"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

[shmogie]

OK, but I can't find any prominent scientists that don't believe that evolution by natural selection isn't real. I did look. But, if you can't back up your claim, that's fine. Try to be respectful too. No reason to get snippity.

Wasn't trying to be snippity, I have been down this road way too many times. You were looking for the wrong thing. I believe evolution by natural selection is real. What hasn't been proven is that this process began with simple organisms that ultimately resulted in the huge variety of life we see today. Micro, vs. macro. I will get some names for you. Of course, no evolutionist wants to discuss abiogenesis, they all avoid it like the plague, even though their process is a result of it. The last statement doesn't require a response.

 

[paarsurrey]

Of course, but I won't. If you are interested, you can find them. I've played this game before with evolutionists, and the game goes like this, I name ten, they want twenty five, I name twenty five, they want fifty and on it goes till we switch to another game, education, then to institutions, then to peer reviewed articles, .............................., I don't have the time to play the game, If you don't want to research it yourself, then take my word on it, or not, it makes not one whit of difference to me. But they exist in most science faculties of most universities

There is no compulsion on one on believing Evolution from any quarters.
There is no compulsion on one on believing Earth is round from any quarters.
There is no compulsion on one on believing Earth revolves around the sun from any quarters. So one and so forth.
There are still millions of people, they had no education, or even if they had, they are ordinary men in the street. Their life is passing without believing in such things. They have a right to spend life without these concepts even if the concepts are truthful or not. Right? Please
Regards

 

[shmogie]

There is no compulsion on one on believing Evolution from any quarters.
There is no compulsion on one on believing Earth is round from any quarters.
There is no compulsion on one on believing Earth revolves around the sun from any quarters. So one and so forth.
There are still millions of people, they had no education, or even if they had, they are ordinary men in the street. Their life is passing without believing in such things. They have a right to spend life without these concepts even if the concepts are truthful or not. Right? Please
Regards

Yes, provided they know the range of their choices

 

[paarsurrey]

Science and Christianity are perfectly compatible. The greatest scientists throughout history were Christians in the west, and Moslems in the east, and Buddhist's in China. Christian scientists are still making scientific discoveries and progress. As to the rest of your blather, you are confused so I will continue to ignore it.

Denominations of Christianity that Jesus medically/physically died on the Cross and then resurrected from the medically/physically dead and became alive are not perfectly compatible with science?
Is there a Christian denomination that does not believe in the above? Please
Regards

 

[shmogie]

Yeah, but there is objective evidence backing up abiogenesis, and no evidence that contradicts it. There is no objective, verifiable evidence backing up religious beliefs/faith. That's the point. You have to take the fairy tail of religion "on faith" With respect, your statement re abiogenesis is nonsense. There is NO evidence backing it up. It is a fairy tale, and I would like to see this evidence. Here is one of many pieces of evidence that totally refutes it. Even the simplest living creature requires long chains of properly placed amino acids and peptides to function, these are types of information, where did the information come from. A living creature also must have pure information in DNA form, or for the fairy tale creature in some form Further, the information is encoded to fit the operating system of the creature, giving it very complicated instructions for it's machinery of life. This massive amount of information must exist before the creature does, or it couldn't exist. No one can answer the question, where did this information come from ? I have studied abiogenesis intensely in the last year, reading many scientific books, both pro and con, as well as articles and journals. It is a fairy tale, accepted by faith. No one has a clue how it allegedly happened.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What's happening does seem pretty settled when you take the data into account. Data isn't a matter of opinion, and you don't have the option of choosing what data or accept or ignore based on your desired narrative.

That's right, the data rules, but computer generated UN IPCC agw models of future warming is not data. The actual data of historical measured temperature does not prove agw, it shows a warming trend less than the agw models predicted.

 

[Jose Fly]

I haven't a clue

Then I have to wonder just what qualifies you to make authoritative comments on their work if you don't even know what it is.

Yes, I do read the journals

Which ones?

as well as books written by scientists both pro and con. The most recent being "The Signature in the Cell" written by a Harvard/ Cambridge graduate with three different PhD.s in scientific disciplines. It is a 1,000 page exploration of the origin of life, the theories, the history, the genetics, the problems. I highly recommend it

So you read a creationist book.

The scenario is this, the earth formed, was battered by rain, possibly comets and meteors, an atmosphere of some kind formed. Perhaps there was the introduction of lightning and radiation. This runoff from the rocks formed a primordial sea, and some how, the present chemicals mixed, in huge variations, till just the right ones happened to combine, and a life form popped into existence. In this case, chemistry is a total, random, by chance process.

Wait.....what? Are you saying that there are two types of chemistry, the non-random one we see and use today, and the purely random one that operated on the early earth? Or are you saying that you think all chemistry is a purely random process?

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course, no evolutionist wants to discuss abiogenesis, they all avoid it like the plague, even though their process is a result of it.

What in the heck are you talking about? You belong to this forum, right? Sayak started a thread on this very subject last year.

Sheesh.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's right, the data rules, but computer generated UN IPCC agw models of future warming is not data. The actual data of historical measured temperature does not prove agw, it shows a warming trend less than the agw models predicted.

So a warming trend that is less than some models predicted is not a warming trend? Or is this you acknowledging that the current warming trend is real?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ho hum.....
Is anyone who is anti-science going to change because people march for science?
Or is this just a new millennium version of the old "love in"?

I'll answer with my own speculation.....
The marchers are AGW activists creating a straw man,
ie, agree with their agenda or you're anti-science.

 

[shmogie]

What in the heck are you talking about? You belong to this forum, right? Sayak started a thread on this very subject last year.

Sheesh.

Didn't see it

 

[shmogie]

Then I have to wonder just what qualifies you to make authoritative comments on their work if you don't even know what it is.


Which ones?


So you read a creationist book.


Wait.....what? Are you saying that there are two types of chemistry, the non-random one we see and use today, and the purely random one that operated on the early earth? Or are you saying that you think all chemistry is a purely random process?

I have read lots of books on the subject, as I said, both pro and con. Are you purposely playing dumb ? Chemistry, in a controlled environment, with known chemicals and their properties, isn't random. In an unknown environment, with unknown chemicals, reacting in an unknown way, creating combinations purely by chance. it is a totally random process. Tell you what. You post their work re abiogenisis, tell me all about it, and how they have discovered the chemicals involved, the environment involved, and how they came together to create life, the process. I'll be waiting.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So a warming trend that is less than some models predicted is not a warming trend? Or is this you acknowledging that the current warming trend is real?

I see you are not familiar with the subject, do you not understand what agw means? No one disputes the data, but if the data does not reflect the agw predictions, then obviously the UN IPCC computer models have overestimated the warming effect of human produced CO2 emissions.

 

[shmogie]

That's right, the data rules, but computer generated UN IPCC agw models of future warming is not data. The actual data of historical measured temperature does not prove agw, it shows a warming trend less than the agw models predicted.

Lets also not forget the so called pause when the earth warmed little if any, for 15 years during the height of the claims for runaway warming

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Lets also not forget the so called pause when the earth warmed little if any, for 15 years during the height of the claims for runaway warming

Correct, and if the Pacific Ocean region La Nina is reestablished and stays for awhile, the pause will show an even longer pause.

 

[Jose Fly]

Didn't see it

Thus illustrating the folly of thinking "If I don't see it, it must not exist".

I have read lots of books on the subject, as I said, both pro and con.

You've only named one creationist book. You also said you read the scientific journals relevant to origins research. So again....which ones?

Chemistry, in a controlled environment, with known chemicals and their properties, isn't random. In an unknown environment, with unknown chemicals, reacting in an unknown way, creating combinations purely by chance. it is a totally random process.

So you really do believe there are two fundamental types of chemistry.....non-random and random. Where in the world did you get such an idea?

Tell you what. You post their work re abiogenisis, tell me all about it, and how they have discovered the chemicals involved, the environment involved, and how they came together to create life, the process. I'll be waiting.

Are you moving the goalposts here? Remember, this started with you claiming that there was not one single bit of evidence for abiogenesis. But now you're demanding something else entirely, i.e., a full-blown explanation for an entire A-Z scenario.

See, in the world of those who don't think in black/white terms, there is quite a bit of grey area between "zero evidence" and "fully explained". Specific to origins, we have a handful of hypotheses, each with their own set of supporting evidences. But no one is claiming that we have it all figured out and it's settled science. That's why it's still an active area of research. If we had it figured out, there wouldn't be any more to do.

So do you understand? Yes, there is evidence for a natural origin of life, but no we haven't figured it completely out either.

 

[Jose Fly]

No one disputes the data

Weren't you among the group that was accusing climatologists of deliberately fudging data?

but if the data does not reflect the agw predictions, then obviously the UN IPCC computer models have overestimated the warming effect of human produced CO2 emissions.

Therefore, what?

 

[Jose Fly]

Ho hum.....
Is anyone who is anti-science going to change because people march for science?
Or is this just a new millennium version of the old "love in"?

I'll answer with my own speculation.....
The marchers are AGW activists creating a straw man,
ie, agree with their agenda or you're anti-science.

My understanding is it was to bring awareness to science being under attack, particularly in the US.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Weren't you among the group that was accusing climatologists of deliberately fudging data?
Therefore, what?

There is a question on some data records due to questionable adjustments after the fact, but it does not change the fact that the IPCC approved temperature data records show actual global temperatures falling short of predicted, with the deviation increasing in time.

Then it means that humans are not the predominate cause of global warming!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A leading skeptical scientist has reported that seven shots were fired at his workplace during the weekend’s Earth Day and March for Science events — likely as a threat and warning.

Dr Roy Spencer, meteorologist and noted climate skeptic at the University of Huntsville, Alabama, reports at his website that the shots were aimed at the office of his colleague and fellow sceptic, Dr John Christy:

A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH over the weekend.

All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).

Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence. When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way. It doesn’t matter that we don’t “deny global warming”; the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvement in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy.

Shots Fired at Climate Skeptic's Office During March for Science - Breitbart