"Inconvenient Truth" and incovenient fallacy?
- Thread starter ChickenSoup
- Start date
I never bought into the global warming idea. Science is the study of FACTS. Theories are nothing but THEORIES, and should be treated as such until documented emperical evidence can be represented, examined, tested, and reproduced.
First it was the theory of evolution, which has nothing besides circumstancial evidence that can easily be looked at from multiple different viewpoints. I am currently in a biology class, and we are given all these explanations about how certain things could have evolved, and evidence to support evolution. Why isn't there anything similar to creationism? In the scientific realm, both creationism and evolution are theories, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support the former. It just makes me so frustrated.
Now we have the theory of global warming. Sure, it's getting warmer. But is it because of greenhouse gas emissions? Or is it just the cycle of the earth? There is evidence for both, and yet it is all being blamed on humans, and we're completely ignoring the fact that good ol' mother earth might just feel like changing things up a bit.
First it was the theory of evolution, which has nothing besides circumstancial evidence that can easily be looked at from multiple different viewpoints. I am currently in a biology class, and we are given all these explanations about how certain things could have evolved, and evidence to support evolution. Why isn't there anything similar to creationism? In the scientific realm, both creationism and evolution are theories, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support the former. It just makes me so frustrated.
Now we have the theory of global warming. Sure, it's getting warmer. But is it because of greenhouse gas emissions? Or is it just the cycle of the earth? There is evidence for both, and yet it is all being blamed on humans, and we're completely ignoring the fact that good ol' mother earth might just feel like changing things up a bit.
and he just won the nobel prize for it too
I tend not to get too worked up over scientific theories and claims. I figure scientists used to be so certain that all matter was comprised of four elements (fire, earth, air, water) that I shouldn't start racking up my credit cards when they say that global warming will destroy the planet.
Scientists may criticize religion, but at least religion tends to be more consistent.
Well, except for the Mormons.
Scientists may criticize religion, but at least religion tends to be more consistent.
Well, except for the Mormons.
Stc95
Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
I completly disagree. I believe that there is more proof that God created the heavens and the Earth. and actually there is no scientific proof for Evolution, its all skewd and more importantly, government funded.
ChickenSoup
Banned
He was saying creationism is supported better. I think you may have confused "former" with "latter"
ajmucha
New Member
Pardon me if someone already said this, but supposedely some of the Cali fires raging right now were said to be set by an arsonist, while others blame "recent Global Warming". ARE WE SURROUNDED BY SCIENTIFIC MORONS??? California has suffered from droughts and raging wildfires as long as it's been recorded (oh..a few decades or more). The terrorist arson theory is more believable than global warming...
on a slightly random note, i saw a bumper sticker a few days back "Darwin is a creationist now"
on a slightly random note, i saw a bumper sticker a few days back "Darwin is a creationist now"
cc.slim
Moderator
C$ only you my brother can fill the shoes u got on. lol The planet drying up is old news brought to light today. Yesterday the ancient Indians spoke of a ship sailing into death valley hmmm yet we caused the drying hehehehe death valley has been dry how long?
Gloabl warming debate? as Martha Raye used to say "WOE BOY!"
I haven't taken the time to analyze everything Al gore says (or doesn't say as it were). To me him being pro choice is enough to make me not care for him. Making this election harder is the fact lots of democrats are running more to the right to get elected. I don't trust anyone who will make MAJOR value changes just to get elected (like I'm sure they will stick...not).
The Nobel prize lost all respect in my eyes after Arafat won one. Of course I thought that was appropriate considering Alfred Nobel invented dynamite...
I always thought the global warming debate was completely beside the point. With pollution caused diseases and oil dependency on Arab nations we should have more than enough motivation to find alternative energy sources. The important difference I have is Democrats seem to act like the world is going to end immediately if something isn't done. I know that there were recently pollution restrictions proposed which would have brought us in line with other countries THEORETICALLY SLOWING (I emphasize theory and slow not stop or reverse) global warming by 0.something percent (can't remember number, but, it was definitely 0.something, in other words negligible). What it would have done though is hurt our economy making any lasting change I.E. switching energy sources much harder. It seems like many people today aren't interested in actual change, but, with doing something immediate to "feel good" (like not having the resolve to fight prolonged wars).
I'm just curious, but, with China and other nations getting more industrialized has anyone ever calculated the day we will just plain run out of oil? By run out I mean the point where oil is so hard or expensive to get change is forced.
In most Christian matters I probably operate alongside of the majority or evangelical beliefs. I however do have one minor difference in I believe in evolution. As in that's how God made us as both the Bible and the evolution theory say we are made from dirt. I do NOT however believe evolution should be taught in schools for the reasons tjguitarz mentioned, creative design given equal voice etc. I also don't believe it should be taught as it is. When I was exposed to it the basis of it was life evolving was a random instance. In most cases "random" is perceived to mean "without cause" by people (although it has a different meaning as well). This gives the theory the equivalent of saying to young children "you and your whole existence is without reason". Which I am strongly against. Please note I am not that attached to evolution I'd much rather it not be taught at all if it is going to remain as is.
In theory science is supposed to rely on proven facts, but, people have different bias and opinions on what constitutes proof. To me proof of God is everywhere (and can be definitively proven by logic). Pure science would necessitate we know everything and since we never it will always require faith. Making science in "fact" a religion to some.
I haven't taken the time to analyze everything Al gore says (or doesn't say as it were). To me him being pro choice is enough to make me not care for him. Making this election harder is the fact lots of democrats are running more to the right to get elected. I don't trust anyone who will make MAJOR value changes just to get elected (like I'm sure they will stick...not).
The Nobel prize lost all respect in my eyes after Arafat won one. Of course I thought that was appropriate considering Alfred Nobel invented dynamite...
I always thought the global warming debate was completely beside the point. With pollution caused diseases and oil dependency on Arab nations we should have more than enough motivation to find alternative energy sources. The important difference I have is Democrats seem to act like the world is going to end immediately if something isn't done. I know that there were recently pollution restrictions proposed which would have brought us in line with other countries THEORETICALLY SLOWING (I emphasize theory and slow not stop or reverse) global warming by 0.something percent (can't remember number, but, it was definitely 0.something, in other words negligible). What it would have done though is hurt our economy making any lasting change I.E. switching energy sources much harder. It seems like many people today aren't interested in actual change, but, with doing something immediate to "feel good" (like not having the resolve to fight prolonged wars).
I'm just curious, but, with China and other nations getting more industrialized has anyone ever calculated the day we will just plain run out of oil? By run out I mean the point where oil is so hard or expensive to get change is forced.
In most Christian matters I probably operate alongside of the majority or evangelical beliefs. I however do have one minor difference in I believe in evolution. As in that's how God made us as both the Bible and the evolution theory say we are made from dirt. I do NOT however believe evolution should be taught in schools for the reasons tjguitarz mentioned, creative design given equal voice etc. I also don't believe it should be taught as it is. When I was exposed to it the basis of it was life evolving was a random instance. In most cases "random" is perceived to mean "without cause" by people (although it has a different meaning as well). This gives the theory the equivalent of saying to young children "you and your whole existence is without reason". Which I am strongly against. Please note I am not that attached to evolution I'd much rather it not be taught at all if it is going to remain as is.
In theory science is supposed to rely on proven facts, but, people have different bias and opinions on what constitutes proof. To me proof of God is everywhere (and can be definitively proven by logic). Pure science would necessitate we know everything and since we never it will always require faith. Making science in "fact" a religion to some.
|CoR|Braveheart
New Member
Al Gore is a moron.
Agreed.
What did Arafat win for? And dynamite is just like a gun -- can be used for good and bad. Good, killing a deer for food. Bad, breaking the law by having a concealed weapon without a permit.
Agreed.
This made me think of that song, "Dr. Feelgood," -- I'm not sure why.
I don't think oil will run out any time soon. Currently, the oil is already very difficult to get out in some instances, but R&D goes in to making it easier. I may be wrong, but I believe there's still a TON of oil in the artic areas and Alaska, so I don't see Earth running out of oil until we have gravity as our primary propulsion method.
*scratches head*
Why?
*Ponders if this discussion should be sent off to a different thread*
I agree that proof of God is everywhere. I look around and wonder how people can possibly just assume that it all randomly appeared.
I'd like to hear your proof of God by logic. I just hope it's better than the debate between Kirk Cameron and those atheist dudes.
And pure science doesn't require that you know everything, it just requires that you leave unconcreted ideas vulnerable for discussion and dispute. The theory of evolution is still science, but it is just a theory. Once people take away the "theory of..." then it is no longer science, but a strong grudge.
Me thinks you should look at this thread.
|CoR|Braveheart
New Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by |CoR|Braveheart View Post
Al Gore is a moron.
Me thinks you should look at this thread.
I have...thats not spam, thats on topic and gives atleast a little to the conversation.
Originally Posted by |CoR|Braveheart View Post
Al Gore is a moron.
Me thinks you should look at this thread.
I have...thats not spam, thats on topic and gives atleast a little to the conversation.
Durruck
Pirate!
The Mighty Gerbil said:
tjguitarz said:
I think we need to be careful - I know we've had the microevolution vs macroevolution vs creation discussion several times in the old RD boards.
I think that there is sufficient evidence, including information from Biblical record that indicates microevolution exists. After the flood, there was only one family alive - Noah's. We have a wide array of minor differences in facial structures, skin tones, etc...that are hereditary. So there have been changes even within the human race.
The only macroevolution I believe in is the part where God said....and I am. For all other cases... I cannot accept that giraffes can become zebras or cats can become dogs. The macroevolution model doesn't work - it only leads to extinction of existing subsections that are less-than-fit.
anyway. dinner time.
ChickenSoup
Banned
I see. So you believe in microevolution and small changes and adaptations but not the protozoans->animal-like creatures->jellyfish->fish->amphibian->reptile, etc. etc. etc.?
I personally believe in limited microevolution, but not very much.
I personally believe in limited microevolution, but not very much.
galatian
Active Member
i belive in evolution to a point. yes animals and such have evolved to fit into our niche. BUT not that we came from monkeys. there is very little to no evidence on this.
Alot of this stuff is for ppl that want something to grasp. that they can say eh that makes sense. that way they dont have to put their faith into the unknown, even though the unknown is God and once u put your faith in Him you are blessed beyond anything u can imagine ppl r still afraid.
thats my pennies worth
Alot of this stuff is for ppl that want something to grasp. that they can say eh that makes sense. that way they dont have to put their faith into the unknown, even though the unknown is God and once u put your faith in Him you are blessed beyond anything u can imagine ppl r still afraid.
thats my pennies worth
FIRE IN THE HOLE! 
Agreed. Dynamite saved lives (as nitro was dangerous) and made construction easier by it existence as well. I just meant to look at it as a dark inside joke. It's ironic that Arafat a man who in reality was a huge supporter of people who blow them selves up with dynamite[/] should get a prize in the name of the man who invented dynamite. It's like a grim customer appreciation award.
Yeah I don't think it will either, but, I just wondered if anyone ever did the math. I do know oil fields do run dry on occasion just not how often.
Yes it would require another thread. Although I am quite happy with Christians who don't believe in it. To me the specifics of how we were made are not important in comparison to believing who we were made by.
As to science I believe your idea is that science exists as a set of object oriented or encapsulated facts. That given a controlled environment one can replicate a scientific fact, but, how many times must a test be committed before something is "concreted" as fact? It's subjective to the whims of the tester. Just because you do something X number of times doesn't mean it can be done every time. I know my Grandmother believed the lunar landing had been faked for a long time. Sounds absurd I know, but, when one never witnessed something should one take it as fact? How many scientific facts were told to you and how many have you personally tested? You couldn't have tested them all so you are believing in them simply because a lot of people have said so. The only difference between an accepted scientific cause of something and theory is the amount of people who believe it. Tying this back to the original discussion some people have already accepted that pollution is the cause of global warming as a scientific fact while others believe the science behind it isn't science at all.
Similarly how can a limited person set up a controlled environment when we don't know all the facts of that environment? Does the flow of gravitons effect matter? If there is an unknown factor in a test how can you say which tests are the same? I've heard supposedly many laws of physics don't apply to quantum mechanics yet if we go back before quantum mechanics those laws were thought of as absolutes.
To rephrase there is nothing (except the point in the below paragraph) that can be encapsulated completely. If a fact relies on another fact eventually you get back to a theory. How are you separating facts from facts anyway? The point were one fact ends and another begins is subjectively decided by our language and understanding. Eyes can be deceived too, causes can be attributed to other sources. Testing a scientific fact or the facts derived from another requires some observation or observation of effects at some point so reception of the light, sound, etc. is necessary. That sense could not only be fooled, but, by the act of observation you are actively interacting or changing the outcome (photons, sound waves are bouncing off of it consider the old "if a tree falls in a forest..." saying).
While in reality there are absolutes "science" is an invention of man to understand and as such can never be "pure". This is really all about people being limited, flawed or not absolute in nature thus conversely not able to know anything absolutely. So to believe anything (science or otherwise) requires faith at some point. Take this for an example. We may logically argue for gravity. If an apple falls we deduce (which means to eliminate possibilities) until we attribute the falling of the apple being acted on by a force or gravity. Now the logical argument for God revolves around eliminating logical or understandable possibilities for the creation of everything (which you can) until we attribute the act of the universe being created to the supernatural. We cannot see gravity nor can we see God only their effects. The effects being the apple falling and the universe existing neither of which we deny. Yet one is taken as a scientific fact and the other is religion. Please note original cause or the origin of everything (the logic for God part) is the only exception to a true controlled environment as you are considering everything and it is therefore encapsulated (in fact you have to believe the universe exists before you can believe the apple does).
Side Note: Normally you cannot prove the exsistance of something by eliminating all possiblities. Example: The toothfairy cannot be proven by the absence of a tooth because there are other outside possibities no matter how absurd (someone else could have taken it etc.) which cannot be completely disproven (technically you could say the apple wasn't falling the universe was moving towards it which is not absurd when you consider some video game render techniques, but, I digress). However, if you reduce the question of the universe's origins to either being supernatural or understandable it is possible by the nature of the question. There cannot be outside factors when contemplating EVERYTHING. Neither can you reverse the question because the reverse would require you not to exist and then you couldn't be asking the question.
...the Gerbil is king of going offtopic T_T. Anyway back to gloabl warming. Peace.
Agreed. Dynamite saved lives (as nitro was dangerous) and made construction easier by it existence as well. I just meant to look at it as a dark inside joke. It's ironic that Arafat a man who in reality was a huge supporter of people who blow them selves up with dynamite[/] should get a prize in the name of the man who invented dynamite. It's like a grim customer appreciation award.
Yeah I don't think it will either, but, I just wondered if anyone ever did the math. I do know oil fields do run dry on occasion just not how often.
Yes it would require another thread. Although I am quite happy with Christians who don't believe in it. To me the specifics of how we were made are not important in comparison to believing who we were made by.
Never watched Kirk Cameron's debate, but, I had a debate on the forums a while back (I'd imagine Cameron's debate was based on probabilities, but, mine is not). I didn't get to finish it as the thread was locked for off topicness so I have only touched on it here trying to avoid a loooong discussion. At some point I plan to write it all up, but, it's far in the future as I'd want to write it out correctly and it would take a while.
As to science I believe your idea is that science exists as a set of object oriented or encapsulated facts. That given a controlled environment one can replicate a scientific fact, but, how many times must a test be committed before something is "concreted" as fact? It's subjective to the whims of the tester. Just because you do something X number of times doesn't mean it can be done every time. I know my Grandmother believed the lunar landing had been faked for a long time. Sounds absurd I know, but, when one never witnessed something should one take it as fact? How many scientific facts were told to you and how many have you personally tested? You couldn't have tested them all so you are believing in them simply because a lot of people have said so. The only difference between an accepted scientific cause of something and theory is the amount of people who believe it. Tying this back to the original discussion some people have already accepted that pollution is the cause of global warming as a scientific fact while others believe the science behind it isn't science at all.
Similarly how can a limited person set up a controlled environment when we don't know all the facts of that environment? Does the flow of gravitons effect matter? If there is an unknown factor in a test how can you say which tests are the same? I've heard supposedly many laws of physics don't apply to quantum mechanics yet if we go back before quantum mechanics those laws were thought of as absolutes.
To rephrase there is nothing (except the point in the below paragraph) that can be encapsulated completely. If a fact relies on another fact eventually you get back to a theory. How are you separating facts from facts anyway? The point were one fact ends and another begins is subjectively decided by our language and understanding. Eyes can be deceived too, causes can be attributed to other sources. Testing a scientific fact or the facts derived from another requires some observation or observation of effects at some point so reception of the light, sound, etc. is necessary. That sense could not only be fooled, but, by the act of observation you are actively interacting or changing the outcome (photons, sound waves are bouncing off of it consider the old "if a tree falls in a forest..." saying).
While in reality there are absolutes "science" is an invention of man to understand and as such can never be "pure". This is really all about people being limited, flawed or not absolute in nature thus conversely not able to know anything absolutely. So to believe anything (science or otherwise) requires faith at some point. Take this for an example. We may logically argue for gravity. If an apple falls we deduce (which means to eliminate possibilities) until we attribute the falling of the apple being acted on by a force or gravity. Now the logical argument for God revolves around eliminating logical or understandable possibilities for the creation of everything (which you can) until we attribute the act of the universe being created to the supernatural. We cannot see gravity nor can we see God only their effects. The effects being the apple falling and the universe existing neither of which we deny. Yet one is taken as a scientific fact and the other is religion. Please note original cause or the origin of everything (the logic for God part) is the only exception to a true controlled environment as you are considering everything and it is therefore encapsulated (in fact you have to believe the universe exists before you can believe the apple does).
Side Note: Normally you cannot prove the exsistance of something by eliminating all possiblities. Example: The toothfairy cannot be proven by the absence of a tooth because there are other outside possibities no matter how absurd (someone else could have taken it etc.) which cannot be completely disproven (technically you could say the apple wasn't falling the universe was moving towards it which is not absurd when you consider some video game render techniques, but, I digress). However, if you reduce the question of the universe's origins to either being supernatural or understandable it is possible by the nature of the question. There cannot be outside factors when contemplating EVERYTHING. Neither can you reverse the question because the reverse would require you not to exist and then you couldn't be asking the question.
...the Gerbil is king of going offtopic T_T. Anyway back to gloabl warming. Peace.
Pelagrin
Member
If you want something fun to watch, do a search on YouTube for Glen Beck's "Exposed: Climate of Fear". It counters and exposes some falacies in Al Gore's movie.
Speaking of the nobel peace prize, I can't believe that he was awarded it! Actually, with our world in the state that it's in, I can believe it. It's really sad that he was awarded it instead of Irena Sendler, who was also up as a possibility for the award.
Speaking of the nobel peace prize, I can't believe that he was awarded it! Actually, with our world in the state that it's in, I can believe it. It's really sad that he was awarded it instead of Irena Sendler, who was also up as a possibility for the award.
|CoR|Braveheart
New Member
I hate to see Christians debating like this, make sure you don't make enemy's out of friends like what i did.
ajmucha
New Member
Careful, don't wanna get off topic with that one..though i completely agree it is possible to make good friends into near-mortal enemies...i wont go into that
I watch Glenn Beck almost every night, and find most of his views quite interesting...he talked about that CNN "Special Report" "Planet In Peril", basically he called it a load of trash. I forget if it was mentioned already, but on WTAM 1100, there's a debate over the cause of California wildfires that have gone on for eons, and certain political parties blame it on Global Warming. I agree with Mike Trivasano(sp?) or is it Rush Limbaugh... on the fact that it's completely illogical...I think the arson-terrorist theory is more plausible. Not only that , but supposedly Al Gore's house utilizes double the amount of every kind of energy that a typical American household uses. And he's trying to tell us to protect the environment? Give me a break...
In response to TJ, pertaining to proving God through logic, if you've ever heard of "A Case for Christ", an atheist even said atheism takes more faith now than creationism. On a semi-similar note: with the debate of how Yhwh is really spelled, i forget what the dvd was...but it said that Ywhw is almost the sound of breathing...saying that even living in itself is praising and bearing witness to the existence of God.
I watch Glenn Beck almost every night, and find most of his views quite interesting...he talked about that CNN "Special Report" "Planet In Peril", basically he called it a load of trash. I forget if it was mentioned already, but on WTAM 1100, there's a debate over the cause of California wildfires that have gone on for eons, and certain political parties blame it on Global Warming. I agree with Mike Trivasano(sp?) or is it Rush Limbaugh... on the fact that it's completely illogical...I think the arson-terrorist theory is more plausible. Not only that , but supposedly Al Gore's house utilizes double the amount of every kind of energy that a typical American household uses. And he's trying to tell us to protect the environment? Give me a break...
In response to TJ, pertaining to proving God through logic, if you've ever heard of "A Case for Christ", an atheist even said atheism takes more faith now than creationism. On a semi-similar note: with the debate of how Yhwh is really spelled, i forget what the dvd was...but it said that Ywhw is almost the sound of breathing...saying that even living in itself is praising and bearing witness to the existence of God.