"Now, Sky, you might not accept this as accurate but if not, can you provide empirical evidence that it is not accurate and that any other creation story is more accurate?"
I admire that it and others are similar to the one I hold as most accurate. But that particular story is not enclosed in a book of historical, factual events, people, places, and time lines. See more @ http://www.bib-arch.org/
"You don't know what research I have or haven't done. In fact you know nothing about me. So stop making such baseless assertions."
That response actually tells the whole story.
Indeed - it shows that you, -Sky-, are making the baseless assumption that another debater has not engaged in research on teh topic. You are, in effect, attacking the person, not the argument.
This is an ad hominem fallacy, and it means your argument is logically invalid.
Try arguing the position, not the opponent. If you have information that shows that religious texts are not actually inconsistent, then provide that information. Show that religious texts worldwide do in fact offer different perspectives on the same Biblical story, as opposed to being mutually exclusive and contradictory.
"You said you had proof that scientific research was driven by the desires of man, rather than the interest in scientific discovery. Where is the proof? You made a baseless assertion: back it up."
Well, this is private proof, but we'll see. If I say that it's proven that Greenland average temperatures could rise by 5Centigrade in 10 years, would you proclaim it to the world, or sweep it under the rug? (Melting not caused by CO2.)
The scientific community has swept it under the rug as "An Inconvenient Truth"
It's "PROOF" fro me that science could care less about the facts if they conflict with a predisposed idea.
10 days ago this fact had FOUR results in a google search. All from one website. I spread the word a little, and now science is peeking out from under the snowball with 80 results. You likely don't care about the global warming muck...but it's valid proof to me. "Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings. A temperature increase of 5C can occur in a few decades. "
Also note the scientific term "Especially astonishing." Sagan used that term around the Hookah pipe a lot.
Man is the only form of life in the entire Cosmos. And you know this, how?
Science Dude, Scientific evidence. All here, none found there.
Science hard Fact.
Scoop shovels of soil, radio waves, visible monitoring, every possible known scientific method of observation we can come up with. Robots even.
Zero, Zilch, Nada. Even our fiction is hokey. Green men with huge heads. With all this raw material at our disposal, we can't come up with anything new. We can only stick working stuff together like Mr. Potato head clones.
"Indeed - it shows that you, -Sky-, are making the baseless assumption that another debater has not engaged in research on teh topic. You are, in effect, attacking the person, not the argument."
You call that an attack? You must be a mighty thin skinned dung weasle. But I appreciate your view. I'll keep that in mind.
Well, you see, I'm thick. So why don't you spell it out for me? And when you're done, maybe respond to my argument proper?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Here are a few rules from the Forum Guidelines that appear to be suffering a bit in this thread:
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Those posting messages (after this one) that don't reflect a sincere interest in a serious exploration of the topic will receive 24-hour suspensions.
Please let moderators handle all discussion problems.
10 days ago this fact had FOUR results in a google search. All from one website. I spread the word a little, and now science is peeking out from under the snowball with 80 results. You likely don't care about the global warming muck...but it's valid proof to me. "Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings. A temperature increase of 5C can occur in a few decades. "
I typed your quoted phrase into google, as you did not provide the exact search terms used to get the 80 hits referenced before and got only 1 hit, an article titled "Local view: Scientific fact shows that global warming is real ..." and it required a subscription.
Can you tell us the exact search term(s) used for the 80 hits, so we can check out the source of the info ourselves? Or is that a secret?
"Indeed - it shows that you, -Sky-, are making the baseless assumption that another debater has not engaged in research on teh topic. You are, in effect, attacking the person, not the argument."
You call that an attack? You must be a mighty thin skinned dung weasle. But I appreciate your view. I'll keep that in mind.
Throwing poo is the best you can come up with ? And you don't believe you are decended from a monkey?
Just throw the quote around and see if you get called a raving lunatic as I did.....until I included the source.
In your posts please try to make positive contributions to moving the discussion constructively forward by focusing on evidence supporting your position on this topic.
To reiterate : I typed your quoted phrase into google (including the quotes) and it's sourced to ONE particular article dated Jan 1st 2010. Without the quotes I get over 31000 unrelated hits.
Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings. A temperature increase of 5C can occur in a few decades."
Article title: "Local view: Scientific fact shows that global warming is real ..." http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/.../event/article/id/156254 The site requires a registration and for me to provide a valid U.S. or Canadian zipcode (I'm still awaiting a confirmation email of my registration, where I lied about my zipcode '90210'). UPDATE : Never got my registration email ----------------- UPDATE : Is this the research you meant?
NASA researchers report that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols. Though greenhouse gases are invariably blamed for global climate change, and the shrinking Arctic ice cover in particular, this new research indicates that as much as half the warming in the Arctic can be attributed to short lived particulate pollution—basically soot. Unlike the dreaded gas, CO2, aerosols do not stay in the atmosphere very long, suggesting that the effects of any warming caused by aerosols would quickly be reversed if their emissions ceased.
So it's still human pollution causing the problem, but because only half the warming is due specifically to CO2 per se that means scientists are liars and the warming/melting isn't 'really' happening ? BTW doesn't this actually imply that any predicted arctic warming needs to be doubled to take into account the effect of man-made aerosols? And there's no indication at all that the emissions of the aerosols are going to cease (it's not even on the agenda, unlike CO2 emissions).
™ Version 4.0 Beta
