How do we make sustainable environments? Is "Evolution" always the most applicable?

[Subduction Zone]

I think he means your 'faith' in evolution, which hasn't seemed to help the environment very much. It's hard to see the big picture through a microscope.

Then perhaps he should drop the personal attacks. In the world of science no one accepts the theory of evolution on faith. Acceptance is based upon evidence. Those that believe in creationism have to do so by faith and far too often they attack others with the falsehood that they accept evolution on faith. One should never assume that others have the same weaknesses as one has himself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but even Darwin - Charles Darwin - said it mattered what environment they were in when they evolved.

Mutations in one environment, may be completely different in another.

You want me to bite? But I'm not biting - I'm just giving you straight up Evolution.

Mutations, for all intents and purposes, occur randomly - the environment is relevant in selecting which mutations will persist in the population. The environment may significantly influence mutation rate in some organisms due to their response to environmental stress.

You can bite or not bite on whatever you like. My aim here is to point out and/or correct obvious misunderstandings and misinterpretations - such as your presentation of 'straight up' evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think he means your 'faith' in evolution, which hasn't seemed to help the environment very much. It's hard to see the big picture through a microscope.

Doesn't seem to be what he means.

And that is both insulting and obviously wrong.

The casual scorn that many creationists have for the environment and any attempt to help our protect it leaves your attempt to smear scientists unconvincing as usual.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Doesn't seem to be what he means.

And that is both insulting and obviously wrong.

The casual scorn that many creationists have for the environment and any attempt to help our protect it leaves your attempt to smear scientists unconvincing as usual.

Scientists are in charge of the environment, not creationists. Most creationists would favor saving and improving the environment but have no power to do so. It seems that scientists would rather study the decline of the environment than save it.

Speaking as an observer for the need for local action I can tell you that science is doing little for the environment. As I said they are looking at the world through a microscope. They should get out more.

 

[pitabread]

Scientists are in charge of the environment, not creationists.

Scientists aren't in charge of the environment. Politicians are.

Speaking as an observer for the need for local action I can tell you that science is doing little for the environment. As I said they are looking at the world through a microscope. They should get out more.

This is an incredibly ignorant comment about scientists. I don't think you know what they actually do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Scientists aren't in charge of the environment. Politicians are.

Politicians act upon the advice of scientists, not creationists. For example scientists countenance the horrid mess that logging does to our forests. Creationists would 'dress and keep' the forests, which is absolutely necessary in the effort to sequester carbon.

This is an incredibly ignorant comment about scientists. I don't think you know what they actually do.

I guess you'd have to be here (in my 'learning tree') to see what they are not doing. Of course it's not their fault as they aren't trained to deal with the obvious.

 

[Speedwell]

Politicians act upon the advice of scientists, not creationists. For example scientists countenance the horrid mess that logging does to our forests.

Scientists are in favor of clear-cut logging??? I find that hard to believe.

Creationists would 'dress and keep' the forests, which is absolutely necessary in the effort to sequester carbon.

There are no fundamentalist Evangelicals involved in clear-cut logging??? I find that even harder to believe, because I know some.

 

[pitabread]

Politicians act upon the advice of scientists, not creationists. For example scientists countenance the horrid mess that logging does to our forests. Creationists would 'dress and keep' the forests, which is absolutely necessary in the effort to sequester carbon.

Unsupported, sweeping generalizations.

I guess you'd have to be here (in my 'learning tree') to see what they are not doing. Of course it's not their fault as they aren't trained to deal with the obvious.

More sweeping generalizations. You still appear to have no understanding of what scientists actually do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Scientists are in favor of clear-cut logging??? I find that hard to believe.

I don't see them protesting it where I live. Forest management is a science.

There are no fundamentalist Evangelicals involved in clear-cut logging??? I find that even harder to believe, because I know some.

What are their names?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

More sweeping generalizations. You still appear to have no understanding of what scientists actually do.

It's what they aren't doing that concerns me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't see them protesting it where I live.

Is there a lot of clear-cut logging in Dane County?

 

[pitabread]

It's what they aren't doing that concerns me.

What should they be doing? What do you think the role of scientists is in society?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Politicians act upon the advice of scientists, not creationists.

Why would anyone seek the advice of creationists about anything? (Note, that I'm not talking of those who believe in creationism, but rather the "professionals" like Ken Ham and his ilk.)

Creationism isn't a body of knowledge or a system of studying consequences of actions. It is religion. [While I don't care for it, you are free to have yours, and so is everyone else.]

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is there a lot of clear-cut logging in Dane County?

The Black River State Forest in Jackson county, or as I like to call it the Black River State Clear-cut.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What should they be doing? What do you think the role of scientists is in society?

They should be effective advocates for the proper use of their discoveries. Perhaps they could start with opioids.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why would anyone seek the advice of creationists about anything? (Note, that I'm not talking of those who believe in creationism, but rather the "professionals" like Ken Ham and his ilk.)

Creationism isn't a body of knowledge or a system of studying consequences of actions. It is religion. [While I don't care for it, you are free to have yours, and so is everyone else.]

Creationism is that part of religion that deals with the physical earth.

What I mean by creationist in this sense is a spirit-led person making spirit-led decisions about the stewardship of the earth. Adam was (to be) the first human creationist/environmentalist, as his job was to 'dress and keep' the garden

Regarding logging practices,

Scientific method: Clear cut tracts using heavy machinery that leaves large permanent ruts in the ground, cuts and cleans logs into uniform lengths, then leaves the slash to decompose above ground releasing it's carbon into the air (the slash often equals the weight of the usable log).

Creationist method: Selective harvesting using machinery that doesn't leave ruts, and intensive hand labor (volunteers from prisons), slash is chipped and buried (carbon is sequestered).

 

[pitabread]

They should be effective advocates for the proper use of their discoveries. Perhaps they could start with opioids.

So you think scientists should become lobbyists?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Black River State Forest in Jackson county, or as I like to call it the Black River State Clear-cut.

2+ hours away, doesn't sound real close. More importantly, scientists are way to busy to be protesting.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Creationism is that part of religion that deals with the physical earth.

What I mean by creationist in this sense is a spirit-led person making spirit-led decisions about the stewardship of the earth. Adam was (to be) the first human creationist/environmentalist, as his job was to 'dress and keep' the garden.

MOre standard usages really help with comprehension. I've heard people cite the creation story in genesis as inspiration for preserving "god's creation", but I've also heard others cite the same text as an excuse to dominate and exploit natural resources.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.