# GOP may have Rush, Hannity and Levin moderate debates...



## billc

This is about time...I am tired of republican candidates being sand bagged by left wing, democrat supporting journalists who the GOP brings in to moderate their debates.  Rush, Hannity and Levin would do a fair and honest job and would actually allow republicans a chance to get their message out...with out being set up for the next campaign strategy of the democrats (like stephanopalous and the birth control question) or have the moderator side with the democrat in a falsehood (candy crawley)...

And this is for Steve,  a criticism of the GOP...establisment...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/08/15/Mark-Levin-I-ll-Moderate-2016-Debate-if-RNC-Asks



> Levin, in comments picked up by The Right Scoop, said he was of two minds after reading the Breitbart News report about Spicer's comments. He said he believed the RNC was either "sucking up" to him so he does not criticize them or actually serious.
> "I accept," Levin said. "Yes, I'll do it."
> He said he would like to ask Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, if he were to run, why he refused to sign a brief opposing Obamacare. Levin said he would also like to ask Christie why he was weak on border security, soft on the Ground Zero Mosque, favored gun control, and supported environmentalists.
> Levin said he would like to ask former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, if he were to run, if he felt there should be a "two Bush limit on the presidency" and why he "supports anarchy on the border" by promoting comprehensive immigration reform so fervently.
> 
> 
> 
> The talk radio host said he still did not fully believe the RNC would actually extend an offer to him because the Republican establishment "buffoons" who are "destroying the Republican Party from within" loathe him.
> 
> 
> 
> "You know how much they despise me," Levin said. "I think I am hated more [at the Republican National Convention] than at the Democrat convention."
Click to expand...


----------



## Steve

I hope Chris Christie runs.  I'd vote for him.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## granfire

Rush and moderate in one line... :lfao:


----------



## billc

I myself will, for the first time, donate money to any democrat opponent of Chris Christie...how's that for bipartisanship...


----------



## Steve

Really?  I guess I didn't realize he had fallen out of favor with the new GOP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador

This will only serve to make the GOP even more extreme. But, that's OK by me--I support Biden and/or H. Clinton too.


----------



## Tgace

Oh my LORD! Biden?!?! Seriously?!?


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> Oh my LORD! Biden?!?! Seriously?!?



What's the alternative? A Republican? Anti-abortion, anti-science, anti-healthcare...I'll take sanity instead, thanks. It looks like he means to run and if he gets the nomination, what reasonable choice will there be? Do you expect the GOP to field a sane candidate? Christie is possibly acceptable, but we know he isn't extreme enough to get by Rush et al.


----------



## billc

Yes, keep believing the democrats when they say republicans are anti science...

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/27/whos-more-anti-science-republicans-or-de



> The Pew survey next asked about federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, which Democrats favored by 71 percent compared to only 38 percent for Republicans. But the GOP response is likely tied to two issues: (1) the belief that embryos have the same moral status as adult people; and (2) the general belief that spending taxpayer dollars on research is suboptimal. These are policy differences rather than scientific differences.





> But what about Berezows examples of left-wing bias? Mooneys basic assertion is that Democratic anti-science is a fringe with no power, unlike the know-nothing Tea Party activists who influence Republican politics. For example, Mooney argues that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is not a liberal group commanding wide assent for its views on the left, doesnt drive mainstream Democratic policy, etc. Fair enough. But the Pew survey does report that 48 percent of Democrats oppose using animals in scientific research, whereas only 33 percent of Republicans do. Like stem cells, using animals in research is often framed as a moral issue.





> What about partisan attitudes toward genetically enhanced crops and animals? A 2006 survey by the Pew Trusts found that 48 percent of Republicans believe that biotech foods are safe compared to 42 percent of Democrats. Are they right to be leery? A 2004 National Academy of Sciences report noted: To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population. That is still the case today.





> What about vaccines? Berezow mentions data showing that vaccine refusals are highest in notoriously Blue states like Washington, Vermont, and Oregon. In fact, the vaccine/autism scare was fueled in part by prominent lefties like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., writing in popular publications such as Rolling Stone and Salon. In addition, such non-fringy characters as then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) have declared things like, Weve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that its connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has made similar statements.





> (Page 2 of 2)
> In addition, law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues at the Yale Cultural Cognition Project have shown that the strong urge to avoid scientific and technological risk is far more characteristic of people who have egalitarian and communitarian values, that is to say, left-leaning folks.



Anti-health care?  Really?  thinking that trusting the federal government with control of the healthcare system is a dumb idea is anti healthcare?   Yes, trusting the government with something as important as healthcare is a great idea considering the track record of the federal government with anything put under its control...just ask military vets how much fun V.A. Healthcare is to access, or go to the local post office, or try the compassion and understanding of the I.R.S.   The democrats love the central government...bigger is better...for democrat politicians...


----------



## billc

The anti science meme is one of those false memes that the democrats spew, and their allies in journalism, entertainment, and education promote...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...rats_really_the_pro-science_party_115367.html



> No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes &#8211; including anything from genetic modification to vaccines.





> Digging deeper into the issue, one finds that California Democrats have de facto allied themselves with some of the biggest anti-science quacks in America. Among Prop 37&#8217;s most fervent supporters are peddlers of alternative medicine, anti-vaccine groups, and even one crank who claims that genetically modified food causes autism.





> The second person is President Barack Obama. On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama said , &#8220;We&#8217;ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it&#8217;s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.&#8221;
> 
> 
> Wrong. The science was settled in 2002, if not earlier. In truth, the biomedical community never accepted this link, even as the myth gained wider acceptance among the general public. Obama was either severely uninformed about basic medical science or he was playing politics with people&#8217;s fears.
> 
> 
> Once he got into office, his performance on the issue didn&#8217;t improve. In 2009, under the auspices of his newly elected administration, the FDA ordered a change from multi-dose to single-dose influenza vaccines because they contained less thimerosal -- the preservative that anti-vaccine activists wrongly believed causes autism. According to Scott Gottlieb, a former deputy commissioner of the FDA, this last minute switch was partially to blame for the vaccine shortages which occurred later that year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strangely, these anti-science decisions made by prominent Democrats were largely unreported by the news media. Yet, whenever a Republican makes an ignorant, unscientific remark or denies evolution or global warming, that is front-page news -- often for multiple days at a time.
Click to expand...


And then there is this...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-liberals-war-on-science



> The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider &#8220;cognitive creationists&#8221;&#8212;whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past.
> 
> 
> There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that &#8220;if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.&#8221; On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti&#8211;fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti&#8211;wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is &#8220;everything natural is good&#8221; and &#8220;everything unnatural is bad.&#8221;





> Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs&#8212;genetically modified organisms&#8212;in which the words &#8220;Monsanto&#8221; and &#8220;profit&#8221; are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (&#8220;evil&#8221 or an 11 (&#8220;f&#8212;ing evil&#8221? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.


----------



## billc

http://www.realclearscience.com/art...urnalists_ever_confront_democrats_106526.html



> For instance, Plait criticizes Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana for signing into law a policy that could undermine the teaching of evolution in schools. Absent from Plait&#8217;s analysis is the fact that, when the bill was passed in 2008, the Louisiana legislature was controlled by Democrats.





> Also AWOL from Plait&#8217;s list is Tom Harkin, the quack-loving, homeopathy-pushing Senator from Iowa who is responsible for helping legitimize alternative medicine. Such pseudoscientific voodoo has done more to harm average Americans than any misguided teachings on evolution or climate change.
> 
> 
> Plait goes on to lament how scientific reports were censored in the &#8220;Bad Old Days&#8221; of the George W. Bush administration. He conveniently leaves out that the Obama Administration purposefully withheld information from scientists during the BP oil spill and doctored documents to make it appear as if scientists agreed with the drilling moratorium they implemented. And he did not mention that the Obama administration interfered with the FDA&#8217;s approval of genetically modified salmon.



And before the false meme of anti science gets to stem cell research...

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...9/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete



> Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors.





> To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells.
> 
> 
> A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body&#8212;and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer.



Even though there are science based problems with embryonic stem cells, mainly with their strong tendency to turn into cancer and no real medical break throughout with them because of this tendency, anti science democrats push embryonic stem cell research because they see it as away to support abortion...rather than supporting the actual useful adult stem cells...which don't require human embryos and the ethical problems they entail...

Hmmmmm...Clinton, the anti science democratPresident...


> The more ethically charged decision&#8212;less understood by the public and one Congress has avoided&#8212;involves the ban on creating human embryos in the laboratory solely for research purposes. In fact, President Clinton is the one who balked at allowing scientists to use government money for embryo creation and research on stem cells harvested from such embryos; Bush only affirmed the Clinton ban. The scientific community has been able to attract nonfederal money for such work, and it is going on all the time in stem cell institutes. Scientists want relief from the inconvenience and expense of keeping that work and the money that supports it separate from federal dollars.


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> Yes, keep believing the democrats when they say republicans are anti science...



Global warming, evolution, age of the earth, how one can get pregnant...Republicans are much less likely to go with science on these issues.


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> The anti science meme is one of those false memes that the democrats spew, and their allies in journalism, entertainment, and education promote...
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second person is President Barack Obama. On the campaign trail in  2008, Obama said , Weve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some  people are suspicious that its connected to the vaccines. This person  included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research  it.
Click to expand...


Selective memory as usual on your part. The whole story:



> Barack Obama, who has criticized the politicization of science under George W. Bush, is doing some politicizing of his own. Yesterday, he joined John McCain  in pandering to the vocal and well-organized lobby of parents who  believe the increase in autism diagnoses is caused by vaccines:  "We've  seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that  it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right  now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."
> --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.
> 
> "It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children,  the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's  strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in  vaccines."
> --John McCain, Texas town hall meeting, February 29, 2008.​



So, Obama says it's inconclusive  whether vaccines cause autism and McCain flat-out says there's "strong  evidence" that they do cause it. Who is more wrong here?

But that's not the _whole _whole story. Read this all the way to the end:



> video which suggests that Obama may not have been referring to himself  when he said that "some people" were suspicious about a connection  between autism and childhood vaccinations.  The video shows the  candidate pointing to someone in the audience when he adds the words,  "This person included."



So, the person about whom he was speaking was not himself. In fact, in the full context provided by a reporter who was there, the previous paragraph was Obama talking about funding basic research into what causes autism and if you don't take it out of context and do understand he wasn't referring to his own doubts then it is plausible that when he said "The science right  now is inconclusive, but we have to research it" that he meant the science regarding the etiology of autism, not the science of a supposed vaccine-autism link:



> Then Obama turned to autism, saying, "That's s an area where our basic  investment, our basic research has to increase. There are huge  opportunities for us to figure out" how diseases occur, calling for more  funding for research into the causes and potential cures for autism and  other disease.
> 
> "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious  that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. [Points to  someone in the audience.] The science right now is inconclusive, but we  have to research it. We can't afford to junk our vaccine system, we have  to figure out what's happening.



It isn't fully clear, but he may well have meant that rather than junk the vaccines on unfounded claims we should research and find the actual cause. McCain's comments, however, leave no room for doubt--he's in with Jenny McCarthy on this issue.

This is why it's impossible to take you seriously--you're continually and solely using highly biased sources with cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes and only one end result allowed: Obama is evil. This is great for reinforcing your bizarre conspiracy theories but not for you being seen as having something to contribute to a discussion on a political matter. That it isn't feasible to bust you on it every time seems to make you think that some of it is legitimate--but it's not the case that when there are two sides to the story that they're both equally valid. Sometimes one side is just a Tea Party fantasy.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Global warming, evolution, age of the earth, how one can get pregnant...Republicans are much less likely to go with science on these issues.


Republicans or religious fanatics?  Seems your issue is with the extream religious elements not the republican party


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Republicans or religious fanatics?  Seems your issue is with the extream religious elements not the republican party




I would not put a certain prolific member in the religious group...but he certainly does not agree with academia on a couple of these topics....just sayin.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> I would not put a certain prolific member in the religious group...but he certainly does not agree with academia on a couple of these topics....just sayin.



Except he's not talking about a person he said republicans meaning the 100 million or so republicans out there.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Republicans or religious fanatics?  Seems your issue is with the extream religious elements not the republican party



For specificity, let's just look at creationism:

*70 Percent Of Georgia Republicans Believe In Creationism: PPP Poll*



> When that question was transferred over to party lines, Republicans had a  staggering split -- 70 percent for creationism, 17 percent for  evolution and 13 percent not sure. Democrats split along closer lines --  43 percent for creationism, 33 percent for evolution and 24 percent not  sure. Independents held an even narrower divide -- 46 percent for  creationism, 40 percent for evolution and 14 percent not sure.



*46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll*



> Americans who believe in creationism are more likely to be Republican  than Democrat or Independent, whereas those who believe in evolution are  more likely to be Democrat or Independent, than Republican.  Interestingly, nearly an equal proportion of Republicans, Democrats and  Independents believe in theistic evolution.



These results are for _all _Republicans, not just politicians. You'll find similar results for global warming:



> In the United States, support for environmental protection was relatively non-partisan in the past. Republican Theodore Roosevelt established national parks whereas Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the Soil Conservation Service. This non-partisanship began to erode during the 1980s when the Reagan administration  described environmental protection as an economic burden. Views over  global warming began to seriously diverge between Democrats and  Republicans during the negotiations that led up to the creation of the Kyoto Protocol  in 1998. In a 2008 Gallup poll of the American public, 76% of Democrats  and only 41% of Republicans said that they believed global warming was  already happening. The gap between the opinions of the political elites, such as members of Congress, tends to be even more polarized.



Incidentally, according to Rush Limbaugh:
*Limbaugh: If You Believe In God, Then Intellectually You Cannot Believe In Manmade Global Warming*


Similarly for the young earth theory and probably even the germ theory of disease. And if you want outre opinions on whether or not rape can lead to pregnancy, there's only one place you can go: The GOP, where every Congressman is a self-certified OB/GYN. Yes, the Republican party is anti-science.


----------



## billc

Except for the 15 years of non-global warming...the Climate gate scandal where "scientists" destroyed data, smeared people who asked for their data, tried to get skeptics from getting their work in peer reviewed journals, tried to get the editors of peer reviewed journals fired if they allowed skeptics to publish their findings,  and have changed data at NASA...yeah, that's not anti-science at all...



> creation of the Kyoto Protocol



Which penalized the western nations...and India and China refused to comply...yeah...

Of course these scientists must be anti-science as well...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/most-geoscientists-reject-global-warming-theory.php



> The argument from authority is the only argument climate alarmists are willing to make these days&#8211;when is the last time you saw one of them sharing a podium with a climate realist?&#8211;so this survey, reported by James Taylor of Forbes represents a significant nail in the alarmist coffin:
> 
> Don&#8217;t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
> 
> The survey results show geoscientists and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here andhere) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
> 
> According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the &#8220;Comply with Kyoto&#8221; model. The scientists in this group &#8220;express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.&#8221;
> 
> &#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the &#8220;Nature Is Overwhelming&#8221; model. &#8220;In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.&#8221; Moreover, &#8220;they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...



Of course...they must be anti-science if they don't believe in global warming...



> What I refer to as the &#8220;global warming theory&#8221; is properly denominated &#8220;catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.&#8221; Alarmists constantly pull a bait and switch by claiming that nearly all climate scientists &#8220;believe in global warming.&#8221; But what does that mean? The only proposition on which there is anything like unanimity is that it is warmer now than during the depths of the Little Ice Age&#8211;an utterly trivial proposition.



Of course the same guy who cleared the child molestor at Penn State...cleared the guys involved in the Climate Gate Scandal...


----------



## billc

And from your own post...



> Interestingly, nearly an equal proportion of Republicans, Democrats and Independents believe in theistic evolution.




I believe some would say that is anti-science...


----------



## billc

A review of the Anti-science involved in the man made global warming issue...

http://www.conservapedia.com/ClimateGate



> The *Climategate* scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection ofemail messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealingscientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.[SUP][1][/SUP]
> 
> The scandal that the suffix &#8211;*gate* implies is the state of climate scienceover the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists.[SUP][2][/SUP] The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU's apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg.[SUP][3][/SUP]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientifichoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5]
> 
> [/SUP]
> 
> 
> 
> The Climategate emails and climate data became the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. The legitimacy of climate science, and the charges leveled by the CRU and theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claim humans causeclimate change, was severely shaken by Climategate. Evidence revealed told the truth about man-made global warming: it's a fraud.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]
Click to expand...


But the democrats embrace man made global warming because it gives them what they want "power,"  money and control over how other people live their lives.  It will also keep developing nations, in particular Africa, from climbing out of the horrible poverty they have...because the democrats need global warming to push their agenda...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html



> In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.
> But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/



> When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a &#8220;huge discrepancy&#8221; between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.



So, Republicans...conservatives in particular are skeptical of man made global warming claims in light of the attempt of the global warming scientists lying about their data...yeah...I guess that makes them anti-science all right...

And which is more destructive, the belief that God made the world...or embracing bad science that will impact people around the world and actually effect their lives, limiting their chances of improving their lives...because of scientists and politicians using that bad science for their own personal gain...


----------



## billc

As to Rush...



> See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming &#8230; You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something that he can&#8217;t create.
> 
> ​



The left always likes those three dots...the ones between the word "warming," and  "you," the ones that cover everything else he said in that discussion on global warming....perhaps you could find the entire passage from his radio show and see exactly what he said on the matter...instead of relying on a left winger to qoute Rush...

Besides...he's right...man doesn't have the ability to change global temperature...too many other elements control that...like the sun...the oceans...volcanos...and the ice ages before man ever appeared...weren't caused by man either...and considering the way the climate changes...yeah, it is anti-science to think that man is too small to effect the earth's temperature...

Here is an actual Rush discussion of global warming in it's entirety...I don't think it is the same one as listed above...but it gets to his main beliefs on global warming...perhaps that website should read more of his discussion...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/04/01/left_just_now_discovering_global_warming_hoax



> Anyway, "Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat," they haven't moved; in fact, they may be lowering, "while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750." Can I put that another way? In the ten years from 2000-2010, a hundred billion tons of carbon was added to the atmosphere. That's 25% of all the CO2 since 1750.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really concentrated levels. "And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, 'the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.'" Hansen, by the way, is one of the hoaxsters. "Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise" to scientists, but it's not to me. "Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models.
> "If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years," meaning their models are all wrong. "If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C ... the calculation might change," and it goes on to get into some scientific minutia here. But the point is that just one story has the entire science community in an absolute tizzy. In the Australian, the way they write this in their headline is: "Twenty-Year Hiatus in Rising Temperatures Has Climate Scientists Puzzled."
> Twenty years!



Here is a part where he discusses God and global warming...is this the quote and they misquoted it...or is it a different statement...



> By the way, do you know that "greenhouse gas" is what you exhale?
> Do you realize that by virtue of your very existence, you are poisoning the planet? Sorry, carbon dioxide, you exhale it. (exhales) I just poisoned the planet! The problem is, I can't help it. I was designed that way. Do you really think that a God... That's another problem. You may not believe in God. If you don't believe in God, manmade global warming is a real easy to accept. If you do believe in God, becomes a little harder. 'Cause if you believe in God, then you believe in creationism, and then you have to accept that you really don't matter.
> Not in these terms.
> Your life matters in terms of what it makes, but in terms of the ecosystem and how complex it is, you can't possibly matter. None of us do. But of those who matter, only those who fly on jets and drive cars do? Heh-heh-heh. Right. Right. The people that fly in jets and drive cars, they're the ones that are ruining the earth? Yeah, right. People who are engaging in progress are destroying the planet? Right. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?





> Sunspot activity has slowed down, and that means global warming has stopped, and the earth is beginning to cool. Enjoy global warming while it lasts!
> BREAK TRANSCRIPT
> RUSH: The last ice age was 4,000 years ago. Therefore, my friends, the earth has been warming for the last 4,000 years. The problem is, scientists can't tell us why. Not the last 4,000. They say global warming is just in the last 25 years -- ah, "manmade." Yes. But why has it been warming for 4,000 years? They can't tell us. They have no idea. In fact, they don't know why we have ice ages in the first place. They don't know why it cools. All we know is that a lot more people die from the cold than from global warming. And here is Vincent, Indianapolis. Hi, Vincent. Glad you called. Great to have you on the program.


----------



## billc

Here may be Rush's discussion...a little more context...

http://dinnertopics.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/abortion-creation-and-global-warming-hoax/



> See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can&#8217;t create.
> 
> It&#8217;s always, in fact, been one of the reasons for my anti-manmade global warming stance. The vanity, I mean, these people on the one hand, we&#8217;re no different than a mouse or a rat. If you&#8217;re listening to the animal rights activists, we are the pollutants of this planet.
> 
> If it weren&#8217;t for humanity, the militant environmentalist wackos, if it weren&#8217;t for humanity, the earth would be pristine and wonderful and beautiful. Nobody would see it. According to them, we&#8217;re different. We are not as entitled to life on this planet as other creatures because we destroy it.
> 
> But how can we destroy it when we&#8217;re no different than the lowest life forms?
> 
> And then on the other end, the vanity and the arrogance, we are so powerful and we are so omnipotent, that we can destroy. We can&#8217;t even stop a rain shower, but we can destroy the climate. And how? With barbecue pits and automobiles, particularly SUVs. It&#8217;s absurd. But nevertheless the esteemed secretary is running around saying that climate change is a challenge to our responsibilities as the safe guarders of God&#8217;s creation. Just ask him, what about God&#8217;s creation called a fetus?


----------



## arnisador

I see that once again all attempts to reach you have failed.


----------



## billc

More man made global warming anti-science...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...ow-jones-put-bias-in-australian-temperatures/


----------



## arnisador

Are you sure that wattsupwiththat.com is peer-reviewed?


----------



## Flying Crane

arnisador said:


> This is why it's impossible to take you seriously--you're continually and solely using highly biased sources with cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes and only one end result allowed: Obama is evil. This is great for reinforcing your bizarre conspiracy theories but not for you being seen as having something to contribute to a discussion on a political matter. *That it isn't feasible to bust you on it every time seems to make you think that some of it is legitimate*--but it's not the case that when there are two sides to the story that they're both equally valid. Sometimes one side is just a Tea Party fantasy.




Yes.  Every time.  E.V.E.R.Y.  S.I.N.G.L.E.  T.I.M.E.
How do we know when Billc is spreading misinformation?  He's typing on Martialtalk.

The September 2013 issue of National Geographic, which just arrived in the mail a few days ago, has a very good cover article on the issue.  For those who need an education on the matter (hint: Billc and friends) it's presented in a very readable format, fully understandable by the typical literate non-scientist member of society.


----------



## Flying Crane

I'm gonna cut right thru the BS and get straight to the point, and most likely Billc will act hurt and offended again.

Nobody puts this kind of time and effort into what amounts to a monumental display of enthusiastic ignorance, without getting paid to do it.  So Billc is either employed in some fashion by the Fossil Fuels industry, or else he is a large stake stockholder and he's hoping to get rich off the profits.

So Billc: which is it?  Who's paying you to post this endless row of Bovine Defecation?


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> I'm gonna cut right thru the BS and get straight to the point, and most likely Billc will act hurt and offended again.
> 
> Nobody puts this kind of time and effort into what amounts to a monumental display of enthusiastic ignorance, without getting paid to do it.  So Billc is either employed in some fashion by the Fossil Fuels industry, or else he is a large stake stockholder and he's hoping to get rich off the profits.
> 
> So Billc: which is it?  Who's paying you to post this endless row of Bovine Defecation?



I'm neither and I think your global warming fear and we are all going to die is total BS.  Gets too hot global warming cooler then normal summer its global warming record snow fall global warming no snow at all global warming.  Were all going to die were all going to die unless we tax CO2.


----------



## ballen0351

In fact its a little chilly here today I think I'll go start all my cars and tractors and burn a little fossil fuel in the driveway and warm it up a little


----------



## arnisador

The earth is warming overall, in the sense that the average (over space and time) temp. of the earth's surface is increasing annually. That's what global warming means. You have to know the terms to follow the discussion. Global climate change--more extreme extremes on both ends--is a more complicated matter.


----------



## Flying Crane

arnisador said:


> The earth is warming overall, in the sense that the average (over space and time) temp. of the earth's surface is increasing annually. That's what global warming means. You have to know the terms to follow the discussion. Global climate change--more extreme extremes on both ends--is a more complicated matter.



clearly there are those who simply lack the capacity to understand the issue.


----------



## Tgace

And there are people who overblow the issue...and people demanding political change when its unproven what the causes are...what our actions would even mean or if the data we are looking at has any real meaning compared to the millions of years of climate change we don't have recorded.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Flying Crane

the proof is abundant and all around.  For some, no amount of proof will suffice, and burying one's head in the sand seems to be the favorite strategy.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> The earth is warming overall, in the sense that the average (over space and time) temp. of the earth's surface is increasing annually. That's what global warming means. You have to know the terms to follow the discussion. Global climate change--more extreme extremes on both ends--is a more complicated matter.


I understand its getting warmer it does that every time we come out of an ice age like we are now.  Then in a few 100000 more years it will cool off again and everything will freeze.  It did it long before we had evil cars and factories and will keep doing it.  Its beyond our control and driving a Prius or taxing cow farts won't change it


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> the proof is abundant and all around.  For some, no amount of proof will suffice, and burying one's head in the sand seems to be the favorite strategy.


So whats the solution if we have all this proof?  Hold the US and Europe to different pollution standards then China India and Africa?  Oh and plant a tree so I can fly my private jet to Italy for a slice of pizza.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> So whats the solution if we have all this proof? Hold the US and Europe to different pollution standards then China India and Africa? Oh and plant a tree so I can fly my private jet to Italy for a slice of pizza.



we all need to be willing to consider making changes, both individually and on a national and world scale.  Pursuit of renewable, non-fossil fuel energy sources are a good start, but those are things that get a lot of opposition because the powerful fossil-fuel industry still wants to profit from what's left, what we haven't burned up yet.

But as long as people refuse to recognize what is before their very noses, meaningful changes for the better will never get traction.  Personally, I believe it is already too late.  Even if we shut off all new pollution right this moment, we are still in for a rough ride, before my lifetime is done.  But that being so (in my opinion, anyway), we still need to embrace these kinds of changes instead of pretending it's all a lie simply because that's the most comfortable answer that we would all like to believe.  

it ain't a lie.  Anyone who thinks it is, is deliberately looking the other way, or is enthusiastically ignorant, in the face of abundant opportunities to become educated about it.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> we all need to be willing to consider making changes, both individually and on a national and world scale.  Pursuit of renewable, non-fossil fuel energy sources are a good start, but those are things that get a lot of opposition because the powerful fossil-fuel industry still wants to profit from what's left, what we haven't burned up yet.
> 
> But as long as people refuse to recognize what is before their very noses, meaningful changes for the better will never get traction.  Personally, I believe it is already too late.  Even if we shut off all new pollution right this moment, we are still in for a rough ride, before my lifetime is done.  But that being so (in my opinion, anyway), we still need to embrace these kinds of changes instead of pretending it's all a lie simply because that's the most comfortable answer that we would all like to believe.
> 
> it ain't a lie.  Anyone who thinks it is, is deliberately looking the other way, or is enthusiastically ignorant, in the face of abundant opportunities to become educated about it.



I got no issues with finding new sources of energy and nothing is stopping people from trying it.  If they could get it to work and make a profit from it they would have no problem getting support.  But Fear mongering and selling humanity downfall is where you loose credibility.


----------



## WaterGal

Wow, I'm looking forward to seeing Rush Limbaugh et al moderate (haha) the GOP primary debates!  It's like the Republicans are _trying_ to alienate moderate voters and ruin their chances at winning the White House for another 4 years.

Eventually GOP leaders are going to realize that embracing his kind of far-right rhetoric and policies - in order to appeal to the really hardcore partisan primary voter base in their local districts - is hurting them on the national stage.  I doubt they'll win the White House again until they realize that and tack back to center.


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> And there are people who overblow the issue...and people demanding political change when its unproven what the causes are...



But they are proven--using the same basic methods of science used to show that antibiotics cure bacterial infections and the earth orbits the sun.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I understand its getting warmer it does that every time we come out of an ice age like we are now.  Then in a few 100000 more years it will cool off again and everything will freeze.  It did it long before we had evil cars and factories and will keep doing it.  Its beyond our control and driving a Prius or taxing cow farts won't change it



Can events have more than one cause, or be affected by more than one factor?


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So whats the solution if we have all this proof?  Hold the US and Europe to different pollution standards then China India and Africa?  Oh and plant a tree so I can fly my private jet to Italy for a slice of pizza.



Here's the thing--knowledge that the solutions are hard is indeed what drives people to deny the "inconvenient truth" about global warming. It's like saying that cancer doesn't exist because it's so hard to cure. Global warming can be true and it can also be true that trying to do something about it is not at all easy. Nations don't share land but do share the atmosphere.


----------



## Tgace

Anthropomorphic causes of global warming are far from "fact" or consensus.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I got no issues with finding new sources of energy and nothing is stopping people from trying it..



Republicans. And the oil companies' lobbyists.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Can events have more than one cause, or be affected by more than one factor?



Sure somethings but are we capable of reversing the earths orbit or stopping a hurricane or making it rain?  Some things are beyond our control


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Republicans. And the oil companies' lobbyists.



If there was money to be made nothing could stop it.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Here's the thing--knowledge that the solutions are hard is indeed what drives people to deny the "inconvenient truth" about global warming. It's like saying that cancer doesn't exist because it's so hard to cure. Global warming can be true and it can also be true that trying to do something about it is not at all easy. Nations don't share land but do share the atmosphere.



So should we go to war to force other countries to give a hoot and not pollute


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> Anthropomorphic causes of global warming are far from "fact" or consensus.



Agree on the second part--it's a fact, but there's little consensus on it in the American public. Among scientists knowledgeable on the matter, however, the consensus is strong. Most Americans are some variety of creationist--no consensus. Among scientists knowledgeable on the matter, however, the consensus is strong.

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



> The *global warming controversy* concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus  that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and  that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of  greenhouse gases.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[SUP][5][/SUP] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.[SUP][6][/SUP] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]



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



> The *scientific opinion on climate change* is that the Earth's climate system  is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans  are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations  of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports,  by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by  surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists,  universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific  opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
> National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:
> 
> 
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[SUP][5][/SUP]
> Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[SUP][6][/SUP]


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So should we go to war to force other countries to give a hoot and not pollute



Again, you're conflating the problem with the solution. Global warming is a fact. That doesn't mean we're all going to die or that we have to invoke the Republican solution of invading random countries.

It isn't the case that admitting that global warming is real and largely man-made means you have to agree that any particular means of addressing it has benefits that outweigh its costs. But until the GOP can be made to accept that science is a valid way of knowing the world, we will be unable to even clearly state the political dilemmas caused by physical facts.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Sure somethings but are we capable of reversing the earths orbit or stopping a hurricane or making it rain?  Some things are beyond our control



Closer than you might think on that last one. But again--science finds the facts; engineering and politics attempt solutions. But until the Congress agrees on the facts, we can't attempt solutions.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> If there was money to be made nothing could stop it.



Some things need to be done even though they're not profitable. But the bigger issue here is short-term profit vs. long-term profit. Companies and Congress are notoiously short-sighted.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Closer than you might think on that last one. But again--science finds the facts; engineering and politics attempt solutions. But until the Congress agrees on the facts, we can't attempt solutions.



Once we know the FACTs then maybe we can agree


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Again, you're conflating the problem with the solution. Global warming is a fact. That doesn't mean we're all going to die or that we have to invoke the Republican solution of invading random countries.
> 
> It isn't the case that admitting that global warming is real and largely man-made means you have to agree that any particular means of addressing it has benefits that outweigh its costs. But until the GOP can be made to accept that science is a valid way of knowing the world, we will be unable to even clearly state the political dilemmas caused by physical facts.



I was asking your opinion you said we all share atmosphere so how do we get other countries to go along with this master plan of parking cars and shutting down factories


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Once we know the FACTs then maybe we can agree



Once we agree that science is a valid means of determining facts and that it trumps other approached we'll be done with that. As Rush showed, many Republicans are turning to the Bible as their source for facts on this matter.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I was asking your opinion you said we all share atmosphere so how do we get other countries to go along with this master plan of parking cars and shutting down factories



Actually, I'm not in a panic about the effects of global warming. I expect engineering solns. will sooner or later become available. Of course, I live well above sea level. It's a thorny issue--China won't listen despite the horrible air quality problems in big cities there, and it's unfair to deny Africa and other poor countries the benefits of having their own Industrial Revolutions. The recent news from Ecuador is discouraging. My plan: The developed countries should build and if necessary run nuclear power plants in poorer countries. That kills coal. Pushing electric cars that run on the electricity from these nuclear power plants reduces oil usage. Meanwhile, fund research on green sources of energy and apply pressure by the usual diplomatic/economic means on those who don't play ball--nothing draconian, just the usual.

But I say again: As you long as you reject science, what's the point of a conversation like this? The same science that goes into your machines, your medicine, your electronics is what's behind the research in global warming. We don't develop a new scientific method each time. Selective trust of science is the key problem here.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> But I say again: As you long as you reject science, what's the point of a conversation like this? The same science that goes into your machines, your medicine, your electronics is what's behind the research in global warming. We don't develop a new scientific method each time. Selective trust of science is the key problem here.


Its not selective trust there are still people in that very field that are not sure what the facts are


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Its not selective trust there are still people in that very field that are not sure what the facts are



That's true of just about every theory. A Nobel laureate still disputes that HIV causes AIDS. There's a geocentrism society. There are people who question whether atoms exist--after all, you can't see 'em. There are people with medical degrees who practice homeopathy and chiropractors who believe absolutely insane things. It's about consensus, not uniformity--and the consensus is very strong among scientists. It's only among Republicans that there are controversies over global warming, evolution, etc.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> That's true of just about every theory. A Nobel laureate still disputes that HIV causes AIDS. There's a geocentrism society. There are people who question whether atoms exist--after all, you can't see 'em. There are people with medical degrees who practice homeopathy and chiropractors who believe absolutely insane things. It's about consensus, not uniformity--and the consensus is very strong among scientists. It's only among Republicans that there are controversies over global warming, evolution, etc.


True there are crackpots in every professions however when it comes to Global warming we are not just talking about 1 or 2 rogue climate nerds


----------



## billc

Why is it that the whole ClimateGate scandal is ignored by the supporters of man made global warming...the guys responsible for the data that everyone signs off on was faked by these guys...they refused to share their data sets with skeptics...they destroyed their data to prevent skeptics from analyzing it...they had skeptics kept out of the peer reviewed journals...and they tried to get the editors of peer reviewed journals fired...

And yet we are supposed to believe anything that came out of this swamp as being true?

The computer models don't work, the temperature stations are compromised, NASA went back and changed data to favor the global warming agenda, they didn't tell the truth about the Maldives sinking...it goes on and on and yet we are supposed to believe that 90% of scientists believe in man made global warming...knowing the data they signed onto was faked?



> In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]



Scientific literature based on broken computer models, faulty temperature measuring, and made up data by scientists...and the fact is with all of this CO2 pumping into the atmosphere...global warming has stopped for the last 15 years...


----------



## billc

As to computer models...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/07...are-Doesnt-Meet-the-Best-Standards-Available/



> Gary Strand, a software engineer at the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), admitted climate model software &#8220;doesn&#8217;t meet the best standards available&#8221; in a comment he posted on the website Climate Audit.
> &#8220;As a software engineer, I know that climate model software doesn&#8217;t meet the best standards available. We&#8217;ve made quite a lot of progress, but we&#8217;ve still quite a ways to go,&#8221; Strand wrote on July 5, 2009, according to the website WattsUpWithThat.com.
> Strand&#8217;s candid admission promoted WattsUpWithThat&#8217;s skeptical Meteorologist Anthony Watts to ask the following question:
> *&#8220;Do we really want Congress to make trillion dollar tax decisions today based on &#8216;software [that] doesn&#8217;t meet the best standards available?&#8217;&#8221;*
> Meteorologist Watts also critiqued the current climate models, noting, &#8220;NASA GISS model E written on some of the worst FORTRAN coding ever seen is a challenge to even get running. NASA GISTEMP is even worse. Yet our government has legislation under consideration significantly based on model output that Jim Hansen started. His 1988 speech to Congress was entirely based on model scenarios.&#8221;
> *Another Government Scientist Admits Climate Model Shortcomings*
> Another government scientist &#8212; NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt &#8212; admitted last week that the &#8220;chaotic component of climate system&#8230;is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.&#8221;
> Schmidt made his admission during a June 29, 2009 interview about the shortcomings of climate models. Schmidt noted that some climate models &#8220;suggest very strongly&#8221; that the American Southwest will dry in a warming world. But Schmidt also noted that &#8220;other models suggest the exact opposite.&#8221;


----------



## billc

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...the-data-to-support-global-warming-claims.php



> Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory rely on global temperature data over a period of centuries that purport to be accurate to within a tiny fraction of one degree. Common sense warns us to be skeptical of such spurious certainty. But the truth is much worse: climate alarmists have systematically fudged the historical record by changing past temperature data to make it look as though the earth is warming, consistent with their theory.
> 
> We have written about this before; the latest comes from Watts Up With That, the world&#8217;s most widely read web site on climate science:
> 
> I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.
> 
> However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with today&#8217;s version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.
> ​GISS is NASA&#8217;s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which was commandeered some years ago by global warming hysteric James Hansen. Its data are widely relied on to support claims of unprecedented warming. But GISS has been playing games with the historical record, changing previously reported temperatures going all the way back to the 19th century.


----------



## billc

We don't reject science...we reject an agenda driven use of science to corrupt the actual facts of what is happening...to promote the pet belief system of environmental extremists and opportunists...



> Other changes in the data had been made prior to 2008, as well; these changes also had the effect of magnifying alleged warming. Shockingly, one-quarter of the global warming that GISS alleges has taken place during the 20th century is due to these falsifications&#8211;let&#8217;s be polite and call them revisions&#8211;to the data.


----------



## billc

In another thread outside of the study there was an article that tried to alarm people about sea ice melting...you had to look to find out that the alleged melting sea ice wasn't where they led you to believe it was but hundreds of miles closer to warmer temperatures...and yet we are supposed to give up so much to these guys...


----------



## billc

Add on to the corrupt scientists...the fact that warming still isn't understood...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/an-ocean-of-doubt.php



> The extended pause in global warming over the last decade and a half has caused the climate campaign to become increasingly frantic to search for an explanation that keeps the narrative alive.  One possible explanation is that the missing heat is being absorbed in the ocean rather than the atmosphere, though why the climate models didn&#8217;t predict this with greater accuracy is a question the climate modelers need to explain.  There are some data to back up the ocean warming hypothesis, but the skeptics say there aren&#8217;t enough data points and the data don&#8217;t go back far enough to validate the hypothesis, so keep your eyes on this one.





> One of the major gaps in the ocean story concerns not merely temperature but the absorption of carbon dioxide in the ocean, especially by plankton.  And plankton growth is heavily influenced by the amount of iron in the ocean, which is why there has been a lot of theorizing, and a couple of experiments, about whether seeding the ocean with iron would increase CO2 absorption, with the calcified carbon sinking more or less harmlessly to the bottom of the ocean.  We do know from paleoclimatology that the role of iron levels in the ocean played a role in ancient ice ages.



And again to the lack of complete understanding...



> _LONDON_ &#8211; British scientists say estimates of the amount of iron dissolving into seawater around some of the world&#8217;s coasts may be drastically wrong.
> They say there is no standard, one-size-fits-all way to measure how much iron enters the water in different parts of the globe. Instead, they say, the amounts may vary by up to ten thousand times between one area and another, with profound implications for the impact of the iron on the oceanic carbon cycle.


----------



## elder999

billc said:


> We don't reject science...we reject an agenda driven use of science to corrupt the actual facts of what is happening...to promote the pet belief system of environmental extremists and opportunists...



Translation: "_*We*" reject anything that interferes with or regulates  big business._ :lfao:


----------



## billc

And more misinformation that goes into man made global warming...

http://www.climatedepot.com/



> New paper finds tree-ring proxy temperature data is &#8216;seriously compromised&#8217; &#8212; Published in Climate of the Past*'More bad news for Michael Mann: A new paper published in Climate of the Pastfinds that 'modern sample bias' has "seriously compromised" tree-ring temperature reconstructions, producing an "artificial positive signal [e.g. 'hockey stick'] in the final chronology." Needless to say, Mann's hockey sticks are also seriously compromised by statistical techniques that produce hockey sticks from random numbers, use of upside-down data, the trick to hide the decline, the most important tree in the world, use of bristlecone pines which were condemned by the NAS for use as temperature proxies, and a complete lack of validation sk*


----------



## billc

And I believe that though the websites that look at the silliness of man made global warming are not peer reviewed...they do post information that is...

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/08/...arctic-was-warmer-during-medieval-period.html



> What do boreholes, varves, birds, diatoms, tree-rings, sediments, pollen and ice have common?Each has been used in a unique peer reviewed study confirming that the Arctic polar regions during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) were warmer than the modern era.​


----------



## billc

Besides...ice ages are more dangerous...and may actually be next...

http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/...ge-much-colder-winters-dramatic-consequences/



> The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the &#8220;Muhammad caricatures&#8220;, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: &#8221;The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age&#8221; followed by the sub-headline: &#8220;Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.&#8221;
> So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can &#8220;settled science&#8221; become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it&#8217;ll end in favor of the skeptics.


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> Why is it that the whole ClimateGate scandal is ignored by the supporters of man made global warming...



Because it's a a GOP talking point without actual basis in fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy



> Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.



http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/



> In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at  the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.&#8217;s University of East Anglia were  stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are  claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the  complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be  unfounded:
> 
> 
> 
> The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad  light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but  there&#8217;s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and  that humans are largely responsible.
> Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report  by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report  relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only  one.
> E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For  instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn&#8217;t talking  about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations.



There was smoke. Upon investigation, there was no fire. But the GOP won't stop misrepresenting it because everyone remembers the initial charge but most don't know how it turned out. You're perpetuating a known untruth to further your agenda.



> it goes on and on and yet we are supposed to believe that 90% of scientists believe in man made global warming...



Yes. Surveys show this--surveys done, for example, by professional bodies of their own members. Bear in mind that the case of the CRU was one of many, many groups looking at the matter.



> Scientific literature based on broken computer models, faulty temperature measuring, and made up data by scientists...and the fact is with all of this CO2 pumping into the atmosphere...global warming has stopped for the last 15 years...



In the land of creationism, the young earth, and other science-denying creeds held by the GOP, I suppose this gets traction. But it's still nonsense.


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> As to computer models...



I don't think you understand the difference between what a software engineer does and what a computational scientist does.


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> We don't reject science...we reject an agenda driven use of science to corrupt the actual facts of what is happening...



Is this about global warming? It's also the stance of a majority of GOP members on evolution. Yes, you reject science. You're not qualified to discuss these studies that you've only read about on insanerightwingconspiracytheories.com. You might as well voice your professional opinion on cardiac catheritization. To accept science is to look to the scientific consensus in a given area. Here, that consensus is abundantly clear and very strong.


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> And I believe that though the websites that look at the silliness of man made global warming are not peer reviewed...they do post information that is...



Not by scientists, obviously--just other conspiracy theorists. 

Does anyone have any idea how hard it would be to get virtually all scientists to agree to _lie _about something?


----------



## Big Don

ballen0351 said:


> Republicans or religious fanatics?  Seems your issue is with the extream religious elements not the republican party



That is how some people choose to couch their bigotry.


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> Some things need to be done even though they're not profitable. But the bigger issue here is short-term profit vs. long-term profit. Companies and Congress are notoiously short-sighted.



Al Gore and others have made quite a bit of money pimping global warming while flying around in polluting private jets...


----------



## grumpywolfman

arnisador said:


> Not by scientists, obviously--just other conspiracy theorists.
> 
> Does anyone have any idea how hard it would be to get virtually all scientists to agree to _lie _about something?



Not that hard really, Hitler figured that you just need to start early - control their education. 

For example: http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/03/22/atheist-wants-creationist-teacher-fired/


----------



## granfire

grumpywolfman said:


> Not that hard really, Hitler figured that you just need to start early - control their education.
> 
> For example: http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/03/22/atheist-wants-creationist-teacher-fired/




I am not an atheist, but I'd want him gone as well.

Y'all can't keep your stereotypes straight.
Science is that, Believes (AKA Faith) is marked by the not knowing. Both do not coexist. That does not mean a scientist cannot be faithful, but it's on a different plane. 

But I understand that your believes won't let you accept my point of view on the matter.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> I am not an atheist, but I'd want him gone as well.


why?
Was he only teaching creationism or was he teaching evolution and also giving the other popular belief.

I can't tell from the story but I also didn't read t that closely  since I didn't care but I'm not sure he needs to be fired


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> why?
> Was he only teaching creationism or was he teaching evolution and also giving the other popular belief.
> 
> I can't tell from the story but I also didn't read t that closely  since I didn't care but I'm not sure he needs to be fired



Creationism is only popular in certain circles....usually those who make their world few on the premise of faith vs the known. 
Yeah, he can teach it. But not in science, as science. It belongs more into the realm of philosophies along with the beast with two backs, a metaphor which probably goes back to the teachings of one Greek philosopher or another, explaining the need for togetherness of human by their 'creation' from one whole, thus searching for their counter part....

I don't mind the subject 'Bible as Literature' but we have moved from making the Good Book the base of schooling.


----------



## Flying Crane

Flying Crane said:


> I'm gonna cut right thru the BS and get straight to the point, and most likely Billc will act hurt and offended again.
> 
> Nobody puts this kind of time and effort into what amounts to a monumental display of enthusiastic ignorance, without getting paid to do it. So Billc is either employed in some fashion by the Fossil Fuels industry, or else he is a large stake stockholder and he's hoping to get rich off the profits.
> 
> So Billc: which is it? Who's paying you to post this endless row of Bovine Defecation?



Bill?  I'm still waiting for an answer here.  Who's payrolling you for this nonsense?


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> why?
> Was he only teaching creationism or was he teaching evolution and also giving the other popular belief.



Beliefs can be popular but not be scientific. For example:  "A study conducted in 2005 by Dr. Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University, an expert in the public understanding of science and technology, found that about 20%, or one in five, of American adults believe that the Sun orbits the Earth." That's reasonably popular, but I wouldn't want it taught in schools. 



> A Chicago-area atheist is on a crusade to have a high school science teacher fired for teaching creationism in his classroom.[...]He confirmed to district officials that he was teaching creationist  beliefs at the high school. Creationism is the belief that God created  the heavens and the Earth.


----------



## Flying Crane

arnisador said:


> Beliefs can be popular but not be scientific. For example: "A study conducted in 2005 by Dr. Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University, an expert in the public understanding of science and technology, found that about 20%, or one in five, of American adults believe that the Sun orbits the Earth." That's reasonably popular, but I wouldn't want it taught in schools.



good gawd, do we actually have to explain this kind of thing here???


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Creationism is only popular in certain circles....usually those who make their world few on the premise of faith vs the known.
> Yeah, he can teach it. But not in science, as science. It belongs more into the realm of philosophies along with the beast with two backs, a metaphor which probably goes back to the teachings of one Greek philosopher or another, explaining the need for togetherness of human by their 'creation' from one whole, thus searching for their counter part....
> 
> I don't mind the subject 'Bible as Literature' but we have moved from making the Good Book the base of schooling.


Did he say it was science or is it taught as the other thing some of you might have been told by your parents or saw on TV or is also a popular version of where people come from.  Depends on how he taught it.  Awful funny how frightened you guys are that someone used the G word in a school


----------



## billc

The investigations were flawed as well...a lot of money and reputations were at stake in the Climate Gate scandal...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_climategate_investigation.html




> Last month, while the American media were distracted by the health care vote in Congress, the British Parliament published the results of its investigation into East Anglia University's
> 
> Climate Research Unit (CRU) that has been at the center of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW)controversy.  It seems that many were hoping that no one would read this report, at  least not beyond the milquetoast executive summary.
> 
> 
> Buried  deep within the report is a compelling piece of evidence. In volume  two, there is a memorandum submitted as evidence from Lord Lawson of  Blaby, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was in  response to four very significant questions from the investigating  committee. This memo confirms the claims by many global warming skeptics  that the scientists at CRU were trying to hide data
> 
> and silence the skeptics. The questions asked by the investigative committee are as follows:



And here...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/24/the-telegraph-gets-it-about-climatgate-inestigations-and-the-conflict-of-interest-of-publicly-funded-media/




> Lord Oxburgh, the organisation&#8217;s director, was called in to head an  internal inquiry into the leaked emails which included one infamous  message referring to a &#8220;trick&#8221; to &#8220;hide the decline&#8221; in global  temperatures.
> 
> The peer&#8217;s investigation cleared the scientists of malpractice. But  critics claimed the report was a whitewash and Lord Oxburgh also failed  to declare his involvement with Globe before he began his investigation.
> Meanwhile Bob Ward, from the Grantham Institute, which works  alongside Globe, praised a second inquiry by former civil servant Muir  Russell, which also cleared the climate researchers.
> He said it had &#8220;lifted the cloud of suspicion&#8221; and demonstrated that &#8220;the integrity of climate science is intact.&#8221;
> Globe International&#8217;s work is paid for with donations from  multi-millionaire backers and through partnerships with other  environmental groups.
> Globe also confirmed last night that it received direct funding from  the Department of Energy and the Department of International Development  (DfID). including a grant of £91,240 provided by DfID since the  Coalition came to power last year.
> More cash from DfID is filtered through the Complus Alliance &#8211; a  &#8220;sustainable development communications alliance&#8221; of broadcasters based  in Costa Rica which is also supported by the BBC World Service Trust,  the Corporation&#8217;s independent charity,.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Did he say it was science or is it taught as the other thing some of you might have been told by your parents or saw on TV or is also a popular version of where people come from.  Depends on how he taught it.  Awful funny how frightened you guys are that someone used the G word in a school



Nope, the G word does not frighten me. Ignorance does however, and that is what school is supposed to combat.
The G word is taught in church, in _bible_ school. Create away.
Old 'believes' have long since been debunked, even against the church, under thread of severest of punishments (inquisition, anyone?)

It was once a popular believe that the Earth was the center of the universe...debunked by a slit in the roof, oh, 400 years or so ago...

One can believe in a supreme being without being a - golly, I can't come up with a fitting analogy that is not completely against the TM rules! 

It's somewhat like proclaiming 'God doesn't make mistakes' while insisting a certain segment of the population is wrong about how they feel about themselves, their body and whom they are attracted to...

God gave mankind a brain...


----------



## billc

Here is a look at the investigations...and comments on how they were flawed...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/07...ons-to-muir-russells-sham-climategate-report/


----------



## billc

From Forbes magazine...a look at what they call the whitewash of Climate Gate...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/




> When Lindzen was informed during the interview that the first three  allegations had already been dismissed at the inquiry stage, his  response, as quoted in the Committee&#8217;s report, was: &#8220;It&#8217;s thoroughly  amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the  emails. I&#8217;m wondering what is going on?&#8221;
> 
> Dr. Lindzen&#8217;s bewilderment is understandable.  Concerning the  Committee&#8217;s conclusion regarding the first allegation (suppressing or  falsifying data) &#8212; characterizing the &#8220;trick&#8221; to &#8220;hide the decline&#8221; as  legitimate application of a conventional statistical methodology,  ignored or misconstrued salient facts. While Mann&#8217;s own research  methodology and results have indeed been challenged as fatally flawed,  the actual trick should be examined within a broader context.






> Regarding the second allegation, determining if Mann had directly or  indirectly deleted or destroyed emails or other information, the  findings were at least very lenient. When Phil Jones asked Mann to  delete email records being sought under the UK&#8217;s Freedom of Information  Act and get a colleague, Eugene Wahl, to do the same, he replied &#8220;I&#8217;ll  contact Gene about this ASAP&#8221;.  And while PSU investigators never chose  to interview Wahl, he later testified to a federal inspector general  that he did receive Mann&#8217;s message and complied. Accordingly, it would  appear that Mann was at least &#8220;indirectly&#8221; involved in deleting  information when he passed along those instructions. And since there are  no records to prove otherwise, everyone is asked to take Mann&#8217;s word  that he didn&#8217;t do the same.





> The findings have set off a new wave of criticism, accusing the  university and its panel of failing to interview key people (such as  Jones), neglecting to conduct more than a cursory review of allegations,  and structuring the inquiry so that the outcome &#8212; exoneration &#8212; was a  foregone conclusion. In February 2010 Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the  ranking Republican on the House Investigations Committee, charged that  Penn State failed to settle all of the charges regarding Mann&#8217;s work and  demanded that all of his current research grant funding be frozen. That  would include a $541,184 National Science Foundation stimulus grant to  study climate change.




Forbes also looks at the British investigations...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/07/05/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-ii/



> The first UEA-sponsored investigation called the &#8220;Scientific Assessment  Panel Inquiry&#8221; was headed by Lord Ronald Oxburgh, an ardent global  warming believer with strong green energy business ties. He served as  chairman of U.K. Shell (a major biofuel player), chairman of the wind  company Falk Renewables, and a board member of Climate Change Capital, a  major investor in carbon credits.





> Soon after the inquiry was announced, Phil Willis made an  announcement that raised questions about his objectivity regarding the  merits of CRU criticism: &#8220;There are a significant number of climate  deniers who are using the UEA e-mails to support the case that this is  poor science. We do not believe this is healthy, and therefore we want  to call in UEA so that the public can see what they are saying.&#8221; The  term &#8220;denier&#8221; is broadly seen as an analogous and pejorative reference  to those who deny the historical fact of the Holocaust, implying that  UEA/CRU scientific methods and integrity should be beyond question.
> 
> The inquiry scope was limited to three key areas: freedom of  information issues; accuracy and availability of CRU data and programs;  and the independent reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written evidence collected from 57  different groups was limited to 3,000 words per submission, allowing  little opportunity to make full cases or to provide details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the committee took no direct testimony from those who  challenged CRU activities, methods or errors, they nevertheless  determined that there was essentially nothing wrong with the  organization&#8217;s basic science.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> Hans von Storch, a professor at the Meteorological Institute at the  University of Hamburg and director of the Institute of Coastal Research  at the GHSS Research Centre in Geestacht, Germany believes Dr. Horton&#8217;s  appraisal applies this assessment to all three inquiries: &#8220;Nothing ought  to be swept under the carpet. Some of the inquiries &#8212; like in the U.K.  did exactly the latter. They blew an opportunity to restore trust.&#8221;


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Nope, the G word does not frighten me. Ignorance does however, and that is what school is supposed to combat.
> The G word is taught in church, in _bible_ school. Create away.
> Old 'believes' have long since been debunked, even against the church, under thread of severest of punishments (inquisition, anyone?)
> 
> It was once a popular believe that the Earth was the center of the universe...debunked by a slit in the roof, oh, 400 years or so ago...
> 
> One can believe in a supreme being without being a - golly, I can't come up with a fitting analogy that is not completely against the TM rules!
> 
> It's somewhat like proclaiming 'God doesn't make mistakes' while insisting a certain segment of the population is wrong about how they feel about themselves, their body and whom they are attracted to...
> 
> God gave mankind a brain...


Right god gave kids a brain also.  And totally ignoring a belief held by millions of people and pretending it doesn't exist is silly.  I got no problem teaching eveloution as the main topic but I also have no problem with then talking about other beliefs on the topic.  thats the real ignorance


----------



## Steve

I would have no problem teaching creationism in schools, in a Social Studies or World Religions or Fundamentals of Religious Philosophy course.  In other words, the creation myths for Christianity are valuable (IMO) to understand.  Other creation myths I would expect to be taught in that class would include the fundamentals of Buddhism and Hinduism along with the theistic religions and associated myths.  There is value in knowledge, and I encourage my kids to be curious.  I'd have no problem with it.

BUT!!!  It's not science.  The appropriate place for creationism is in a religions class, not a science class.  And suggesting that it is equal to evolution is silliness and would be a disservice to our kids and their education.

Edit:  And to be clear, I'd have no problem with a world religions class taught in a public school, provided that all of the major world religions are taught fairly and equitably.  Also, we should bear in mind that Christianity is NOT the world's only major religion.  There are billions of people who are Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu (each).


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I would have no problem teaching creationism in schools, in a Social Studies or World Religions or Fundamentals of Religious Philosophy course.  In other words, the creation myths for Christianity are valuable (IMO) to understand.  Other creation myths I would expect to be taught in that class would include the fundamentals of Buddhism and Hinduism along with the theistic religions and associated myths.  There is value in knowledge, and I encourage my kids to be curious.  I'd have no problem with it.
> 
> BUT!!!  It's not science.  The appropriate place for creationism is in a religions class, not a science class.  And suggesting that it is equal to evolution is silliness and would be a disservice to our kids and their education.


  Your already teaching the subject in that class. So now the teacher says I'm teaching you one part of this but next semester in a totally different class you can learn other beliefs on the topic.  Its easier to go over it all at once while they are teaching the topic.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Right god gave kids a brain also.  And totally ignoring a belief held by millions of people and pretending it doesn't exist is silly.  I got no problem teaching eveloution as the main topic but I also have no problem with then talking about other beliefs on the topic.  thats the real ignorance



Good god. If we went what the majority in this country believed, we'd be even further up the creek, but with out a canoe!
That is no argument.
Believe in itself is based on the not knowing.
Science on the other hand is not.

There!


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Good god. If we went what the majority in this country believed, we'd be even further up the creek, but with out a canoe!
> That is no argument.
> Believe in itself is based on the not knowing.
> Science on the other hand is not.
> 
> There!



So no unproven theory is ever taught in science class?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Your already teaching the subject in that class. So now the teacher says I'm teaching you one part of this but next semester in a totally different class you can learn other beliefs on the topic.  Its easier to go over it all at once while they are teaching the topic.


Evolution and creation myths are not the same thing, ballen.  As I said, I'm all for teaching world religions.  There is a lot of value in understanding the 5 belief systems representing almost everyone in the world.  But, whether your god created the heavens and the Earth in 7 days, or Brahma essentially birthed the universe, or you believe in reincarnation, these are not science and have no place in a science class.  

I think inclusion is way better than exclusion, but we need to teach things in context.  Adding creationism to a science class is intentionally misleading and creates a false equivalence in the minds of the students.  They are not the same.  It's like teaching kids in a math class to play a musical instrument.  There is value in both, and you could argue that musical theory is grounded in math, but come on.  They're different.  Let's be real.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So no unproven theory is ever taught in science class?


If I believed that 2 + 2 = 5 and convinced a bunch of people that this is true, am I entitled to my belief?  Sure.  Of course.  Should it be taught to kids in math class?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> If I believed that 2 + 2 = 5 and convinced a bunch of people that this is true, am I entitled to my belief?  Sure.  Of course.  Should it be taught to kids in math class?



Difference is you can prove 2+2=4. Can you Prove there is no God?  You don't believe that's fine I don't care but thereare hundreds of millions of people that do.  I don't believe in God I know for a fact he exists.  I don't see what's it hurts giving two sides to something that you can't prove and letting the kids decide.  You disagree that's fine.  You will win the argument because its the cool thing to do now its banish God from anyplace public.  It is what it is.  Either way I don't think he deserves to loose his job.  They told him to stop and nothing in the article says he didn't stop.  But thats not good enough for some folks he needs to loose his job and be punished.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Did he say it was science or is it taught as the other thing some of you might have been told by your parents or saw on TV or is also a popular version of where people come from.  Depends on how he taught it.



He was a science teacher teaching it in his classroom, it said--it certainly sounds like he taught it in science. You might well ask students if their parents told them that the sun revolves around the earth or whether demons cause mental illness or whether a homunculus is involved in reproduction or (as my mother told me) negative numbers didn't exist when she went to school, but you'd wnat to follow up in each case by saying "...but this is known to be wrong".



> Awful funny how frightened you guys are that someone used the G word in a school



A big part of the problem is that they don't also use the O word--Odin, who carved the first humans from an oak tree after using the dead body of a giant cow to form the earth. Or the Z(eus) word, or the Q(uetzalcoatl) word, or...


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> The investigations were flawed as well...a lot of money and reputations were at stake in the Climate Gate scandal...



Conspiracies _within _conspiracies! I can't believe that the Illuminati are letting them get away with this.


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> From Forbes magazine...a look at what they call the whitewash of Climate Gate...
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/



Do you actually go to any of these links yourself, or just look at the URL? From that web page:



> The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.



So no, "they" did not call it a whitewash--you did, based on one person's opinion. For Forbes to have said it, it'd have to be their editorial opinion. This is very, very fundamental English composition and rhetoric issue--requiring only a high-school level understanding of writing and attribution. What you are saying is false and you either do not understand that or are intentionally attempting to create an inaccurate understanding in others--perhaps both.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Difference is you can prove 2+2=4. Can you Prove there is no God?  You don't believe that's fine I don't care but thereare hundreds of millions of people that do.  I don't believe in God I know for a fact he exists.  I don't see what's it hurts giving two sides to something that you can't prove and letting the kids decide.  You disagree that's fine.  You will win the argument because its the cool thing to do now its banish God from anyplace public.  It is what it is.  Either way I don't think he deserves to loose his job.  They told him to stop and nothing in the article says he didn't stop.  But thats not good enough for some folks he needs to loose his job and be punished.


This is a perfect example of what I see as the basic problem.  I posted twice, in two consecutive posts.  In one, I clearly say that I'm for inclusion and not exclusion, and go in detail about how and why I'd endorse including training on the 5 major religions of the world in public schools.  But you chose to respond only to the second, and overtly misrepresent my position with a strawman.  

You do touch on the basic difference between science and religion, though.  I'm not a scientist, nor am I religious.  So, from the outside looking in, the primary difference between the two is that science invites a continuous and vigorous debate while religion does not.  Can you prove or disprove God?  No.  And so, it's a matter of faith.   Whereas science, including the theory of evolution, is about continuous, rigorous examination.  In religion, you are encouraged to believe, and through your devout faith, your beliefs are strengthened.  In science, including the Theory of Evolution, every new discovery either corrects or reinforces previously held beliefs.  The theory of evolution is supported by a body of research and evidence that leads to conclusions.  While the facts of evolution are evolving (forgive the pun), that it is on par with a statement of faith is completely unrealistic.  

But for schools, the entire scientific method is fundamentally different from any kind of religious education or inquiry.  They're just not the same thing, and confusing them or suggesting that they be combined in one class and taught as equivalent is a blatant attempt to mislead kids.  Teach religions, but teach them as religions and don't try to sneak them in as a science.  They are not.

As an aside, my son and I were in the car the other day.  There was a car that had the darwin fish being eaten by the jesus fish.  He said, "Natural selection.  I wonder if they (the driver of the car) gets that."  We laughed and agreed that he probably doesn't.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> He was a science teacher teaching it in his classroom, it said--it certainly sounds like he taught it in science. You might well ask students if their parents told them that the sun revolves around the earth or whether demons cause mental illness or whether a homunculus is involved in reproduction or (as my mother told me) negative numbers didn't exist when she went to school, but you'd wnat to follow up in each case by saying "...but this is known to be wrong".


Did he teach it as fact or did he teach it as alternative popular belief shared by billions around the world but not scientifically excepted.  That's the question I have.  If that's all he taught was creationism then I'd have just as much an issue because he didn't teach evolution.  I got no problem teaching both. 


> A big part of the problem is that they don't also use the O word--Odin, who carved the first humans from an oak tree after using the dead body of a giant cow to form the earth. Or the Z(eus) word, or the Q(uetzalcoatl) word, or...




Apparently you can use the G word as long as it is followed by " is dead"
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3781239?utm_hp_ref=religion


----------



## Steve

I think that Odin would have a lot more followers if His word were taught in the schools.  As they say, in life, it's important to be yourself.  Unless you can be a Viking, and then be a Viking.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> This is a perfect example of what I see as the basic problem.  I posted twice, in two consecutive posts.  In one, I clearly say that I'm for inclusion and not exclusion, and go in detail about how and why I'd endorse including training on the 5 major religions of the world in public schools.  But you chose to respond only to the second, and overtly misrepresent my position with a strawman.


I tried to answer both your post in one. I'm on my phone so its hard to respond to long posts on my phone.  I disagree with teaching the same topic in two different classes.  If your talking about where did man come from then you teach evolution and then you teach other widly excepted theory.  Preface it with whatever disclaimer makes the oh my God g word in school crowd thinks is appropriate.  But teaching the same topic in two different classes is a waist of time and energy and confusing to kids.  Yes Mr jones I know what you taught but Mrs Murphy said this in social studies.  


> You do touch on the basic difference between science and religion, though.  I'm not a scientist, nor am I religious.  So, from the outside looking in, the primary difference between the two is that science invites a continuous and vigorous debate while religion does not.  Can you prove or disprove God?  No.  And so, it's a matter of faith.   Whereas science, including the theory of evolution, is about continuous, rigorous examination.  In religion, you are encouraged to believe, and through your devout faith, your beliefs are strengthened.  In science, including the Theory of Evolution, every new discovery either corrects or reinforces previously held beliefs.  The theory of evolution is supported by a body of research and evidence that leads to conclusions.  While the facts of evolution are evolving (forgive the pun), that it is on par with a statement of faith is completely unrealistic.


Ok if sxience is correct then where did we come from?  Prove we were not created by God.  Prove that evolution is not slight tweeks made by God to keep up with an ever changing universe.


> But for schools, the entire scientific method is fundamentally different from any kind of religious education or inquiry.  They're just not the same thing, and confusing them or suggesting that they be combined in one class and taught as equivalent is a blatant attempt to mislead kids.  Teach religions, but teach them as religions and don't try to sneak them in as a science.  They are not.


For schools it has nothing to do with scientific method and everything to do what whats PC.


> As an aside, my son and I were in the car the other day.  There was a car that had the darwin fish being eaten by the jesus fish.  He said, "Natural selection.  I wonder if they (the driver of the car) gets that."  We laughed and agreed that he probably doesn't.




Good for you guys glad you get to spend time with your son


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Right god gave kids a brain also.  And totally ignoring a belief held by millions of people and pretending it doesn't exist is silly.  I got no problem teaching eveloution as the main topic but I also have no problem with then talking about other beliefs on the topic.  thats the real ignorance



Full agreement! But there are more alternatives than Christian creationism, and lots of "belief held by millions of people". I absolutely endorse teaching them all in a comparative religions or mythology class--you're not educated unless you know this.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Your already teaching the subject in that class. So now the teacher says I'm teaching you one part of this but next semester in a totally different class you can learn other beliefs on the topic.  Its easier to go over it all at once while they are teaching the topic.



We may disagree about what the topic is. If it's a science class, the methodology of science as much as the facts are the subject, and nonscientific approaches are off-topic. It's a Shinto belief that the islands of Japan were formed by a god and goddess dragging a giant sword through the sea (if memory serves)--would you want that taught in a geology class?


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So no unproven theory is ever taught in science class?



At the high school level? Not likely. But if so it would be addressed from a scientific perspective.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Ok if sxience is correct then where did we come from? Prove we were not created by God. Prove that evolution is not slight tweeks made by God to keep up with an ever changing universe.



it's certainly possible, but utterly unprovable.  

Evolution has reams and reams of evidence, all pointing to evolution as a viable description of what happens in the world.  Evidence that is observable and measurable.  Whether or not god or odin or quetzocoatl put the gears in motion for evolution to happen, is not observable, not measurable, and had no concrete evidence to support it.  It only has a book, the components of which were written a few thousand years ago, not by scientists, not by people who measured or observed anything that can be stacked up as solid evidence.  

So if you challenge us to "prove" that god did not initiate evolution, I challenge you to prove that god did.



> For schools it has nothing to do with scientific method and everything to do what whats PC.



no, this is a statement of someone who does not understand the issue, and is steadfastly clinging tight to a sinking ship.

I agree with Steve in that there is nothing wrong with teaching religion in schools, as long as it is taught separately and honestly, as religion.  Not as science, or as a viable alternative "theory" to science.  That is being dishonest.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Full agreement! But there are more alternatives than Christian creationism, and lots of "belief held by millions of people". I absolutely endorse teaching them all in a comparative religions or mythology class--you're not educated unless you know this.



I just think that's too complicated and confusing it have different teachers teaching the same topic.  If your already on the topic in one class then it is just easier to teach the topic completely in that class at that time.  
I don't care if they teach 4 days of eveloution and on Friday say here are a few other versions of the story.  I wouldn't get too extream on beliefs but 2 or 3 most popular is OK with me.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Difference is you can prove 2+2=4.



Dude. This is my area and you do not know what you're talking about. If you mean via the Peano axioms or ZFC, plausibly, though of course incompletely; but:



> "From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." Volume I, 1st edition, page 379



It took them over 300 pages to not quite prove that 1+1=2...and there are errors as early as pg.2. And this was Bertrand Russell (and Alfred North Whitehead). 



> Can you Prove there is no God?  You don't believe that's fine I don't care but thereare hundreds of millions of people that do.  I don't believe in God I know for a fact he exists.  I don't see what's it hurts giving two sides to something that you can't prove and letting the kids decide.



Again, there are many more sides than two. Do you know anything about Native American origin myths?


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Did he teach it as fact or did he teach it as alternative popular belief shared by billions around the world but not scientifically excepted.



Where do we draw the line on teaching non-science in science classes? If he was teaching Shakespeare in science I'd be unhappy too...not enough time is given to science as is, I'd say.



> I got no problem teaching both.



There's more than two. Are you excluding Hinduism?


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I tried to answer both your post in one. I'm on my phone so its hard to respond to long posts on my phone.  I disagree with teaching the same topic in two different classes.  If your talking about where did man come from then you teach evolution and then you teach other widly excepted theory.  Preface it with whatever disclaimer makes the oh my God g word in school crowd thinks is appropriate.  But teaching the same topic in two different classes is a waist of time and energy and confusing to kids.  Yes Mr jones I know what you taught but Mrs Murphy said this in social studies.



It's been said that nothing in science makes sense except in light of evolution. What you see as a natural tie-in, I'd say is a failure to tie together evolution with all the rest of bio. with which it connects. That's the thread you'd lose with this seque.



> Ok if sxience is correct then where did we come from?  Prove we were not created by God.



Whose god? There are too many. But it doesn't matter if science is correct,a s you put it--it matters that we teach students the methods of any given approach. Would you want a biologist lecturing on evolution in your church?


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> it's certainly possible, but utterly unprovable.
> 
> Evolution has reams and reams of evidence, all pointing to evolution as a viable description of what happens in the world.  Evidence that is observable and measurable.  Whether or not god or odin or quetzocoatl put the gears in motion for evolution to happen, is not observable, not measurable, and  no concrete evidence to support it.  It only has a book, the components of which were written a few thousand years ago, not by scientists, not by people who measured or observed anything that can be stacked up as solid evidence.
> 
> So if you challenge us to "prove" that god did not initiate evolution, I challenge you to prove that god did.


Your very existence is proof.  The sun rise is proof.  Love is proof.  The perfect combination of temp air water is proof.  What is more reasonable.  That version or yeah well two blobs of goo in a puddle 1000000000 years ago figured out how if one blob formed a lenses and one formed a retina they can transform light into sight.  Oh and then more blobs decided to become a lung and figures out how to transfer air into oxygen in your blood.  Oh and then the bloob of goo  decided skin would be cool oh and hair is neat.  Even Darwin had trouble coming up with why or how the eye was "evolved". To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
 His answer was well I have no proof it evolved but it just did.  So just as you claim we have "faith". So do you in your faith that all these bloobs of goo formed just the right combination to where we are now


> no, this is a statement of someone who does not understand the issue, and is steadfastly clinging tight to a sinking ship.
> 
> I agree with Steve in that there is nothing wrong with teaching religion in schools, as long as it is taught separately and honestly, as religion.  Not as science, or as a viable alternative "theory" to science.  That is being dishonest.


And I disagree it is what it is


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> It's been said that nothing in science makes sense except in light of evolution. What you see as a natural tie-in, I'd say is a failure to tie together evolution with all the rest of bio. with which it connects. That's the thread you'd lose with this seque.
> 
> 
> 
> Whose god? There are too many. But it doesn't matter if science is correct,a s you put it--it matters that we teach students the methods of any given approach. Would you want a biologist lecturing on evolution in your church?


Why would a biologist lecture in church?  That's not his place.  A school however is a place to learn and be taught.


----------



## billc

Then teach the theory of intelligent design...that doesn't have to be religious in nature.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Dude. This is my area and you do not know what you're talking about. If you mean via the Peano axioms or ZFC, plausibly, though of course incompletely; but:
> 
> 
> 
> It took them over 300 pages to not quite prove that 1+1=2...and there are errors as early as pg.2. And this was Bertrand Russell (and Alfred North Whitehead).
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there are many more sides than two. Do you know anything about Native American origin myths?



Do I need too?  I believe there is only one God.  I believe its the same God for all we just call him by different names and worship him different ways.  So the native american God is the same as the Christian God which is the same as the Muslim God.  Where the difference happened is when people got involved in the mix and messed up the message


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I tried to answer both your post in one. I'm on my phone so its hard to respond to long posts on my phone.  I disagree with teaching the same topic in two different classes.  If your talking about where did man come from then you teach evolution and then you teach other widly excepted theory.  Preface it with whatever disclaimer makes the oh my God g word in school crowd thinks is appropriate.  But teaching the same topic in two different classes is a waist of time and energy and confusing to kids.  Yes Mr jones I know what you taught but Mrs Murphy said this in social studies.


There's the disconnect, ballen.  They're not the same subject.  One is a scientific theory, and the other is a religious belief.  One belongs in a classroom and the other belongs in a church, or at the very least, one in a science class and the other in a religion class. 





> Ok if sxience is correct then where did we come from?  Prove we were not created by God.  Prove that evolution is not slight tweeks made by God to keep up with an ever changing universe.


"Science" isn't correct or incorrect.  Science is a method of inquiry in which we study and we test and form educated guesses which are further tested, which lead to conclusions which are then tested and built upon.  The scientific method gave us every single advancement we currently enjoy, including the phone you are posting your messages on.   Science classes are about the things we know and the things we think we know, and the strength (not weakness) of science is that everything is subject to change if new evidence is discovered.  That's the difference.  Religion is about believing and having faith.  Science is about questioning and being convinced.


> For schools it has nothing to do with scientific method and everything to do what whats PC.


I'm sorry your kids go to ****** schools like that, ballen.  That sucks.  But, I don't agree that it's PC to distinguish between science and religion.  Science is an appropriate topic for a science class.  Religion is an appropriate topic for a religion class.  Multiple choice question:

Politics would be appropriate in which class?
A:  Biology class
B:  Introduction to Theism class
C:  Political Science class



> Good for you guys glad you get to spend time with your son


Ha. I presume you are missing the point intentionally.  But, thanks.  Are you unable to spend time with your son?  You make it sound like you don't, and if so, I genuinely am sorry for that.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Your very existence is proof. The sun rise is proof. Love is proof. The perfect combination of temp air water is proof. What is more reasonable. That version or yeah well two blobs of goo in a puddle 1000000000 years ago figured out how if one blob formed a lenses and one formed a retina they can transform light into sight. Oh and then more blobs decided to become a lung and figures out how to transfer air into oxygen in your blood. Oh and then the bloob of goo decided skin would be cool oh and hair is neat. Even Darwin had trouble coming up with why or how the eye was "evolved". To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
> His answer was well I have no proof it evolved but it just did. So just as you claim we have "faith". So do you in your faith that all these bloobs of goo formed just the right combination to where we are now



this is only proof that we exist.  Nothing connects it to a supreme creator/god/odin/zeus/ etc.  That is your leap of faith, which is not proof, nor even evidence.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Why would a biologist lecture in church? That's not his place. A school however is a place to learn and be taught.



why would someone teach religion in a science class?  that's not his place.  A science class is a place to study and learn about science and the scientific method.  Not a place to learn about religion.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> Then teach the theory of intelligent design...that doesn't have to be religious in nature.



it's very nature IS religious.  Again, it's not science.  Teach it in religion class.  It has no place in a science class.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> this is only proof that we exist.  Nothing connects it to a supreme creator/god/odin/zeus/ etc.  That is your leap of faith, which is not proof, nor even evidence.



So what about your leap of faith that a bloob of goo in a pond "evolved" into humans


----------



## billc

Teach the aspects of intelligent design that show the problems with the "theory," of evolution...the human eye example is very popular...and you don't have to mention a deity...teaching evolution as gospel...that is a problem...


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> why would someone teach religion in a science class?  that's not his place.  A science class is a place to study and learn about science and the scientific method.  Not a place to learn about religion.


Well again we disagree and now we are going round and round so ...............


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Ha. I presume you are missing the point intentionally.  But, thanks.  Are you unable to spend time with your son?  You make it sound like you don't, and if so, I genuinely am sorry for that.


Didn't know you were trying to make a point.  I spend plenty of time with my family.  I'm watching my sons football practice right now.  He's the starting running back this year and he is running people over. I'm pretty impressed


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Your very existence is proof.  The sun rise is proof.  Love is proof.  The perfect combination of temp air water is proof.  What is more reasonable.  That version or yeah well two blobs of goo in a puddle 1000000000 years ago figured out how if one blob formed a lenses and one formed a retina they can transform light into sight.  Oh and then more blobs decided to become a lung and figures out how to transfer air into oxygen in your blood.  Oh and then the bloob of goo  decided skin would be cool oh and hair is neat.  Even Darwin had trouble coming up with why or how the eye was "evolved". To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
> His answer was well I have no proof it evolved but it just did.  So just as you claim we have "faith". So do you in your faith that all these bloobs of goo formed just the right combination to where we are now
> 
> And I disagree it is what it is


In an infinite universe, even if the odds are 1 in a trillion, it would still happen.

But, hey.  You're entitled to your beliefs.  I think it would be great for my kids to learn more about your faith in school, along with the Muslim faith, the Hindu faith, the Jewish faith and the Buddhist faith.  Those are the big five, accounting for about 9 billion people in the world.  That's valuable.  But, it's still not science.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> So what about your leap of faith that a bloob of goo in a pond "evolved" into humans



Not quite so simple as that, and that seems to be the problem: you don't want to recognize a level of complexity in all of this, all the various topics that this thread has touched upon, including climate change.  You are looking for a very clear, straight-line answer without complexities and very few of those exist.  It takes a little reading and contemplation to grasp what is going on with these issues.  This is a good example of where you are falling short: First step, little blob.  Second step, humans.  It didn't happen so quickly and simply as that, but there is huge amounts of evidence that humans did come about thru evolution.

Another example of your desire for a simple explanation:  earlier in the thread, when we were discussing climate change, you commented something on the lines of, it seems cool out today, so global warming must be a lie (my paraphrasing what you've said).  Again, not so easy as that, not by a long shot.  Climate change means that in some places, it will be cooler than the norm.  It also includes more precipitation in Antarctica (more moisture in the air as a whole, due to warmer climate overall) which falls in Antarctica where it is still cold enough to freeze, and the ice there in some places grows thicker.  But that is actually in line with climate change, it's not a contradiction.  

But you need to be able to examine the issues and not look for easy explanations: it's colder today, so climate change is a lie.  That's just weak, it's lazy, it's a blatant refusal to consider what is really going on, it's willful and enthusiastic ignorance.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Well again we disagree and now we are going round and round so ...............



You raised that argument.  The fact that I can turn your argument around and it works perfectly against what you are saying...and so you want to drop it now?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Didn't know you were trying to make a point.  I spend plenty of time with my family.  I'm watching my sons football practice right now.  He's the starting running back this year and he is running people over. I'm pretty impressed



Honestly, it sounds like you're getting punchy and should maybe pay more attention to your son's football practice.  I wasn't being sarcastic, even though it's clear now you were.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> Teach the aspects of intelligent design that show the problems with the "theory," of evolution...the human eye example is very popular...and you don't have to mention a deity...teaching evolution as gospel...that is a problem...



I'm not familiar with the eye issue, tho I wouldn't be surprised if Darwin was not in a position to describe it, evolutionarily.  Darwin identified and described the process.  That doesn't mean he outlined the specific steps in which every critter to ever live, or every body part to ever exist, evoloved into what it is or was.  Scientific understanding is ongoing.  A famous individual like Darwin didn't make all the discoveries at once and lay it all out for us.  You too are looking for quick and simple explanations, and the truth is more complex than that.  If you aren't open to considering that fact, then you will never grasp this stuff.  It takes thought and reflection, and a willingness to dig a little deeper.

the gaps in knowledge are covered very well in a good science class.  You don't need to bring in any theology in order to acknowledge that.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Honestly, it sounds like you're getting punchy and should maybe pay more attention to your son's football practice.  I wasn't being sarcastic, even though it's clear now you were.



Im not getting punchy and Im not being sarcastic.  I thought it was cool you were out in the middle of the day with your son.  Most people are to busy working to spend real quality time with there kids.  Thats all I was saying.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> Not quite so simple as that, and that seems to be the problem: you don't want to recognize a level of complexity in all of this,


No Im the only one that is saying its not that simple.  You just assume oh a glob of this and a glob of that came together and poof little trial and error and a few million years here we are.  Im saying its almost impossible for that to happen.  Look at how complex and intricate a single human cell is hell even lower level then that look at a Mitochondrion.  There is no way that can just happen by chance.  Its far to impressive and amazingly complicated to have just been by chance.


> all the various topics that this thread has touched upon, including climate change.  You are looking for a very clear, straight-line answer without complexities and very few of those exist.  It takes a little reading and contemplation to grasp what is going on with these issues.  This is a good example of where you are falling short: First step, little blob.  Second step, humans.  It didn't happen so quickly and simply as that, but there is huge amounts of evidence that humans did come about thru evolution.


No its not simple and even science cant prove where we came from.  Your taking a "leap of Faith"  that we evolved from well I dont know what you think we evolved from I guess monkeys of some sort.


> Another example of your desire for a simple explanation:  earlier in the thread, when we were discussing climate change, you commented something on the lines of, it seems cool out today, so global warming must be a lie (my paraphrasing what you've said).  Again, not so easy as that, not by a long shot.  Climate change means that in some places, it will be cooler than the norm.  It also includes more precipitation in Antarctica (more moisture in the air as a whole, due to warmer climate overall) which falls in Antarctica where it is still cold enough to freeze, and the ice there in some places grows thicker.  But that is actually in line with climate change, it's not a contradiction.


And you didnt read my posts I believe in climate change I just don't believe its man made.  I believe in global warming and I believe it happens after every few hundred thousand years give or take a million.  I dont believe that drving a prius or a volt will save the earth.  I dot care if you drive them thats fine if enough of you do it demand for gas will go down and will bring my gas prices down.  My 78 Bronco with that big V8 is expensive to fill up so its a win for me.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> You raised that argument.  The fact that I can turn your argument around and it works perfectly against what you are saying...and so you want to drop it now?



No were just saying the same thing over and over and getting no place.  I also didn't bring it up someone else did.  I only said the guy didn't need to loose his job and I wasnt opposed to teaching about God in school.  Its fine we can go round and round all night I work midnight shift and I'm off so Ill be awake for a long time.


----------



## elder999

For what I hope is the last time:

The fact that you cannot disprove God is what makes God-and "creationism"-an unviable scientific theory-a _postulate_ at best, and just an idea-one that we accept on faith-that's why it's called "faith": you believe in the face of a distinct lack of facts, or in spite of the facts. Evolution is a viable scientific theory in that it can be disproven, and so it is worthy of teaching in schools. It's worth pointing out as well that one doesn't necessarily exclude the other, except for fundamentalists-as in  believers that their creation myth is literal fact, rather than allegory, or as in fundamentalist atheists, insisting, at times, on the very same thing.

Lastly, to get back to the original topic, it's discussions like these that demonstrate just how "un*moderate*" the proposed choices are as moderators. The fact that such arguments even exist in a political arena makes me ashamed to be a Republican-ashamed to be associated with people who insist upon the irrational as a national directive, and who insist upon denial of the rational as a national directive. That fact alone will see to it that there isn't a viable Republican candidate again in 2016-almost as though by design....


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> No Im the only one that is saying its not that simple. You just assume oh a glob of this and a glob of that came together and poof little trial and error and a few million years here we are. Im saying its almost impossible for that to happen.



and you would be wrong.



> Look at how complex and intricate a single human cell is hell even lower level then that look at a Mitochondrion. There is no way that can just happen by chance. Its far to impressive and amazingly complicated to have just been by chance.



It is impressive and amazingly complex, and that's why it takes millions and more years to happen.  



> No its not simple and even science cant prove where we came from. Your taking a "leap of Faith" that we evolved from well I dont know what you think we evolved from I guess monkeys of some sort.



This again shows how much you don't understand.  Anthropological theory does NOT postulate that humans evolved from monkeys or apes.  It postulates that monkeys and apes and humans shared a common ancestor at some point in ancient pre-history.  That is not the same thing as saying we evolved from monkeys or apes.  You don't even understand what science is telling us, yet you want to throw it away.

There is much that science does not yet understand and cannot describe.  I am not a religious person.  I grew up in a traditional catholic family and I found it stifling and I rejected it wholesale when I left home (actually I rejected it much earlier than that, tho I was forced to practice until I left home), much to my poor mother's frustration.  I am not interested in organized religion of any kind, 'cause I tend to feel that it gets quite a lot of it all wrong.  But I won't rule out the possibility that a divine creator of some kind exists.  Honestly, I'm ambivalent on the subject and I'm certainly not interested in active worship.  In my mind, it's possible (tho unclear and uncertain) that a divine creator did in fact start all of this, put it all in motion, and perhaps evolution is her chosen method, and we are allowed to observe that.

However, this notion is absolutely unprovable and deserves to have no place in a science class.  Whether or not I or you or anyone chooses to believe in a divine creator is a personal choice because it is unprovable and unmeasurable and unobservable.  It is based on tradition and mythology that has been handed down to us.  As such, it belongs in the church, or in a theology or comparative religions class.  But not in a science class.



> And you didnt read my posts I believe in climate change I just don't believe its man made. I believe in global warming and I believe it happens after every few hundred thousand years give or take a million. I dont believe that drving a prius or a volt will save the earth. I dot care if you drive them thats fine if enough of you do it demand for gas will go down and will bring my gas prices down. My 78 Bronco with that big V8 is expensive to fill up so its a win for me.



I'm glad you clarified that, that you do believe it is happening.  But what you are refusing to recognize is that what is happening, what is being observed, what is being measured, is a rate of change that has dramatically increased directly from the time of the industrial revolution, and has continued to increase right along with the human-caused increases of pollution, and are at a rate enormously in excess of what happens without those influencing factors.  The fact that climate does change naturally is true, but the rates at which it changes, naturally, is much much much much much slower if human-caused pollution were not in the mix.  The changes we are seeing now, over the course of decades, would take at least tens of thousands of years, if not more, to happen without those human-caused influences.

You driving a prius?  No, of course that won't fix it.  But if everyone got rid of their gashogs and their huge SUVs, and started driving cars with much greater fuel economy, if the car manufacturers started MAKING cars with much better fuel efficiency (which they can do but refuse to), and we ALL got on board, that would be a big step in the right direction.  That's why this issue needs to be tackled globally, because the efforts of one or two or even a million people aren't enough.  EVERYONE needs to work together on it.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Im not getting punchy and Im not being sarcastic.  I thought it was cool you were out in the middle of the day with your son.  Most people are to busy working to spend real quality time with there kids.  Thats all I was saying.



Okay.  Sorry I misunderstood

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> For what I hope is the last time:


How could we ever get along without your wisdom.  You do know you dont have to comment if its such a bother to you


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Your very existence is proof.



Of what? The existence of Zeus? Odin? Ra? 

But you may well be right. It's simply not a _scientific _theory. It could be true--it just can't be science. 



> The sun rise is proof.  Love is proof.  The perfect combination of temp air water is proof.  What is more reasonable.  That version or yeah well two blobs of goo in a puddle 1000000000 years ago figured out how if one blob formed a lenses and one formed a retina they can transform light into sight.  Oh and then more blobs decided to become a lung and figures out how to transfer air into oxygen in your blood.  Oh and then the bloob of goo  decided skin would be cool oh and hair is neat.  Even Darwin had trouble coming up with why or how the eye was "evolved". To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have  been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the  highest degree. His answer was well I have no proof it evolved but it just did.



Once again you choose the worst possible example--not only is the Darwin quote out-of-context (he went on to show how it might have evolved, having framed this rhetorically as a challenge), but the evolution of the eye has been so well worked out and has happened so often that even Intelligent Designers now largely accept it as an example of evolution (e.g., Michael Behe), not creation. 

The science examples you choose demonstrate a lack of familiarity with some basic touchstones of the sciences. How can you have an informed opinion on evolution and such?


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> How could we ever get along without your wisdom.  You do know you dont have to comment if its such a bother to you



Frankly, I'm positively amazed that some of you manage to tie your shoelaces without your momma's help,

I'm not at all surprised at those who cannot comprehend my "wisdom." :lfao:

In any case-as I said, the mere fact of arguments like these is enough to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the Republican party-as well as the schism within it; of course, we have "tea Party" Republicans to shout down any voices of reason or moderation within the party-to the point where some would even support a Democrat over the candidate of their own party, for being a so-called "RINO," when such a candidate might represent the best chance for the party to regain the presidency..

I mean, just how _moderate_ a moderator is Rush Gasbag going to actually be towards a Chris Christie-and how likely are he and his cohort to fawn over the utter lameness and unelectability of a Bachmann, a Palin or even a Paul?

(Oh, BTW, pray for Jeb Bush to change his mind....)


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> Then teach the theory of intelligent design...that doesn't have to be religious in nature.



It does. It posits the existence of the supernatural. 

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



> *Intelligent design* (*ID*) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[SUP][1][/SUP]  The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of  the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent  cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[SUP][2][/SUP] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional theological argument from design for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[SUP][3][/SUP] All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [SUP][n 1][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[SUP][n 2][/SUP]
> 
> Scientific acceptance of Intelligent Design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Do I need too?  I believe there is only one God.  I believe its the same God for all we just call him by different names and worship him different ways.  So the native american God is the same as the Christian God which is the same as the Muslim God.  Where the difference happened is when people got involved in the mix and messed up the message



Most people who are religious but not Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Mormon believe that there god(s) are different from yours. What's the basis for teaching your view--Christianity is right and all other religions are misinterpretations of it? How could that possibly be constitutional? Or fair?


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So what about your leap of faith that a bloob of goo in a pond "evolved" into humans



Callit a leap of faith if you like, but are science and religion different subjects, or did the Catholic Church put a man on the moon?



billc said:


> Teach the aspects of intelligent design that show the problems with the "theory," of evolution...the human eye example is very popular...and you don't have to mention a deity...teaching evolution as gospel...that is a problem...



Even the IDers have mostly given up on the eye, dude. They're whining on flagella and coagulation now. Ask Breitbart about it.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Well again we disagree and now we are going round and round so ...............



Actually, no--the courts have ruled and creationism/ID can't be taught in science classes. The matter has been settled.


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> It's worth pointing out as well that one doesn't necessarily exclude the other, except for fundamentalists-as in  believers that their creation myth is literal fact, rather than allegory, or as in fundamentalist atheists, insisting, at times, on the very same thing.



We could all be brains in vats, being fed electrical signals that cause us to think these things are happening. Possible, but unscientific if it isn't falsifiable.



> Lastly, to get back to the original topic, it's discussions like these that demonstrate just how "un*moderate*" the proposed choices are as moderators. The fact that such arguments even exist in a political arena makes me ashamed to be a Republican-ashamed to be associated with people who insist upon the irrational as a national directive, and who insist upon denial of the rational as a national directive.



(You're always welcome over here, dude.)


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> and you would be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> It is impressive and amazingly complex, and that's why it takes millions and more years to happen.


again prove it




> This again shows how much you don't understand.  Anthropological theory does NOT postulate that humans evolved from monkeys or apes.  It postulates that monkeys and apes and humans shared a common ancestor at some point in ancient pre-history.  That is not the same thing as saying we evolved from monkeys or apes.  You don't even understand what science is telling us, yet you want to throw it away.


Point is we have NO IDEA where we came from.  We both take a leap of faith yours says we came from a goo farm mine says we came from God


> There is much that science does not yet understand and cannot describe.  I am not a religious person.  I grew up in a traditional catholic family and I found it stifling and I rejected it wholesale when I left home (actually I rejected it much earlier than that, tho I was forced to practice until I left home), much to my poor mother's frustration.  I am not interested in organized religion of any kind, 'cause I tend to feel that it gets quite a lot of it all wrong.  But I won't rule out the possibility that a divine creator of some kind exists.  Honestly, I'm ambivalent on the subject and I'm certainly not interested in active worship.  In my mind, it's possible (tho unclear and uncertain) that a divine creator did in fact start all of this, put it all in motion, and perhaps evolution is her chosen method, and we are allowed to observe that.


I was the same way at one time I rejected religion actually my whole family rejects religion. Im the only one that currently believes.  It took me many years and my position "evolved" to what it is now.  The point still the same and you said it there is much science doesnt know and may never know.  So how can you say its evolution and thats it no ifs ands or buts.  We cant but my faith is stupid and your faith is science?


> However, this notion is absolutely unprovable and deserves to have no place in a science class.  Whether or not I or you or anyone chooses to believe in a divine creator is a personal choice because it is unprovable and unmeasurable and unobservable.  It is based on tradition and mythology that has been handed down to us.  As such, it belongs in the church, or in a theology or comparative religions class.  But not in a science class.


I disagree (see the pattern yet)



> I'm glad you clarified that, that you do believe it is happening.  But what you are refusing to recognize is that what is happening, what is being observed, what is being measured, is a rate of change that has dramatically increased directly from the time of the industrial revolution, and has continued to increase right along with the human-caused increases of pollution, and are at a rate enormously in excess of what happens without those influencing factors.  The fact that climate does change naturally is true, but the rates at which it changes, naturally, is much much much much much slower if human-caused pollution were not in the mix.  The changes we are seeing now, over the course of decades, would take at least tens of thousands of years, if not more, to happen without those human-caused influences.
> 
> You driving a prius?  No, of course that won't fix it.  But if everyone got rid of their gashogs and their huge SUVs, and started driving cars with much greater fuel economy, if the car manufacturers started MAKING cars with much better fuel efficiency (which they can do but refuse to), and we ALL got on board, that would be a big step in the right direction.  That's why this issue needs to be tackled globally, because the efforts of one or two or even a million people aren't enough.  EVERYONE needs to work together on it.


But I like my gas hog SUV so Im not goign to get rid of it.  Sorry


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Actually, no--the courts have ruled and creationism/ID can't be taught in science classes. The matter has been settled.



Same courts that decided a kid had to change his name right because they are never wrong right?


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Most people who are religious but not Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Mormon believe that there god(s) are different from yours. What's the basis for teaching your view--Christianity is right and all other religions are misinterpretations of it? How could that possibly be constitutional? Or fair?



I didnt say we had to only teach my view.  I said pick a few of the top views.  You could never teach them all so you have to draw the line at some point


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Same courts that decided a kid had to change his name right because they are never wrong right?



The ID thing has been held up by multiple courts and through appeals. What more do you want? Civil war?


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Frankly, I'm positively amazed that some of you manage to tie your shoelaces without your momma's help,
> 
> I'm not at all surprised at those who cannot comprehend my "wisdom." :lfao:


Must be tough being the smartest man in the room all the time huh



> In any case-as I said, the mere fact of arguments like these is enough to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the Republican party-as well as the schism within it; of course, we have "tea Party" Republicans to shout down any voices of reason or moderation within the party-to the point where some would even support a Democrat over the candidate of their own party, for being a so-called "RINO," when such a candidate might represent the best chance for the party to regain the presidency..
> 
> I mean, just how _moderate_ a moderator is Rush Gasbag going to actually be towards a Chris Christie-and how likely are he and his cohort to fawn over the utter lameness and unelectability of a Bachmann, a Palin or even a Paul?
> 
> (Oh, BTW, pray for Jeb Bush to change his mind....)



See the real issue should be why do moderators get to play a role at all.  The job of a moderator is to just ask the question and make sure people dont go over the time limit.  The fact that its even an issue it whats kinda silly.  If the moderator has such a big role then get rid of them and just give everyone 10 min to talk and be done with it.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> The ID thing has been held up by multiple courts and through appeals. What more do you want? Civil war?



What ID thing?  The kid just had his name changed by the courts a few weeks ago


----------



## arnisador

Dude! I am the smartest guy in the room!!!


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Callit a leap of faith if you like, but are science and religion different subjects, or did the Catholic Church put a man on the moon?


No but the church has been responsible for a lot of advances


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Must be tough being the smartest man in the room all the time huh



Yes. Yes, *it is*..

I am not always the "smartest man in the room,"  but I'm smart enough to know when I am, and I am also, quite frankly, tired of saying "I toldya so" to those who are not.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Dude! I am the smartest guy in the room!!!





elder999 said:


> Yes. Yes, *it is*..
> 
> I am not always the "smartest man in the room,"  but I'm smart enough to  know when I am, and I am also, quite frankly, tired of saying "I toldya  so" to those who are not.



Uh Oh Girl fight


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Uh Oh Girl fight



Nah. We're in different rooms. 

(Arnie's a_lone _in his....:lfao: )

And we're not girls......guess we know who isn't the smartest one in the room, wherever he is....:lfao:


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Nah. We're in different rooms.
> 
> (Arnie's a_lone _in his....:lfao: )
> 
> And we're not girls......guess we know who isn't the smartest one in the room, wherever he is....:lfao:


Yeah but boy fight sounded silly


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> again prove it



pick up any college level biology text, even a general biology text, and it will be crammed full of evidence upon which scientists - legitimate scientists - base their judgements on this issue.  It's not difficult to find this stuff.  Search Amazon, for starters.  College terms are starting, you could probably go to your nearest college or university, walk into the bookstore, and buy a used one and take a good look.

Or you can manufacture a reason to not look at any of this, and just insist on believing what is comfortable for you.



> Point is we have NO IDEA where we came from.  We both take a leap of faith yours says we came from a goo farm mine says we came from God



well no, some of us have a pretty good idea where we came from, at least the part that is observable and measurable.  That's the science part.  The other part, the part that relies on the existence of a supreme being, well that's not observable, not measurable, not provable, and is outside the realm of science.  So keep it outside the science classroom.



> I was the same way at one time I rejected religion actually my whole family rejects religion. Im the only one that currently believes.  It took me many years and my position "evolved" to what it is now.  The point still the same and you said it there is much science doesnt know and may never know.  So how can you say its evolution and thats it no ifs ands or buts.  We cant but my faith is stupid and your faith is science?



because the evolution is observable and measurable.  That's what science deals with.  That's not what religion deals with.

And no, I don't say your faith is stupid, or at least my personal feelings about it are not what matters.  However, your faith has its proper place within the educational system, and that is within a theology or religions class.  Not in a science class.



> But I like my gas hog SUV so Im not goign to get rid of it.  Sorry



If you refuse to even consider where you might pollute less in your own life, then you are part of the problem.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Same courts that decided a kid had to change his name right because they are never wrong right?



how does that fit in with creationism?


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> how does that fit in with creationism?



I was responding to someone else.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> No but the church has been responsible for a lot of advances



Dude. Seriously? They tortured scientists until they eventually had no choice but to admit they were wrong centuries later. They supported and engaged in all sorts of corruption. They were a horror in Africa. What advances have they made other than their own belated ones?


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> pick  any college level biology text, even a general biology text, and it will be crammed full of evidence upon which scientists - legitimate scientists - base their judgements on this issue.  It's not dult to find this stuff.  Search Amazon, for starters.  College terms are starting, you could probably go to your nearest college or university, walk into the bookstore, and buy a used one and take a good look.
> 
> Or you can manufacture a reason to not look at any of this, and just insist on believing what is comfortable for you.



Its not proof.  We don't know where we came from.  That whole missing link thing and all.  If science can prove where we came from then show me.  I'll make it easy.  Forget showing me where humans came from.  Where did the cell come from.  One single cell.  Where did the first one come from?


> well no, some of us have a pretty good idea where we came from, at least the part that is observable and measurable.  That's the science part.  The other part, the part that relies on the existence of a supreme being, well that's not observable, not measurable, not provable, and is outside the realm of science.  So keep it outside the science classroom.


So whats the answer then where did we come from?



> because the evolution is observable and measurable.  That's what science deals with.  That's not what religion deals with.


Unless eveloution is part of Gods plan


> And no, I don't say your faith is stupid, or at least my personal feelings about it are not what matters.  However, your faith has its proper place within the educational system, and that is within a theology or religions class.  Not in a science class.


I dont agree



> If you refuse to even consider where you might pollute less in your own life, then you are part of the problem.


Intentionally as well.  I like big old trucks with big old gas guzzling motors.  I like buying them restoring them and selling them to others to keep then alive and then buy more and sell more.  Its great fun.  Maybe you should buy a bike and pedal to work to offset my footprint.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Dude. Seriously? They tortured scientists until they eventually had no choice but to admit they were wrong centuries later. They supported and engaged in all sorts of corruption. They were a horror in Africa. What advances have they made other than their own belated ones?


Dude seriously.   in the debate style of flying crane buy a book and look it up.  Ill give you a hint however start in the fields of medicine and catholic hospitals  or 

 During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering  for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance,  Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of  scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744&#8211;1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarkism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, particularly in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.


----------



## Tgace

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


Lies all Christians ever did was kill and oppress.


----------



## Tgace

http://books.google.com/books?id=zV...rch+contributions+to+science&output=html_text 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

Tgace said:


> http://books.google.com/books?id=zV...rch+contributions+to+science&output=html_text
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



I know nobody will read it though....don't want to interfere with their confirmation bias....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Unless eveloution is part of Gods plan



could be, but again, utterly unprovable, unobservable, unmeasurable.  Not science.



> I dont agree



you believe religion belongs in a science classroom?  If so, then why do you believe a lecture on evolution does not belong in your church?


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> I know nobody will read it though....don't want to interfere with their confirmation bias....



Back when non-Christians were killed/tortured/imprisoned/banished for not being Christian, there were not many non-Christian scientists in Christian areas.


----------



## Tgace

How many of the moons features are named after Jesuit's again?

We evolved from nothing...through the big bang...from "soup" to here? Sounds miraculous to me.

People thinking we believe "God" is a man with a white beard in the sky only illustrates their ignorance imo....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc

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



> Mathematics, engineering and architecture[edit source | editbeta]
> According to art historian Kenneth Clark, "to medieval man, geometry was a divine activity. God was the great geometer, and this concept inspired the architect".[14] Monumental cathedrals such as that of Chartres appear to evidence a complex understanding of mathematics.[14] The Church has invested greatly in engineering and architecture and founded a number of architectural genres - including Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic, High Renaissance and Baroque architecture.[10]
> Development of Modern Science[edit source | editbeta]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Vitruvian Man" by Leonardo da Vinci.
> Geology[edit source | editbeta]
> Georgius Agricola (1494-1555), is considered the founder of geology and "Father of Mineralogy".[15][16] He made important contributions which paved the way for systematic study of the earth.[16] A German Catholic who retained his faith through the Reformation, he also wrote on patristics (early church history).[15]


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> you believe religion belongs in a science classroom?  If so, then why do you believe a lecture on evolution does not belong in your church?



Because my Pastor is long winded enough I dont think I could sit thru two lectures.  
In reality our Church does have lectures from other faiths and beliefs.  We also welcome any and all to come to our Bible studies and have had scientist and atheists come to "set us straight"


----------



## Tgace

arnisador said:


> Back when non-Christians were killed/tortured/imprisoned/banished for not being Christian, there were not many non-Christian scientists in Christian areas.



Like I said....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Back when non-Christians were killed/tortured/imprisoned/banished for not being Christian, there were not many non-Christian scientists in Christian areas.


So firsts they didn't have scientists now they did but they were all Christians?  Which is it


----------



## billc

> Copernicus[edit source | editbeta]
> Main article: Copernicus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicolaus Copernicus, the clergyman astronomer who put the sun at the centre of the solar system, upsetting both scientific and religious accepted theory.
> Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance astronomer and Catholic clergyman who was the first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology which displaced the Earth from the centre of the universe.
> In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus' theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua and since the previous year a cardinal, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:
> Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...[24]


....



> "Big Bang" Theory for origin of the Universe[edit source | editbeta]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georges Lemaitre, Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics pioneered the Big Bang theory for the development of the universe in the 1920s.
> The Big Bang model, or theory, is now the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe and was first proposed by Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. Lemaître was a pioneer in applying Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology. Lemaitre theorized in the 1920s that the universe began as a geometrical point which he called a "primeval atom", which exploded out and has been moving apart ever since. The idea became established theory only decades later with the discovery of cosmic background radiation by American scientists.[67]


----------



## Tgace

I wonder if Arni knows he owes his livelihood to the Church? 

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0321.htm 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc

> Sponsorship of scientific research[edit source | editbeta]
> In ancient times, the church supported medical research as an aid to Christian charity. The Church supported the development of modern science and scientific research by founding Europe's first universities in the Middle Ages. Historian Lawrence M. Principe writes that "it is clear from the historical record that the Catholic church has been probably the largest single and longest-term patron of science in history, that many contributors to the Scientific Revolution were themselves Catholic, and that several Catholic institutions and perspectives were key influences upon the rise of modern science."[68] The field of astronomy is a prime example of the Church's commitment to science. J.L. Heilbron in his book The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories writes that "The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions."[69]


...


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> No but the church has been responsible for a lot of advances



:lfao:

sorry mate....
but not really....
Unless you are talking in advances in personal gain for the clergy....


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> How many of the moons features are named after Jesuit's again?



By the Greeks? None. By the Indians? None. By the Chinese? None. By the Church? Lots.



> We evolved from nothing...through the big bang...from "soup" to here? Sounds miraculous to me.



But that a sentient being came to exist from nothing...that one you're willing to buy?


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science



All that geometry was done by the heathen Greeks, dude, and preserved by the Arabs through the Dark Ages. The church-builders applied concepts developed by people who sacrificed oxen to Aphrodite.


----------



## Steve

Wait.  What's going on here?  Are you guys saying that if a Christian makes a scientific discovery, that it's not science?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> I wonder if Arni knows he owes his livelihood to the Church?



The idea of an academy is due to the Greeks in the West and there were Islamic schools that paralleled the development of European higher ed. but the early universities were indeed largely under the control of the Catholic church, growing out of smaller religious-themed schools. But the church had its hands in everything back then.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Wait.  What's going on here?  Are you guys saying that if a Christian makes a scientific discovery, that it's not science?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


No we are saying that the Church is not afraid of science in fact they are very much involved in many scientific advances


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> No we are saying that the Church is not afraid of science in fact they are very much involved in many scientific advances



Some aren't, certainly.  But that still doesn't make science the same as religion, nor does it make creationism a scientific theory.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador

Steve said:


> Wait.  What's going on here?  Are you guys saying that if a Christian makes a scientific discovery, that it's not science?



Not me. I said that the Church held back a lot of science and lagged behind scientific discoveries. Lots of individual Christian scientists have done excellent work--Newton was very religious, for example--but the Church as a whole resisted many advancements. It held back anatomy and physiology by opposing autopsies as disrespectful and sacrilegious, for example.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> :lfao:
> 
> sorry mate....
> but not really....
> Unless you are talking in advances in personal gain for the clergy....


Sorry matette

During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering   for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance,   Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of   scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744&#8211;1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarkism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, particularly in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Some aren't, certainly.  But that still doesn't make science the same as religion


Never said it was.  


> , nor does it make creationism a scientific theory.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


All you got to do is tell me where people came from then.  Prove it


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering   for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance,   Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of   scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744&#8211;1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarkism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, particularly in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History



> The modern scientific method crystallized no later than in the 17th and 18th centuries. In his work _Novum Organum_ (1620) &#8211; a reference to Aristotle's _Organon_ &#8211; Francis Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of syllogism.[SUP][/SUP] Then, in 1637, René Descartes established the framework for scientific method's guiding principles in his treatise, _Discourse on Method_.  The writings of Alhazen, Bacon and Descartes are considered critical in  the historical development of the modern scientific method, as are  those of John Stuart Mill.



Bacon was religious. Descartes' views on religion are disputed, from pious to atheist. Alhazen was Muslim. Mill was an atheist.

Overwhelmingly, scientists today are atheists. That the proportion was shifted in earlier times is no surprise.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> All you got to do is tell me where people came from then.  Prove it



Humans are great apes. The proof includes DNA studies and comparative anatomy and physiology, in addition to the fossil record.


----------



## Tgace

Any good scientist who is non religious would have to be agnostic instead of atheist Imo....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> Any good scientist who is non religious would have to be agnostic instead of atheist Imo....



You're right, if you interpret 'atheist' to mean a belief that there can be no god(s) rather than a lack of belief in a god(s). A scientists says "I don't believe in god" in the same way he says "I don't believe in vampires" or "I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster":  He means that there is no evidence to support such a view so he does not hold it. The difference between an atheist and a theist is that the atheist knows what it would take to change his mind...evidence.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Humans are great apes. The proof includes DNA studies and comparative anatomy and physiology, in addition to the fossil record.


So where did these great apes come from?


----------



## arnisador

In related science news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e4a20a-09b8-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html



> Six years ago, in its last report,  the IPCC concluded that there was a 90 percent certainty that human  activity was responsible for most of Earth&#8217;s warming. The 2013 draft  summary increased that certainty to 95 percent.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Human influence  on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global  surface temperature from 1951-2010,&#8221; the report said. &#8220;There is high  confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised  global mean sea level, and changed some climate extremes, in the second  half of the 20th century.&#8221;
> 
> 
> The IPCC &#8212; composed of hundreds of  scientists, including from federal agencies &#8212; tracks the impact of  global warming on specific regions and species


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Never said it was.
> 
> All you got to do is tell me where people came from then.  Prove it



Well, you did when you suggested that creationism is science.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So where did these great apes come from?



That's a long story--much longer than Genesis. You have displayed such a great degree of ignorance of, and hostility to, science and the scientific approach that it wouldn't be worthwhile to do more than suggest you look up "evolution" on Wikipedia.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> In related science news:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e4a20a-09b8-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html



So people that are paid to track global warming came up with the perfect way to make sure they keep getting funding to pay them huh shocker!  If my paycheck depended on keeping people in fear Id come up with the same results.


----------



## Tgace

arnisador said:


> You're right, if you interpret 'atheist' to mean a belief that there can be no god(s) rather than a lack of belief in a god(s). A scientists says "I don't believe in god" in the same way he says "I don't believe in vampires" or "I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster":  He means that there is no evidence to support such a view so he does not hold it. The difference between an atheist and a theist is that the atheist knows what it would take to change his mind...evidence.



Hmmm..select your definition to support you point...scientists get to do that?

Fascinating.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> That's a long story--much longer than Genesis. You have displayed such a great degree of ignorance of, and hostility to, science and the scientific approach that it wouldn't be worthwhile to do more than suggest you look up "evolution" on Wikipedia.



I have goes back to goo and chance


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So people that are paid to track global warming came up with the perfect way to make sure they keep getting funding to pay them huh shocker!  If my paycheck depended on keeping people in fear Id come up with the same results.



They work for the IPCC on a volunteer basis.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Well, you did when you suggested that creationism is science.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


I never did. I suggested it be taught as an alternative in schools.  Taught in science class since they already are charged with teaching the topic,  To keep it easier for teachers and students so Mr Jones in social studies doesn't need to figure out what Mr Smith is teaching in science so they don't confuse the kids.


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> Hmmm..select your definition to support you point...scientists get to do that?



'Atheist' isn't a scientific term. It's an English language word without a technical meaning.

DO you believe in vampires? Surely you must be agnostic on the question?


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> They work for the IPCC on a volunteer basis.



So the IPCC isnt funded?

That works out better now they can justify their paychecks back home by saying see the IPCC says we have a problem so we should keep finding my greenhouse gas removal projects


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I have goes back to goo and chance



You may need to empty your cup, grasshopper.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I never did. I suggested it be taught as an alternative in schools.  Taught in science class since they already are charged with teaching the topic,  To keep it easier for teachers and students so Mr Jones in social studies doesn't need to figure out what Mr Smith is teaching in science so they don't confuse the kids.



How would Mr. Jones know whether he should teach psychology as a social science or leave it to Mr. Smith as science?

Why would we divide classes into social sciences, sciences, etc., under your system? Most things can be viewed from many angles--philosophically, always. That's why you get a Ph.D. as the last degree in most fields--ultimately, it all comes from philosophy.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> How would Mr. Jones know whether he should teach psychology as a social science or leave it to Mr. Smith as science?
> 
> Why would we divide classes into social sciences, sciences, etc., under your system? Most things can be viewed from many angles--philosophically, always. That's why you get a Ph.D. as the last degree in most fields--ultimately, it all comes from philosophy.



Because when your teaching the where did man come from or evolution it would be silly to teach part of it in Science with Mr Jones and then he say well there is other parts to the story but you need to wait until you get to Mr  Smith next semester to hear more.  Its just easier to teach it all at the same time in the same place by the same teacher to the same kids.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> You may need to empty your cup, grasshopper.



Ive read it man.  Ive studied Darwin I know he was freaked out by things like the eye and how it worked.  He answer was well it just had to evolve from less effective eyes even if we cant prove it it just had to be that way.  in evolution we all started from some single cell goo and poof a few billion years later and a few billion trial and errors and here we are.  Of course there is no proof of this.  There is no proof of where this Goo came from.  But you can keep your blind faith and ill keep mine.


----------



## billc

What was that about the IPCC...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/22/un-ipcc-lead-author-global-warming-models-could-be-fundamentally-wrong/




> UN IPCC Lead Author: Global warming models could be &#8216;fundamentally wrong&#8217;                                                 Read the Full Article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meteorologist Hans von Storch: 'If things continue as  they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to  acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate  models,' Storch told Der Spiegel. 'A 20-year pause in global warming  does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are  finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with  our expectations.'​



http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/consensus-police-climatologist-dr-judith-curry-reveals-scientists-trying-to-stifle-skeptical-research-scientists-strongly-encouraged-my-colleague-not-to-publish-this-paper-since-it-would/




> &#8216;Consensus police&#8217;: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry  reveals scientists trying to &#8216;stifle skeptical research&#8217;: &#8216;Scientists  strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it  would only provide fodder for the skeptics&#8217;
> 
> 
> 
> Curry: 'Last year, I  encountered a stark example of this. One of my colleagues was thinking  about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the  previous pause during the 1940s to 1970&#8242;s. My colleague sent a .ppt  presentation on this topic to three colleagues, each of whom is a very  respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal  advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to  protect the guilty/innocent)._ Each  of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish  this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics._  (Note: my colleague has not yet written this paper, but not because he  was discouraged by these colleagues). What is at issue here is a  conflict between the micro ethics of individual responsibility for  responsible conduct of research and larger ethical issues associated  with the well-being of the public and the environment. _Most such examples are related to suppression of evidence including attempting to stifle skeptical research (particularly its publication and dissemination to the public); the Climategate emails provide abundant examples of this.'_​





> Curry is the Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Also see: &#8216;Flashback  2010: &#8216;High Priestess of Global Warming&#8217; No More! Former Warmist Judith  Curry Admits To Being &#8216;Duped Into Supporting IPCC&#8217; &#8211; &#8216;If the IPCC is  dogma, then count me in as a heretic&#8217;
> 
> *Excerpts from Dr. Judith Curry&#8217;s report on scientific intimidation in global warming research:  (Via Tom Nelson)*
> When &#8216;Heartlandgate&#8217; first broke, I saw no parallels with  Climategate. Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly  are parallels. There is the common theme of climate scientists *compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a &#8217;cause&#8217;*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8230;*at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC*.  These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy  process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of  science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown,  inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence,  but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC,
> 
> 
> 
> which has become  central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with  their expertise.
Click to expand...


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I never did. I suggested it be taught as an alternative in schools.  Taught in science class since they already are charged with teaching the topic,  To keep it easier for teachers and students so Mr Jones in social studies doesn't need to figure out what Mr Smith is teaching in science so they don't confuse the kids.


When you suggest that it be taught in a science class, ballen, you are calling it science.  Kids won't be confused if you teach science in a science class and teach religion in a religion class.  They WILL become confused if you teach religion in a science class.  Of course, if the agenda is to create that very confusion in the minds of the students, you're on the right track.  Teaching creationism in a science class will absolutely lead to students believing that it is an equivalent theory to evolution, which it is not.  That's not educating, though.  That's indoctrinating.

And, for what it's worth, Mr. Jones in Social Studies doesn't need to know what Mr. Smith is teaching provided both teachers stay in their lanes.


----------



## granfire

Steve said:


> When you suggest that it be taught in a science class, ballen, you are calling it science.  Kids won't be confused if you teach science in a science class and teach religion in a religion class.  They WILL become confused if you teach religion in a science class.  Of course, if the agenda is to create that very confusion in the minds of the students, you're on the right track.  Teaching creationism in a science class will absolutely lead to students believing that it is an equivalent theory to evolution, which it is not.  That's not educating, though.  That's indoctrinating.
> 
> And, for what it's worth, Mr. Jones in Social Studies doesn't need to know what Mr. Smith is teaching provided both teachers stay in their lanes.



depending on their upbringing it will lead them to believe the teacher is a complete nutter.
And then what?
I had teachers that wore Russian type fur hats in winter, matching the rather Russian-centric curriculum they taught (Geography) 
To this day it baffles me to learn the little creek by my mom's house actually has a name, but I remember vividly that it gets friggin cold in Sibiria...the teachers were laughed at behind their backs. Not exactly taken serious.

On the other hand, if the poor kids already believe in creationism...they might forget the one crucial principle of science: Question everything, look deeper. And here - again - is where faith and science don't mash.


----------



## Steve

I noticed that ballen, you're now choosing to use the term "blind faith."  That's actually the opposite of science.  I can kind of see where you're coming from when you talk about faith as a synomym for trust, and at some point we have to trust what we're being told, whether it's being told to us by a scientist, a teacher or a pastor.  But "blind" faith suggests a lack of intellectual curiosity.  It's a term I don't like to use for anything, including religion, because my experience is that most people do ask questions.  

So, if you choose to accept your religion blindly, understand that science is the opposite of that.  Faith may still be involved in science, but questions are encouraged, and the curiosity to see for oneself often leads to greater discoveries, which can be confirmed and repeated.  Religion may encourage questions, but there is no means for accepting religion beyond faith.


----------



## WaterGal

ballen0351 said:


> Its not proof.  We don't know where we came from.  That whole missing link thing and all.  If science can prove where we came from then show me.  I'll make it easy.  Forget showing me where humans came from.  Where did the cell come from.  One single cell.  Where did the first one come from?



Here's a place to start:

http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biol...&sr=8-1&keywords=biology+campbell+9th+edition


----------



## WaterGal

ballen0351 said:


> Because when your teaching the where did man come from or evolution it would be silly to teach part of it in Science with Mr Jones and then he say well there is other parts to the story but you need to wait until you get to Mr  Smith next semester to hear more.  Its just easier to teach it all at the same time in the same place by the same teacher to the same kids.



Science and comparative religion are two entirely different subjects.  By your reasoning, we should just teach every subject as one class taught by one teacher, since every subject has links to other subjects.  Should we teach history during English class (or vice versa), because history deeply informs classical literature?  Why should students have to wait until the next period or semester to read the Odyssey when they learned about ancient Greek history today?


----------



## WaterGal

ballen0351 said:


> Ive read it man.  Ive studied Darwin I know he was freaked out by things like the eye and how it worked.  He answer was well it just had to evolve from less effective eyes even if we cant prove it it just had to be that way.  in evolution we all started from some single cell goo and poof a few billion years later and a few billion trial and errors and here we are.  Of course there is no proof of this.  There is no proof of where this Goo came from.  But you can keep your blind faith and ill keep mine.



In the 50s, it was discovered that if you take water and the mix of gases found in the ancient Earth atmosphere, and zap it with electricity, all of the organic molecules (amino acids) that make up all living beings will form within a few weeks. 

In the 60s, it was discovered that these amino acids, when heated, can spontaneously form into protein "protocells", which are basically like primitive cell membranes.  They don't spontaneously contain genetic material, but do reproduce asexually.

In the 70s, it was discovered that a "primordial"-type mixture containing nucleotide bases will spontaneously form into self-replicating genetic material.

We don't have all the answers yet.  We've only even known the structure of DNA for 60 years, and don't have millions of years to recreate natural conditions.  But the things tested in these experiments don't need millions of years - they can happen in a very, very short time frame.  So it's easy to see how, if these things happened over and over again over millions of years, these primitive self-replicating membranes and primitive self-replicating RNA might combine to form more complicated self-reproducing structures and even cells.

If you'd even taken a Biology 101 class at your local community college, you'd know all this.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> No we are saying that the Church is not afraid of science in fact they are very much involved in many scientific advances



So why is it that so many of the people who are deeply religious have such a fear of science, and want to teach things like the bible, or intelligent design, as science?  That's just ignorant.  But it keeps happening.  If the church is not afraid of science (a statement that I believe is not entirely untrue) and the church is and has been involved with many scientific advances (another statement that I believe is not entirely untrue) then why are so many religious people so afraid of science and want to look to the bible as a historical document?  Again, that's ignorant.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> So why is it that so many of the people who are deeply religious have such a fear of science, and want to teach things like the bible, or intelligent design, as science?  That's just ignorant.  But it keeps happening.  If the church is not afraid of science (a statement that I believe is not entirely untrue) and the church is and has been involved with many scientific advances (another statement that I believe is not entirely untrue) then why are so many religious people so afraid of science and want to look to the bible as a historical document?  Again, that's ignorant.


its not a fear of science.  you have your blind faith that the amino acid goo some how over billions of years turned into people yet you cant prove it.  you cant show how the link from goo to human.  But you believe it happened.  Maybe it did, maybe it didnt.  Maybe its all part of Gods plan to begin with maybe it wasn't.  If you cant prove eactly what happened then why are you surprised that some choose a different version of truth then what you believe.  Thats all this is who believes what since none of it is proven no matter how much you want to "believe" you have it all figured out you just dont...........


----------



## ballen0351

WaterGal said:


> In the 50s, it was discovered that if you take water and the mix of gases found in the ancient Earth atmosphere, and zap it with electricity, all of the organic molecules (amino acids) that make up all living beings will form within a few weeks.
> 
> In the 60s, it was discovered that these amino acids, when heated, can spontaneously form into protein "protocells", which are basically like primitive cell membranes.  They don't spontaneously contain genetic material, but do reproduce asexually.
> 
> In the 70s, it was discovered that a "primordial"-type mixture containing nucleotide bases will spontaneously form into self-replicating genetic material.
> 
> We don't have all the answers yet.  We've only even known the structure of DNA for 60 years, and don't have millions of years to recreate natural conditions.  But the things tested in these experiments don't need millions of years - they can happen in a very, very short time frame.  So it's easy to see how, if these things happened over and over again over millions of years, these primitive self-replicating membranes and primitive self-replicating RNA might combine to form more complicated self-reproducing structures and even cells.
> 
> If you'd even taken a Biology 101 class at your local community college, you'd know all this.



Yep and then what happened?  How did we get from primitive membranes to People?  Oh wait we dont know.  We have theories that we put our faith in but we have no real facts.  thats the point we have no FACTS.


----------



## ballen0351

WaterGal said:


> Science and comparative religion are two entirely different subjects.  By your reasoning, we should just teach every subject as one class taught by one teacher, since every subject has links to other subjects.  Should we teach history during English class (or vice versa), because history deeply informs classical literature?  Why should students have to wait until the next period or semester to read the Odyssey when they learned about ancient Greek history today?



We are not talking about different subjects we are talking about one subject.  The creation of man.  One topic, one class, one time,

Oh and we did read parts of the Odyssey in History class


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> its not a fear of science. you have your blind faith that the amino acid goo some how over billions of years turned into people yet you cant prove it. you cant show how the link from goo to human. But you believe it happened. Maybe it did, maybe it didnt. Maybe its all part of Gods plan to begin with maybe it wasn't. If you cant prove eactly what happened then why are you surprised that some choose a different version of truth then what you believe. Thats all this is who believes what since none of it is proven no matter how much you want to "believe" you have it all figured out you just dont...........



OK, live your life with blinders on.  and good luck to you.  It's been an interesting and eye-opening discussion.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> We are not talking about different subjects we are talking about one subject. The creation of man. One topic, one class, one time,
> 
> Oh and we did read parts of the Odyssey in History class



everyone who actually understands the issue, is talking about two different subjects.  
Those who do not understand the issue, believe it is one subject.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> everyone who actually understands the issue, is talking about two different subjects.
> Those who do not understand the issue, believe it is one subject.



The origins of man?  sounds like one topic to me


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> OK, live your life with blinders on.  and good luck to you.  It's been an interesting and eye-opening discussion.



Ditto


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> The origins of man?  sounds like one topic to me


Sounds like you're suggesting a philosophy class.  I think that sounds like a great class for children at a particular level.  It would seem to me, though, that a firm grounding in biology and religion would be a pre-requisite for that particular philosophy class.  What I mean is, you have to teach things in order.  You teach arithmetic before you teach algebra, which leads to trig and calculus, which then goes off into theoretical math, physics and all the rest.  There's a logical order.

Similarly, in order for a kid to really get what I think you're talking about out of a nuanced discussion about the "origin of man," they will need to be grounded in biology, the scientific method, and the theory of evolution.  I'd also recommend a world religions class that focused on the fundamentals of _at least_ the five major religions of the world: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu and Buddhism.  Only after that would the philosophy class you're talking about be productive.  

To sum up, a discussion about the origins of man, comparing and contrasting the religious AND scientific ideas, could be a very interesting class.  But, it would only work, IMO, for older kids (high school level) who have been given a foundation so that the discussion could be had in context.

Also, for what it's worth, I see the class discussing not just the Christian origin story, but also (at least) the origin myths of the other four major religions in addition to the theory of evolution.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> The origins of man? sounds like one topic to me





Steve said:


> Sounds like you're suggesting a philosophy class. I think that sounds like a great class for children at a particular level. It would seem to me, though, that a firm grounding in biology and religion would be a pre-requisite for that particular philosophy class. What I mean is, you have to teach things in order. You teach arithmetic before you teach algebra, which leads to trig and calculus, which then goes off into theoretical math, physics and all the rest. There's a logical order.
> 
> Similarly, in order for a kid to really get what I think you're talking about out of a nuanced discussion about the "origin of man," they will need to be grounded in biology, the scientific method, and the theory of evolution. I'd also recommend a world religions class that focused on the fundamentals of _at least_ the five major religions of the world: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu and Buddhism. Only after that would the philosophy class you're talking about be productive.
> 
> To sum up, a discussion about the origins of man, comparing and contrasting the religious AND scientific ideas, could be a very interesting class. But, it would only work, IMO, for older kids (high school level) who have been given a foundation so that the discussion could be had in context.
> 
> Also, for what it's worth, I see the class discussing not just the Christian origin story, but also (at least) the origin myths of the other four major religions in addition to the theory of evolution.




aye, and without what Steve is saying here, then you are simply trying to put religion on equal footing with the scientific method, within the context of a science class.  And that lead balloon just doesn't fly.

Excellent post, Steve.  I was formulating some similar comments but you've captured it very eloquently.


----------



## billc

And on that consensus on man made global warming...cosmic rays?  Eh, Flash Gordon...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/ten_year_anniversary_of_the_climate_change_paradigm_shift.html



> Such  a paradigm shift started a decade ago, when Israeli astrophysicist Nir  Shaviv and Canadian geologist Jan Veizer published the ground-breaking  study that laid out the chief long-term cause of climate change --  cosmic rays. The graph below shows the curve that they discovered. The  original is found and explained on Nir Shaviv's blog at





> http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages:





> Shaviv  had mapped the travels of the solar system through the spiral arms of  our galaxy (shown in the top half of the above graph). Veizer had mapped  the ice ages of the last 500 billion years (shown, along with the fit  to the cosmic ray inflow, in the temperature record in the bottom half  of the above graph). What they found is that ice ages occurred when the  Earth traveled through the spiral arms of our galaxy, periods when the  Earth must have been experiencing high levels of cosmic ray inflow.
> 
> 
> Other  scientists had been laying the groundwork, but it was Shaviv's graph  which caused the paradigm shift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At a time when the anthropogenic global  warming paradigm was accepted by almost all scientists, his paper with  Veizer was published in a geology journal, geology being the one  scientific discipline that had never swallowed the man-centered view of  climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geologists  knew, from the geological record, that ice ages and greenhouse ages way  preceded man in the Earth's history. Some also knew that carbon dioxide  concentrations on today's Earth are low compared to the levels during  earlier epochs. They did not share the usual inflated view of man's  power and importance.
Click to expand...


But, but...I thought all scientists believed in man made global warming...and that it was just a "fact,"  but perhaps...there is more to the story...


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> aye, and without what Steve is saying here, then you are simply trying to put religion on equal footing with the scientific method, within the context of a science class.  And that lead balloon just doesn't fly.
> 
> Excellent post, Steve.  I was formulating some similar comments but you've captured it very eloquently.



Again your claiming that creationism isn't possible.  Yet you cant prove it didn't happen.  You cant prove they are not on equal footing.  you "believe" its not.  At some point something had to have been created out of nothing so no matter how far back you believe where did the goo come from where did the universe come from?  We dont know and we cant prove one way or the other.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Again your claiming that creationism isn't possible. Yet you cant prove it didn't happen. You cant prove they are not on equal footing. you "believe" its not. At some point something had to have been created out of nothing so no matter how far back you believe where did the goo come from where did the universe come from? We dont know and we cant prove one way or the other.



I am actually not claiming that creationism isn't possible. Rather, creationism cannot be proven nor disproven. It cannot be observed nor measured. If it is accepted, it is done so on faith, absent any concrete evidence, and is based on traditions that have been handed down to us by previous generations. Some people accept that faith, others do not. That is a personal choice.

Science deals with what is observable and measurable and compiles concrete evidence to describe the world around us. Let science deal with the observable and measurable. Let religion deal with that which is taken on faith. Religion and faith do not belong in the science classroom.

Science has not yet been able to describe everything in the world. Science is very open about that fact. But that does not justify bringing faith into a science class and pretending that it too is science, or that faith can be accepted scientifically. Again, that is ignorant.

Recognize it for what it is. Religion deals with faith, and it has an appropriate place in society and in the educational system. But that place is not in the science classroom.

I really have no problem with a teacher, in the context of a religion or theology class, suggesting to the students that the aspects of our existence that cannot (yet) be described by science can be seen within the context of the faith as a guiding act of god/zeus/odin/mother goddess, etc. As science fills in the gaps, then it becomes appropriate to adjust the faith to accept what can be scientifically described and for which there is abundant evidence.

However, there is a very big problem with a teacher, in the context of a science class, telling the students that the gaps in scientific understanding should be viewed as the hand of god at work. That is a leap of faith, it is not measurable or observable, and there is no evidence to support it. So in the context of a science class, where observation, measurement, and evidence are of paramount importance and cannot be applied to faith, it is absolutely inappropriate to bring faith into the mix and couch it as scientifically plausible.

This is really a very simple concept. I am bewildered why this is so difficult to grasp.


----------



## Flying Crane

billc said:


> But, but...I thought all scientists believed in man made global warming...and that it was just a "fact," but perhaps...there is more to the story...



oh no, we never said that.  There are hacks and Fossil Fuel Industry stooges who try their best to sow uncertainty on the topic.  I notice you passionately aid them in the dissemination of misinformation...


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> I am actually not claiming that creationism isn't possible. Rather, creationism cannot be proven nor disproven. It cannot be observed nor measured. If it is accepted, it is done so on faith, absent any concrete evidence, and is based on traditions that have been handed down to us by previous generations. Some people accept that faith, others do not. That is a personal choice.
> 
> Science deals with what is observable and measurable and compiles concrete evidence to describe the world around us. Let science deal with the observable and measurable. Let religion deal with that which is taken on faith. Religion and faith do not belong in the science classroom.
> 
> Science has not yet been able to describe everything in the world. Science is very open about that fact. But that does not justify bringing faith into a science class and pretending that it too is science, or that faith can be accepted scientifically. Again, that is ignorant.
> 
> Recognize it for what it is. Religion deals with faith, and it has an appropriate place in society and in the educational system. But that place is not in the science classroom.
> 
> I really have no problem with a teacher, in the context of a religion or theology class, suggesting to the students that the aspects of our existence that cannot (yet) be described by science can be seen within the faith as a guiding act of god/zeus/odin/mother goddess, etc. As science fills in the gaps, then it becomes appropriate to adjust the faith to accept what can be scientifically described and for which there is abundant evidence.
> 
> However, there is a very big problem with a teacher, in the context of a science class, telling the students that the gaps in scientific understanding should be viewed as the hand of god at work. That is a leap of faith, it is not measurable or observable, and there is no evidence to support it. So in the context of a science class, where observation, measurement, and evidence are of paramount importance and cannot be applied to faith, it is absolutely inappropriate to bring faith into the mix and couch it as scientifically plausible.
> 
> This is really a very simple concept. I am bewildered why this is so difficult to grasp.



So you admit Creationism could be possible, you admit Science doesn't know and may never know, and yet still say it shouldn't be mentioned in science class when we teach evolution?  Even in evolution science takes a leap of faith from goo to humans.   So how is your leap of faith better then my leap of faith


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> So you admit Creationism could be possible, you admit Science doesn't know and may never know, and yet still say it shouldn't be mentioned in science class when we teach evolution?



yup, simply because it cannot be disproven, is why I admit it could be possible.  But the inability to disprove it, is not the same as proving it.  Don't make that mistake.



> Even in evolution science takes a leap of faith from goo to humans. So how is your leap of faith better then my leap of faith



Evolution is not a leap of faith. There is a huge amount of concrete evidence that supports evolution as a very real phenomenon happening in the world. The fact that science has not documented or described every single evolutionary step along the way does not negate the fact of evolution. When you understand evolution, it is very easy to see how it is happening all over the place. To exclude humans from that process because we want to believe we are somehow "special" and above the rest of all existence, well that's silly to be honest. In my opinion, it's much more elegant to see how humans fit into the world along with the rest of all the critters, rather than pretending that we were specially created by a supreme being, to be different and above all others.

Your leap of faith holds ZERO concrete evidence. It is a leap of faith, pure and simple.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> its not a fear of science.  you have your blind faith that the amino acid goo some how over billions of years turned into people yet you cant prove it.



You're demonstrating just the kind of ignorance of science we're decrying. You simply don't understand how it works. Science is questions that may never be answered...religion is answers that can never be questioned. Scientists will gladly show you their entire reasoning--it's freely available on the web. There's nothing "blind" about it. You just don't understand the argument ("one long argument") for evolution. It would be possible to understand and still disagree, as is the case with some IDers. But you're claiming an entirely false equivalence.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Again your claiming that creationism isn't possible.  Yet you cant prove it didn't happen.  You cant prove they are not on equal footing.  you "believe" its not.



Creationism is possible. This could all be your dream, on the other hand--you might be the only living sentience and imagining this conversation. These are theories but not _scientific _theories if they can't be tested. Science is a way of knowing. So is making stuff up.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So you admit Creationism could be possible, you admit Science doesn't know and may never know, and yet still say it shouldn't be mentioned in science class when we teach evolution?  Even in evolution science takes a leap of faith from goo to humans.   So how is your leap of faith better then my leap of faith



It's a different approach. You can decide which is better--prayer or medicine, for example. But they're _different_.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> It's a different approach. You can decide which is better--prayer or medicine, for example. But they're _different_.



A better approach is a combination of both.  One does not need to be mutually exclusive of the other.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Creationism is possible. This could all be your dream, on the other hand--you might be the only living sentience and imagining this conversation. These are theories but not _scientific _theories if they can't be tested. Science is a way of knowing. So is making stuff up.



Again so prove how we went from goo to you  you cant we have guesses on what happened by no proof


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> A better approach is a combination of both.  One does not need to be mutually exclusive of the other.



One demands evidence and the other says reason cannot get to me, you need faith--those are different approaches. You can use one approach when it seems best and another when that one seems best--this of course very common, as religious scientists must code-switch like this often--but the approaches themselves don't really lend themselves to being combined. The history of religion is a long retreat as science proves it wrong and it pulls back into smaller and smaller gaps (e.g., theistic evolution).


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> One demands evidence and the other says reason cannot get to me, you need faith--those are different approaches. You can use one approach when it seems best and another when that one seems best--this of course very common, as religious scientists must code-switch like this often--but the approaches themselves don't really lend themselves to being combined. The history of religion is a long retreat as science proves it wrong and it pulls back into smaller and smaller gaps (e.g., theistic evolution).


And Im demanding evidence.  You tell me Creationism didnt happen so show me the proof.  Show me where the goo came from, where the universe came from.  where is the proof


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Again so prove how we went from goo to you  you cant we have guesses on what happened by no proof



It's been done--by the standards of science. Virtually all scientists agree on this. In fact, there's much more disagreement about the theory of gravitation (how gravity works) than the theory of evolution (explaining speciation--why there are so many species and why some look a lot like one another but others don't). If people had any idea how little we really understand about gravity beyond how to predict its effects they'd freak out. People would never fly in an airplane again.

Science is not and may never be complete. It's more method than list of facts. Religion is allegedly divinely revealed and hence stable, though people are no longer stoning their daughters for not being virgins when they web (at least, outside of some Muslim areas).

Evolution has been proven to the satisfaction of scientists. (Check out "Project Steve", for example.) You are demanding a sort of proof other than that used by scientists, and I don't understand what it is you need to see to be satisfied. A pictorial list of every creature that ever lived would be too large to be useful. What non- or extra-scientific information are you seeking?


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> And Im demanding evidence. *You tell me Creationism didnt happen so show me the proof*.



We've actually said that it might have happened but it cannot be proven.

You want us to disprove it?  OK, just as soon as you prove it.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> And Im demanding evidence.  You tell me Creationism didnt happen



I never said that. I've said just the opposite: It could've happened. In this very thread I've repeatedly told you that it's a theory but not of the sort science considers. It could be true yet still not subject to scientific verification.



> Show me where the goo came from, where the universe came from.  where is the proof



What do you mean by "show me"? We can't physically take you somewhere. In any event, religious explanations are much more vague than scientific hypotheses in these matters.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> We've actually said that it might have happened but it cannot be proven.
> 
> You want us to disprove it?  OK, just as soon as you prove it.



Prove what your all the proof I need.  Your existence is proof


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> I never said that. I've said just the opposite: It could've happened. In this very thread I've repeatedly told you that it's a theory but not of the sort science considers. It could be true yet still not subject to scientific verification.


So it could happen but we just cant discuss it as a possibility.



> What do you mean by "show me"? We can't physically take you somewhere. In any event, religious explanations are much more vague than scientific hypotheses in these matters.


hypotheses oh you mean a guess or belief kinda like a Leap of faith.


----------



## Steve

Ballen.  Your posts are surreal.  You are literally ignoring what is being said to you and refuting statements no one but your imagination have said.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> Prove what your all the proof I need. Your existence is proof



It's not proof that a diety created me.  My existence is only proof that I exist.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Ballen.  Your posts are surreal.  You are literally ignoring what is being said to you and refuting statements no one but your imagination have said.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


So then ignore it if you have a problem.


----------



## ballen0351

Flying Crane said:


> It's not proof that a diety created me.  My existence is only proof that I exist.



And where did humans come from?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So then ignore it if you have a problem.


LOL.  Someone woke up on the wrong side of the web server today.  Seriously, take a step back and READ... really read... what people are saying.  So far, I and several others have agreed with you that creationism CAN be taught in schools.  No one (that I've seen) has suggested that creationism is impossible.  Everyone has been VERY respectful of your right to your faith.  

Over the last several pages, you've been articulating an increasingly extreme position that is falling apart around you.  It's not enough that it be taught in schools.  You want it taught as science.  It's not enough that it be taught as science.  You want it taught as an equivalent to evolution.  It's not enough that it be taught as an equivalent to evolution.  You want people who are not Xtians to accept it.  Come on, buddy.  Be reasonable.  You're way out on a weird limb here, pushing a position that even many xtians would argue is unreasonable.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> And where did humans come from?


It's an hour long.  But if you want to know, it's all right here.  Guess which side of this you're on:





Edit:  Just want to emphasize that this video is long, but it's virtually identical to the discussion we're having here.  But if you watch it all the way through, it's very interesting.  At the very least, it will help inform each of us about what the other side believes to be true.


----------



## Flying Crane

ballen0351 said:


> And where did humans come from?



Humans are the result of a very long history of evolution, including a common ancestor with apes and monkeys.  Prior to that, the critter that later became humans, went thru a huge series of evolutions, all the way back to the primordial soup.  

Prior to that?  the earth was inhabited by the very earliest and simplest forms of proto-life, things like amino acids.  Prior to that, it was uninhabited.  Prior to that, it was free-floating material and atoms that slowly came together under the effects of gravity, and became a planet circling our sun.  Prior to that, the sun was born out of atoms, matter, gravity, pressure, and heat, and birthed a solar system.

Prior to that, the universe began in what is commonly termed, "the Big Bang".  Prior to the Big Bang, it is unknown what existed and I am not familiar with the theories.

This is what mathematics, physics, astro-physics, biology, chemistry, paeleontology, and the world of sciences has shown us to be true.  There is evidence, very strong evidence, to support that series of events.

is it possible that this all was put into action by a supreme being?  It's possible.  But there is zero evidence to support it.  That is a matter of faith, that you are welcome to believe, but not welcome to treat as if it is science.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So it could happen but we just cant discuss it as a possibility.



We can. But not via the methods of science. If you find science's answers wanting then you may well be justified looking elsewhere. Choosing to use science or not to do so is a choice that you might make on any number of grounds; it's just that within science one is limited to the falsifiable.



> hypotheses oh you mean a guess or belief kinda like a Leap of faith.



Hypotheses are tested. Ones that fail are weeded out...in science. In religion, land of unicorns and talking snakes, a different method prevails.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> And where did humans come from?



This bothers you, but not the question of where Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law came from? You're very selectively applying your criterion of you-must-fill-in-all-the-gaps.

(And that doesn't even touch on the question: If humans came from god, where did god come from? Religion just pushes the question back one stage farther.)


----------



## arnisador

Flying Crane said:


> This is what mathematics, physics, astro-physics, biology, chemistry, paeleontology, and the world of sciences has shown us to be true.



Among those other sciences, geology is huge in this--Darwin's work was enabled by then-recent discoveries concerning the layers of the earth and also its age. But in the post-DNA age the argument from biochemistry alone is sufficiently compelling.


----------



## Steve

And let's not even get started on the problem of evil.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Sorry matette
> 
> During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering   for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance,   Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of   scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (17441829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarkism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, particularly in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.



and they threatened Galileo and Kopernicus with Excomunication, possibly even the inquisition (to tired to look it up right now)
And Leonardo Davinci and great many of his kind performed anatomy research in secret...
And during a considerable period of darkness knowledge was suppressed by the church, but it might have just been a misogynist thing to burn women at the stake, often the wise women, versed in the healing arts...
The renaissance was not of the church's doing...probably more a case of "hey look what they stashed away" when secularisation took place all over Europe. Wisdom and learning was during this time kept alive in the cultures of the East, Islamic nations, while Europe took a 'breather' between the high culture of antiquity and the re-awakening during the renaissance. 
And frankly, at one point you can't keep the lid on it any longer.


----------



## ballen0351

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETUVUqHVRQY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Steve  I'll watch that debate later I'm off to work now.  I'd urge you to check out Dr Lennox from oxford university.  He did a debate with Hawkins that was really interesting.  Its long as well but if your seriously interested in the topic of god vs science its pretty good.  Here a short clip of Lennox  but the debate is good


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETUVUqHVRQY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> Steve  I'll watch that debate later I'm off to work now.  I'd urge you to check out Dr Lennox from oxford university.  He did a debate with Hawkins that was really interesting.  Its long as well but if your seriously interested in the topic of god vs science its pretty good.  Here a short clip of Lennox  but the debate is good



I will check it out, as well.  But once again, I urge you to consider that god vs science isn't the same as god is science.  Teaching religion in school is different from teaching religion in science class.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

So, what's the bottom line here?  Do we let partisan hacks moderate debates or not?  Do we take them seriously as moderators?  

Ballen, would you be okay if the Christian creation story is taught in a class alongside and equally weighted to the stories and mythologies of the other four major religions of the world?  Or are you endorsing only creationism and only in science class alongside evolution?

The conversation took so many twists and turns, I'm trying to figure out where we're at.


----------



## billc

Sooo...about those scientists and the IPCC report...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/


> &#8220;I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And  they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were  talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that  the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,&#8221; Christy  told CNN on May 2, 2007. &#8211; *Alabama State Climatologist Dr.  John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN  IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how  he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science  for political purposes.*





> &#8220;Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted  mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient  to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!&#8221;- *UN  IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was  part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change&#8217;s (IPCC) Second (1995)  and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed  publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry,  air pollutions and vehicle emissions.*






> &#8220;Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I  quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp&#8230;Climate models can at  best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.&#8221; &#8211; *Meteorologist  Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to  become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.*



The examples go on, and on...


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> Sooo...about those scientists and the IPCC report...[...]The examples go on, and on...



...but apparently they come from only one source, www.climatedepot.com. It's a project of CFACT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFACT



> The *Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow* (*CFACT*) is a conservative Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization, founded in 1985.


----------



## billc

> Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC&#8217;s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean&#8217;s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is &#8220;an illusion.&#8221; McLean&#8217;s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN&#8217;s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that &#8216;it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.&#8221; The analysis by McLean states: &#8220;The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC&#8217;s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.&#8221; Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.


...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf



> The IPCC is a single-interest organisation, whose charter presumes a widespread human influence on climate, rather than consideration of whether such influence may be negligible or missing altogether. Though the IPCC's principles also state that a wide range of views is to be sought when selecting lead authors and contributing authors, this rule has been honored more in the breach than in the observance.
> More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC&#8217;s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other&#8217;s work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> So, what's the bottom line here?  Do we let partisan hacks moderate debates or not?  Do we take them seriously as moderators?


I think the fact that we even care who a moderator is means the moderator isn't doing his job.  A good moderator is someone you don't even know is there.  Its about the candidate not the moderator.  However if you have no plan on voting for the GOP candidate anyway why you (general you not you Steve personally) care who moderates it.


> Ballen, would you be okay if the Christian creation story is taught in a class alongside and equally weighted to the stories and mythologies of the other four major religions of the world?  Or are you endorsing only creationism and only in science class alongside evolution?


Id rather see eveloution creationism and the other top ideas taught at the same time since its the same topic.  Im not saying they are equal im saying its the same topic and doesnt need to be broken up.  I dont care of its mon -thurs on eveloutuon and friday is spent teaching the other ideas.    


> The conversation took so many twists and turns, I'm trying to figure out where we're at.


I'm in MD your in Washington


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I think the fact that we even care who a moderator is means the moderator isn't doing his job.  A good moderator is someone you don't even know is there.  Its about the candidate not the moderator.



Agreed.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> I think the fact that we even care who a moderator is means the moderator isn't doing his job.  A good moderator is someone you don't even know is there.  Its about the candidate not the moderator.  However if you have no plan on voting for the GOP candidate anyway why you (general you not you Steve personally) care who moderates it.


It should be like that, but can you see it with that proposed lineup?


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> It should be like that, but can you see it with that proposed lineup?



I think the line up is a knee jerk reaction to what many on the right view as left leaning moderators in the last few debates.  Id rather just not have a moderator.  Post a topic and a time limit when the time limit goes off your mic goes dead and the next person mic turns on.  When its you turn again if you dont answer the new topic and keep going back to the old Oh well its your time and you may piss of voters who care about the topic you refuse to answer.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I think the fact that we even care who a moderator is means the moderator isn't doing his job.  A good moderator is someone you don't even know is there.  Its about the candidate not the moderator.  However if you have no plan on voting for the GOP candidate anyway why you (general you not you Steve personally) care who moderates it.


Agreed, but the moderator position has become as visible as the host of the Oscars.  I mean, after any debate, each side is immediately declaring their candidates the "winner."  The eventual loser always blames the moderator.

For what it's worth, I'm as likely to vote GOP as Democrat, although I will freely admit I'm not the same kind of conservative as some around these parts. 


> Id rather see eveloution creationism and the other top ideas taught at the same time since its the same topic.  Im not saying they are equal im saying its the same topic and doesnt need to be broken up.  I dont care of its mon -thurs on eveloutuon and friday is spent teaching the other ideas.


I wouldn't mind seeing this as I've outlined before.  How it's handled is important, and to whom it's being taught is also important.  A class as you describe could be misleading at best if the class isn't well prepared, the students lack the appropriate foundation to understand the material and the context of the discussion isn't made clear.


> I'm in MD your in Washington


Roger.  Thanks.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I think the line up is a knee jerk reaction to what many on the right view as left leaning moderators in the last few debates.  Id rather just not have a moderator.  Post a topic and a time limit when the time limit goes off your mic goes dead and the next person mic turns on.  When its you turn again if you dont answer the new topic and keep going back to the old Oh well its your time and you may piss of voters who care about the topic you refuse to answer.


That'd be a decent format.  Only thing that might be lacking is someone to push a politician to answer the damned question and not go off on irrelevant tangents.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> That'd be a decent format.  Only thing that might be lacking is someone to push a politician to answer the damned question and not go off on irrelevant tangents.



Even with mods they still talk about what ever they want.  Where mods start screwing things up is when the candidate says mr mod I need a min to respond to what he just said and he mods say OK.  So screw it if they refuse to answer then everyone that really cares about that particular topic can hold it against them.  I prefer the question from the audience style anyway but don't prescreen the question.  I want them on their toes.  When Putin comes at you at a G whatever summit  your not going to have a scripted responce if you can't handle Jane from Orlando how are you going to deal with Kim jong whoever from N Korea


----------

