Why Evolution is True

[CabVet]

Yes it posits an alternate creation. It preaches a universe that was not created.

It preaches nothing, and it hypothesizes an origin for the universe that happens to be different from the one you believe, but not different from that which billions of other Christians believe.

Don't pretend you are echoing some opinion of mine with your morbid hate speech.

Are gays going to heaven?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Doesn't ID creationism suggest a designer? That wouldn't be error.

I just said you can't claim anything is without error. If you aren't willing to even consider the possibility your position might have flaws, don't even bother with debates.

 

[stevevw]

Nope, that would be your twisted version of science. But feel free to keep using the products of it, even if that's what you think about it.

But those who use science can twist things as well, ie global warming for example.

 

[dad]

It preaches nothing, and it hypothesizes an origin for the universe

It preaches and nothing but. Surely, any spiritually savvy soul should should see that.

'Kids, where did the universe come from? Despite what you may have heard, we believe that it all started from a little hot soup speck that came from we know not where, or why, and for reasons unknown to us, using laws foreign to us, it suddenly started to expand and grow. The result is all the stars and planets and sun and all that is in this universe. To believe otherwise is to be a goat herder, and to oppose science'

Is that about right?

Now if christians refuse to believe John or Moses or Jesus and etc...that is their problem.

Are gays going to heaven?

God judges the hearts more than the hards.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But those who use science can twist things as well, ie global warming for example.

In the unlikely event that global warming turns out to actually occur, and we have some dire consequences such as rising sea levels, record drought, record fire seasons, more intensive hurricanes, acidic oceans, sea flooding of coastal areas, and so forth . . .

what changes in your ways of thinking will you accept?

 

[stevevw]

In the unlikely event that global warming turns out to actually occur, and we have some dire consequences such as rising sea levels, record drought, record fire seasons, more intensive hurricanes, acidic oceans, sea flooding of coastal areas, and so forth . . .

what changes in your ways of thinking will you accept?

No I'm not disputing global warming or climate change is more the better word. It is and was the use of stats that some scientists used which were wrong to make a case for governments who were for and against the issue and they were on their pay roll. So they were using science as a way to promote their agendas. That is what I am talking about, that humans can and do use science and twist it. Its easy to use stats and figures and emphasize certain individual aspects to make a argument for one side of the debate. They may make a reconstruction of an animal so that it looks more like the creature they want so that it fits in with the story of evolution. Yet they will only have fragmented evidence to go by. Its not hard to focus on certain parts of an animal and show how they can be linked to another if they want to show transitions. Yet they will conveniently overlook the many other parts that dont fit in with the picture they want to paint. Thats how it happens a lot because they want to push their own beliefs about something and use science as a way of making it seem legit.

 

[lasthero]

It is and was the use of stats that some scientists used which were wrong to make a case for governments

Who is 'some'? And what 'governments'?

 

[stevevw]

Who is 'some'? And what 'governments'?

Well the governments here used scientists who were on their pay roll to push their agendas. The scientists were scientists who had all the qualifications of being an expert in their field. If you go into most subjects you will find some scientific statistics that will back both sides of the argument. People will then decide to push whatever side they want to make. If you look at diet for example some people were saying sugar was bad and even fat wasn't as bad as being made out. Still the heart foundation with all their medical experts and scientists who said that this product and that products was OK.

They were putting their little tick of approval on certain food products which gave it more selling power because they were classed as good for you. Yet they were low in fat but high in sugar. Now the facts are that it is sugar that is the real killer and what actually will put the weight on. Now all the organizations like CSRIO are starting to change as well and agree that yes it is sugar and some fats are not as bad as they were made out. But the tick of approval program was something that got a company more punch in their promotion of their products and cost money to get so their was a vested interest to not expose the companies products that were being promoted under their banner until it became to obvious.

 

[lasthero]

How did we go from climate change to food? What about the scientists I asked about?

 

[stevevw]

How did we go from climate change to food? What about the scientists I asked about?

Well I was using both as good examples of how the stats can be uses to push whatever side of the debate you want. The government used the CSRIO as their backup for climate change years ago. The CSRIO is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. I am not saying that global warming is not a real threat. What I am saying is that some scientists and people that use science can distort the truth and use the stats to show their own agenda. The science can be done on a model that the scientist choose to make. That model can be wrong for whatever reason. But sometimes the model that is chosen is done because of the scientists preconceived ideas of what the outcomes should be. This is the human factor that can taint the outcomes. its like millers beginnings of life experiment. He assumed the ancient atmosphere of earth had certain elements. But some of those assumed elements were what was needed for his experiment to be successful in the first place.

Welcome to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) | CSIRO
This site is from the Sydney morning Herald from Andrew Bolt a respected columnists on political issues.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[lasthero]

Who is 'the government'? What scientists? Can you give any specifics?

 

[stevevw]

Who is 'the government'? What scientists? Can you give any specifics?

The government is the Australian Government and the scientists are from the CSRIO which is a commonwealth organization which is a Government organization that does research on behalf of the government.

 

[biggles53]

Well I was using both as good examples of how the stats can be uses to push whatever side of the debate you want. The government used the CSRIO as their backup for climate change years ago. The CSRIO is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. I am not saying that global warming is not a real threat. What I am saying is that some scientists and people that use science can distort the truth and use the stats to show their own agenda. The science can be done on a model that the scientist choose to make. That model can be wrong for whatever reason. But sometimes the model that is chosen is done because of the scientists preconceived ideas of what the outcomes should be. This is the human factor that can taint the outcomes. its like millers beginnings of life experiment. He assumed the ancient atmosphere of earth had certain elements. But some of those assumed elements were what was needed for his experiment to be successful in the first place.

Welcome to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) | CSIRO
This site is from the Sydney morning Herald from Andrew Bolt a respected columnists on political issues.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

What evidence do you have to support your outrageous claims Steve, about scientists being used as pawns by the government...??

And please, please do NOT promote Andrew Bolt as being 'fair and balanced'.....that would be like promoting Fox News as being the same...! He is a climate change denier of the strongest order.....and is regarded as a right-wing nut job by those outside of his little circle of worshippers....!

 

[justlookinla]

The government is the Australian Government and the scientists are from the CSRIO which is a commonwealth organization which is a Government organization that does research on behalf of the government.

Notice that Brisbane is experiencing coldest temperatures in 103 years.

 

[biggles53]

For the benefit of those who understand the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER, they might notice that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia on record....!

 

[biggles53]

No I'm not disputing global warming or climate change is more the better word. It is and was the use of stats that some scientists used which were wrong to make a case for governments who were for and against the issue and they were on their pay roll. So they were using science as a way to promote their agendas. That is what I am talking about, that humans can and do use science and twist it. Its easy to use stats and figures and emphasize certain individual aspects to make a argument for one side of the debate. They may make a reconstruction of an animal so that it looks more like the creature they want so that it fits in with the story of evolution. Yet they will only have fragmented evidence to go by. Its not hard to focus on certain parts of an animal and show how they can be linked to another if they want to show transitions. Yet they will conveniently overlook the many other parts that dont fit in with the picture they want to paint. Thats how it happens a lot because they want to push their own beliefs about something and use science as a way of making it seem legit.

Ummmm.....you accept the case for climate change, but you also claim that the scientists who present that case were somehow biased or misled...?

Then, how (staff edit) did you decide that climate change was, in fact, real...!?

 

[stevevw]

What evidence do you have to support your outrageous claims Steve, about scientists being used as pawns by the government...??

And please, please do NOT promote Andrew Bolt as being 'fair and balanced'.....that would be like promoting Fox News as being the same...! He is a climate change denier of the strongest order.....and is regarded as a right-wing nut job by those outside of his little circle of worshippers....!

The problem is you throw the baby out with the bath water. Some of the things Andrew Bolt says are right and if you read his comments you will see that what he has said has been shown to be true.

Tim Flannery is one scientist used by the labor government. He predicted in 2005 that Sydney's dams would be dry in as little as 2 years and we would be facing a major lack of water for Australia's largest city. Thats when we were in a drought and everyone was going on about how bad it was and all the alarmists were predicting all sorts of things about running out of water. In fact there were some stupid policies made on the run because of this which ended up costing the tax payer heaps of money. Then we had the flooding rains and our dams were full to the brims.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."
In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full.

Some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.

So let's check on them, too.

In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.

As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ...

"In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

One premier, Queensland's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".

But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned.

Now if you go to the other side of the debate the liberal government can be shown to use science stats to promote their agenda of getting rid of the carbon tax. Not so much that they deny global warming anymore but the methods and ways in which it is happening and how to deal with it. So they will find all the data that supports warming not being caused by man and that its not as bad as we think it is.

But the main piece of evidence would be the fact that in any debate you will find that their is scientific data and stats for both sides of the argument. There is even a whole topic on the manipulation and politicizing of science. So that in itself shows how science can be wrong as both sides cant be right at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science

But you have missed the point by not allowing me to use other areas where science has been used by governments and organizations to promote certain agendas like with sugar and diets. The point I was trying to make was that science can be used and manipulated. It is not just the facts and stats that science will make , its the point that humans can and will twist and manipulate things to their own beliefs or agendas. Side tracking the debate to focus on whether the government uses science wrongly is not the point of was making.

 

[createdtoworship]

yes we are in a warming cycle, but like I said it's cyclical, not man made.

"It’s uncontroversial that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have gone up. But, correlation isn’t causation; the theory advanced for catastrophic man-man global warming doesn’t explain past climate change; and it ignores possible other causes (like solar activity)".- Jay richards

more info here
Dr. Jay Richards on "What Should Christians Think About Global Warming?" - YouTube

btw
more co2 is given off watering a lawn than it is driving any cars.

 

[stevevw]

Notice that Brisbane is experiencing coldest temperatures in 103 years.

Yes its cold, but not as cold as we have seen in some of those arctic freeze overs in the US and England. See the whole thing use to be called global warming but when things started to get extremely cold in places they started to call it extreme weather events. But the point is some use the stats and get all alarmist about it and that scares people into doing some stupid things. There is no denying that there is a problem with the weather at the moment. There is no denying that man made pollution will have an impact in some way. There is no denying we need to do something and clean practices is a good thing no matter if we have a problem or not. But its the use of that science that is important. How people portray the data and what they attribute the causes are from. Most of the changes might be a natural cycle and then calm down in time. We have to get more data and we have to not go overboard with predictions and scare governments into make the wrong decisions.

 

[stevevw]

Ummmm.....you accept the case for climate change, but you also claim that the scientists who present that case were somehow biased or misled...?

Then, how the hell did you decide that climate change was, in fact, real...!?

I'm not deciding anything. My point is that there is so much data out there for both sides that most dont really know and are unsure. You can get stats to back both sides. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.