calfoxwc Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method Sad ********************************************************** Never said I had any alternative to the scientific method. I'm saying that the scientific method does not end with the observation about selected facts, as is the case with mmgw. So, how can the observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is directly causing mmgw? When CO2 has been climbing, and the global temp hasn't for over ten years? Where is the justification for dramatic ACTION, sacrifices, and UN admitted global redistribution of wealth... when all it is ...is a freakin THEORY? Sure, not a hypothesis, but NOT a law. Chris and woody and others, and those in the political arena, and the UN, keep demanding that it be acceptance as being a LAW, which it most certainly is not. The mmgw theory hasn't been proven to be a law, and there is conflicting evidence to prove that the mmgw observation has serious flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump. Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method Sad ********************************************************** Never said I had any alternative to the scientific method. I'm saying that the scientific method does not end with the observation about selected facts, as is the case with mmgw. So, how can the observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is directly causing mmgw? When CO2 has been climbing, and the global temp hasn't for over ten years? Wait what? The Global Temps are currently the highest in history and we have not had a below average year in decades......You or a scientist could argue the level of effect that one aspect has on the the rise in temperatures(such as man made vs natural) but temps are on the raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved? Who decides which creationism myth should be taught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved? So you are saying there is equal evidence for creationism as there is for evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Why am I even asking? You believe that a guy lived a whale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Wait what? The Global Temps are currently the highest in history and we have not had a below average year in decades......You or a scientist could argue the level of effect that one aspect has on the the rise in temperatures(such as man made vs natural) but temps are on the raise. Prepare for Cal to argue in circles, quoting clearly biased websites as a source for his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Obama's climate change hypocrisy highlights lack of faith "Heading down to DC to catch an #EarthDay flight on Air Force One tomorrow with the President," popular scientist Bill Nye tweeted out ahead of yesterday's Earth Day celebration. "We're going to #ActOnClimate." Indeed, Nye and President Obama "acted on" the climate on their 1,836-mile round-trip flight to the Everglades. They emitted five times as much carbon in one day as the average American emits over the course of a year. No, Nye's and Obama's climate hypocrisy does not falsify any scientific theory about global climate change. But it does highlight a lack of faith among those who would demand sacrifices from their fellow man to avert the supposed disaster they predict. That same lack of faith is evident in anyone connected to the electrical grid and using a computer to read these very words. Most Americans agree that human activity has contributed to an increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and that this has caused some increase in global temperatures. This is the reality to which the oft-cited scientific consensus applies. There is far less consensus as to what and how bad the effects of this warming will be. Hence the failure of every climate model to track the rise in temperatures and their current pause. Hence the almost-daily crackpot amateur theories about every weather event being caused by global warming — including snow, cold, and the recent record-high levels of Antarctic sea ice. In the meantime, Americans are told to fear for the world's future, even as every manner of airhead celebrity gallivants across the country in a carbon-guzzling private jet to decry the dangers of global warming. Even so, no one is proposing or indeed can propose a carbon-reduction policy that avoids environmental catastrophe without causing a far greater greater economic catastrophe. To take the extreme example, the United States could simply eliminate all carbon-generating sources of energy overnight — in the process leaving hundreds of millions of souls without any means to feed themselves. Yet even if this drastic policy were adopted today, carbon emission increases in the developing world would still fully replace this nation's annual carbon output by roughly 2020. And the United States possesses neither the moral authority nor willingness to make demands of the world's poor — Obama, supposedly a "green" politician, just made a non-binding climate agreement allowing China to increase its carbon emissions without limit until 2030. There is thus no policy of reduced energy use that holds forth any hope for humanity, if the doom-sayers are to be believed. The only remaining future, therefore, aside from an uninhabitable planet, is technological innovation. And only society with access to immense amounts of energy will ever possess the economic vitality needed to bring it about. Radical environmentalists have laid out before Americans a game so hopeless that it cannot be won with any play they advocate. The Hail Mary pass is all that is left. It could come in the form of safer nuclear power, or perhaps a profitable agricultural or manufactured product that traps large quantities of atmospheric carbon, or all of the above — or something no one has yet conceived of. Or who knows, maybe the warming won't actually be so bad after all. Obama and Nye must tacitly understand this. Otherwise, they would have made other travel arrangements. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-climate-change-hypocrisy-highlights-lack-of-faith/article/2563467 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Prepare for Cal to argue in circles, quoting clearly biased websites as a source for his argument. Yeah... I full expect a response of 3 links from a google search incoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Why am I even asking? You believe that a guy lived a whale. So did Jesus so I am in good company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved? Since when can't evolution be proved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 meh too convoluted. Some of it's based on gut spiritual instincts of mine that I've had since I was a little kid. Would be hard to follow is what i'm saying. Give it a shot. Right now you're in OBF territory. We also didn't evolve from modern day monkeys. Modern day monkeys and us evolved from a common ancestor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Since when can't evolution be proved? Since when can it be proved. The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. The Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Prepare for Cal to argue in circles, quoting clearly biased websites as a source for his argument. Never. Cal doesn't do that. There is a giant, raging debate within the scientific community regarding "mmgw". He knows it! Websites tell him that! And if there isn't, that's because those liberal scientists are censoring data! Across the globe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Give it a shot. Right now you're in OBF territory. We also didn't evolve from modern day monkeys. Modern day monkeys and us evolved from a common ancestor. Woody does not believe in anything spiritual. He is like a fish in a pond believing nothing exists outside the pond. I don't get upset with him as would I get upset with a blind man trying to judge art? Spiritually blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved? well, it's a "science" class right? Creationism, at this point in time...is not science. Maybe one day it can be in part who knows .But right now it isn't. Creationism is for religion class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Since when can it be proved. The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. The Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. Please explain what these "many challenges" are? I imagine you'll say "we weren't there! We've never seen a fish start walking! Or a monkey be a man! We never saw it!" Which will be especially hilarious when you base your life around fictional stories from the past, passed down secondhand for generations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Woody does not believe in anything spiritual. He is like a fish in a pond believing nothing exists outside the pond. I don't get upset with him as would I get upset with a blind man trying to judge art? Spiritually blind. Hahahaha. I'm pretty sure you're the one in the pond, ignoring the mountain of evidence contradicting you. No, wait, a guy totally lived in a fish. Nvm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 well, it's a "science" class right? Creationism, at this point in time...is not science. Maybe one day it can be in part who knows .But right now it isn't. Creationism is for religion class. I agree but I would just be happy to see this theory of evolution taught just like that (an unproven theory) it is not proven science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Hahahaha. I'm pretty sure you're the one in the pond, ignoring the mountain of evidence contradicting you. No, wait, a guy totally lived in a fish. Nvm A guy way beyond your pay grade also believed that and I will take what Jesus said over what Woody says any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved? What evidence supports creationism? Which fictional story do we teach? (I'm guessing you want you religion's taught...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 A guy way beyond your pay grade also believed that and I will take what Jesus said over what Woody says any day of the week. Pay grade? I don't think Jesus would approve. Or, you know, fuck what Jesus said because he is way below my pay grade... Based on what you said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think we still need to go over what a scientific theory is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Please explain what these "many challenges" are? I imagine you'll say "we weren't there! We've never seen a fish start walking! Or a monkey be a man! We never saw it!" Which will be especially hilarious when you base your life around fictional stories from the past, passed down secondhand for generations... There are many articles. Here is one but you could quickly google search many others. But then you could post your articles on evolution and we could have dueling articles because it is not proven science: 9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is Falsehttp://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Pay grade? I don't think Jesus would approve. Or, you know, fuck what Jesus said because he is way below my pay grade... Based on what you said Your words give away your spiritual condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I agree but I would just be happy to see this theory of evolution taught just like that (an unproven theory) it is not proven science. and that's how it's presented, as a "theory". One that can be turned on it's head at any time. That's actually the scientificmethod at work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 There are many articles. Here is one but you could quickly google search many others. But then you could post your articles on evolution and we could have dueling articles because it is not proven science: 9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is Falsehttp://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html More like 9 Scientific Facts that Prove we still do not 100% fully understand the complex nature of evolution, but does not make it false and still does not make creationism realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Your words give away your spiritual condition. As do yours, remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Your words give away your spiritual condition. And I don't think I could care less. But you brought up pay grade. Either that means you disagree with what Jesus taught or I outrank Jesus because I make more. Your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 There are many articles. Here is one but you could quickly google search many others. But then you could post your articles on evolution and we could have dueling articles because it is not proven science: 9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html A quick browse through. That seems like a blog post with a bunch of statements but nothing backing them up. You can't make claims like "modern science has produced no evidence for evolution" and then not back it up. But, I mean, if you used common sense and scientific reasoning we wouldn't even be at this point, so it is no surprise you aren't the best at picking sources (hell, you think the bible is the ultimate source). But like Sad said, scientists never claimed to have the answers to everything. Buy more evidence is presented than creationism still. A lot more. That's the point. I'll take a closer look after work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.