Climate Change!

[AV1611VET]

Nope.

Sorry -- I find that too hard to believe.

Let me get this straight.

I go into a peer-review room with say, six guys sitting at a table, ready to tear me apart.

So I go in there with a pile of treeware backing up what I claim, and these guys just sit there and say, "I disagree with this" ... "I disagree with this" ... "I disagree with this"?

Or do they have a pile of treeware also?

 

[thaumaturgy]

They're very good at that.

They know better than to ask questions that are supported by Scripture

Oh, was idscience making a "scriptural argument" by accusing countless people of censorship?

Can you tell me which scripture?

Once in awhile, you'll get someone who doesn't know the Bible at all ask a question that is answered by either a clear-cut verse, or by a clear-cut explanation of a basic doctrine.

Are you interpolating "scriptural" points in idsceince's posts?



Then we usually get called 'brainwashed', or something synonymous to it.[/quote]

 

[thaumaturgy]

Sorry -- I find that too hard to believe.

Oh, so you can't back up your contention that for every peer reviewed paper saying "X" there's one that says "Non-X" with numbers or citations?

OK.

Let me get this straight.

I go into a peer-review room with say, six guys sitting at a table, ready to tear me apart.

What? What is a "peer-review room"?

Oh my. You don't really understand what we're talking about at all do you?

So I go in there with a pile of treeware backing up what I claim, and these guys just sit there and say, "I disagree with this" ... "I disagree with this" ... "I disagree with this"?

What are you talking about here?

Or do they have a pile of treeware also?

Ummm, do you think every single peer reviewed paper gets rejected?



I honestly don't understand what your point is here, AV. Will people disagree? Yeah. But science does move forward, so your scenario of eternal stalemate is some sort of gross oversimplification....kind of like your idea of a "peer review room" wherein people go with their papers.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what gives you the right to tell science to "take a hike" when you disagree with it?

I don't disagree with science; I let the Bible disagree with science, then I agree with the Bible.

What would you say to someone who had been a life-long atheist telling you your religion should 'take a hike"?

He wouldn't have to -- his faith would do it for him.

Would you care about that "opinion"?

No -- but let me clarify.

It would bother me that he is telling 'my religion' to take a hike, but I would understand where he is coming from -- (not to mention where he is going if he doesn't repent).

In other words, I would feel sorry for him.

(HINT: There's really no "good" answer you can provide to that question. )

Um ... yes there is actually.

I've said this so many times here, I'm surprised you haven't seen it yourself.

What I mean by SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE, is that science can take a hike if the Bible disagrees with it.

In addition, I also mean that science, as nature, can step down and let God work a miracle, if He so chooses to do so.

Like when someone prays for someone who has cancer; left to Mother Nature, that person would die, but let God show up to answer that prayer, and Mother Nature can (and will) take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, was idscience...

I don't even know what idscience said to you that got you challenging him about peer-reviewed papers.

If I did that with my post count to a newbie, some of you would would start ooking and eeking about 'narcissism'.

I was responding to what you said, as a stand-alone post.

 

[TheBear]

Post count is directly proportional to credibility and validity. I'll have to remember that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, so you can't back up your contention that for every peer reviewed paper saying "X" there's one that says "Non-X" with numbers or citations?

Then it's a verbal slugfest? is that what you're implying?

OK.

OK, what?

What? What is a "peer-review room"?

Fine, then they slug it out on a rooftop? by mail? by teleconferences?

Oh my. You don't really understand what we're talking about at all do you?

Should I have to understand the intricacies, or will a superficial guess be okay?

I honestly don't understand what your point is here, AV.

It just seems to me that if something requires peer-review, then you'd better bring in your papers; and if you are found wrong, it is backed up in writing somewhere.

Is it not?

To me, it comes down to 'my papers' vs. 'your papers'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Post count is directly proportional to credibility and validity. I'll have to remember that.

I guarantee you that if you come here as a newbie and have the guts to tell me I 'never said this' or 'I never said that', I'm going to respond with my post count.

Then, if I'm in a good mood and feel sorry for them, I'll q.v. them to my post where I did say it.

 

[TheBear]

The guts to tell you? You're really full of yourself, aren't you? What an ego!! Wow.

 

[TheBear]

BTW folks, the majority of his posts are mindless number games, where one after the next, like and idiot savant, in rapid succession, he posts numbers. He did that for the sole purpose of post count.

Post count is everything to him. That's all he's got.

 

[AV1611VET]

The guts to tell you?

Yes, the guts to tell me.

If I was in the mood, I would q.v. you to one where someone with only about 10 posts once told me I never explained my user title (Science Can Take A Hike).

You're really full of yourself, aren't you?

I don't know -- am I?

What an ego!! Wow.

Like I said, it's okay for one poster to post his picture with a famous person, or another to tell me I never said this-or-that, but let me bring up my post count to justify my point, and it's like ringing the narcissism bell, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW folks, the majority of his posts are mindless number games, where one after the next, like and idiot savant, in rapid succession, he posts numbers. He did that for the sole purpose of post count.

Sans your little insults, I'd say that's about right.

99% of my post count is nothing but raw numbers.

What's your point?

Post count is everything to him. That's all he's got.

Care to back that up, in light of: Total Posts: 2,150,907?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't disagree with science; I let the Bible disagree with science, then I agree with the Bible.

Doesn't that require you to understand what the science is saying so you can compare it to the Bible? And then doesn't it also mean you have to be reasonably certain your interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Don't push it all off on the Bible. You're involved in the decision too.

I've said this so many times here, I'm surprised you haven't seen it yourself.

What I mean by SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE, is that science can take a hike if the Bible disagrees with it.

And who makes the call? Oh, yeah, it must be GOD WORKING THROUGH YOU!

You are special, AV. Arbiter of truth for God. His main man here on earth these days?

In addition, I also mean that science, as nature, can step down and let God work a miracle, if He so chooses to do so.

If you don't understand science then everything becomes a miracle to you.

Like when someone prays for someone who has cancer; left to Mother Nature, that person would die, but let God show up to answer that prayer, and Mother Nature can (and will) take a hike.

But God can't grow new limbs? Seems like it would be an easy enough task.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't even know what idscience said to you that got you challenging him about peer-reviewed papers.

If I did that with my post count to a newbie, some of you would would start ooking and eeking about 'narcissism'.

I was responding to what you said, as a stand-alone post.

Ahh, this is what is called, in secular circles being a "butt-insky".

Maybe next time you'll get the whole context.

See, that's kind of why your "critiques" of science are meaningless. You criticize things you don't understand. And you don't seem to be bothered by the fact that you gladly interject yourself into a conversation you aren't even following.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't that require you to understand what the science is saying so you can compare it to the Bible?

It would in some cases, yes ... but you guys usually are good at 'making the call' yourselves.

For instance, if an atheist or ... scientist starts yakking that evolution goes against Genesis 1, then I simply point out that I prefer Genesis 1 over his evolution.

In other words, he made the distinction, and I just chose the one he didn't.

Make sense?

And then doesn't it also mean you have to be reasonably certain your interpretation of the Bible is correct?

No, in most cases, I can use his interpretation to say the Bible says otherwise.

Don't push it all off on the Bible. You're involved in the decision too.

To a point ... yes; but I certainly don't have to understand alleles in order to say Genesis 1 disagrees with evolution.

And who makes the call? Oh, yeah, it must be GOD WORKING THROUGH YOU!

Like I said, in many cases you guys do.

I've seen you guys 'make the call' that we should be hunting witches, marching off on a crusade, or putting people through a trial by ordeal.

You are special, AV. Arbiter of truth for God. His main man here on earth these days?

And who thinks you're special, Thaumaturgy? Charles Darwin? NASA Administration? the IAU? the signer of your check?

If you don't understand science then everything becomes a miracle to you.

Really? I have over 2,000,000 posts. Care to back that claim up?

But God can't grow new limbs? Seems like it would be an easy enough task.

Does everything have to be OEM? or can God give us doctors who can now do some arm or leg attachments?

And why worry about Joe's limb, if you support Jane's baby being aborted?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahh, this is what is called, in secular circles being a "butt-insky".

Oh, my -- guilty as charged.

Let he who is without sin...

Maybe next time you'll get the whole context.

Or maybe the next time I'll care even less.

See, that's kind of why your "critiques" of science are meaningless.

To whom? you?

I don't blame you for thinking that.

You criticize things you don't understand.

That's right.

I don't have to understand evolution if I believe in creation.

I don't have to understand Mormomism to be a Baptist, do I?

Just believing something's antithesis should do.

And you don't seem to be bothered by the fact that you gladly interject yourself into a conversation you aren't even following.

Like I said, he who is without sin...

 

[thaumaturgy]

Fine, then they slug it out on a rooftop? by mail? by teleconferences?

Should I have to understand the intricacies, or will a superficial guess be okay?

Well, if I were to go to your church and forget to take my handy guide to "Dispensationalism" and started talking big in your church, don't you think you and your people would take me to task?

Because you've done that very thing on this board numerous times.

If you don't really know what you're talking about then be man enough to take your stripes.

It just seems to me that if something requires peer-review, then you'd better bring in your papers; and if you are found wrong, it is backed up in writing somewhere.

As I said there's disagreements. But if you see this as a permanent stalemate in which it's simply a battle of an equivalent number of good refererences on both sides, then science wouldn't move forward.

Now, let's talk about Creationism for a second: what creationists would have you believe is all you need to do is cast doubt for doubt's sake and you immediately get to question everything in the surrounding science.

So you're revealing in your thinking that same kind of rationale. It's a simplistic view of how science advances. It is a bunch of skirmishes but just as in wars and battles, if for every bullet there was another bullet that annihilated it the battle would never go one way or another.

It's preponderance of the best evidence.

Is it not?

To me, it comes down to 'my papers' vs. 'your papers'.[/quote]

 

[idscience]

I hope you realize he asked you a question that you didn't answer. Purposefully.
That's what he bet on.

I'll tell you what else I know. It's always the same guys who are always asking for proof of something, never actually answering or providing anything themselves.

I have shown that global warming is a farce. The scientists/polititions that run the scam are frauds, and the best you can come back with is. "have you ever published a paper". Wow, now that is impressive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow, now that is impressive.

They like published papers:

 

[Elendur]

I'll tell you what else I know. It's always the same guys who are always asking for proof of something, never actually answering or providing anything themselves.

I have shown that global warming is a farce. The scientists/polititions that run the scam are frauds, and the best you can come back with is. "have you ever published a paper". Wow, now that is impressive.

1. He didn't write that.
2. You've still not answered it.

3.
What do scientists have to gain by promoting global warming?
What do scientists have to gain by denying global warming?

Edit: Whoo, 50 posts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/19/science-scepticism-usdomesticpolicy