is as "anti-science" as people who use climate science to justify political policy.

ID is anti-science because it seeks to undermine and replace a scientific theory with a religion. Making political policy based on scientific understanding where appropriate is exactly what we should be doing. How on Earth can you possibly justify otherwise? How twisted can the logic be that says that is anti-science? So you think moving to ban CFCs was anti-science because it was based on the scientific assertion that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFCs do you?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:49 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You're just pissed that Gore lied"

You keep saying that. What exactly was the lie ? Did he claim something that wasn't true ? Did he exaggerate ? Or did he realistically illustrate a known fact ?

Until you can answer this question with something other than your silly little parrotted mantra, you just look - like a silly little parrot.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
No, ID is a religious concept that was dressed up from the very outset to look like science, and was made, from the very beginning to be used to attack science. It was designed as a weapon against science, saying it wasn't is just dishonest.

Or saying it wasn't could simply be a different understanding of ID.

I think this discussion of whether ID is anti-science or a direct attack on science belongs on a different thread. Let's just say for now I disagree with you about not distinguishing between the history of ID advocacy with the concept of ID itself; I don't think you can lump the two as synonymous. I reiterate that while many of ID's most vocal proponents have given ID a really bad name, not ALL ID advocates are anti-science assholes. It is possible to support ID and the scientific method at the same time. The ID hypothesis itself is not anti-science. It is anti-natural selection, but the theory of natural selection is not science itself.

Science and politics don't mix well. When the theory of evolution got mixed in with tax-payer money (politics) in public education, you have got to expect that some tax-payers are going to try to counter those politics.

That is one reason I think it would be better for government and taxes to get out of education altogether.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Or saying it wasn't could simply be a different understanding of ID.

I find your logic quite weird. It was developed to be used to undermine science, the concept was set-up in such away as to facilitate that, other people believing ID, and respecting science is neither here nor there, since they're the ones misusing ID. It was never created to be believed, it was created to be used to undermine science, that's it's purpose and its concept.

Either way, we agree that ID is religion, not science. Trying to replace a scientific theory with a religion isn't just an attack on the theory, its an attack on the scientific method, which is an attack on science no matter how you cut it. No matter your thoughts on ID, if your using it to shoehorn it in too science, you're anti-science.

Which brings us back to: Anti-mason, who tries to shoehorn ID in as a replacement to evolution at every opportunity, and in lieu of an opportunity does it any way like a true rabid propagandist. Just like someone rabidly Anti-science would be expected to do...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:52 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science,
Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science. So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."

Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.

I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.

--------------------------
Just sayin'.

And worship WHAT, exactly? Science *IS* "some sort of onmiscient authority of Truth" - it is, in fact, THE SEARCH FOR THAT TRUTH.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:02 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What was the lie, exactly ? Was it in saying that there's sea ice, then land ice, then mountains ? Seems like factual geography to me. Was it in saying that people see glaciers calving every day ? That's an indisputable fact. Do you have an issue with him using stock footage to illustrate his points ? Is that the big lie you're claiming ? Well, I guess we can just eliminate any program that uses any kind of illustration as being lies, then.

You really need to get a life, dude.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not ] a fact, it's just not. "

You're just pissed that Gore lied and you can't do a gorram thing about it, or even deny it. Whether I need a life or not won't change the fact that Gore lied.

Get over yourself.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Kind of like when George W. Bush lied - er, I mean "illustrated" - about Saddam having WMD, even down to inventing and doctoring photos to "prove" his point. Oh - I mean "illustrate" his point, as in, "this is what it would look like IF Saddam had WMD."

So, even if I concede the point, and say that I agree that Gore's movie made claims and used footage it didn't specifically say were for illustrative purposes only... if I concede all that, how is it worse than Bush lying us into 4000-plus American soldiers dead for no good reason?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:15 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
That is one reason I think it would be better for government and taxes to get out of education altogether.

That's a nice thought, but what kind of education system would you replace it with? None at all? How exactly would a LESS-educated populace help us out?

Howsabout we agree to let "Intelligent Design" be taught in public school science classes - so long as all the churches agree to let us teach science in their Sunday schools!

Intelligent Design is, by its very nature and name, a religious theory. It presupposes that there is indeed a "Creator" or "Designer" who is responsible for all life and all of the universe. If that's not in and of itself a religious message, I don't know what is.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Science *IS* "some sort of onmiscient authority of Truth" - it is, in fact, THE SEARCH FOR THAT TRUTH.

First, searching for truth and being an authority on truth are 2 different things.

But that aside, science is a search for only one facet of Truth. It is best suited for searching for current and material aspects of Truth. Truths from far in the past or future, and truths involving subjective dynamics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry.

The less well suited a topic is for scientific investigation, the more debate there is on exactly how correct scientific consensus is on that topic. That is, scientific authority diminishes the more it strays from its areas of strength.

So no, science is not omniscient, unless you think 1) Truth is material and ONLY material, 2) Truth from the distant past and distant future can be authoritatively and unequivocally deduced from a small window of data from the present.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Truths from far in the past or future

Why?

Quote:
truths involving subjective dynamics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry.

What are you referring too?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It was never created to be believed, it was created to be used to undermine science, that's it's purpose and its concept.

First of all, no single party "created" the concept. The idea of intelligent design has been tossed around as long as evolution has.

Second of all, you need to be able to distinguish the purpose behind the popularization of a concept, and the concept itself. If you can't see the difference, there is no point to our continuing the conversation.

Thirdly, ID is usually religious, but not always religious since it does not define the "intelligence" behind the design. I prefer to think of the debate as intelligent selection vs. random selection (commonly "natural" selection). The selection could be done with no supernatural entities at all, but by the organisms themselves. As such, I think it is a speculative concept, but not necessarily unscientific and not unnecessarily religious.

And for Antimason, being anti-evolution is not the same thing as being anti-science. I personally like the theory of evolution. But my PhD chemist husband, who worked for years as a professional scientist and researcher, thinks it's a load of crap. He is definitely an intelligent design supporter, who thinks it is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis.

ID is a bigger idea and a bigger world than the pushy assholes who go to court.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's a nice thought, but what kind of education system would you replace it with? None at all? How exactly would a LESS-educated populace help us out?

I find it interesting that you would interpret no government education as no education at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:00 AM

ASIANSOLO

In ten thousand years it wouldn't really matter .
Enjoy it now , for later it will be gone. Who knows maybe Firefly will become real because of Global Warming, now where did I put my brown coat ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:05 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
First of all, no single party "created" the concept. The idea of intelligent design has been tossed around as long as evolution has.

Yeah, ID's been around nearly as long as evolution, give or take a century or so:

Quote:
"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.[17] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.

Quote:
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (published 1859) is a seminal work in scientific literature and arguably the pivotal work in evolutionary biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Quote:
Second of all, you need to be able to distinguish the purpose behind the popularization of a concept, and the concept itself. If you can't see the difference, there is no point to our continuing the conversation.

I can do that fine. Just because you don't want to see it as an attack, doesn't mean it isn't. You've yet to come up with one reason why it isn't beyond "because I say so". ID was created to attack science, it was constructed precisely to facilitate that end. The way it's concept was formed, the very concept itself, is aimed at being used to attack science. I can distinguish between them, but I can also tell that they're all aimed at the stated purpose, if you aren't willing to realise that, then there probably isn't a point in continuing this 'conversation'.

Quote:
Thirdly, ID is usually religious, but not always religious since it does not define the "intelligence" behind the design. I prefer to think of the debate as intelligent selection vs. random selection (commonly "natural" selection). The selection could be done with no supernatural entities at all, but by the organisms themselves. As such, I think it is a speculative concept, but not necessarily unscientific and not unnecessarily religious.

That's as weak an excuse as I've ever heard. Intelligent genes? Or is this intelligent cells? If it's not disprovable it ain't science, and your weird assertion that it's innate intelligent critters seems to be as much handwavium as any other explanation of who/what this intelligent designer is.

Quote:
And for Antimason, being anti-evolution is not the same thing as being anti-science.

I'll say it a third time. Trying to replace any scientific theory with a non scientific dogmatic religion is anti-science. If you can't understand that, I'd question your own understanding of the scientific method.

Quote:
But my PhD chemist husband, who worked for years as a professional scientist and researcher, thinks it's a load of crap. He is definitely an intelligent design supporter, who thinks it is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis.

Wow, an appeal to authority, now I'm convinced. I don't care if you're married to Stephen Hawking's hyper intelligent clone, if he thinks a religious doctrine, that is based at it's heart on something that can't be tested is science, he desperately needs a refresher course in what makes a scientific theory. Would an intelligent designer by any other name still be God? Put simply, yes.

I'm sorry if you find what I said about your husband insulting, but you brought him in as a subject of discussion, not me. You stated how he's a PhD with this that and the other, so you bring his credentials in for discussion also. If however, you or your husband can come up with criteria by which the existence of an intelligent designer can be verified, I'll retract my above statement.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Truths from far in the past or future
Why?

Because we cannot get empirical data from the past or future, only the present. Using certain assumptions, we then INTERPRET current data to deduce conclusions of the past and future. The more assumptions and interpretation one has to do, the more deductions one has to do, the more uncertain one's conclusions become. The more directly one can make an observation, the less uncertain a conclusion is. That is why evolution and global warming are controversial topics, whereas the current shape of the earth is largely not.

Quote:
Quote:
truths involving subjective dynamics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry.
What are you referring too?
Questions such as what is beauty or consciousness, what does knowledge mean, who is God, etc has a lot of subjectivity and interpretation. These topics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry as material and natural topics such as say, the shape of the earth or the composition of sea salt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Because we cannot get empirical data from the past or future, only the present. Using certain assumptions, we then INTERPRET current data to deduce conclusions of the past and future. The more assumptions and interpretation one has to do, the more deductions one has to do, the more uncertain one's conclusions become. The more directly one can make an observation, the less uncertain a conclusion is. That is why evolution and global warming are controversial topics, whereas the current shape of the earth is largely not.

That's not true though is it. We can obtain data from the past. Testing Arctic ice is every bit as empirical as testing today's atmosphere composition. Just because we don't go back in time with dinosaur bones, doesn't mean we can't get empirical data from them. Most of the time, the only assumptions made, are that the way the universe works is substantially the same then as now, it's not a damning assumption. As Assumptions go, its about the same level as me assuming you really exist, and that the whole universe isn't merely in my head.

Beyond that, you seem to be quite confused with your examples. Global Warming is occurring now, not in the past and is still controversial. Evolution is a fact, the theory of the mechanisms is picked at (though I'd put the controversy at about the same level as the shape of the Earth due to the existence of the flat Earth society), but that species change over time really isn't.

Quote:
Questions such as what is beauty or consciousness, what does knowledge mean, who is God, etc has a lot of subjectivity and interpretation. These topics are not as well suited for scientific inquiry as material and natural topics such as say, the shape of the earth or the composition of sea salt.

Then I agree.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent genes?

That would be a crude oversimplification, but for the sake of argument...something like that. There is increasing evidence to suggest that adaptive genetic changes are a lot more complex and purposeful (intelligent?) than the random mutations in conventional evolutionary theory. I prefer to think of my husband's sympathies as "intelligent selection" rather than "intelligent design." But design is a distinct possibility, even when no deity is involved in the hypothesis.

At the lowest level, there is transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_inheritance

Then there is increased mutation rates in response to environmental changes. Example:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/120/4/887.pdf

Then there is horizontal gene transfer (HGT).
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=105&pgt
ype=1

Finally, there are observations of apparent inheritability of acquired characteristics. Here are some examples of these types of observations. Of course, there are always alternative explanations, but until more research is done, examining these observational anomalies isn't exactly unscientific.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/5/2871
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/6/2590

Quote:
If it's not disprovable it ain't science,

Of course not. However, nothing in the hypotheses above render them outside of the purview of science. Scientific investigation of the above phenomena and anomalies that challenge natural selection dogma is being done as we speak.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yeah, ID's been around nearly as long as evolution, give or take a century or so:

Go to your own link in Wikipedia and scroll down to "Origins of the Concept." Note that Charles Darwin himself apparently used that term.

The exact term "intelligent design" was popularized recently, but the CONCEPT has been around for a long time.

All I am asking is that you make a distinction between the "intelligent design movement" and the concept of "complex systems imply a designer." You can support the latter without the former. I listed my husband, not as an appeal to authority, but as an example of a scientist who does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Beyond that, you seem to be quite confused with your examples. Global Warming is occurring now, not in the past and is still controversial.

First, I cited GW as an example of inference of the FUTURE, not of the past. (Evolution past, GW future, get it?) Secondly, how do you know GW is occurring now, without putting it in context of assumptions about the distant past?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:45 PM

Quote:
Citizen- You want to show you're not a Troll, do it there. At the moment all I see is a poster who spouts anti-science pseudo Christian Zealotry, on a the forum of a fan site for a Science-Fiction show they've never watched. Which sure as hell sounds like trolling to me.

i guess that makes me a troll.. boo hoo, big deal. luckily, the internet is a free forum, and i can visit whatever sites i choose. shame on me, for not seeing the show before i stumbled on to the site: dismiss everything i say now, out of hand- ive been discredited! im not anti-science, im just not an atheist. just maybe, philosophy and science arent completely distinct studies, but interrelated. how can someone focus all their attention on decoding nature, like picking apart DNA.. and not consider what encoded it? it seems like a pretty major oversight to me.. to relegate everything to mathematical randomness and chance. "chance", is just another way of saying you dont know what happened... so it sounds like theres still a lot to learn about the universe. for that reason, i reserve my judgement

but nevermind that.. you never answered my question: what is your solution to global warming?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:58 PM

Quote:
Citizen- He has, before now, blamed science for everything from wars to eugenics (funny how that changes to individuals when it's turned back on him). Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science, AM is a constant proponent of ID (he tries to shoehorn it in everywhere...), how much more anti-science do you need?

im not anti-science. im opposed to science as a religion

Quote:
He even tries to portray the very heart of science, inclusion of new evidence and ideas, as a very bad, even evil thing, Q.E.D.

evil? evil presupposes moral absolutes, which wouldnt exist absent a transcendent moral law giver. if we're just animals, explain how you define good and evil? as much as you resent my religion, you cant even separate the theology from your everyday language

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
That would be a crude oversimplification, but for the sake of argument...something like that. There is increasing evidence to suggest that adaptive genetic changes are a lot more complex and purposeful (intelligent?) than the random mutations in conventional evolutionary theory. I prefer to think of my husband's sympathies as "intelligent selection" rather than "intelligent design." But design is a distinct possibility, even when no deity is involved in the hypothesis.

Still sounds exactly like deity ID, “there's an intelligence there because, because, well, there just has to be, doesn't there”. What's the intelligence? Where's it coming from? How's it generated? It still all sounds exactly like some magical and rather unnecessary disembodied god like intelligence, just like standard ID to me.

Nothing you've provided indicates an Intelligent designer to me, not unless you're already looking for it.

Quote:
Of course not. However, nothing in the hypotheses above render them outside of the purview of science. Scientific investigation of the above phenomena and anomalies that challenge natural selection dogma is being done as we speak.

I'd say the assumption of intelligence when there are simpler and better supported explanations brings it in to question though.

Quote:
The exact term "intelligent design" was popularized recently, but the CONCEPT has been around for a long time. All I am asking is that you make a distinction between the "intelligent design movement" and the concept of "complex systems imply a designer." You can support the latter without the former.

I really don't care. I'm talking specifically about Intelligent Design, which is a specific thing wrapped up in the Intelligent design Movement. You're the one shoe horning "complex systems imply a designer", not me. I'm talking specifically about the religious philosophy dressed up as a science for the purpose of undermining evolution, and nothing outside of that. I'm talking about the thing that first started in the late 1980's, not the very first germination of the idea. The pseudo-science religious "theory" called "Intelligent Design", that was created in 1987 is what I'm talking about, and nothing else.

Quote:
I listed my husband, not as an appeal to authority, but as an example of a scientist who does.

Yeah, that is an appeal to authority. A scientist approving of ID doesn't prove a thing about ID, least of all it being science.

Quote:
First, I cited GW as an example of inference of the FUTURE, not of the past. (Evolution past, GW future, get it?) Secondly, how do you know GW is occurring now, without putting it in context of assumptions about the distant past?

That wasn't at all clear no. You mentioned them in the same breath with no clarification.

Saying it's impossible to predict the future with science is just plain silly. Physics does just that, and it's done everyday and all the time.

We don't need to make any assumptions about the distant past to know the Earth is warming, because we've collected empirical data over several years that show a warming trend.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

KWIKO

Quote:
Kind of like when George W. Bush lied - er, I mean "illustrated" - about Saddam having WMD, even down to inventing and doctoring photos to "prove" his point. Oh - I mean "illustrate" his point, as in, "this is what it would look like IF Saddam had WMD."

The difference between a lie and an illustration is whether or not it is based on fact. That would seem to be a simple concept - no ?

In this case, it is a FACT that glaciers are in retreat all around the globe, and the ones that contact water retreat by calving. DUH.

Now, since Bush never let on that they just thought there might possibly be WMDS - poor Colin Powell went before the UN saying they were there, damn it ! - he did, er, lie.

***************************************************************
Oh, and thanks for proving my opinion that this is all about a lame attempt at childish payback for those non-existant WMDs. Instead of pouting, it would be more helpful - to you - to perhaps learn from your mistakes, like for example, the mistake of sticking to a silly talking point instead of learning the facts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:02 PM

I sent you a PM, offering to work out our differences peacefully, instead you come back here and in a quite trollish and unchristian manner attempt to reignite a flame war. Yeah, your a really parable of Christian values you, ain't ya.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
luckily, the internet is a free forum, and i can visit whatever sites i choose. shame on me, for not seeing the show before i stumbled on to the site: dismiss everything i say now, out of hand- ive been discredited!

Yes you have. You're a troll. You haven't watched the show that this is a fan site for, so what are you doing here except to troll and sow discord? You've come to a Science-Fiction site, where you're likely to find mostly scientifically minded people, and then taken upon yourself to tell us all how evil science is and how anyone who doesn't repent and join your narrow definition of Christianity is evil. You're like an al Qaeda terrorist without the bombs. Actually, I wouldn't put it past you to use bombs...

As I said, I wouldn't go on to a bible site and tell everyone Christians are inherently evil and must be stopped, but then I have an ounce of morality, and I'm not after forcing everyone to live the life I want them to live, unlike you.

Quote:
im not anti-science. im opposed to science as a religion

Yet you try to force a religion in to science. You're as anti-science as anti-science gets.

Quote:
evil? evil presupposes moral absolutes, which wouldnt exist absent a transcendent moral law giver. if we're just animals, explain how you define good and evil? as much as you resent my religion, you cant even separate the theology from your everyday language

Are you obtuse or just plain stupid? I was saying YOU were calling it evil, not me.

But you've answered my question, you're not a Christian (I especially enjoyed you telling me not to judge, while starting that very sentence by judging me), and certainly not a good one. You're a troll and worthy of no further involvement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
but nevermind that.. you never answered my question: what is your solution to global warming?

You never answered my question, When did science do a complete U-Turn?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:24 PM

you couldnt answer the question: define evil? you cant. there is no evil, isnt that your world view? i defy you to determine how morality is decided

and what preceded the big bang? even you have to admit that we dont know the 'cause'. at this point, there is no science. all you know, or believe, is that time + chance, created everything we see in front of us.

well I disagree. theres not enough time in eternity to produce the abundance of complexity we see in front of us. skepticism in this regard doesnt make me ignorant, or anti-science, that makes me an individual, with a mind that is capable of thinking independently. slander me all you like, you dont have all the answers either

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:36 PM

It wasn't a question aimed at me. I wasn't using the term, I was saying you were. I realise such a simple concept is beyond your closed off extremist mind's ability to grasp.

You're a Troll. You've slandered me (actually it's Libel here, but never mind), you preside in judgement over anyone and anything not of your very narrow definition of Christianity, then presume to tell others to "judge not". The most important one for you would be "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", because without sin sure doesn't include you.

Thank god most Christians are nothing like you.

You don't think for yourself, you just parrot what some extremist tells you to think, I've never pretended to have all the answers, you have, that is your lie. In fact your post, like the most of them, is nothing but a stream of lies. You don't know what I think or believe, but presume to judge me on what you want me to be. I don't know where to begin with pointing out the lack of basic Christian precepts in that.

You are anti-Science, a statement like "there is no science" does more to prove that than anything I've ever said. You are no Christian, you are the most immoral person I have ever met either on-line, or anywhere else. I take solace only in the fact that you are most likely some trollers construct, and not a real human being.

"i guess that makes me a troll.." AntiMason

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:48 PM

let me give you an example: are clinical trials considered scientific? yet there are variables which cannot be accounted for, that can alter the outcome of the tests. cigarettes effect different people in different ways. i dont see how we could know for sure, that we've incorporated all the different variables to produce the proper results(regarding MMGW). i see conflicting stories all the time!

i never suggested scientific laws have changed, nor would i, i believe God created everything with purpose. my point was that our understandings change with time. what small fraction of observable climate data we can extract, we make predictions from. in the early 90s when this issue of CO2 became relevant, the impact of solar activity and underwater volcanoes was not even well known; now their scientists who attribute climate changes to this, and are MMGW skeptics. that was my point. whos to say what we will discover, and how it will change our understandings

lets not get in a frenzy, and do something rash, before we know the full story. its not as if people want a polluted environment, but they want a house and a sustainable lifestyle for their families. right now, the world economies are not ready for anything drastic

thats why i ask what your solution is?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
shame on me, for not seeing the show before i stumbled on to the site

But...you've seen it now, right?

Cmon, Antimason. You've got to watch the show, man. Not saying you're not welcome if you don't, but...it's kinda tacky. Like going to a birthday party without bringing a present, or going to a convention just to eat their free hors d'oeuvres.

Please tell me you've seen the show by now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It wasn't a question aimed at me. I wasn't using the term, I was saying you were. I realise such a simple concept is beyond your closed off extremist mind's ability to grasp.

You're a Troll. You've slandered me (actually it's Libel here, but never mind), you preside in judgement over anyone and anything not of your very narrow definition of Christianity, then presume to tell others to "judge not". The most important one for you would be "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", because without sin sure doesn't include you.

Thank god most Christians are nothing like you.

You don't think for yourself, you just parrot what some extremist tells you to think, I've never pretended to have all the answers, you have, that is your lie. In fact your post, like the most of them, is nothing but a stream of lies. You don't know what I think or believe, but presume to judge me on what you want me to be. I don't know where to begin with pointing out the lack of basic Christian precepts in that.

You are anti-Science, a statement like "there is no science" does more to prove that than anything I've ever said. You are no Christian, you are the most immoral person I have ever met either on-line, or anywhere else. I take solace only in the fact that you are most likely some trollers construct, and not a real human being.

"i guess that makes me a troll.." AntiMason

does anyone else see this? id love for someone to come forward, whos been offended by me

you are delusional. and what are your beliefs? you are so critical of mine, yet you wont put forth yours for scrutiny.

i asked a philosophical question directly related to ID: how do you define morality? you cant, no one can answer it, even the most ardent atheists like Dawkins and Nietzsche couldnt. is that not relevant?

answer me about the big bang, what was its cause? what makes your hypothesis better then ours, but your own bias

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:05 PM

Quote:
Cmon, Antimason. You've got to watch the show, man. Not saying you're not welcome if you don't, but...it's kinda tacky. Like going to a birthday party without bringing a present, or going to a convention just to eat their free hors d'oeuvres.

im not gonna lie, i looked it up only once on youtube, after i had been on the site for awhile, and it seemed intriguing, but i didnt sit through it all. truth be known, i dont watch a lot of television anymore, and havent watched a tv series since the x-files. i wasnt about to to go out and buy the series, no offense to you all. and i havent watched any firefly since

so.. should i leave now? i thought this was good company

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:19 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
i asked a philosophical question directly related to ID: how do you define morality?

That's like saying "I asked for a debate on color: So what do you think of mosquitoes?"

AFA defining morality... It's however people define it. Sometimes it involves sacrificing little kids. Sometimes not. I know you WANT morality to have the certitude of some sort of immutable law of nature, but human history tells us that it just ain't so.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
thats why i ask what your solution is?

You demand answers from me, but won't return the favour.

What's my solution? I haven't got one, that is, I haven't got a single all encompassing simple plan to fix everything. But contrary to your assertion that "the market has nothing" there's plenty of products on the market or in development in fact. Personally at the moment I'm saving money for a solar hot water heating system, I use energy saving light bulbs, and turn off lights when I'm not in the room. I would give incentives to buy and operate such systems. I would also put an emphasis on renewable energy supplies such as wind, wave, solar and geothermal.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
you are delusional.

You're the one who sees NWO conspiracies in you porridge, not me. You're the delusional one. You're the one who's told me what I think, if you've seen evidence for half the things you say I think and promote, then you're delusional.

Quote:
and what are your beliefs?

They're mine and none of your damn business is what they are. Unlike you I don't use my beliefs to beat others around the head with. I hold myself to my standards and no one else, and god knows I'm not perfect and don't always succeed, but I'd not presume to force my own beliefs on others.

Quote:
you are so critical of mine, yet you wont put forth yours for scrutiny.

You still got get it do you. I'm critical of yours when your critical of others, when you make some assine statement, I send it back at you. You should examine why you find your attitude thrown back at you so insulting. Why shouldn't I be critical anyway, your critical of me and mine, and everyone else's. You're telling me to judge not while being judgemental. Your holding yourself up as the consummate Christian, while telling others to hold themselves to values you don't hold yourself to.

Beyond that, you don't get it, you act like religion and belief is some sort of competition, like I've got to give you mine so you can tell me how wrong or right I am.

Quote:
is that not relevant?

No, it isn't.

Quote:
answer me about the big bang, what was its cause? what makes your hypothesis better then ours, but your own bias

The direction of work. You decide what happened, and never question it, Science tries to find out what happened. Even if science never gets it right, the journey is a hell of a lot better than making something up and insisting that's the way it is, don't ask questions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:53 PM

i dont beat anyone over the head with my beliefs, if i have an opinion, im entitled to it. because i have strong beliefs, i should keep them to myself in other words? my opinion, and what you know to be true, have to coincide, or im a zealout.

you make me out to be some fire and brim stone extremist, ive never told you to "go to hell", let alone 'youre going to hell'.

the reason we get into it, is because i strongly believe that there is a God, thats hes relevant, thats his work is blatant, that there is a plan for humanity and that we are not merely products of time + matter + chance. why is that so offensive to you?

i dont think a good believer just shuts up, and pretends that 'IF God exists, we wouldnt have any way to "prove" it'? the denial of God is why the world is in this mess

and in my eyes, science is the study of Gods creation. you will never convince me that the two are separate

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i dont beat anyone over the head with my beliefs, if i have an opinion, im entitled to it. because i have strong beliefs, i should keep them to myself in other words? my opinion, and what you know to be true, have to coincide, or im a zealout.

That's not what I said, but I'm sure that's how you wish to portray it.

But yes, you do beat other people over the head with your beliefs. You did it to me earlier, you told me to live up to standards even you didn't in the exact same sentence.

Quote:
you make me out to be some fire and brim stone extremist, ive never told you to "go to hell", let alone 'youre going to hell'.

Oh, so you don't say Atheism and Secularism are evil? You don't want a Christian Theocracy? You don't redefine Christianity to be only your interpretation and all others to be wrong?

Quote:
the reason we get into it, is because i strongly believe that there is a God, thats hes relevant, thats his work is blatant, that there is a plan for humanity and that we are not merely products of time + matter + chance. why is that so offensive to you?

Your beliefs are not offensive to me. Your desire to shoehorn them into science and force them on others is what is offensive.

Quote:
i dont think a good believer just shuts up, and pretends that 'IF God exists, we wouldnt have any way to "prove" it'? the denial of God is why the world is in this mess

Forcing ones own beliefs down other peoples throats is 'why we're in this mess'. Secularism is about the best thing anyone came up with. It's not just good for those evil atheists, but everyone else as well.

Quote:
and in my eyes, science is the study of Gods creation. you will never convince me that the two are separate

That would be one of the reasons you are anti-science. You say you're against science being turned into a religion, yet will not separate God from science. Hello? Earth calling Antimason, God is a religious concept. You're not against science being religion, your for science being replaced by your religion. God is not a scientific concept, never has been, never will be.

If you want to force your religion on science where it doesn't belong, what right do you have to decry science, or anything else being forced on your religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:19 PM

Quote:
signym- That's like saying "I asked for a debate on color: So what do you think of mosquitoes?"

why? we dont know the cause to the universe, but that it required something external to initiate it. even with the 'big bang theory', there's philosophy involved in every hypothesis, even the sacred evolutionary theory. so why not bring the human psyche into it, it seems relevant...

Quote:
AFA defining morality... It's however people define it. Sometimes it involves sacrificing little kids. Sometimes not. I know you WANT morality to have the certitude of some sort of immutable law of nature, but human history tells us that it just ain't so.

so, we dont have to determine right and wrong(there is none)? thats not something that should be taken lightly, those are significant questions with significant ramifications. there is some horrifically obscene depravity and wickedness in the world, are you telling me thats not evil(just in bad taste)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:41 PM