Who is really anti-science?

If I add a poll to this article, will you vote in it?

  • Total voters
    0
#151
#151
joevol320 said:
there is not one bit if evolution that is supported by fact. However, there are countless of evolution theories that have been shot down.
Click to expand...

Actually, the theory of evolution has tons of facts to support it.

You might want to read something besides the Washington Times or listen to someone besides Rush and Sean Hannity.

Or maybe you should simply pick up a college textbook for the first time in your life
 
#152
#152
2ironVol said:
Actually, the theory of evolution has tons of facts to support it.

You might want to read something besides the Washington Times or listen to someone besides Rush and Sean Hannity.

Or maybe you should simply pick up a college textbook for the first time in your life
Click to expand...

Elementary science textbook would be a good suggestion to begin with.
 
#154
#154
A new email dump occurred last night:

Climategate 2.0 the Air Vent


The whistle-blower's manifesto:

/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
 
#156
#156
joevol320 said:
hey gaytoratile. if I told that i took the pieces of a rolex watch and put them in dryer, turned the dryer on, let the dryer run, stopped the dryer and I pulled out a fully functioning rolex. you would think i was a complete liar or insane.

yet you think that's how we were created, by random chance. you think our dna, protein chains, gene maps all happened by some randomness with no type of design. you justify by it by saying it took billions of years to get everything just right. that is what is sad.
Click to expand...
joevol320 said:
well it's not fair, because i have all the pieces of the watch.
Click to expand...

Your analogy, your rules, I'll play ball. First, you are taking apart a Rolex. I don't know the first thing about fashion but I am pretty sure Rolex is about as good as it gets for a wrist watch or at least close to it. Now, would you concede that a Rolex's chief function is to keep track of time? If so, do you think the Rolex just appeared out of thin air from a master watchmaker? Keeping track of the time, or shall I more accurately say, the perception of time has been task for civilizations since the beginning of written human history. Did they start out with a Rolex? Of course not! Even a crappy wristwatch? Not even close. They first had inaccurate calenders and very primitive sundials. It wasn't until many millennia of trial and error that the Rolex came about. Now, which theory does the history of the Rolex (time keeping in general) does this sound most similar to: creationism or evolution?

joevol320 said:
evolution doesn't have any type of materials, everything just came from nothing. you're right it isn't a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

These are from my posts in the question about Christianity thread. I did not feel like rewriting a response to either of your comments. So here are my re-posted responses.

The area of abiogenesis (the jump from inorganic life to biological life) has not been a major concern for me though. I believe the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1952 conclusively explains (for me) the conditions and materials available for such a jump. *Side note: all of which are found elsewhere in the universe, just some food for thought.
Click to expand...

To say that everything or anything came from nothing is disingenuous at best. As Hume would say, there are no impressions within our known universe of matter being created or destroyed, only conserved or transferred into energy E=MC2. Therefore, without impressions (sensations) there can be no idea about something being created from nothing. The Conservation of Matter is in agreement with the Big Bang theory. The point of matter in the Big Bang was infinity (loose definition/interpretation for me) massive. The mass was always there, just with way more gravitational pull. A newer theory (one I like better) states that our universe was created from another universe. Much like how new stars and planets are created from old dying stars which eventually collapse in on themselves before exploding violently; thus giving birth to new stars and planets.
Click to expand...

joevol320 said:
really evolution is still happening? give me proof? yes you are ignorant on the subject.
Click to expand...

Happens everyday in the lab. Hell we have completely made a new species of bacteria from scratch.

joevol320 said:
if you want a pretty interesting speaking on this watch this series.

Chuck Missler - Genesis - Session 03 - (Ch. 1.6-8) Day Two

since most of you on here are some of the most intelligent people on the planet, you guys should have no problem understanding this.

there are about 7 or 8 days of speaking. since all you libs are so open minded, then you should have no problems watching this.
Click to expand...
joevol320 said:
when you're talking about evolving from the dna, protein levels it is a proven fact that the odds of them evolving with design are impossible. the odds are too great.

Chuck Missler - Genesis - Session 07 - (Ch. 1.24-31) Day Six
Click to expand...

I actually took the time to watch both videos (I skipped the theology and only focused on the science). Probably the only VN member who ever will. So don't say non-crazy conservative members are unable to be open minded.

The first one was a complete waste of time. The second one was actually fairly decent although he made a few terrible conjectures. He makes excellent points about the Golden Rectangle, the Golden Spiral, the Fibonacci Sequence, and the complexity of the human body. Addtionally, I was elated that be talked about Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. I am reading his book and find it utterly fascinating. Unfortunately, none of those points even begin to refute evolution nor endorse creationism.

Lastly, there was no mention of DNA or protein levels in either video you posted. However, I will give you forewarning; if you proceed to bring biochemistry into this debate, you will get absolutely owned.
 
#157
#157
Last edited:
#158
#158
gsvol said:
So if it is in a college textbook it is irrefutable fact?

watch
Click to expand...

There are very few irrefutable facts period.

However, reputable source...college textbook? Yes. Obscure, ultra-conservative blog? Not so much.
 
#160
#160
I'd like to think he knows the difference between a published journal and a blog created in a basement.
 
#161
#161
PKT_VOL said:
Your analogy, your rules, I'll play ball. First, you are taking apart a Rolex. I don't know the first thing about fashion but I am pretty sure Rolex is about as good as it gets for a wrist watch or at least close to it. Now, would you concede that a Rolex's chief function is to keep track of time? If so, do you think the Rolex just appeared out of thin air from a master watchmaker? Keeping track of the time, or shall I more accurately say, the perception of time has been task for civilizations since the beginning of written human history. Did they start out with a Rolex? Of course not! Even a crappy wristwatch? Not even close. They first had inaccurate calenders and very primitive sundials. It wasn't until many millennia of trial and error that the Rolex came about. Now, which theory does the history of the Rolex (time keeping in general) does this sound most similar to: creationism or evolution?



These are from my posts in the question about Christianity thread. I did not feel like rewriting a response to either of your comments. So here are my re-posted responses.







Happens everyday in the lab. Hell we have completely made a new species of bacteria from scratch.




I actually took the time to watch both videos (I skipped the theology and only focused on the science). Probably the only VN member who ever will. So don't say non-crazy conservative members are unable to be open minded.

The first one was a complete waste of time. The second one was actually fairly decent although he made a few terrible conjectures. He makes excellent points about the Golden Rectangle, the Golden Spiral, the Fibonacci Sequence, and the complexity of the human body. Addtionally, I was elated that be talked about Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. I am reading his book and find it utterly fascinating. Unfortunately, none of those points even begin to refute evolution nor endorse creationism.

Lastly, there was no mention of DNA or protein levels in either video you posted. However, I will give you forewarning; if you proceed to bring biochemistry into this debate, you will get absolutely owned.
Click to expand...


I got buried at work and forgot we had a good conversation going over there. I owe you a response and will get that done sometime this week.
 
#162
#162
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Sea level rise is accelerating...to the downside

sea-level-rise-is-acceleratingto.html


Following a long delay and some controversial "adjustments," the University of Colorado sea level satellite data was recently released. A plot of the rate of sea level rise shows a stable rate between 2003 and 2007, and declining rates since 2007.
Click to expand...

sealevel_after.PNG


Sea levels have been rising since the peak of the last ice age 22,000 years ago and have been decelerating over the past 8,000 years.
Click to expand...

It is plain to see that there are those who would pervert science to suit their own political agenda.

More:

Yet Another Incorrect IPCC Assessment: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase — MasterResource

Another error in the influential reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports has been identified. This one concerns the rate of expansion of sea ice around Antarctica.

While not an issue for estimates of future sea level rise (sea ice is floating ice which does not influence sea level), a significant expansion of Antarctic sea ice runs counter to climate model projections. As the errors in the climate change “assessment” reports from the IPCC mount, its aura of scientific authority erodes, and with it, the justification for using their findings to underpin national and international efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

Some climate scientists have distanced themselves from the IPCC Working Group II’s (WGII’s) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, prefering instead the stronger hard science in the Working Group I (WGI) Report—The Physical Science Basis. Some folks have even gone as far as saying that no errors have been found in the WGI Report and the process in creating it was exemplary.

Such folks are in denial.

As I document below, WGI did a poor job in regard to Antarctic sea ice trends. Somehow, the IPCC specialists assessed away a plethora of evidence showing that the sea ice around Antarctica has been significantly increasing—a behavior that runs counter to climate model projections of sea ice declines—and instead documented only a slight, statistically insignificant rise.

How did this happen? The evidence suggests that IPCC authors were either being territorial in defending and promoting their own work in lieu of other equally legitimate (and ultimately more correct) findings, were being guided by IPCC brass to produce a specific IPCC point-of-view, or both.

The handling of Antarctic sea ice is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident in the IPCC reports, but is simply one of many examples in which portions of the peer-reviewed scientific literature were cast aside, or ignored, so that a particular point of view—the preconceived IPCC point of view—could be either maintained or forwarded.
Click to expand...
 
#167
#167
Are We Standing on the Edge of the Climate Change "Abyss"? - Reason Magazine

Durban, South Africa—Yesterday, before an audience of more than 100 environmental ministers gathered at the opening “high level segment” plenary of the Durban Climate Change Conference, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon flatly declared, “We are nearing the ‘point of no return,’ and we must pull back from the abyss." The “abyss” against which the Secretary-General warned is a future average global temperature increase higher than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

What's so terrible about exceeding those two degrees, and where did that figure come from? The 2°C baseline is based on climate models that project increases in greenhouse gases produced chiefly by burning fossil fuels will soon commit humanity to this much extra warming.

In political terms, the 2°C figure derives from the 2010 Cancun Agreements in which member countries to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change officially recognized “that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science.”
Click to expand...

Not according to science but according to a crackpot scientific theory which doesn't play out in real life at all.

Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.

The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.

The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
Click to expand...

More at Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts
 
#168
#168
VOLatile said:
Gs obviously doesn't understand academic or scientific standards.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for double standards, progressives would have no standards at all.

You should probably read all of the following, although I doubt you will.

Exclusive: UN Climate Draft Text Demands 'New International Climate Court' to compel reparations for 'climate debt' -- Also seeks 'rights of Mother Earth' & 2C° drop in global temps | Climate Depot

Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call “the process” have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document.
------------------------

Ø A new International Climate Court (legal authority over national sovereinty)

Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: (praise Gaia)

Ø “Right to survive”: (except that they have stated that huge segments of humanity must be eliminated in order to bring human population under control, they don't disclose who or how to accomplish that)

Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change.

Ø A new global temperature target (as if they have the faintest nnotion about how to control Sun's thermostat that determine's temperature on Earth)

Ø The new CO2 emissions target, (for Western countries only)

Ø The new CO2 concentration target (like they can control that either)

Ø The peak-greenhouse-gas target year (for the West only – will be this year.)

Ø The West will pay for everything (expect that money to the UN to work about like the Iraq oil for food program)

The real lunacy comes in the small print – all of it in 8-point type, near-illegibly printed on grubby, recycled paper. Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered to.
Click to expand...

Included at the end of the article are several links to credible sources refuting this insanity.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top