Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8960 total)
200 online now:
AZPaul3, frako, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 193 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,696 Year: 1,444/23,288 Month: 1,444/1,851 Week: 84/484 Day: 7/77 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7297
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 47 of 238 (711296)
11-17-2013 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
11-16-2013 7:53 PM


marc9000 writes:

There are climate scientists all over the world who disagree with the atheist, liberal view of global warming

Atheism has as much correlation with climate change as creationism has with sanity.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 11-16-2013 7:53 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2013 11:11 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8893
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 48 of 238 (711317)
11-17-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
11-17-2013 3:36 AM


Climate Correlations
Atheism has as much correlation with climate change as creationism has with sanity.

Without having any numbers to back me up I'd stick my neck out and say this is very wrong. Creationism, as a denial or reality, has a moderate to high negative correlation with sanity. On the other hand, atheists (I like to think) examine information and reason somewhat more rationally than many. Pedantically, this has nothing to do with "climate change" itself but it suggests to me that being an atheist will positively correlate with an acceptance of climate change as a reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2013 3:36 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by foreveryoung, posted 11-18-2013 8:47 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1085
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 49 of 238 (711434)
11-18-2013 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
11-16-2013 11:23 PM


marc9000 writes:

There are climate scientists all over the world who disagree with the atheist, liberal view of global warming, and have written articles and books about it.

Please present some of these.

quote:
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

http://notrickszone.com/...urning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock

and

http://www.americanthinker.com/...gainst_global_warming.html

quote:
It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.

Because science has become political. There's way more power and money in shouting down religion than there is in actually doing science.

Also;

http://en.wikipedia.org/.../The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 11-16-2013 11:23 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 11-18-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Theodoric, posted 11-18-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 12:34 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1085
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 50 of 238 (711435)
11-18-2013 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
11-16-2013 8:32 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
Indeed, education in logic and being able to form proper valid conclusions from objective empirical evidence is the foundation for learning to deal with hokus-pokus, misrepresentation, hype and falsehoods.

Learning how to form rational conclusions with an open mind while remaining skeptical of any claims that have no supporting evidence.

Evidence includes written history. The scientific community obviously chooses to sometimes ignore or replace written history when it clashes with a proclamation of the past that science wishes to make. There's not always objective empirical evidence for every question about reality. The time has come to realize that science has been taken over by political special interests. It's no longer a "disinterested pursuit of knowledge", and needs to be policed for what it has become.

marc9000 writes:

The creation issue was involved in science education at least somewhat more 50 years ago than it has been in the last couple of decades. ...

And (even if true, which I doubt) it is never too late to stop going down the wrong road.

I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the U.S. is getting more and more religious, it’s actually getting more and more secular, Every statistic shows it. Statistics also show that some new, BAD things are happening, in a perfect correlation with religiousity going down, such as increased drug use, legalized gambling, less productivity etc.. Co-incidence, according the scientific community probably, but some are thankful that they’re not completely in charge of political decisions.

The declaration of independence is not the constitution.

But it’s what the constitution is based on. I know the extreme left doesn't agree, as don't many non U.S. residents. Are you from the U.S? Some participating in this thread are, some aren’t. Some don’t have their location listed by their name, you being one. When I see a non-religious, non resident of the U.S. claim that weakening religion in the U.S. would be good for it, I wonder if it could be because they’d love to see the U.S. brought down to the level of their own country.

Completely irrelevant to the argument -- attack the argument not the bearer of information that disturbs you.

The words “stupid, ignorant, insance, wicked are sophisticated scientific information?

There are pawns of large corporations who are paid to disagree

Oh, and there are no pawns in the scientific community who aren’t paid by the special interests of atheism and liberalism?

The predominant consensus of over 90% of climate scientists is that climate change is due to human sources, mostly pollution from large corporations.

This number is growing, as it becomes increasingly obvious that climate change is happening.

Now all we need for a scientific community takeover of the political process is for it to become increasingly obvious to the general public.

If it were real history, not make believe tea-party history, you might find that we know more facts than you do.

Here is link showing the results of a survey taken to find out how scientifically literate tea party members can be. At least he was honest enough to report his (surprising to him) findings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2013 8:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2013 2:49 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 7:53 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 57 by Theodoric, posted 11-19-2013 10:00 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-19-2013 2:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 51 of 238 (711436)
11-18-2013 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NosyNed
11-17-2013 11:11 AM


Re: Climate Correlations
"Climate Change" as a reality?

The Climate has always been changing. I suppose the current hypothesis is that it is changing faster than ever before. Where is the proof for that? What I disagree with is that the change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm in preindustrial times to 390 ppm in todays times is responsible for the increase in global temperatures since that time. Other factors could produce such a change and nobody has proven what the climate sensitivity is to a doubling in CO2 concentration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2013 11:11 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32034
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 238 (711437)
11-18-2013 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
11-18-2013 8:15 PM


Great example of dishonesty and stupidity.
Whether or not Global Warming is actually totally irrelevant and just another example of dishonesty and con jobs.

In fact, the very best scenario would be if global warming was man made since it is only man made contributions that we can do much about.

That marc9000 even brings up such total irrelevancies is at best an example of his inability to actually think; at worst yet more dishonesty.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 53 of 238 (711438)
11-18-2013 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
11-18-2013 8:15 PM


http://notrickszone.com/...urning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock
Not climate scientists.

Also, I am a little suspicious about this. I can not find an original reference for this. Everything points back to the site you reference. That being said these people are not climate scientists.

http://www.americanthinker.com/...gainst_global_warming.html
Again not climate scientists.

Do you read things you post?
http://en.wikipedia.org/...g_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism

Care to try again?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed first two links (originally in message 49). You need to copy the "peek" version of the links, not the message display form which includes "..." in the middle.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:15 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:36 PM Theodoric has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20484
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 54 of 238 (711439)
11-19-2013 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
11-18-2013 8:15 PM


marc9000 writes:

There are climate scientists all over the world who disagree with the atheist, liberal view of global warming, and have written articles and books about it.

Please present some of these.

quote:
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

http://notrickszone.com/...urning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock

Only 50 of the thousands of scientists and engineers employed at NASA

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/s1493/section2.htm#topic%203D

Engineers are not climate scientists, medical scientists are not climate scientists, astro-physical scientists are not climate scientists ...

Those that are listed as scientist do not have their field of study identified.

But even if that were 50 out of only 1000 scientists that is only 5% so we KNOW that the number of climate scientists in this group is actually smaller than that. Much smaller.

Typical creationist ploy -- but with fewer signers than the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list:

http://www.creationmoments.com/...ts-do-not-accept-evolution

And you have only listed NASA, not scientists from around the world ... so your list is both small and incomplete.

quote:
It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.

Because science has become political. There's way more power and money in shouting down religion than there is in actually doing science.

Ah yes, the old suppression conspiracy again. People that do bad science somehow do not get recognized for doing good science ... I wonder why that is.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ..


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7297
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 55 of 238 (711440)
11-19-2013 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
11-18-2013 8:30 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
marc9000 writes:

Oh, and there are no pawns in the scientific community who aren’t paid by the special interests of atheism and liberalism?

The words 'science', 'atheist' and 'liberal' are not synonyms. Your conspiracy paranoia is telling.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:30 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:39 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20484
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 56 of 238 (711447)
11-19-2013 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
11-18-2013 8:30 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
Evidence includes written history. The scientific community obviously chooses to sometimes ignore or replace written history when it clashes with a proclamation of the past that science wishes to make ...

History is evidence of what someone wrote, and does not necessarily represent truth. It is anecdotal evidence rather than objective empirical evidence. When it is contradicted by objective empirical evidence it is discarded.

Troy was uncovered due to clues in Greek myths -- does that mean that Achilles, also in the same myths, was an actual person with supernatural invincibility from being dipped in the river Styx as a child, leaving only his heal unprotected?

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

... There's not always objective empirical evidence for every question about reality. The time has come to realize that science has been taken over by political special interests. It's no longer a "disinterested pursuit of knowledge", and needs to be policed for what it has become.

Says you who desperately wants to run science according to religious beliefs (see On The Limits of Human Talent) and force it to comply with your opinion/beliefs.

I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the U.S. is getting more and more religious, it’s actually getting more and more secular, Every statistic shows it. Statistics also show that some new, BAD things are happening, in a perfect correlation with religiousity going down, such as increased drug use, legalized gambling, less productivity etc.. Co-incidence, according the scientific community probably, but some are thankful that they’re not completely in charge of political decisions.

More unsupported bs. The US is definitely getting dumber due to the removal of science from textbooks due to pressure from religious interests (see creationist propaganda affects text books used and what is (not) taught). This of course is in comparison with other countries that are not so hide bound by fundamentalist ideologists.

Here is link showing the results of a survey taken to find out how scientifically literate tea party members can be. At least he was honest enough to report his (surprising to him) findings.

How was this tested, what were the questions. And yes these are important to the validity of the study. Was evolution a critical part of the study or just general science? How does this compare to a non-tea party group with the same education background?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:30 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:49 PM RAZD has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 57 of 238 (711467)
11-19-2013 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
11-18-2013 8:30 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
Here is link showing the results of a survey taken to find out how scientifically literate tea party members can be.

And here is the good professors actual post, not cherry picked.
What the full post says
And him bemoaning how what he has written has become misconstrued and warped.
Second post

Guess it shows that Tea Party supporters don't understand science that well.

I have stated this before, but will reiterate again, you really should read these things you find through Google (I suggest DuckDuckGo, no tracking). Many things you use as a reference, like this, don't actually support what you claim. You should read both of the posts by Professor Kahane. If you understand them you wont think they are in any way supportive of your position.

At least he was honest enough to report his (surprising to him) findings.

Why wouldn't he? He was naive thinking that people like you would not distort the results. He must be a liberal, since he was honest.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:30 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:53 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 58 of 238 (711480)
11-19-2013 11:53 AM


Here's a nice blog from The Sensuous Curmudgeon that deals with efforts by the Discovery Institute to spread their brand of creationism under the guise of science:

What is the “Wedge Document”?

None of this will be new to our regular readers. Big chunks of it come from our earlier posts, but we’re putting it all into one convenient place — this post — so we’ll be able to link to it from now on. Besides, creationists are always recycling their oldies, so they shouldn’t mind if we do it too.

The Wedge Document (sometimes called the Wedge Strategy) was drafted in 1998. It’s the founding manifesto of the Discovery Institute — they’re described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article which describes it: Wedge strategy. You can read the actual document at the NCSE website: The Wedge Document. Here’s a scan of the original: The Wedge. It’s a pdf document which begins with a graphic of Michelangelo’s God creating Adam.

[links in the original]

Lots more


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 238 (711485)
11-19-2013 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
11-18-2013 8:30 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
Oh, and there are no pawns in the scientific community who aren’t paid by the special interests of atheism and liberalism?

Of course not --- there's no need to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 238 (711491)
11-19-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ICANT
11-15-2013 10:00 PM


Re: Creation
CS writes:

false dichotomy

What is the third option?

A gradual emergence with no discernible beginning.

Two half-verses, with their own existence, combining to make a whole universe.

Or, you know, something like the Big Bang model where time is a component of the universe, itself, and thus the question of a beginning is meaningless.

But we've been over this before. You never acknowledge that there's other options and then some time goes by and you just repeat your tired old refuted claim again.

Pretty much the same behavior that we see from the YEC's. Its one of the ways in which YEC is bad for America.

You just can't budge on your position, despite any explanation or evidence, and then you go on holding the position regardless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2013 10:00 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 11-19-2013 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 61 of 238 (711502)
11-19-2013 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
11-19-2013 2:51 PM


Re: Creation
Hi CS,

CS writes:

A gradual emergence with no discernible beginning.

A gradual beginning just means that it had a beginning but just took a long time to complete. Which agrees with what I have presented in the past, as far as the universe and earth that we see today. But I do believe the energy and matter that they were created out of has existed eternally in the past.

CS writes:

Two half-verses, with their own existence, combining to make a whole universe.

But those two verses existed already just not in the form it was after they combined. Would those two verses you are talking about have had a beginning to exist or would they have existed eternally in the past?

My first claim is the universe has existed eternally in some form just not the form we see today. In other words the materials it is made of existed eternally.

CS writes:

Or, you know, something like the Big Bang model where time is a component of the universe, itself, and thus the question of a beginning is meaningless.

Did the universe exist at T=0? No
Did it exist 1 billionth of a second later? Yes
That constitutes a beginning to exist.
So the BBT requires a beginning to exist.

CS writes:

But we've been over this before. You never acknowledge that there's other options and then some time goes by and you just repeat your tired old refuted claim again.

You haven't ever presented another option.

You presented two universes combining into one which is a beginning to exist from previous material which has existed from their beginning or eternally.

You presented the BBT which requires a beginning to exist as the expansion the universe is experiencing now had it always existed it would be dead.

CS writes:

You just can't budge on your position, despite any explanation or evidence, and then you go on holding the position regardless.

Once you have presented evidence I will consider it. If it is true then I will change what I believe.

Until you are some one else presents evidence that the universe has not always existed in some form or had a beginning to exist I will keep that position.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 2:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 4:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020