Scientific American endorses Kamala Harris

[Postvieww]

How so?

I didn't make any claims that they oppose all scientific research and certainly not all results... but comments on climate change and epidemiology and also all the statements about universities brainwashing young people paint a pretty clear picture.

You said:”Seems reasonable to acknowledge that Donald Trump and his allies are opposed to scientific evidence, higher education and public spending on research.” That is a broad sweeping statement! But we can break it down. 1. All claims about climate change are NOT settled science. 2. All information put out by the medical community particularly as related to Covid was not all accurate. 3. The majority of higher learning institutions are absolutely brainwashing centers. 4. Much of public education is teaching crap not suitable for children. So yes you made a broad sweeping accusation against Trump and his allies.

 

[Astrid]

You said:”Seems reasonable to acknowledge that Donald Trump and his allies are opposed to scientific evidence, higher education and public spending on research.” That is a broad sweeping statement! But we can break it down. 1. All claims about climate change are NOT settled science. 2. All information put out by the medical community particularly as related to Covid was not all accurate. 3. The majority of higher learning institutions are absolutely brainwashing centers. 4. Much of public education is teaching crap not suitable for children. So yes you made a broad sweeping accusation against Trump and his allies.

All claims? Name any topic with 100% accuracy.

“Majority”. Grand sweep of extremist opinion.

pot v kettle

 

[Postvieww]

All claims? Name any topic with 100% accuracy.

“Majority”. Grand sweep of extremist opinion.

pot v kettle

It seems reasonable that Kamala Harris and her allies lean heavily towards communistic ideals.

 

[Astrid]

It seems reasonable that Kamala Harris and her allies lean heavily towards communistic ideals.

No to me. Though communist ideals are pretty good.

 

[sjastro]

Did it work?

I didn’t know what to expect but it was unfortunate migrant and science bashing appeared in this thread.

One of the more interesting theories about why many support Trump is they basically want (metaphorically) to "blow up" the system/status quo (that is, America as it is).
It's a kinda resentment based thing (as I understand the theory), where they (have been led to) believe that somehow others ('liberals' etc.) have caused them to be disadvantaged, etc. and so they want to blow things up. Collapse the system. For this theory to be correct, though, it seems to me this would imply they don't believe in Christ (regardless of what they claim) since an actual belief would lead to paying attention to things he instructed us such as the pro-active golden rule (Matthew 7), and that we welcome and take care of those in need, such as desperate immigrants that Trump promises to deport... To support Trump is to directly go against what Christ said. So, Trump seems clearly a candidate to appeal to those who in their hearts want a Savior, and don't yet have one, and are easy to mislead. If that's so, for such it won't help much to argue with them then, but instead the only help would be to hear the gospel and gain faith in Christ.

What I find incomprehensible is the overwhelming support for Trump amongst white evangelicals, despite his comments on groping women as being acceptable behaviour or his conviction of sexual abuse in a civil court.
Trump’s stance on abortion may have been the motivating issue for the support but white evangelicals should realise Trump was once pro-choice and his Damascene conversion was based on political expediency and nothing else.

Before Trump entered politics his record would have been political suicide for any other politician, today it has been normalized.

 

[Astrid]

I didn’t know what to expect but it was unfortunate migrant and science bashing appeared in this thread.

What I find incomprehensible is the overwhelming support for Trump amongst white evangelicals, despite his comments on groping women as being acceptable behaviour or his conviction of sexual abuse in a civil court.
Trump’s stance on abortion may have been the motivating issue for the support but white evangelicals should realise Trump was once pro-choice and his Damascene conversion was based on political expediency and nothing else.

Before Trump entered politics his record would have been political suicide for any other politician, today it has been normalized.

The bible makes much of the flawed man called to grratness

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible makes much of the flawed man called to grratness

Rags to riches.

 

[sjastro]

The bible makes much of the flawed man called to grratness

The flawed man in question is also making money off the Bible.

​

An autographed copy by yours truly can fetch a lot of money.

​

This is cringeworthy and evangelicals are now starting to wakeup.
The evangelical pastor Loran Livingston drew national attention when he gave a sermon denouncing the Trump Bible as "blasphemous" and "disgusting" for tying the Bible to American politics.

 

[Postvieww]

No to me. Though communist ideals are pretty good.

Thanks for your honesty, it explains a lot.

 

[Astrid]

Thanks for your honesty, it explains a lot.

I very much doubt that.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is cringeworthy ...

Thank you for thinking so highly of the King James Bible.

As much as It is critiqued, I didn't think anyone would care.

It's refreshing to see someone treat It like the sacred book It is.

 

[Shemjaza]

(message inappropriate and removed).

 

[sjastro]

So the graph is biased is it?
I decided to dump your ClimateBook link data into Excel which performed a 30 year moving average analysis.
Since the moving average is thirty years it started from 1905 instead of 1875.

View attachment 354928
​

Are you still going to proclaim the nonsense there is very little or no change over 150 years, or maybe Microsoft Excel is also into the conspiracy by building a bias into the data.
For those that are interested notice how the warming rate started accelerating from the 1970s.
The burning of fossil fuels apart from releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere also produces particulate matter which has a negative feedback by reflecting sunlight away from the surface which has a cooling effect.
By reducing particulate emissions over the decades has further exposed the greenhouse warming effects of CO₂.

I decided to do another one of my AI tests, this time requesting GPT-4o to:

(1) Produce a thirty year moving average of the Climatebook data.
(2) Determine if there was bias in the data, I left it to GPT-4o to decide which statistical tools to use.
(3) Provide a physical explanation for the bias which was not explicitly requested by me, but "hopefully" an interpretation would be made.

GPT-4o's response to (1).

​

I didn't request the Python code which shows GPT-4o's derivation of the graph but ran it to make sure the code worked.

GPT-4o's response to (2) and (3) with the important points highlighted.

GPT-4o correctly analysed an acceleration of warming during the Period 2 as being statistically significant and not random.
While it did not attribute a specific reason for the warming such as a reduction in global dimming due to lower particulate matter emissions, it included another possibility of changes in measurement technology.
This is valid as from the late 1970s satellites have become the major technology to record temperatures.

This leads to the Climategate fiasco of 2009 when emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia were hacked and released. Critics claimed that the emails showed climate scientists manipulating data and suppressing dissenting views.
Investigations found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, instead scientists were addressing the statistical biases introduced by determining temperature using different technologies for data extended over long time periods.

 

[Jipsah]

Thank you for thinking so highly of the King James Bible.

I still hold out for the Korean version (개역한글). My grandmother was the most faithful Christian I've ever known, and it's the only version she ever read. 'Nuff said.

 

[AV1611VET]

I still hold out for the Korean version (개역한글). My grandmother was the most faithful Christian I've ever known, and it's the only version she ever read. 'Nuff said.

The Korean version of the KJB?

 

[Jipsah]

The Korean version of the KJB?

There are Korean "translations" from the KJV, "Living Bible", and some others, but the first Hangul Bible, written in the Korean alphabet instead of Chinese characters was in fact a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and I reckon, Aramaic/Syriac. No fear, God manages to communicate with people in langages other than archaic Jacobean English.

The big deal was that it was written in Korean letters so that the average Korean could read it. Chinese has, and had, become the Latin of Asia, and outside China the ability to read Chinese is pretty much restricted to scholars and the rich, who value it as a status symbol. In Japan, for example, the use of Chinese characters, reinforced by the Hiragana and Katakana syllabaries, is still how everything is written, primarily for cultural reasons. But the average Korean reads and writes in Korean, each letter in the Hangul alphabet written exactly as it it sounds (none of the sort of "rough/cough/through/bough" stuff that helps make English such a crock to learn as a second language). The Korean Church was instrumental in propagating the use of the Hangul alphabet because they wanted everyone to be able to read the Scriptures without spending a lot of unnecessary time and energy learning a very difficult foreign language.

 

[Jipsah]

I very much doubt that.

Means you're honest, which isn't a bad thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

No fear, God manages to communicate with people in langages other than archaic Jacobean English.

Ya -- like Korean.

So if God can translate Hebrew/Greek/Aramic/Syriac to Korean, He can certainly translate Jacobean English to Korean.

And just out of curiosity, why did you call Jacobean English "archaic," but not the Hebrew, Greek, Aramic, and Syriac, which are even older?

 

[Jipsah]

Ya -- like Korean.

Kind of the obvious choice if you're Korean, innit?

So if God can translate Hebrew/Greek/Aramic/Syriac to Korean, He can certainly translate Jacobean Engliish

God can, but He didn't. Why would the people He left to do that job not go to the original languages rather than doing a translation of a translation? "Oh. because ancient English is just better", right? Uh, no. It's just another unintelligible lot of foreign babble if you're the average person in China or Korea.

And just out of curiosity, why did you call Jacobean English "archaic,"

Oh, I dunno. When was the last time you heard anyone at Walmart talking like this?:
how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to my lady’s chamber, and tell her, let
her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must
come; make her laugh at that.

but not the Hebrew, Greek, Aramic, and Syriac, which are even older?

I dunno, maybe that's why they have to be translated for us, you reckon?

Me? I'm good at the Jacobean/Shakespearean stuff. "Use makes master" as they might have said in the 18th century., right? I've read the KJV all my life, and pretty much everything Old Bill Shakespeare ever wrote, so it doesn't daunt me very much. Then again, I have a considerably easier time with Korean and Chinese than the average American as well.

THe idea is for people to read and understand the Bible. If the Korean Church had wanted it to be a challenge, they'd have left it in Chinese.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind of the obvious choice if you're Korean, innit?

Sho 'nuf!

God can, but He didn't.

Because you didn't give Him permission?

Why would the people He left to do that job not go to the original languages rather than doing a translation of a translation?

I give up ... why?

"Oh. because ancient English is just better", right?

Absolutely.

Uh, no. It's just another unintelligible lot of foreign babble if you're the average person in China or Korea.

But the average person in China or Korea understands Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac ... right?

Oh, I dunno. When was the last time you heard anyone at Walmart talking like this?:

The last time I heard someone in Walmart talking like this:

כי כולנו בני אלוהים, בזכות האמונה במשיח ישוע.

And this:

Γιατί όλοι είμαστε παιδιά του Θεού μέσω της πίστης στον Χριστό Ιησού.

And this:

우리는 모두 그리스도 예수를 믿음으로 말미암아 하나님의 자녀가 되었습니다.