Planned Failure (Bible)

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

You aren't describing the science community. You may be somewhat describing a politicized psuedo-science inbred community such as that of the MMGW thing, but not chemists, geologists, physicists, mathematicians, and other hard science people who use the scientific method scrupulously and consistently. And you don't have to just "take somebody's word" for this stuff. You can read the literature, replicate their findings, you know, do science. If you could prove that they are wildly wrong with their estimates of time periods of things like nuclear decay, why you could win the Nobel Prize for Physics! Go for it. I'll wait.

I do not understand your position on climate change. I believe we share views on matters of science over religion. About the same percentage of scientist that have signed on to the theory of evolution have also signed on to man made climate change.

For religious people, they are unwilling to accept science because their faith conflicts with the facts. This is why people of science do not take them seriously.

I believe you may be in a similar situation with faith being replaced by politics. Don't let your politics keep you from being able to consider a scientific consensus.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Craig

Here’s how I look at it: I’m not a geologist or a theologian, neither are most people. We rely on others who are, and hope they got it right, and are telling us the truth. Do I think there’s a possibility that the theologians got the translations and/or interpretations wrong and the Earth is a zillion years old? Maybe. Do I think the infinite God could create the Earth in six days and our 6000 year old planet looks zillions of years old to scientists based on current technology and understanding (and bias)? Maybe. But given how the science community hides inconsistencies they can’t explain, and refuses to accept the fact that they could be completely wrong, and refuses to even debate it; I’m less likely to give them the credibility they think they deserve, even if their version has been crammed down my throat since first grade at my government school.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I do not understand your position on climate change. I believe we share views on matters of science over religion. About the same percentage of scientist that have signed on to the theory of evolution have also signed on to man made climate change.

For religious people, they are unwilling to accept science because their faith conflicts with the facts. This is why people of science do not take them seriously.

I believe you may be in a similar situation with faith being replaced by politics. Don't let your politics keep you from being able to consider a scientific consensus.

You don't understand my position? It's pretty damn clear. The sun is the controlling factor on our climate, while CO2 is an extremely weak player on the fringes. There is ample evidence that much of the data has been manipulated for political ends, such as the satellite data telling us one thing (the Earth hasn't warmed in the last 15 years) while the ground data magically shows whatever the "scientists" want. How? Well, they can shut down rural sites and increase sites around populated areas for one thing, which they have been doing for over a decade now.

Read this article. It pretty much sums up my views on the thing. I'm very scientific and abhor psuedo-science, and the MMGW alarmists are chock full of it.

[DJ_Critterus]

Phil, we don't take you serious on the science/religion debate because you regurgitate everything anti-religion that you can find just for the sake of telling all the religious people they are wrong for believing as they do.

[Craig]

Hmmm...cartoons...

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

You don't understand my position? It's pretty damn clear. The sun is the controlling factor on our climate, while CO2 is an extremely weak player on the fringes. There is ample evidence that much of the data has been manipulated for political ends, such as the satellite data telling us one thing (the Earth hasn't warmed in the last 15 years) while the ground data magically shows whatever the "scientists" want. How? Well, they can shut down rural sites and increase sites around populated areas for one thing, which they have been doing for over a decade now.

Read this article. It pretty much sums up my views on the thing. I'm very scientific and abhor psuedo-science, and the MMGW alarmists are chock full of it.

that's exactly my thoughts on the subject, too. Science is supposed to draw conclusions from the facts and not make facts suit their predetermined conclusions.

[Cybercowboy]

You see Phil, when you make a hypothesis (increase CO2 by X in the atmosphere, temperature will rise by Y) and then the measurements don't bear that out, your hypothesis is WRONG. That's the scientific method. You seem to cling to the "scientific consensus" sound bite. There is no such thing in science. It's like saying that consensus trumps measurement, that the hypothesis is too important to be wrong.

They made bold predictions, they were wrong. It's pretty damn obvious now. Just because it felt right, felt good, and could punish all the right players and extract social justice doesn't make it real.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

You see Phil, when you make a hypothesis (increase CO2 by X in the atmosphere, temperature will rise by Y) and then the measurements don't bear that out, your hypothesis is WRONG. That's the scientific method. You seem to cling to the "scientific consensus" sound bite. There is no such thing in science. It's like saying that consensus trumps measurement, that the hypothesis is too important to be wrong.

They made bold predictions, they were wrong. It's pretty damn obvious now. Just because it felt right, felt good, and could punish all the right players and extract social justice doesn't make it real.

That has to be the best, most logical summation of the MMGW farce that I have ever read

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

You see Phil, when you make a hypothesis (increase CO2 by X in the atmosphere, temperature will rise by Y) and then the measurements don't bear that out, your hypothesis is WRONG. That's the scientific method. You seem to cling to the "scientific consensus" sound bite. There is no such thing in science. It's like saying that consensus trumps measurement, that the hypothesis is too important to be wrong.

They made bold predictions, they were wrong. It's pretty damn obvious now. Just because it felt right, felt good, and could punish all the right players and extract social justice doesn't make it real.

Do you realize how outside of the mainstream your position is?

97% of scientist believe in man made climate change.

Name another thing that 97% of a specific group believes in.

97%. Does this hold no weight for you???

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

By the way, the article you posted above was written by Peter Ferrara, a guy on the payroll of Exxon and the Koch brothers. Lets put some sunshine on this dud.

Peter Ferrara is the general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union at the Heartland Institute.

DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.

And what does $67 million buy you?

"While I am not a scientist, and write primarily on economics, tax policy and budget issues, I have been fascinated over the years by Heartland’s work on climate change."

Ferrera Admitted that he took money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write Op-Ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients.

"I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."

Ferrara said "he doesn't see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write Op-Ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles."

Peter Ferrara | DeSmogBlog

Combine this with the fact that virtually every paper, "scientist" think tank, etc that denies man made climate change is funded by energy companies and what do you have left?

Want to chase your tail for a while? Show us a few qualified scientists, or peer reviewed papers denying man made climate change that isn't tainted by energy company money.

Good luck with that.

[Craig]

Let me see if I understand. A zillion years ago there wasn’t an Earth, and then there was, because of some random thing happening. And at first it didn’t have any life on it, and then it did, probably just a cell, because of some random thing happening. And then the cell didn’t die, it became more cells. Then some of the cells became something more complicated like algae, because of some random thing. And then some of those cells stayed algae and some became a guppy or something, because of some random thing. And then some of the guppies stayed guppies and some became something else, like, I don’t know, a monkey and some other became a brontosaurus, because of some random thing. And eventually all of the brontosaurus died and became oil, and some of the monkeys stayed monkeys, and some of the others became people. And all of this stuff about species getting better over time in the ancient past is believable, even though in today’s observable world, species don’t seem to get better with time, they actually tend to die off.

And I’m supposed to put my faith in that?

Okay.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Do you realize how outside of the mainstream your position is?

97% of scientist believe in man made climate change.

Name another thing that 97% of a specific group believes in.

97%. Does this hold no weight for you???

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

No, it doesn't, because once you look into the actual numbers, what you find are a few dozen climate scientists whose very existence pivots on keeping these grants going, and they all peer-review each other's work. When you ask a diverse group of scientists, such as physicists, geologists, chemists, etc you get a wildly lower number. Plus we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that several of the top climate scientists such as Michael Mann are terrible scientists who falsified data in various ways. Climategate, remember that? There were two actually (so far...)

And all the other stuff, I've refuted those positions so many times I sick of typing them. Off to golf, bye.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Craig

Let me see if I understand. A zillion years ago there wasn’t an Earth, and then there was, because of some random thing happening. And at first it didn’t have any life on it, and then it did, probably just a cell, because of some random thing happening. And then the cell didn’t die, it became more cells. Then some of the cells became something more complicated like algae, because of some random thing. And then some of those cells stayed algae and some became a guppy or something, because of some random thing. And then some of the guppies stayed guppies and some became something else, like, I don’t know, a monkey and some other became a brontosaurus, because of some random thing. And eventually all of the brontosaurus died and became oil, and some of the monkeys stayed monkeys, and some of the others became people. And all of this stuff about species getting better over time in the ancient past is believable, even though in today’s observable world, species don’t seem to get better with time, they actually tend to die off.

And I’m supposed to put my faith in that?

Okay.

I don't have time to give you the scientific background on what you have said above, but know this.

There is EVIDENCE for all of it.

There is NO EVIDENCE of God.

[RED-85-Z51]

Originally Posted by Craig

Let me see if I understand. A zillion years ago there wasn’t an Earth, and then there was, because of some random thing happening. And at first it didn’t have any life on it, and then it did, probably just a cell, because of some random thing happening. And then the cell didn’t die, it became more cells. Then some of the cells became something more complicated like algae, because of some random thing. And then some of those cells stayed algae and some became a guppy or something, because of some random thing. And then some of the guppies stayed guppies and some became something else, like, I don’t know, a monkey and some other became a brontosaurus, because of some random thing. And eventually all of the brontosaurus died and became oil, and some of the monkeys stayed monkeys, and some of the others became people. And all of this stuff about species getting better over time in the ancient past is believable, even though in today’s observable world, species don’t seem to get better with time, they actually tend to die off.

And I’m supposed to put my faith in that?

Okay.

It makes about as much sense, as putting faith into the idea that...

10,000 years ago, nothing existed, at all..anywhere, except "GOD"...and he decided to make the universe...and suddenly the universe existed, then he diceded to make light...so "light" as we know magically existed from nothing...all the chemicals required to make our sun..suddenly came out of nowhere. Then trees suddenly appeared, and all forms of life suddenly appeared as we see them today, etc etc...

We are supposed to beleive that, because its written in a book, written by men, starting some time after man was put on earth and kicked out of Eden...anything prior to that would be hearsay.

Its just as farfetched as evolution...but at least we can see evolution happening today...the continents are in motion, man is evolving, animals and plants are evolving. Miracles, to me...are pure myth. Lets say you need a package delivered today and it was shipped yesterday...you pray for it, and it arrives today...so it must be a miracle. You dont know that the shipping confirmation was delivered a day late...and it was going to arrive today anyways...that doesnt even come into the realm of thought, of "faith"...

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I don't have time to give you the scientific background on what you have said above, but know this.

There is EVIDENCE for all of it.

There is NO EVIDENCE of God.

All of this is explainable because some dude named Darwin looked at some weird animals on some remote volcanic islands and they didn’t look like any other animals, so he concluded that some species die off, and some get be better for whatever reason. At that point it was a theory, but then someone noticed that a monkey looks a little like a man, and some scientist found a buried skull that kind of looked like a cross monkey’s and a man, and then it became a fact because it was taught to millions of kids in grade school.

There's evidence of lots of things, but in this case the evidence is by no means conclusive.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Craig

All of this is explainable because some dude named Darwin looked at some weird animals on some remote volcanic islands and they didn’t look like any other animals, so he concluded that some species die off, and some get be better for whatever reason. At that point it was a theory, but then someone noticed that a monkey looks a little like a man, and some scientist found a buried skull that kind of looked like a cross monkey’s and a man, and then it became a fact because it was taught to millions of kids in grade school.

There's evidence of lots of things, but in this case the evidence is by no means conclusive.

I find it funny that people (like Phil) refute anything from the bible (old or new testament), yet archaeological finds are proving that certain places and events described in the bible did exist and take place. That doesn't count, though, because religion is bullshit to him.

Now, me personally, I believe that God did create everything and evolution does exist. How does one explain species going extinct or new ones showing up over time? Look at humans. No two are exactly alike so changes occur with each birth. Evolution has some validity, but it's not fully explained, and I do believe there is a religious/deity aspect involved that since refuses to acknowledge because it can't be seen or proven by the non-faithful, religious, devout, etc...

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Craig

All of this is explainable because some dude named Darwin looked at some weird animals on some remote volcanic islands and they didn’t look like any other animals, so he concluded that some species die off, and some get be better for whatever reason. At that point it was a theory, but then someone noticed that a monkey looks a little like a man, and some scientist found a buried skull that kind of looked like a cross monkey’s and a man, and then it became a fact because it was taught to millions of kids in grade school.

There's evidence of lots of things, but in this case the evidence is by no means conclusive.

[Craig]

Like I said, there's lots of evidence laying around but it isn't particularly conclusive. Couple that with the notion that the odds are so astronomically against life being created out of non life, and a whole world of millions of species being created out of that one colossally unlikely event, that this alone makes a really good case for God.

[RED-85-Z51]

Originally Posted by Craig

Like I said, there's lots of evidence laying around but it isn't particularly conclusive. Couple that with the notion that the odds are so astronomically against life being created out of non life, and a whole world of millions of species being created out of that one colossally unlikely event, that this alone makes a really good case for God.

umm...so its unlikely that life could evolve from non-life...but it poses a good case for "let there be light, and it was so"...?

This, exactly...is why im on the ropes...

[Craig]

I guess my case for this is: Is it more unlikely that an event of impossible odds happened, and then millions more events with impossible odds happened after that, to create what we see now? Or is it more unlikely that there's Someone out there that we have not physically seen, but the evidence is compelling that He exists? This, in itself is just a piece of why I'm a Believer. It makes much more sense to me that the God of the Bible exists, than He doesn't; and I'm not a pushover.

This has been a great, frank discussion that's stayed very respectful. I appreciate that.

[RED-85-Z51]

Really, when looking at Creationism vs Evolution, the very best, most honest conclusion you can ever draw...is plausible, and I mean..at the very best.

Both Theory's are far fetched, both rely on alot of give and take from the persons considering one, vs the other, and both can be, or have been, greatly smudged by the people surrounding them. For instance..Science can be swayed one way or another, by simply changing one variable in any equation....and The Bible, is essentially a Book (1 book) that was piecemealed together thousands of years ago, as works of hearsay...in multiple different languages, by a multitude of different empires, with differing agendas. If just 1...just 1 translator, 2000 years ago, felt the story lacked flair...or he misinterpretted just a single word...he could have single handedly changed the entire focus of a religion....

Faith...is believing that the Bible we read today, is exactly as it was intended when it was first put together.

Faith, is beleiving that 20 million years ago, a simple organism sam out of the ocean...and over millions of years, evolved and adapted into humans....