Adaptation, Global Warming and Evolution?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The debating thing is a different thing all together, but which -I would guess- they would also categorize under "education".

It's important nonetheless and something which allows scientists to move beyond 'paper and ink' into the other disciplines out of which and into which is moves.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

There is no such thing as a religion which is not worthless.

To be taught the importance of caring and living morally upright in this world is not worthless. (I am merely restating my earlier points in post 89)

 

[JasonClark]

To be taught the importance of caring and living morally upright in this world is not worthless.

I know but what has that got to do with religion? atheists teach their children that, living right and caring does not come from religion,
religion teaches, hate him because he is not like us or hate them because they follow a different religion or even hate them because we don't like the way they dress,
religion is all about hating things that are different.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well, the thing is, the BEST project was a research project to look into the validity of global surface temperatures and causes of GW. The team was comprised completely of GW skeptics. What they found out was "yup", there are valid and GW is anthropogenic. The project was headed by skeptic Richard Muller. Here's a statement he made:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."​

Well all I've found so far, which is not bad considering he withdrew most of his articles from the Internet, is the following collection of articles from Old Earth Creation Science: http://www.oldearth.org/bio_glenn_morton.htm

I'll keep looking but with my current schedule, being what it is, I'm probably not going to be back with anything significant for a long while.

 

[JasonClark]

Well all I've found so far, which is not bad considering he withdrew most of his articles from the Internet, is the following collection of articles from Old Earth Creation Science: http://www.oldearth.org/bio_glenn_morton.htm
I'll keep looking but with my current schedule I'm probably not going to be back with anything significant for a long while.

If in doubt ask the Pope.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If in doubt ask the Pope.

Good idea.

Do you have his cell number?

I used my Google search and found this:

'ROME—Pope Francis calls global warming a major threat to life on the planet, says it is due mainly to human activity and describes the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels as an urgent matter, in a published draft of a coming letter on the environment. ... Earlier this year, Exxon Mobil Corp. sent a senior lobbyist to Rome in an attempt to brief the Vatican on its outlook for energy markets. ....'*

~~~
* Papal Draft Blames Most Global Warming on Human Activity - Draft of encyclical calls reducing carbon emissions an ‘urgent’ matter by Francis X. Rocca - Updated June 15, 2015 5:07 p.m. ET = http://www.wsj.com/articles/papal-draft-faults-most-global-warming-on-human-activity-1434389790

----
To help you catch up. I was trying to see if I could find some discussion, arguments and debates between Glenn Morton and others with regards to Global Warming and Climate change -- on one of my hard-drives. Unfortunately those discussion were lost due to a colossal server crash, where nearly everything was lost. A pity for there we some fine discussions.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

'....religion teaches, hate him because he is not like us or hate them because they follow a different religion or even hate them because we don't like the way they dress, religion is all about hating things that are different.'

That sort of religion is definitely worthless.

'I know but what has that got to do with religion? atheists teach their children that, living right and caring does not come from religion, ....'

Cleaning 'the outside of the cup' isn't what I had in mind. ( I invited you to a much deeper discussion in post 89 - post 92 and post 96 )

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's important nonetheless and something which allows scientists to move beyond 'paper and ink' into the other disciplines out of which and into which is moves.

You didn't address the point being made.

The point was about you pretending that science is done (at least partly) through "debates" and cited people like Dawkins (who does a lot of debates with cardinals and such) as an example.

But you totally brush aside the fact that people like Dawkins have different jobs and that when they are giving a lecture or doing a debate, that that is NOT part of their job as a "scientist". When Dawkins explains evolution to creationist (or any other audience), he's not doing science.

In science, you present your ideas in a paper, published in an appropriate journal.

 

[JasonClark]

religion teaches, hate him because he is not like us or hate them because they follow a different religion or even hate them because we don't like the way they dress,
religion is all about hating things that are different.

That sort of religion is definitely worthless.

Which religions do you think teach such things? can you name one?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

You didn't address the point being made.

The point was about you pretending that science is done (at least partly) through "debates" and cited people like Dawkins (who does a lot of debates with cardinals and such) as an example.

But you totally brush aside the fact that people like Dawkins have different jobs and that when they are giving a lecture or doing a debate, that that is NOT part of their job as a "scientist". When Dawkins explains evolution to creationist (or any other audience), he's not doing science.

In science, you present your ideas in a paper, published in an appropriate journal.

I am well aware of the peer-review process, however my point was simple enough to state that their is valid scientific debate (I add be it passing chats, private ones or the traditional public showdown between scientist -- even among groups of scientists) which precedes, often continues during the assembling of data and subsequent challenges.
I'd have dug into a few books to make a stronger argument in this discussion, which seems to be turning into a debate.

Don't forget the exchanges between Albert Einstein and Georges Lemaitre.

 

[JasonClark]

I am well aware of the peer-review process, however my point was simple enough to state that their is valid scientific debate (I add be it passing chats, private ones or the traditional public showdown between scientist -- even among groups of scientists) which precedes, often continues during the assembling of data and subsequent challenges.
I'd have dug into a few books to make a stronger argument in this discussion, which seems to be turning into a debate.

Don't forget the exchanges between Albert Einstein and Georges Lemaitre.

Scientists can discuss their ideas for as long as they like but if the ideas are found to be baseless they are eventually dismissed as such.
Science is based on evidence and nothing else, scientists do not say, "I like old George I think I will agree with him", two wrongs do not make a right.
Speculation is discouraged in science.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Which religions do you think teach such things? can you name one?

It's hard question to answer because within every religious group there are sub-groups who are allowed either to continue their carving style of religion or they break away and form another religion so they can keep on following their pernicious ways.

On a personal level, which is where I'd go, you'll always find there are those who read the same sacred texts and find validation for their way of behaving, living and doing -- in the name of the same deity (or leader, or prophet, or priest, or whatever)

History is simply overflowing with bloodshed, hatred, prejudice and war (don't forget the murder of the innocent - baby killing) by people who either threw in their lot with those they were among or who stood against it and were rejected, executed, murdered, martyred and even crucified.

I do think that religion is firstly a story of the individual and according to my own understanding of the Christian sacred texts every one must stand before the judgement seat of the One* and those who stand beside him (probably the same sort of folk mentioned in Kris Kristofferson's song 'They Killed Them' - it's certainly not for me to make any sort of final judgement on those who are referred to as 'bad trees' - The Christian sacred texts refer of the blood of the martyrs, the prime character of the New Testament refers of the blood of the prophets.)

In the end each person (whatever religion they affiliate themselves with) has to decide whether to follow the tide of destruction or to stand against it. How they stand against it is also a question which goes deeper into the reasoning of say someone like Martin Luther King -- I don't know if Jesus was the first non-violent revolutionary but his heart beats in mine and has been doing so since my late teens. I remain unconvinced that there is middle ground -- i.e. Just War.

~~~
* John 1:1

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Scientists can discuss their ideas for as long as they like but if the ideas are found to be baseless they are eventually dismissed as such.
Science is based on evidence and nothing else, scientists do not say, "I like old George I think I will agree with him", two wrongs do not make a right.
Speculation is discouraged in science.

Thank goodness imagination isn't.

'....For Einstein, insight did not come from logic or mathematics. It came, as it does for artists, from intuition and inspiration. As he told one friend, "When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of imagination has meant more to me than any talent for absorbing absolute knowledge." Elaborating, he added, "All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge. I believe in intuition and inspiration.... At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason." Thus, his famous statement that, for creative work in science, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Calaprice, 2000, 22, 287, 10). ....'*

~~~
* https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-and-the-intuitive-art-scientific-imagination

 

[JasonClark]

Thank goodness imagination isn't.

Imagination is nothing without the ability to separate the possible from the impossible, the 'what if' must be followed by 'what would make the 'what if' work',
if the answer is 'nothing' or 'I don't know' the imagination should be replaced by research.
Religion is imagination without this separation where all things are possible even the impossible, religion is unquestioned imagination, 'I imagine it therefore it is'.

Atheists who get religion remain atheists in regards to all the other religions, as all babies are born atheists it means that all believers are also atheists.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Religion is imagination without this separation where all things are possible even the impossible, religion is unquestioned imagination, 'I imagine it therefore it is'.

There are aspects to each person's religious beliefs which are open to discussion, argument and debate and there are those which only certain folks seem to be willing to discuss, argue and debate. I've engaged in enough of the second sort to know that some things are beyond the reach of our mere knowledge and require more delicate instruments. i.e. prayer

Atheists who get religion remain atheists in regards to all the other religions, as all babies are born atheists it means that all believers are also atheists.

I'd certainly say that there is some value in skepticism. However [in and of itself], it's not a state which tends towards a happy and healthy life.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I'd certainly say that there is some value in skepticism. However [in and of itself], it's not a state which tends towards a happy and healthy life.

Why not?

 

[JasonClark]

There are aspects to each person's religious beliefs which are open to discussion, argument and debate and there are those which only certain folks seem to be willing to discuss, argue and debate. I've engaged in enough of the second sort to know that some things are beyond the reach of our mere knowledge and require more delicate instruments. i.e. prayer

Prayer as in talking to yourself and convincing yourself that you are contacting a higher being?

I'd certainly say that there is some value in skepticism. However [in and of itself], it's not a state which tends towards a happy and healthy life.

Are you saying that it's better for a person to try and fool themselves into believing something that is not true in order to make themselves feel better?
why would anyone want to believe something for which there is no evidence? and if they did where would it stop?
Surly believing in as many true things as possible is a good thing, or do you think that believing in things that are not true is a good thing?
Doing that I think is called 'delusional'.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Why not?

'Despite overwhelming evidence that [Global Warming] occurred, the [Global Warming] Denier skeptically denies that one knows or justifiably believes that it did, and attempts via numerous publications and presentations to spread this skepticism to others.' (borrowing from article 'Healthy Skepticism and Practical Wisdom' by Pierre Le Morvan - pg. 93 : III.a. Some Examples of Unhealthily Excessive Skepticism)

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am well aware of the peer-review process, however my point was simple enough to state that their is valid scientific debate (I add be it passing chats, private ones or the traditional public showdown between scientist -- even among groups of scientists) which precedes, often continues during the assembling of data and subsequent challenges.
I'd have dug into a few books to make a stronger argument in this discussion, which seems to be turning into a debate.

Don't forget the exchanges between Albert Einstein and Georges Lemaitre.

I feel like you are moving away from your original claims.

You brought up the "debates" we see from Dawkins on youtube with cardinals and such and implied that that was part of his work as a scientist.

Now, you seem to have retreated into "well, scientists exchange ideas".

Well, yeah...

But whatever. If we're going to change goalposts instead of being upfront about our intentions and integrity, we might as well stop all together.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Prayer as in talking to yourself and convincing yourself that you are contacting a higher being?

I'm not one to argue with Socrates. I know my place in the Universe, or should that be the Multi-verse?

Are you saying that it's better for a person to try and fool themselves into believing something that is not true in order to make themselves feel better?
why would anyone want to believe something for which there is no evidence? and if they did where would it stop?
Surly believing in as many true things as possible is a good thing, or do you think that believing in things that are not true is a good thing?

No, or would that be 'Yes'? I'm as skeptical as anyone who knows that there are things I do know and things I don't and certainly things I will never know. It doesn't stop me from being skeptical about both science and religion, but I hope that one day I'll be able to settle as comfortably as others do when it comes to ideas about Evolution, the Big Bang, Global Warming and whether the tea leaves at the bottom of my cup mean I aught to get on with my work.
Tada.