Why Evolution is True

biggles53 said:

Steve, you have tried to push the line that "scientists mislead us"...

Your problem is that you've tried to use Tim Flannery as an example of that....and you've failed miserably...

Let me inform you of the REAL story behind all those supposed quotes.....you've been sucked in by those with an agenda similar to yours....you've wanted to hear from someone that "scientists mislead us" and you've jumped at the first 'evidence' of this, even though it's all lies...

One more time...

Flannery has NEVER made comments about people in Western Sydney going mad with the heat and committing crime...liars like Bolt would like the gullible like you to associate him with the comments of others...

Flannery has NEVER made comments about the Australian wine industry being about to fail....again, the same people would like you to think that...

Flannery did NOT make the comment that our dams would NEVER fill again....again, that exaggeration was added by the deniers....to catch people like you... Flannery was speaking about a SPECIFIC location and a SPECIFIC time, when run off rates had been reduced by, from memory, 60% of the normal rate. His statement was that, if that situation persisted, that the water falling would not be able to fill the dams, at that time...!

You have seen what you wanted to see Steve.....you are convinced that "scientists mislead us" and have eagerly gobbled up the muck served up to you by those with a dishonest agenda....

No...I didn't think there'd be an apology....honest people tend to make those....

Click to expand...

biggles53 said:

Steve, you have tried to push the line that "scientists mislead us"...

Your problem is that you've tried to use Tim Flannery as an example of that....and you've failed miserably...

you've been sucked in by those with an agenda similar to yours

Click to expand...

and what is my agenda.

....you've wanted to hear from someone that "scientists mislead us" and you've jumped at the first 'evidence' of this, even though it's all lies...

Click to expand...

No I went to a common and well known climate alarmist that just about everyone agrees used his position to misrepresent the truth about what man made pollution was doing in Australia. Man made pollution was not causing the dams to go dry alone. Man made pollution was not causing the sea to rise a meter or meters and flood waterfront property like he had made out and happening in the near future like he implied.
He didnt tell all the facts and gave the wrong impression so that it gave the labor government more support for their carbon tax. He was a paid employee of labor getting $3,000 for a part time job of 3 days a week. See I can admit that flannery has done a lot of good even on the climate change front but it gives him nor others any excuse to misrepresent the truth with the way he see things because he is over zealous or has some other agenda.
One more time...

Flannery has NEVER made comments about people in Western Sydney going mad with the heat and committing crime...liars like Bolt would like the gullible like you to associate him with the comments of others...

Click to expand...

Who made the comments that the west of Sydney would suffer from a terrible heat waves that would affect their mental health and make them violent then. Was it the climate commission or professor Hughes.

Flannery did NOT make the comment that our dams would NEVER fill again....again, that exaggeration was added by the deniers....to catch people like you...

Click to expand...

No thats an exaggeration made by you. I have said that I or no one else had said this. The actual statement was that even if we get enough rain fall it isn't going to fill our dams and rivers. You have added the never fill dams again which shows how you yourself take this debate to the extreme end. I am not making out that flannery and science are totally misrepresenting things here as I have said a few times now. I am saying that some do and flannery is one of them. I can get you plenty more if you wish. Thats the point it happens with some because thats human nature but you dont even want to admit that scientist suffer from the usual human weaknesses of doing stuff like that. To you scientists are Gods who never make those mistakes.

Flannery was speaking about a SPECIFIC location and a SPECIFIC time, when run off rates had been reduced by, from memory, 60% of the normal rate. His statement was that, if that situation persisted, that the water falling would not be able to fill the dams, at that time...!

Click to expand...

No this is you again adding things in. The statement is made from his own words in an interview that was copied word for word. He doesn't say a specific place. He says, quote " Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation."

So its not a specific area its in some areas more than one area and this is where he is being obscure which is misleading in itself because it leaves the impression is it here or there are everywhere. But it more or less implies everywhere because he doesn't make it specific and just leaves it hanging. He goes onto say this translates to 60% reduction in runoffs to dams and rivers. But remember we are in drought when he is saying this so it has a lot more impact. He says the soil is warmer so it takes more rain to fill the dams and rivers. Ah that is what happens in a drought. But the real cruncher is when he says even if it rains there wont be enough water to fill our dams and river systems. What systems is that all the systems or some of the systems. Thats the point he gives the impression that its widespread and doesn't specify which is another way of saying its everywhere. Anyway that doesn't matter because where ever it was we got rain that filled the dams to over flowing and the rivers filled and flooded and we got water flowing in places that havnt had water for years. The rain has kept coming to most places and we will continue to have droughts and flooding plains.

I'm not denying that there is a problem with climate change, the issue is that Flannery is not admitting that part of or even most of the so changes he is trying to make out is climate change and global warming is natural occurring situations that have been happening for thousands of years. He made out it was caused by man made global warming only and on behalf of the government. The government brought him in and appointed him. He brought out the results of his commission only a few weeks before the carbon tax was to be introduced and the public didn't buy it. So it was a way of buttering us up. But it didn't work and he and the labor government was booted out.

You have seen what you wanted to see Steve.....you are convinced that "scientists mislead us" and have eagerly gobbled up the muck served up to you by those with a dishonest agenda....

Click to expand...

No thats what you keep saying. I have told you how I see things and that I dont have any agendas. Now you have to make out I do because you have nothing else. I have said that I can see both sides and can admit that both sides will do the same. You just cant admit that people representing science will ever be guilty of misrepresenting the truth because now you've turned it into some sort of win and lose situation and you cant admit defeat now.

No...I didn't think there's be an apology....honest people tend to make those....

Click to expand...

I am honest and I dont need to make any apology because i can handle the truth.

You see thats where your being dishonest and distorting things to avoid the original point I was making. You side tracked the point by focusing on a particular aspect and not acknowledging the fact that people do use science to distort the truth. That is the original point I was making remember. You have muddled it up with so much irrelevant stuff that I dont think you know what is what. I could find many examples of science getting it wrong with their predictions and pushing a p[articular agenda or promoting something that science itself shows is wrong. The fact that two scientists can disagree on the same subject shows I am right.

I'll ask one more time and by the fact that you keep avoiding to answer shows that you dont want to face the truth. Do people use science to promote their personal agendas. Do they twist or misrepresent science to push their personal point of view. Do scientist sometimes do the same. Remember my point wasn't all science and I specifically pointed that out by saying the majority of scientists are fine. But for some reason you take things to an extreme and it becomes all scientist are doing it as you have mistakenly said a number of times. This shows that you are making it an us and them thing and turning it into sides. Its nothing like that. This is merely a debate about degrees. Some do it on both sides. Its not all black and white. You are not looking at any of the middle ground. That is people are human and they can have a tendency to do these things on both sides. Admitting they do doesn't mean someone are loses and someone wins. It just means you acknowledge the human weaknesses we all have. It just makes you a realist.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

See now you are calling me a liar. This is where you get into trouble. Making accusations like that all the time is not going to get you far. I have not lied at all. I have no reason to lie and like I said there is no skin off my back if I dont happen to prove anything with you. I am just stating what I believe to be true and what I can see a lot of others think the same.

Click to expand...

But the real truth of the matter isnt in what I say its what you are not saying. That is that you dont even admit what everyone would know as being true that people can and do use science as a way of pushing their agendas. They can and do distort the truth with stats and data. They cab and do misrepresent the truth with scientific info and that scientists can and do do it themselves sometimes.

Click to expand...

The reason I know this is true isn't because I need a whole lot of data and evidence to show its true. The reason is that I and many others know its true because its human nature. Its the nature of the beast to try and do this. We are weak at times and our personal agendas can get in the way. We can be influenced by a compromised position for one reason or another. It maybe money, it maybe our position at work and it maybe our reputations that are at stake so we will make things a little easier for us to keep these things or make our lives easier. I can admit it happens with religion and I can admit it happens with people in science. But you cant.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

and what is my agenda.

Click to expand...

No I went to a common and well known climate alarmist that just about everyone agrees used his position to misrepresent the truth about what man made pollution was doing in Australia

Click to expand...

Who made the comments that the west of Sydney would suffer from a terrible heat waves that would affect their mental health and make them violent then. Was it the climate commission or professor Hughes.

Click to expand...

No thats an exaggeration made by you. I have said that I or no one else had said this. The actual statement was that even if we get enough rain fall it isn't going to fill our dams and rivers. You have added the never fill dams again which shows how you yourself take this debate to the extreme end.

Click to expand...

I am not making out that flannery and science are totally misrepresenting things here as I have said a few times now. I am saying that some do and flannery is one of them.

Click to expand...

I can get you plenty more if you wish

Click to expand...

Thats the point it happens with some because thats human nature but you dont even want to admit that scientist suffer from the usual human weaknesses of doing stuff like that. To you scientists are Gods who never make those mistake

Click to expand...

No this is you again adding things in. The statement is made from his own words in an interview that was copied word for word. He doesn't say a specific place. He says, quote " Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation."

Click to expand...

I'll ask one more time and by the fact that you keep avoiding to answer shows that you dont want to face the truth. Do people use science to promote their personal agendas. Do they twist or misrepresent science to push their personal point of view. Do scientist sometimes do the same. Remember my point wasn't all science and I specifically pointed that out by saying the majority of scientists are fine. But for some reason you take things to an extreme and it becomes all scientist are doing it as you have mistakenly said a number of times. This shows that you are making it an us and them thing and turning it into sides. Its nothing like that. This is merely a debate about degrees. Some do it on both sides. Its not all black and white. You are not looking at any of the middle ground. That is people are human and they can have a tendency to do these things on both sides. Admitting they do doesn't mean someone are loses and someone wins. It just means you acknowledge the human weaknesses we all have. It just makes you a realist.

Click to expand...

Yes we are having some droughts in some areas but they could be followed by floods again. After all as far as anyone can remember Australia is a land of droughts and flooding plains and there were no green house gases affecting anything back when that song was made. But whether the droughts at the moment are caused by global warming isn't the point. Its the misuse and alarmist science that was being used which has sinse been shown to be wrong. Remember Flannery said there would NEVER be rain enough to fill the dams again and we would be in permanent drought.

Click to expand...

biggles53 said:

Oh....and here's the quote of yours in which you claim you didn't use the word "never".....I've bolded it and printed it in red to assist your reading skills...



No...don't bother apologising for your lie....I know you're not capable of that kind of integrity.....

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

this is an attack on the integrity of the poster, and not the integrity of the post. Ad hominem. Please refrain from this behavior on a Christian forum, thanks.

Click to expand...

biggles53 said:

It is both....he has any number of opportunities to either withdraw or edit his stance on that issue....his integrity, therefore, comes very much into play....

And thank you Mr Kettle......

(By the way....you clearly have no idea of what an ad hominem fallacy is..........quelle surprise.....)

Click to expand...

• A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out the defendant’s level of poverty.
• A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
• Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs.
• Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.”
• Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
• Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a writing assignment.”
• Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an argument about a crime involving people of different racial backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an argument about this situation.”
• Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
• Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too young to understand.”
• Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is clearly beyond you.”
• Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have an opinion about this?”
• Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a country like that.”
• Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
• Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle."

MuchWiser said:

Of course atheists tell lies just not as often as Christians, Christians lie every day when they say 'I know God exists' because they nor anyone else knows that Gods exist, to say they 'know God exists' is a lie, they might 'feel' or 'believe' it but they don't 'know' it.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

do you know He doesn't exist? What evidence do you have?

Click to expand...

MuchWiser said:

Of course atheists tell lies just not as often as Christians, Christians lie every day when they say 'I know God exists' because they nor anyone else knows that Gods exist, to say they 'know God exists' is a lie, they might 'feel' or 'believe' it but they don't 'know' it.

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

Probably the same you rely on to reject all the other Gods.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

I mean when an athiest states God doesn't exist, has he looked under every asteroid in the universe? Has He looked inside every comet? Or behind every moon or star? How pray-tell can He state that God does not exist?

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

I mean when an athiest states God doesn't exist, has he looked under every asteroid in the universe? Has He looked inside every comet? Or behind every moon or star? How pray-tell can He state that God does not exist?

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

I don't need to do a search for other God's to know they don't exist. I can study the flaws in their writings to know it's impossible for God or A GOD to contradict His own nature. They therefore cannot exist. What studies have you done?

secondly, you don't have the logical right as a nonthiest to use theism against another theist, as you are not one. This is similiar to using pain and suffering as evidence God doesn't exist while at the same time not believing in absolute moral good.

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

I have a right to make any observations I like and my observation was simple; you reject all other Gods, period.

The bible was the driver in myself moving away from Christianity, so I have studied the flaws of the NT quite thoroughly and the description of the Christian God is something I could no longer reconcile with reality, without needing to fool myself and I don't do that well.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

logically it's self defeating like I said, if other God's did exist, other than mine, you would still be wrong.

Click to expand...