Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I came to that conclusion at least 20 pages ago, and when he started shifting subjects

Shifting subjects? No, one subject lead to another. And you obviously dont know the difference.

 

[McBell]

I am still trying to figure out why you think this was a good answer. It just isn't a good answer. How did we get from reproducing without a body to reproduce in, to it being absolutely necessary for a human (or any living and breathing organism) to reproduce in a body?? But even if we put that aside, how do you go from this small scale reproduction (or whatever you want to call it, I dont believe it occurred anyway), to a male having a penis, testicles etc for reproduction, to a female having a vagina, ovaries, eggs, etc....At this large scale, if the males reproductive system was something that evolved over time, then the females system would have to evolve at the exact same rate, and there is just no way around it. There is no way for you to provide an answer as to how, even if every thing started on a small scale, for it to end up at a large scale without both the male and female systems changing at the exact same time and rate. No way. You are saying "it started like this...." But I am saying "It ended up like this...." so that "in-between time".....there was a change, how could this change have occurred if it didnt occur at the same time. Makes no sense. When you take away all of the fluff and feathers of the scientific wordplay that you people like to use, the question still remains.




So compare my ignorance to yourself, someone that believes that nature, a blind, mindless, entity....an entity that cant think, see, or reason.....you believe that this entity gave every living and breathing thing, from a human to a cockroach, a reproductive system. You believe that it gave humans eyes to see, even though it didnt know we were gonna need eyes. Heck, it doesn't even know what eyes are, and yet, it gave us eyes. You believe that nature gave us ears to hear, even though it didn't know what it was doing. You believe that it gave us a tongue for taste. What a coincidence, our tongue is in our mouth....and food goes in our mouth....but food has taste, so nature gave us taste buds to taste food in our mouth. It could have put taste buds on our arms, or face, but food doesnt go there, so nature put the taste buds in our mouth, and it didnt even know it was doing it!!!!! Why put taste buds on our arms if it goes iYou believe that this mindless, blind entity gave us all of our internal organs, a heart to pump blood...because we need blood throughout our bodies, right? But how will the blood get to every part??? Hmmm....nature thought about it (which is funny, because it can't think)....and nature gave us a heart to do just that, to pump blood throughout our body, and it gave us veins for the blood to travel through??? It gave us a digestive system to take in and break down food.....even gave it a mechanism to remove waste from our body...

You believe that we have all of these things specified things, from an entity that doesn't have a mind, that cant see, that cant think, that cant reason...you believe this....but yet, im the ignorant one?? You believe that you can get that kind of order from something that doesn't have a mind, something that is blind, something that cant think??? But I am ignorant? Lol Yeah, ok

your skills in personification are most impressive.
Sadly, they will not help you to understand.

Of course, since I suspect that you are not the least bit interested in understanding, I suppose it is a good thing you have something to fall back on..

 

[lunakilo]

First off, I already responded to his alleged "answer". Just because someone gives a answer doesn't mean that it was answered correctly. I guess you were impressed because his answered seemed so scientific, right? Well, I'm not impressed.

Whether you are impressed or not is irellevant. An answer has been given and the fact that you dicagree with it doesn't make it any less an answer.

I know, this is the same ole "it just didnt happen over night" answer. Of course, it took millions of years, right? Or was that billions of years?

Probably depends on what 'it' is.
The general consensus is that if you want to go all the way back to the first life on Earth then 'it' is billions of years.
If 'it' equals from no penis to penis then I am not sure. My guess is millions of years, but johnhanks could probablby give you a better answer there.

Its funny you mention a penis, because you and others on here believe that the males reproductive system started out "simple" (whatever that means), and over time, the male eventually evolved a penis, with a scrotum attached to it with two testicles. What came first, the penis, or the scrotum, the scrotum, or the testicles? Makes no sense.

There you go agan. YOU may believe things were designed and created as they are today. YOU may believe that gos sat down and thought "well a man needs a penis a scrotum and some testicles, let me design them seperatly and then put them togthrer".

Again, I doubt that the penis, scrotum and testicles evolved seperatly.
That the males reproductive system started out simple doesen't mean that it started out with only one testicle and then later came the scrotum and ...
It means that it probably started out with less evolved versions of the penis, the scrotum and the testicles.

If anything came after others it must have been the penis. It probably gave better aim

Of course, and only the automobile factories that were made to produce Mercedes would only be able to produce Mercedes. This is not answering the question, the question is, if you trace every thing back to its original origin, how do you get from non-compatibility to compatibility.

You don't get from non-compatibility to compatibility. (as people have told you many times now). Yo have compatibility all the way.

We were discussing the Standard Model in previous post, how do you go from a singularity.....to intelligent life and large scale reproducing humans with bodily systems that perform specific functions.

In a huge amout of very small steps.

Its amazing to me what people will believe to negate the existence of God.

Yes, and that is your problem. You seem to have no doubt that you are correct and every body who don't see the world the same way you do must be very stupid.

 

[lunakilo]

But even if we put that aside, how do you go from this small scale reproduction (or whatever you want to call it, I dont believe it occurred anyway), to a male having a penis, testicles etc for reproduction, to a female having a vagina, ovaries, eggs, etc....At this large scale, if the males reproductive system was something that evolved over time, then the females system would have to evolve at the exact same rate, and there is just no way around it. There is no way for you to provide an answer as to how, even if every thing started on a small scale, for it to end up at a large scale without both the male and female systems changing at the exact same time and rate. No way. You are saying "it started like this...." But I am saying "It ended up like this...." so that "in-between time".....there was a change, how could this change have occurred if it didnt occur at the same time. Makes no sense. When you take away all of the fluff and feathers of the scientific wordplay that you people like to use, the question still remains.

large scale change equals lots of small scale changes. How can that be so dificult to understand?

You want someone to describe all the little changes to you in a quick and easy to understand way? in less tha 10 lines in an answer?
That is not going to happen. People can give you an overview and point you to articles that gives more information.
You could try google you know.

And the only one suggestingt that male and female did not change at the same rate is you.
Of course male and female changed at the same time. The males and females which were best at at reproducing (that requires them to be sexually compatible you know) had the most surviving ofspring and their genes were the ones that had the best chance of being passed on to the next generation.
That also means their children had genital much like their parents. They went into the world and found mates which were sexually compatible with them and the whole thing happened again.
Every generation the the ones best at producing offspring which could go on to reproduce were the ones whose genes had the best chance of being passed on.

Maybe the ones with a small, protruding piece of flesh from where to fire sperm had an advantage over the ones with no such thing. Better aim you know.
This would cause that specific mutation to have a good probability of being passed on.
Next generation the ones with the best aim (again better aim also means being sexually compatible with the female you aim at) would again produce the most surviving offspring.
Over many generations this could turn into a penis an vegina.

Do I know that is how it happened? No I don't, but I am sure I could google it and find all sorts of intersiting articles about it if I tried.
You can do the same if you are interested.
The main point is that that is an overview of how evolution works, the details I would have to look up.

 

[beerisit]

You believe that we have all of these things specified things, from an entity that doesn't have a mind, that cant see, that cant think, that cant reason...you believe this....but yet, im the ignorant one?? You believe that you can get that kind of order from something that doesn't have a mind, something that is blind, something that cant think??? But I am ignorant? Lol Yeah, ok

So what's the problem, you are alive and breathing and possess similar characteristics.

 

[Krok]

So what's the problem, you are alive and breathing and possess similar characteristics.

I think that most of the "thoughts" (to use the definition of the word thought very loosely), pinned down by creationists really are the best evidence for evolution.

Although, I don't think a lot of the other primates would be too impressed with this. They might start doubting evolution, as they don't want to be too closely related to some humans..... They might see it as "devolution" of the brains our common ancestors had...:run:

 

[lunakilo]

So what's the problem, you are alive and breathing and possess similar characteristics.

I think that most of the "thoughts" (to use the definition of the word thought very loosely), pinned down by creationists really are the best evidence for evolution.

Although, I don't think a lot of the other primates would be too impressed with this. They might start doubting evolution, as they don't want to be too closely related to some humans..... They might see it as "devolution" of the brains our common ancestors had...:run:

And some people's parents have taught their children that some things are polite to say and others not.
I have serious doubts about the abilities of your parents in that regard beerisit and Krok.

 

[beerisit]

And some people's parents have taught their children that some things are polite to say and others not.
I have serious doubts about the abilities of your parents in that regard beerisit and Krok.

Actually lunakilo my parents taught me to never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

 

[johnhanks]

... You believe that this mindless, blind entity gave us all of our internal organs...

Your problem, CotW, is that the "mindless, blind entity" you fantasise about bears no relations whatever to the mechanisms of evolution described by contemporary biology. The amount of confusion and incoherence in what I have snipped above is simply staggering. I might once have summoned the will to try to explain it to you, but previous experience suggests I would be wasting my time. You clearly have no wish to become better informed on the subject, in fact every motivation to remain invincibly ignorant. I wish you joy of it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your problem, CotW, is that the "mindless, blind entity" you fantasise about bears no relations whatever to the mechanisms of evolution described by contemporary biology.

No relation to mechanisms of evolution??? Huh? Isn't evolution a natural occurence? And is not this occurence mindless and blind??? The answer is yes.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So what's the problem, you are alive and breathing and possess similar characteristics.

That was funny But you cant joke your way out of a illogical position.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

large scale change equals lots of small scale changes. How can that be so dificult to understand?

These are not any ordinary changes though luna, thats my point. Ice melting to liquid is a change, but that is a completey different change than a male evovling a reproductive system, for testicles to produce sperm, and a penis to release sperm to fertilize with a compatible female system that has a vagina and ovaries. I am not trying to be explicit or funny, I am just saying, I cant find myself to believe that this process was a result of a mindless and blind procedure.

You want someone to describe all the little changes to you in a quick and easy to understand way? in less tha 10 lines in an answer?
That is not going to happen. People can give you an overview and point you to articles that gives more information.
You could try google you know.

I am a "step by step" kind of person. I like things being told to me step by step, John did this, and even though I didnt buy the answer that was given, it was the right concept for me. The problem is, I dont think that he nor anyone else can give me a step by step process of how our reproductive system evovled to the way that it is today. I dont think this can happen. No way.

And the only one suggestingt that male and female did not change at the same rate is you.
Of course male and female changed at the same time. The males and females which were best at at reproducing (that requires them to be sexually compatible you know)

Once again, you are begging the question, you are assuming compatibility when the question is how could they become compatible all the while reproducing before they became compatible. You are assuming compatibility without explaining how they became compatible.

had the most surviving ofspring and their genes were the ones that had the best chance of being passed on to the next generation.
That also means their children had genital much like their parents. They went into the world and found mates which were sexually compatible with them and the whole thing happened again.
Every generation the the ones best at producing offspring which could go on to reproduce were the ones whose genes had the best chance of being passed on.

Begging the question, once again.

Maybe the ones with a small, protruding piece of flesh from where to fire sperm had an advantage over the ones with no such thing. Better aim you know.
This would cause that specific mutation to have a good probability of being passed on.
Next generation the ones with the best aim (again better aim also means being sexually compatible with the female you aim at) would again produce the most surviving offspring.
Over many generations this could turn into a penis an vegina.

If this isn't voo doo science, I dont know what is. Better aim? Protruding piece of flesh?? If they were already reproducing before they actually became compatible, then what was the point on becoming compatible?? Makes no since.

Do I know that is how it happened? No I don't, but I am sure I could google it and find all sorts of intersiting articles about it if I tried.
You can do the same if you are interested.
The main point is that that is an overview of how evolution works, the details I would have to look up.

Good luck on that look up, I assure you nothing can answer these questions.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Whether you are impressed or not is irellevant. An answer has been given and the fact that you dicagree with it doesn't make it any less an answer.

True, and it doesn't make my rebuttal any less of a rebuttal either.

Probably depends on what 'it' is.
The general consensus is that if you want to go all the way back to the first life on Earth then 'it' is billions of years.
If 'it' equals from no penis to penis then I am not sure. My guess is millions of years, but johnhanks could probablby give you a better answer there.

Well, you are not sure and neither is anyone else.

There you go agan. YOU may believe things were designed and created as they are today. YOU may believe that gos sat down and thought "well a man needs a penis a scrotum and some testicles, let me design them seperatly and then put them togthrer".

Well, we obviously have them now don't we. If we didn't always have them, and now we have them, how did we go from not having it at all to all of a sudden having them? That is the question.

Again, I doubt that the penis, scrotum and testicles evolved seperatly.
That the males reproductive system started out simple doesen't mean that it started out with only one testicle and then later came the scrotum and ...
It means that it probably started out with less evolved versions of the penis, the scrotum and the testicles.

Right, it started off with no testicle, no penis, no ovaries, no vagina.....and now it has all of these things in these very complex and compatible systems. How? Less evovled versions of the penis??? Regardless of how less evolved it was, it still had to be compatible with the opposite sex, so you have to explain how both of them reached compatibility. The motor for a bus is not compatible with a motor for a car. A person with a intelligent mind has to design a motor specifically for both the car and the motor....see the point???

If anything came after others it must have been the penis. It probably gave better aim

Sure, lets postulate anything, shall we...

You don't get from non-compatibility to compatibility. (as people have told you many times now). Yo have compatibility all the way.

No you dont. You are trying to sell the notion that things started off compatible on small scales, then as both genders evovled they evovled at the same time and was compatible for every step of the way, nonsensical. You don't get this kind of order from a mindless entity. You just dont, and deep down inside you know it.

In a huge amout of very small steps.

Sure it was, steps so small that it didn't happen.

Yes, and that is your problem. You seem to have no doubt that you are correct and every body who don't see the world the same way you do must be very stupid.

Well, the only time I see the kind of order that took place with the human body, intelligent design is always attached to it. Always....and I am given no reason to think that it was any different millions of years ago when no one was around to see it occur. As I said before, if we have all of this knowledge and all of these models, why cant we create the exact same enviorment that the earth was all those years ago, and watch every thing take place as it did then.....since we know so much?? Why hasn't this been done yet??

 

[lunakilo]

These are not any ordinary changes though luna, thats my point.

Yes they are, that's my point.

I am a "step by step" kind of person. I like things being told to me step by step, John did this, and even though I didnt buy the answer that was given, it was the right concept for me.

Right. Like you explain things step by step. "The number is 10:10:123. Why? Because smart man says so"

I don't think you have any right to complain about the level of details in the steps people provide for you.

Once again, you are begging the question, you are assuming compatibility when the question is how could they become compatible all the while reproducing before they became compatible. You are assuming compatibility without explaining how they became compatible.

Oh, so now you are ok with them being compatible at each step as long as I can explain how they became compatible in the first place?

Well you see, for as long as there has been succesful sexual reproduction there has been compatibility.
So how did sexual reproduction arise then, you ask.

Well I don't know. So... quick google...
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmm, 4 different theories listed about that, so I guess there is no consensus about how that happened.
Plenty of links to books and articles about the topic though, so plenty of people with plenty of theories.
Possibly one or more of those theories are correct.

Another article which looks interesting (must read when I get home from work): http://fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/images/PDF%20files/Imporatant%20Publication/on-the-origin-of-sexual-reproduction.pdf

Bottom line: Many theories - No consensus on which one is correct.
I know you don't believe that this is what happened but please stop calling things you disagree with absurd.
No consensus doesn't mean you are correct.

Sure, lets postulate anything, shall we...

Sure it was, steps so small that it didn't happen.

Now who is postulating...

Well, we obviously have them now don't we. If we didn't always have them, and now we have them, how did we go from not having it at all to all of a sudden having them? That is the question.

Right, it started off with no testicle, no penis, no ovaries, no vagina.....and now it has all of these things in these very complex and compatible systems. How? Less evovled versions of the penis??? Regardless of how less evolved it was, it still had to be compatible with the opposite sex, so you have to explain how both of them reached compatibility. The motor for a bus is not compatible with a motor for a car. A person with a intelligent mind has to design a motor specifically for both the car and the motor....see the point???

No you dont. You are trying to sell the notion that things started off compatible on small scales, then as both genders evovled they evovled at the same time and was compatible for every step of the way, nonsensical. You don't get this kind of order from a mindless entity. You just dont, and deep down inside you know it.

Well, the only time I see the kind of order that took place with the human body, intelligent design is always attached to it. Always....and I am given no reason to think that it was any different millions of years ago when no one was around to see it occur. As I said before, if we have all of this knowledge and all of these models, why cant we create the exact same enviorment that the earth was all those years ago, and watch every thing take place as it did then.....since we know so much?? Why hasn't this been done yet??

I get that you believe that God did it.
I get that you believe evolution is not how it happened, but just because you disagree does not make it nonsensical.

 

[work in progress]

I think that God laughs whenever people deny clear evidence. On one hand though the tendency for us to hold to certain beliefs is part of an evolutionary need not to find the truth, but to convince/bully others into thinking that we are right. If I recall correctly it somehow ensures stability in a group, and evolved out of a time when having group cohesion was more important since lions and stuff was out to get you while you were hunting mega-fauna.

I wish we did have an evolutionary need to find the truth! This reminds me of something I heard a little while back from an interview with a prominent neuroscientist who had recently wrote a book on the subject of how we use reasoning and gathered intuitions to make decisions. I wish I could recall the name, but according to his theorizing, the development of the executive functioning in the prefrontal cortex for reasoning through decision-making, likely had little to do with a search for truth, and had more to do with developing arguments to persuade others. From this perspective, it's easy to see why so many people would rather defend their notions with every excuse possible, rather than scrap them for a new theory.

As for global warming, I would say it has very disasterous consequences if people do not start paying attention, if the warm winds essentially stop coming up the Atlantic due to the salinity of the oceans being shifted by the insanely increasing rate of Ice-shelf calving and ice-cap melting, then farming will severely suffer, and there will be a shortage of food, not to mention many other concerns such as an increase in all kinds of nasty storms like Hurricanes.

Did you know that it has been discovered that water is getting deep under the ice-shelfs through holes and is acting as a conveyor belt for transfeering heat, making them calve even faster? saw a program on it on PBS but can't recall the details but essentially the more the water rises the faster the ice-shelves will calve

The evidence is mounting that changes in greenhouse gas levels, sea level rise and melting ice in the Arctic, are occurring even faster than IPCC projections.

This is especially damning considering that the nations of the world haven't even begun to address the issue of global warming, and if anything - are adding to the problem. It's especially damning of the human condition that all it has taken is comparatively small amounts of money from multi-billion dollar oil conglomerates - spread through a network of propagandists, combined with the simple human tendency to ignore perceived long term problems if they have short term costs, or are viewed as requiring changes in behaviour, and we have a process that will collapse nations and cause unfathomable death and destruction all set in motion. Even though the basic framework of this problem was understood more than 40 years ago. It's also uncanny how the basic back-and-forth of debate on climate change resembles the debates on evolution, 2nd hand cigarette smoke and many other issues that were assumed to have been settled long ago.

 

[work in progress]

That reminds me I just noticed an article about a new heat record in Greenland when I was checking the if I could make it home from work today before the rain started.
Maybe I should move to Greenland :beach:

Foreign affairs journalist - Gwyn Dyer wrote a book a few years back called "Climate Wars," inspired by what he described as his increasingly frequent conversations with top U.S. military, State Dept. and CIA officials on the subject of climate change impacts for global security issues. This caught his attention because under the presidency of George Bush, he was essentially put in leadership by the oil companies, and even his foreign policy objectives had to be viewed through the scope of how they would benefit Chevron, BP and Exxon-Mobil. He applied the same standard regarding climate change as he used for evolution: teach the controversy and the evidence isn't settled yet. So Gwyn Dyer found it striking that the people working in his Administration were very sure that the climate is changing and would change even more drastically in the coming years.

Since Bush Admin. officials were secret global warming believers, I wish he had asked a followup question regarding why they following the Do Nothing strategy on this issue. The pattern of events over the coming decades will show that the strategies of the U.S. and other northern developed nations has been to move north as the climate warms (possibly fighting with the Russians and the Chinese for control of the Arctic Ocean) and building walls and taking any steps necessary to keep millions of climate refugees from flood and drought-ravaged equatorial regions from migrating north as well. It will look to any surviving future historians as if those with the money and the guns decided to trap billions in the overheated, drier regions with no food left, and allowed a massive dieoff of the human population, rather than take any serious action in the interests of the world population as a whole.

All that said, you may very well be part of that migration north, as long as someone isn't up there already and trying to block entry. I'm assuming that the long term future here where I am in Canada, is that our country will be overrun by Americans migrating north, while at the same time they are shooting Mexicans and other Latinos trying to move into their territory! When it comes to how U.S., Russia and China will deal with the migration north (China has never accepted the modern boundaries that took away former Siberian territory), it's anyone's guess what the end result of nuclear-armed aggressors competing for control of the Arctic and its resources will be. There may be nobody left to write that chapter.

Off topic you say... true, but this thread was derailed at least 30 pages ago

I'm surprised you guys are willing to follow every trail of this attempt to scientifically prove the existence of God.

 

[MD]

All that said, you may very well be part of that migration north, as long as someone isn't up there already and trying to block entry. I'm assuming that the long term future here where I am in Canada, is that our country will be overrun by Americans migrating north, while at the same time they are shooting Mexicans and other Latinos trying to move into their territory!

Honestly, I am Canadian as well and sometimes fear an American invasion/annexation of Canada followed by massive migration and displacement in about 50 years. I'm not saying it will happen, it could be staved off by new technologies but it is a possibility.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Right. Like you explain things step by step. "The number is 10:10:123. Why? Because smart man says so"

First off, In a previous post I did explain how he got that number...so that is not the point...and it is from a person who has spent his lifetime working in the field that we have been discussing. So what more do you want?? It is from an expert in the field, what more do you want??

I don't think you have any right to complain about the level of details in the steps people provide for you.

I do...it is you people who believe that this process took place, I am only asking you to explain how...you throw in the word "evolve" in there without any evidence whatsoever. The word "evolve" to me is nothing more than a "fast forward" attempt by naturalistics in order to bypass their ignorance in certain areas, and it has been tossed around for so long that people use the word as if it is a given, despite the fact that there is no evidence for it.

Oh, so now you are ok with them being compatible at each step as long as I can explain how they became compatible in the first place?

No, I dont believe in this evolution phase....I believe that God created a man, and then he created a woman. This is more plausible in my eyes, a being with a intelligent mind to create a human being with eyes to see, ears to hear, a reproductive system to reproduce, blood, veins, internal organs, etc. The compatibility was made by a intelligent mind. I dont see how anyone can believe that a mindless and blind entity gave you two eyeballs in your head for you to see. Its funny, because if a 5 year old is drawing a person on a piece of paper, and you point to the eyes and ask "what are those"......and he respond, "Eyes".....and you ask "Why did you draw eyes"......and he respond, "So the man can see"......the 5 year old knows that the person on the drawing would need eyes to see, so he drew eyes.......but nature and this evolution process DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING WOULD NEED TO SEE, nor would it know what it means to have sight......yet......we have eyes to see......this is completely absurd to me.....Im sorry.

Well you see, for as long as there has been succesful sexual reproduction there has been compatibility.
So how did sexual reproduction arise then, you ask.
Well I don't know. So... quick google...
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Briefly scanned through it and as I expected, it assumed sexual compatibility without explaining how things became compatible, kinda similar to what you have been doing ....for example, read the first sentence of the article, under the subtitle "two-fold cost of sex" to see what I am talking about.

Hmmm, 4 different theories listed about that, so I guess there is no consensus about how that happened.
Plenty of links to books and articles about the topic though, so plenty of people with plenty of theories.
Possibly one or more of those theories are correct.

This is no good explanation for this luna, trust me, dont believe the hype. The God hypothesis is th best explanation.

Another article which looks interesting (must read when I get home from work): http://fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/i...tion/on-the-origin-of-sexual-reproduction.pdf

Bottom line: Many theories - No consensus on which one is correct.
I know you don't believe that this is what happened but please stop calling things you disagree with absurd.
No consensus doesn't mean you are correct.

I will try to find a better word for believing that we have eyes to see, and we have them as a result of a mindless, blind entity.

Now who is postulating...


I get that you believe that God did it.
I get that you believe evolution is not how it happened, but just because you disagree does not make it nonsensical.

I will try

 

[jasonwill2]

I wish we did have an evolutionary need to find the truth! This reminds me of something I heard a little while back from an interview with a prominent neuroscientist who had recently wrote a book on the subject of how we use reasoning and gathered intuitions to make decisions. I wish I could recall the name, but according to his theorizing, the development of the executive functioning in the prefrontal cortex for reasoning through decision-making, likely had little to do with a search for truth, and had more to do with developing arguments to persuade others. From this perspective, it's easy to see why so many people would rather defend their notions with every excuse possible, rather than scrap them for a new theory.

The evidence is mounting that changes in greenhouse gas levels, sea level rise and melting ice in the Arctic, are occurring even faster than IPCC projections.

This is especially damning considering that the nations of the world haven't even begun to address the issue of global warming, and if anything - are adding to the problem. It's especially damning of the human condition that all it has taken is comparatively small amounts of money from multi-billion dollar oil conglomerates - spread through a network of propagandists, combined with the simple human tendency to ignore perceived long term problems if they have short term costs, or are viewed as requiring changes in behaviour, and we have a process that will collapse nations and cause unfathomable death and destruction all set in motion. Even though the basic framework of this problem was understood more than 40 years ago. It's also uncanny how the basic back-and-forth of debate on climate change resembles the debates on evolution, 2nd hand cigarette smoke and many other issues that were assumed to have been settled long ago.

I totally forgot about the Arctic, people always go on about the ice shelves on the Antarctic, I'm not sure though about if the Arctic is all salty-ice or more like freshwater ice, though the rising water level would be bad enough. I was more concerned with the salinity of the water being diluted. I live over 1,000 feet above sea level so at most it will just make a nice change of look for our maps, but the freezing is what I don't want to deal with once the northern currents stop coming our way.:sarcastic

 

[micrurus]

Science comes from naturalism meaning that it can only concern itself with the natural world. Also, the claim that a god exist is an unfalsifiable hypotheses (just like Russel's teapot).

Since a God claim is supernatural and unfalsifiable it can neither be confirmed nor denied by the scientific method.