Are you religious?

[jumpinjarhead]

A great case in point is the new religion of "climate change." It is truly amazing to see the abandonment of the scientific method on the "altar" of "global warming" etc. and how those brave few who try to speak out are professionally and personally villified.

That is so wrong that I am unsure where to start. The scientific method has certainly not been abandoned by most actual scientists on that issue. One problem is that the subject has been politicised and that is not good for proper science. Another is that the economic interests of very rich/powerful companies are involved. That also muddies the water.

However, releasing chemicals back into the atmosphere which got removed before humans evolved can not be a good idea.

Before we continue (should you wish to), I would like to know your opinion on evolution and the age of the earth.

You lead off with the statement that mine was "so wrong [you are] unsure where to start." I have time if you do to let me know your support for this. Using affirmative phrases like the SM has "certainly not been abandoned" etc. does not make the assertion true.

[StickyEnd]

A great case in point is the new religion of "climate change." It is truly amazing to see the abandonment of the scientific method on the "altar" of "global warming" etc. and how those brave few who try to speak out are professionally and personally villified.

That is so wrong that I am unsure where to start. The scientific method has certainly not been abandoned by most actual scientists on that issue. One problem is that the subject has been politicised and that is not good for proper science. Another is that the economic interests of very rich/powerful companies are involved. That also muddies the water.

However, releasing chemicals back into the atmosphere which got removed before humans evolved can not be a good idea.

Before we continue (should you wish to), I would like to know your opinion on evolution and the age of the earth.

You lead off with the statement that mine was "so wrong [you are] unsure where to start." I have time if you do to let me know your support for this.

I want to know your opinion on evolution and the age of the earth first. If you think that the earth is only 10K Yrs Old, there is no point discussing this.

[jumpinjarhead]

A great case in point is the new religion of "climate change." It is truly amazing to see the abandonment of the scientific method on the "altar" of "global warming" etc. and how those brave few who try to speak out are professionally and personally villified.

That is so wrong that I am unsure where to start. The scientific method has certainly not been abandoned by most actual scientists on that issue. One problem is that the subject has been politicised and that is not good for proper science. Another is that the economic interests of very rich/powerful companies are involved. That also muddies the water.

However, releasing chemicals back into the atmosphere which got removed before humans evolved can not be a good idea.

Before we continue (should you wish to), I would like to know your opinion on evolution and the age of the earth.

You lead off with the statement that mine was "so wrong [you are] unsure where to start." I have time if you do to let me know your support for this.

I want to know your opinion on evolution and the age of the earth first. If you think that the earth is only 10K Yrs Old, there is no point discussing this.

I do not know the age of the earth.

[StickyEnd]

I want to know your opinion on evolution and the age of the earth first. If you think that the earth is only 10K Yrs Old, there is no point discussing this.

I do not know the age of the earth.

If you will not answer simple (ish) questions then there is no point trying to discuss climate change.

For the record: I think that earth is approximately four-five Billion years old, evolution, astronomy and plate tectonics roughly correct. That is the starting point for me.

[jumpinjarhead]

I want to know your opinion on evolution and the age of the earth first. If you think that the earth is only 10K Yrs Old, there is no point discussing this.

I do not know the age of the earth.

If you will not answer simple (ish) questions then there is no point trying to discuss climate change.

For the record: I think that earth is approximately four-five Billion years old, evolution, astronomy and plate tectonics roughly correct. That is the starting point for me.

You asked me what my opinion on the age of the earth is. I have no opinion on that specific issue as I have not had the time or interest to research it to the point I could form a reasoned opinion. I do try to withhold forming opinions where I have insufficient information. To the extent your question also wanted my opinion on evolution per se, my review of the information (and I am not a scientist) persuades me that the theory of evolution has not been sufficiently proven using the scientific method (as I understand it from a layman's perspective).

[StickyEnd]

I want to know your opinion on evolution and the age of the earth first. If you think that the earth is only 10K Yrs Old, there is no point discussing this.

I do not know the age of the earth.

If you will not answer simple (ish) questions then there is no point trying to discuss climate change.

For the record: I think that earth is approximately four-five Billion years old, evolution, astronomy and plate tectonics roughly correct. That is the starting point for me.

You asked me what my opinion on the age of the earth is. I have no opinion on that specific issue as I have not had the time or interest to research it to the point I could form a reasoned opinion. I do try to withhold forming opinions where I have insufficient information. To the extent your question also wanted my opinion on evolution per se, my review of the information (and I am not a scientist) persuades me that the theory of evolution has not been sufficiently proven using the scientific method (as I understand it from a layman's perspective).

Wow! You have an opinion about the accuracy in science regarding climate change, yet no opinion about the subjects that relate to it. Which evidence are you using to form your opinion?

[jumpinjarhead]

I want to know your opinion on evolution and the age of the earth first. If you think that the earth is only 10K Yrs Old, there is no point discussing this.

I do not know the age of the earth.

If you will not answer simple (ish) questions then there is no point trying to discuss climate change.

For the record: I think that earth is approximately four-five Billion years old, evolution, astronomy and plate tectonics roughly correct. That is the starting point for me.

You asked me what my opinion on the age of the earth is. I have no opinion on that specific issue as I have not had the time or interest to research it to the point I could form a reasoned opinion. I do try to withhold forming opinions where I have insufficient information. To the extent your question also wanted my opinion on evolution per se, my review of the information (and I am not a scientist) persuades me that the theory of evolution has not been sufficiently proven using the scientific method (as I understand it from a layman's perspective).

Wow! You have an opinion about the accuracy in science regarding climate change, yet no opinion about the subjects that relate to it. Which evidence are you using to form your opinion?

I don't have the details in front of me but there were numerous credible and reputable scientists who took issue with much of what they deemed "junk science" on the part of the politicized scientific advocates of "climate change." I realize that these phrases (climate change, global warming etc.) are imprecise and there are separate debates over what they actually mean. Setting that aside for the moment, my point is not that there is or is not something occurring that can be described with such phrases but rather the shameful way these subjects are covered by the media and the coordinated personal attacks on those who dare question the political juggernaut that is using such fear tactics to press much broader and, in my view, sinister agendas for effecting totalitarianism (in various forms). Al Gore's propaganda piece "inconvenient truth" is exhibit A.

As for your other point about the incompleteness of my opinions, I suppose that is a function of available time and the level of my interest in these several issues. I had to consider the issue(s) of "climate change" because they were relevant in our recent election. To meaningfully assess the substance of this subject first requires clarifying what is meant by the terms and then what are the factors that influence (much less "cause") the phenomena in question.

Regrettably, this kind of honest (in the sense of looking at the real issues) inquiry has not occurred since the subject has been effectively hijacked by those who are using it as a shibboleth to effect political and social change--primarily of a totalitarian nature. This aspect of the "debate" has been fairly well documented with the "migration" of many proponents of socialistic, marxist and similar views from political organizations to "environmental" groups.

[StickyEnd]

I don't have the details in front of me but there were numerous credible and reputable scientists who took issue with much of what they deemed "junk science" on the part of the politicized scientific advocates of "climate change."...

Junk science is used by people on both sides of the debate, but genuine science is heavily weighted to the idea that human activity is causing climate change.

Why wont you state your opinion on the age of the earth and other scientific subjects, yet express an opinion on this one? As many scientific disciplines are convergent on this subject it is unhelpful to look at it in isolation (probably should be on a different thread too).

[All_I_Want]

Junk science is used by people on both sides of the debate, but genuine science is heavily weighted to the idea that human activity is causing climate change.

Have you spoke to Milsum lately?

We discussed this on another thread very recently.

I am sure that the SUN had more to do with it than what us puny humans do.

[jumpinjarhead]

I don't have the details in front of me but there were numerous credible and reputable scientists who took issue with much of what they deemed "junk science" on the part of the politicized scientific advocates of "climate change."...

Junk science is used by people on both sides of the debate, but genuine science is heavily weighted to the idea that human activity is causing climate change.

Why wont you state your opinion on the age of the earth and other scientific subjects, yet express an opinion on this one? As many scientific disciplines are convergent on this subject it is unhelpful to look at it in isolation (probably should be on a different thread too).

I agree this should be on a separate thread. I still stand by my original and relevant point that much of the dynamics of the creation vs. evolution debate are also present in the "climate change" issue. In both (in the US), you have the power of the state (in the guise of so-called separation of church from state--notably but also lost in the "debate"a notion not found in the Constitution) and the media arrayed on the side of the theory of evolution. This not surprisingly results in marginalizing of anyone who dares take another view.

All of us (whether honestly for or against either view) would do well to be concerned with the underlying political and social agendas at play. In this regard, while I am adamantly opposed to a theocracy of any kind, I do not think (based on available evidence--not just my bias toward creation) the threat of this from those who advocate "creationism" is nearly so dangerous as the threat of totalitarianism (the flavor of the year now seems to be fascism--in the sense of the political science use of the term--control of the means of production through centralized governmental control of ostensibly private business and trade organizations) from many advocates of evolution. In this connection. I believe many such proponents are not nearly so concerned about creation vs. evolution but rather leverage off of this since their "nirvana" is a political and social system that puts them in control.

[Barmster]

[ To the extent your question also wanted my opinion on evolution per se, my review of the information (and I am not a scientist) persuades me that the theory of evolution has not been sufficiently proven using the scientific method (as I understand it from a layman's perspective).

You understand it wrongly.
In a scientific sense, the word 'theory' (a word you underlined as if to denote some from of scepticism or contempt) doesn't just mean a 'hunch' or a 'credible guess'.
It's the name used for an analytical structure that explains a set of phenomena, and which makes an assertion about the reality of those phenomena. Hence the 'theory' of gravity.
If you are a creationist - and judging from your post there I suspect you are - then your opinions on almost any other aspect of science are worthless.

[jumpinjarhead]

[ To the extent your question also wanted my opinion on evolution per se, my review of the information (and I am not a scientist) persuades me that the theory of evolution has not been sufficiently proven using the scientific method (as I understand it from a layman's perspective).

You understand it wrongly.
In a scientific sense, the word 'theory' (a word you underlined as if to denote some from of scepticism or contempt) doesn't just mean a 'hunch' or a 'credible guess'.
It's the name used for an analytical structure that explains a set of phenomena, and which makes an assertion about the reality of those phenomena. Hence the 'theory' of gravity.
If you are a creationist - and judging from your post there I suspect you are - then your opinions on almost any other aspect of science are worthless.

Worthless is a subjective standard is it not? In any event, you, as I, are entitled to your opinion.

[BoomShackerLacker]

[ To the extent your question also wanted my opinion on evolution per se, my review of the information (and I am not a scientist) persuades me that the theory of evolution has not been sufficiently proven using the scientific method (as I understand it from a layman's perspective).

You understand it wrongly.
In a scientific sense, the word 'theory' (a word you underlined as if to denote some from of scepticism or contempt) doesn't just mean a 'hunch' or a 'credible guess'.
It's the name used for an analytical structure that explains a set of phenomena, and which makes an assertion about the reality of those phenomena. Hence the 'theory' of gravity.
If you are a creationist - and judging from your post there I suspect you are - then your opinions on almost any other aspect of science are worthless.

For the record the theory of evolution remains a theory. A theory, scientific or philosophical, is an 'idea'; it is 'other than reality'. (However we are into the territory of how we 'know' anything, again.)

An OS map is a theory; it looks beautifully accurate, scientifically prepared, drawn with precision and skill, contours, symbols and colours are convincing... but only after you've conga'd through the woods and back out again at 2am do you realise it bears no resemblance to reality. You might then annotate your map but those annotations remain theoretical.

Just because Attenborough *low hushed voice* uses the language of 'certainty' about evolution makes not a jit jot of difference about its status as a theory. Not to question its validity is bad science but Attenborough would be 'bad TV' if he didn't sound certain. When he says 'we know', we know he lyeth. But then again, we're into theories of what is truth and knowledge.

[StickyEnd]

[ To the extent your question also wanted my opinion on evolution per se, my review of the information (and I am not a scientist) persuades me that the theory of evolution has not been sufficiently proven using the scientific method (as I understand it from a layman's perspective).

You understand it wrongly.
In a scientific sense, the word 'theory' (a word you underlined as if to denote some from of scepticism or contempt) doesn't just mean a 'hunch' or a 'credible guess'.
It's the name used for an analytical structure that explains a set of phenomena, and which makes an assertion about the reality of those phenomena. Hence the 'theory' of gravity.
If you are a creationist - and judging from your post there I suspect you are - then your opinions on almost any other aspect of science are worthless.

For the record the theory of evolution remains a theory. A theory, scientific or philosophical, is an 'idea'; it is 'other than reality'. (However we are into the territory of how we 'know' anything, again.)

An OS map is a theory; it looks beautifully accurate, scientifically prepared, drawn with precision and skill, contours, symbols and colours are convincing... but only after you've conga'd through the woods and back out again at 2am do you realise it bears no resemblance to reality. You might then annotate your map but those annotations remain theoretical.

Just because Attenborough *low hushed voice* uses the language of 'certainty' about evolution makes not a jit jot of difference about its status as a theory. Not to question its validity is bad science but Attenborough would be 'bad TV' if he didn't sound certain. When he says 'we know', we know he lyeth. But then again, we're into theories of what is truth and knowledge.

What is worth more than a "theory" in science? How can the status of a theory be improved upon?

There are a fair few people posting on this thread with no clue about what "theory" actually means when that word is used in science. HINT: some people are confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".

[StickyEnd]

I don't have the details in front of me but there were numerous credible and reputable scientists who took issue with much of what they deemed "junk science" on the part of the politicized scientific advocates of "climate change."...

Junk science is used by people on both sides of the debate, but genuine science is heavily weighted to the idea that human activity is causing climate change.

Why wont you state your opinion on the age of the earth and other scientific subjects, yet express an opinion on this one? As many scientific disciplines are convergent on this subject it is unhelpful to look at it in isolation (probably should be on a different thread too).

I agree this should be on a separate thread. I still stand by my original and relevant point that much of the dynamics of the creation vs. evolution debate are also present in the "climate change" issue...
.

Agreed! One side has evidence and the other does not. It is the side without the evidence that wants equal consideration.

Tossers!