"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't see the quotes, which I kind of expected.

Jeremiah, different forms of life appear at different times, different 'days' in Genesis

Sorry- one tends to take for granted that people are somewhat familiar with this, but if not- give it a read, it's not hard to find online even if you don't have your own copy

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - New International Version

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Jeremiah, different forms of life appear at different times, different 'days' in Genesis

Sorry- one tends to take for granted that people are somewhat familiar with this, but if not- give it a read, it's not hard to find online even if you don't have your own copy

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - New International Version

I have read Genesis before, I am looking for direct quotes of what you are talking about, and I think the reason you don't want to provide them is because they are not there.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have read Genesis before, I am looking for direct quotes of what you are talking about, and I think the reason you don't want to provide them is because they are not there.

That's right Jeremiah- Genesis says all life was created on the same day...

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That's right Jeremiah- Genesis says all life was created on the same day...

I am sorry, but evolution is more then just changes happening over time, by your standards the wind is evolution, rain is evolution, cars on the freeway are evolution.

If it is in Genesis you can provide direct examples. You provided the link right there, just pull out the verses that makes you think it is talking about evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

Use your noggin, the models cannot show a trend for warming or cooling from natural causes due to its unpredictability, ie. volcanic eruptions, ocean circulation and oscillations, etc.

Says who? I work with models of natural conditions all the time.

Atmospheric CO2 increasing trend on the other hand is a known quantity, so the climate sensitivity to CO2 calculations used by each model determines the warming trend. It follows logically then that if there is an increasing deviation in time, then the CO2 warming contribution is being overestimated in the models.

Can you link to the actual papers that describe these models in such terms?

If you still not understand this, it is because you are lacking in prerequisite knowledge, and I suggest you do some more study.

I did, and by looking at more than just denialist websites, I found lots of references to the climate models actually underestimating the amount of warming and/or the contributions from CO2.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160407221445.htm

Climate models have underestimated Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 changes, study finds

 

[Jose Fly]

As I have read the things you have written, I have become more and more sorry for you. Like the slow kid in third grade, you resort to liar, liar, liar when your comprehension breaks down, It must be difficult to go through life with a handicap of this sort. No matter, your foggy vision of the reality of what you read makes your juvenile behavior understandable, and truly pathetic.

Perhaps you don't post any of the alleged evidence you say exists because you think it is evidence, but just can't take the chance that as in so many other things, you have read it wrong. Truly, you have my sympathy

Nice try, but it's simply matter of documented fact. You claimed to stay up on origins research by reading the relevant scientific journals, but you can't name any thereby suggesting that you weren't telling the truth. You claimed to have read books on abiogenesis from the "pro side", but you can't name any thereby suggesting that you weren't telling the truth. You accused me of arguing via straw man regarding you thinking that chemistry is a random process, but I linked to the posts where you specifically said that. You claimed that Sayak's posts didn't describe origins scenarios, list reagents, or describe conditions, even though its on the record that they did.

The facts are there for all to see. Your childish little attempt at deflection won't make them go away.

 

[shmogie]

Nice try, but it's simply matter of documented fact. You claimed to stay up on origins research by reading the relevant scientific journals, but you can't name any thereby suggesting that you weren't telling the truth. You claimed to have read books on abiogenesis from the "pro side", but you can't name any thereby suggesting that you weren't telling the truth. You accused me of arguing via straw man regarding you thinking that chemistry is a random process, but I linked to the posts where you specifically said that. You claimed that Sayak's posts didn't describe origins scenarios, list reagents, or describe conditions, even though its on the record that they did.

The facts are there for all to see. Your childish little attempt at deflection won't make them go away.[/QUOT Senor fly, deflection ? not hardly. I certainly could name the journals but why should I ? Because you make a demand ? That guarantees I won't . Your demands are as important to me as the number of crab farts on the beaches of Indonesia in 1953. I find it hilarious that like a petulant child, you actually think your demands should be heeded. Again, I won't name any books on the pro side for you, waaaa waaaa I MUST meet your demand, or you will say mean things ! A third grader speaks !! No, you didn't link the posts that said showed I that, because they didn't. You are unable to grasp what they said, a sad, sad flaw apparent in your comments. No, I never said Chemistry was a random process. I said chemistry took place as a result of a random process, again, nuanced, you don't understand, sorry. I didn't say anything re Sayaks post, other than what was posted failed as evidence for abiogenesis, which is entirely correct. And for about six times I have asked YOU to post this evidence. You won't, because you know I will show it to be evidence of not much at all. I understand again, and am sympathetic to you. You are in above your head, you do not command the language enough to do anything but whine and call childish names, perhaps you also lack the intellectual ability to mount a defense of your fairy tale, I hope not. However, you must admit, it really looks that way.

 

[Jose Fly]

I certainly could name the journals but why should I ?

Hilarious.

"I read scientific journals that deal with abiogenesis."

Really? Which ones?

"I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ANYTHING!!!"

Nah....nothing suspicious about that at all.

Again, I won't name any books on the pro side for you

"I read books on abiogenesis written by the 'pro side'."

Really? Which ones?

"I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ANYTHING!!!!"

Nah....nothing suspicious about that at all.

No, you didn't link the posts that said showed I that, because they didn't....No, I never said Chemistry was a random process.

You're lying again.

This is what you wrote in your Post #80:

"In this case, chemistry is a total, random, by chance process. This has been the primary model for many decades."​

Shoot, you repeated your ridiculous misconception in your Post #119, where you described abiogenesis as:

"...happened by blind chance, by chance combinations of chemicals that "knew" all the information about the operation of an organism"​

Just a hint.....when caught lying, it's not a good idea to double down and pile on more lies.

I didn't say anything re Sayaks post, other than what was posted failed as evidence for abiogenesis, which is entirely correct.

Lying appears to be habitual for you.

In your Post #114 you claimed that Sayak's posts didn't have any description of processes, constituent chemicals, or conditions, even though it's simply a matter of written record that they do, as I showed in my reply.

Again, I have to note how fascinating it is to see someone claiming to be on the side of God engaging in these sorts of behaviors.

 

[Revoltingest]

Global warming is about as far from science as it's possible to get!

This is incorrect.
GW is testable, which makes it amenable to the scientific method.
The farthest one can get from science would be something untestable,
eg, a claim that 94.8 fetching virginal babes await martyrs in Heaven.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is incorrect.
GW is testable, which makes it amenable to the scientific method.
The farthest one can get from science would be something untestable,
eg, a claim that 94.8 fetching virginal babes await martyrs in Heaven.

Yes, we can confirm empirically, that 1 or 2 extra molecules CO2 in 10000 of air, cannot possibly trap enough heat to have any significant effect on the climate

but we can't be so sure about the virgins, (not my thing though, I prefer experienced women!)

So global warming would be the more scientifically illiterate belief

 

[shmogie]

Hilarious.

"I read scientific journals that deal with abiogenesis."

Really? Which ones?

"I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ANYTHING!!!"

Nah....nothing suspicious about that at all.


"I read books on abiogenesis written by the 'pro side'."

Really? Which ones?

"I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ANYTHING!!!!"

Nah....nothing suspicious about that at all.


You're lying again.

This is what you wrote in your Post #80:

"In this case, chemistry is a total, random, by chance process. This has been the primary model for many decades."​

Shoot, you repeated your ridiculous misconception in your Post #119, where you described abiogenesis as:

"...happened by blind chance, by chance combinations of chemicals that "knew" all the information about the operation of an organism"​

Just a hint.....when caught lying, it's not a good idea to double down and pile on more lies.


Lying appears to be habitual for you.

In your Post #114 you claimed that Sayak's posts didn't have any description of processes, constituent chemicals, or conditions, even though it's simply a matter of written record that they do, as I showed in my reply.

Again, I have to note how fascinating it is to see someone claiming to be on the side of God engaging in these sorts of behaviors.

Sigh, Jose, feel like I

Hilarious.

"I read scientific journals that deal with abiogenesis."

Really? Which ones?

"I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ANYTHING!!!"

Nah....nothing suspicious about that at all.


"I read books on abiogenesis written by the 'pro side'."

Really? Which ones?

"I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU ANYTHING!!!!"

Nah....nothing suspicious about that at all.


You're lying again.

This is what you wrote in your Post #80:

"In this case, chemistry is a total, random, by chance process. This has been the primary model for many decades."​

Shoot, you repeated your ridiculous misconception in your Post #119, where you described abiogenesis as:

"...happened by blind chance, by chance combinations of chemicals that "knew" all the information about the operation of an organism"​

Just a hint.....when caught lying, it's not a good idea to double down and pile on more lies.


Lying appears to be habitual for you.

In your Post #114 you claimed that Sayak's posts didn't have any description of processes, constituent chemicals, or conditions, even though it's simply a matter of written record that they do, as I showed in my reply.

Again, I have to note how fascinating it is to see someone claiming to be on the side of God engaging in these sorts of behaviors.

Sigh, I feel like I am managing little league team again, but I want to help you, so I will try. You have concluded that the Sayak post, and all it say,s is evidence for abiogenesis. It isn't. In my working life, when I prepared, say, a murder case for court, The evidence was the case. Is evidence what might have happened, what could have happened, what possibly happened ? No. Is evidence If the room was dark, this could have happened, or, our experiments show that the room may have had low oxygen levels, thus the behavior of our client may have resulted from this ? No Evidence is a tangible prima facie fact that can be absolutely proven to exist.
it might be forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, written evidence, video, whatever, but it actually exists, is undisputed that it exists, and thus is admissable. Now, defense council may challenge my interpretation of the evidence, but he can't make it go away. In most cases it has to be proven that a body exists, and that body was murdered. Sayaks post assumes that abiogenesis took place, with no proof that it did. The "evidence" presented fails because it is all based upon various possibilities, with no evidence that those possibilities actually existed. His post cited chemicals, conditions, processes, that MAY have existed or occurred , therefore the alleged evidence cannot be shown to have existed at the time of the crime of " abiogenesis" was committed. Thus it isn't evidence at all, of anything, except guess work, speculation and possibilities. NONE of which is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or any other kind. There is no body , abiogenesis, proven to exist, there is no evidence that is absolutely proven to have existed at the time of the crime, abiogenesis, there is only speculation. Therefore, as interesting as Sayaks post is, it is evidence of nothing, other than his skills as a writer. I understand this will be very ddifficult for you to understand, especially in light of your inability to understand simple sentences, bur please, please, read it ten times if you have to before a little light dawns for you, you will be a better man for it. I thought about using logic and its syllogisms to make the same points, but I am sure you have no training, or in fact little knowledge of them, and I didn't want to make it even harder for you.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have concluded that the Sayak post, and all it say,s is evidence for abiogenesis. It isn't.

Yes it is. The researchers propose various pathways for how life may have first developed, then they go into the lab and see if those pathways are chemically possible. The lab results that show the pathways are possible are supportive evidence for those pathways.

You're exhibiting a type of black/white, all-or-none thinking that is common among fundamentalists. In this case, you seem to be under the impression that such results are only "evidence" if the researchers can absolutely prove that the specific pathway being tested occurred. Of course to non-fundamentalists, you can have evidence that something took place even though you can't absolutely prove it happened.

Take archaeology as an example. An archaeologist suspects that a N. American coastal tribe traded with an inland tribe, so he goes to an ancient inland site and starts digging. He finds artifacts that are from the coastal tribe. Guess what? That's "evidence" that supports his hypothesis, even though he hasn't absolutely proven that the two tribes engaged in trade. In fact, unless he finds written records he will likely never "prove" that the two tribes traded. More likely is that he'll accumulate enough supporting evidence to reach a solid conclusion that they traded.

That's how science works. You should take the time to learn the basics before you try and debate a subject.

Evidence is a tangible prima facie fact that can be absolutely proven to exist.

Your fundamental misconception of how science works is noted.

Also, since when do courts operate via the standard of "absolutely proven"? Last I heard they utilize the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Did something change?

Further, as the forensic investigators are collecting DNA samples and such, what exactly are they collecting? According to you, they can't say they're collecting "evidence" because no one has "absolutely proven" that a specific suspect committed the crime. So what are they collecting?

His post cited chemicals, conditions, processes, that MAY have existed or occurred

Well that's funny, because earlier you said his posts didn't cite any of those things.

therefore the alleged evidence cannot be shown to have existed at the time of the crime of " abiogenesis" was committed. Thus it isn't evidence at all, of anything, except guess work, speculation and possibilities.

Your fundamentalist mode of black/white thinking is noted.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Says who? I work with models of natural conditions all the time.


Can you link to the actual papers that describe these models in such terms?


I did, and by looking at more than just denialist websites, I found lots of references to the climate models actually underestimating the amount of warming and/or the contributions from CO2.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160407221445.htm

Climate models have underestimated Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 changes, study finds

So what are the models related to that you work on?

I give you a paper by Professor Curry that addresses the questions you ask and much more. It covers most anything you need to know about the where climate science stands today.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

Check out the section on Chaos and Natural Variability.

You will see the IPCC decreased CO2 sensitivity between 2007 and 2013 because the models were running too hot, this is an official fact. The links you provided re sensitivity are just model based, not on reality.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) conclusion on climate sensitivity is
stated as: The equilibrium climate sensitivity...is likely to be in the range 2◦C to 4.C with
a best estimate of about *C and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 ◦ C. Values higher than 4.5 ◦C
cannot be excluded.

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2013) conclusionon climate sensitivity is stated
as: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5◦C to 4.5◦C (high con-fidence), extremely unlikely less than 1◦C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6◦C (medium confidence).

 

[Jose Fly]

So what are the models related to that you work on?

Ecosystems.

I give you a paper by Professor Curry that addresses the questions you ask and much more. It covers most anything you need to know about the where climate science stands today.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

Check out the section on Chaos and Natural Variability.

Do you have a citation from an actual scientific source, rather than a recently-created political group whose stated mission is to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming?

You will see the IPCC decreased CO2 sensitivity between 2007 and 2013 because the models were running too hot, this is an official fact.

And just how much did that change their conclusions?

The links you provided re sensitivity are just model based, not on reality.

They're refining the models. It looks to me like you're all for refining models when they're refined in the way you want, but not when they're refined the other way.

And speaking of models and reality, the last few years consecutively breaking temperature records is causing climatologists to realize that warming is actually happening faster than the models predicted, especially in the oceans and arctic.

WMO: Global Warming Happening Faster Than Predicted

Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015 | Science Advances

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) conclusion on climate sensitivity is
stated as: The equilibrium climate sensitivity...is likely to be in the range 2◦C to 4.C with
a best estimate of about *C and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 ◦ C. Values higher than 4.5 ◦C
cannot be excluded.

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2013) conclusionon climate sensitivity is stated
as: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5◦C to 4.5◦C (high con-fidence), extremely unlikely less than 1◦C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6◦C (medium confidence)

Um.....ok. So they adjusted the range of ECS by 0.5 on both ends. Why did you only focus on the adjustment downwards?

 

[shmogie]

Yes it is. The researchers propose various pathways for how life may have first developed, then they go into the lab and see if those pathways are chemically possible. The lab results that show the pathways are possible are supportive evidence for those pathways.

You're exhibiting a type of black/white, all-or-none thinking that is common among fundamentalists. In this case, you seem to be under the impression that such results are only "evidence" if the researchers can absolutely prove that the specific pathway being tested occurred. Of course to non-fundamentalists, you can have evidence that something took place even though you can't absolutely prove it happened.

Take archaeology as an example. An archaeologist suspects that a N. American coastal tribe traded with an inland tribe, so he goes to an ancient inland site and starts digging. He finds artifacts that are from the coastal tribe. Guess what? That's "evidence" that supports his hypothesis, even though he hasn't absolutely proven that the two tribes engaged in trade. In fact, unless he finds written records he will likely never "prove" that the two tribes traded. More likely is that he'll accumulate enough supporting evidence to reach a solid conclusion that they traded.

That's how science works. You should take the time to learn the basics before you try and debate a subject.


Your fundamental misconception of how science works is noted.
If your archaeologist KNOWS those tribes existed, and has artifacts, evidence, that trade occurred, then his hypothesis isn't proven, but he has supporting evidence. So now lets assume he has no concrete knowledge that any tribes existed in the area, but he suspects it is possible, but he doesn't know who they are, or whether they traded at all, or what their artifacts looked like, so is what he dug up evidence of anything ?
By the same token, if you cannot state that abiogenesis occurred, and if you can only postulate on a series of possibilities that don't confirm that it occurred, but only marginally show under the circumstances you provide that a tiny step could have happened, you have evidence of nothing but a tiny step that COULD have happened, evidence of nothing. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial and the preponderance of evidence in a civil trial. Once the standard is met, the case is considered proven. So, here is how science functions, speculation and theories about envisioned possibilities. Possibilities, not FACT. Various idea's are tested in ways that COULD have happened, but no one knows they did, nor do they know the environment in which these things MIGHT have happened, in environments which MIGHT have existed. You wind up with an example of what COULD have happened, in an environment that MIGHT have existed, leading to evidence of something you CANNOT say for sure did happen. That is a theory, with no real evidence to support it. That's science, that's theory, your evidence is possible evidence of something that might have possibly occurred. IT FAILS. It has no more credibility than me saying God created life




Your fundamentalist mode of black/white thinking is noted.

 

[Jose Fly]

If your archaeologist KNOWS those tribes existed, and has artifacts, evidence, that trade occurred, then his hypothesis isn't proven, but he has supporting evidence.

Exactly. Not having "absolutely proven" your hypothesis does not prevent you from still having supporting evidence for that hypothesis.

So now lets assume he has no concrete knowledge that any tribes existed in the area, but he suspects it is possible, but he doesn't know who they are, or whether they traded at all, or what their artifacts looked like, so is what he dug up evidence of anything ?

Yes. The artifacts he digs up are evidence. What they're evidence for depends on the artifacts themselves and any other associated data.

By the same token, if you cannot state that abiogenesis occurred

We have evidence that at one point there was no life on earth, then later simple life forms appeared on earth (over 4 billion years ago). Researchers are trying to figure out how those simple organisms came to be.

and if you can only postulate on a series of possibilities that don't confirm that it occurred, but only marginally show under the circumstances you provide that a tiny step could have happened, you have evidence of nothing but a tiny step that COULD have happened, evidence of nothing.

And now unfortunately you're back to your previous misconception that you must prove your hypothesis before you can have evidence for it. Science just does not work that way.

Just above you seemed to get it when you said about the archaeologist, "his hypothesis isn't proven, but he has supporting evidence". But now you're saying that origins researchers having evidence to support their hypotheses is "evidence of nothing"?

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial and the preponderance of evidence in a civil trial. Once the standard is met, the case is considered proven.

But the case is not considered to have been "absolutely proven", is it? Otherwise there would be no such things as appeals.

So, here is how science functions, speculation and theories about envisioned possibilities. Possibilities, not FACT. Various idea's are tested in ways that COULD have happened, but no one knows they did, nor do they know the environment in which these things MIGHT have happened, in environments which MIGHT have existed. You wind up with an example of what COULD have happened, in an environment that MIGHT have existed, leading to evidence of something you CANNOT say for sure did happen. That is a theory, with no real evidence to support it.

I can't describe how bizarre it is to see you repeat this same error over and over.

Just where in the world did you get the idea that an idea must be proven before you can have evidence for it?

That's science, that's theory, your evidence is possible evidence of something that might have possibly occurred.

No, it's not "possible evidence". "Evidence " in science is data, for example in this field, chemical composition of rocks from the time period in question, lab results on different chemical pathways, genomes of existing organisms, biochemistry of existing organisms.

IT FAILS. It has no more credibility than me saying God created life

Given your rather bizarre misunderstandings of the fundamentals of science, your assertions about science aren't really worth much.

So tell me.....just what is your interest in this topic? What specifically is it about origins research that causes you to speak about it so passionately?

 

[Father Heathen]

It's a method, not an authoritative opinion, the whole point of science is NOT having to take anyone's word for it- least of all a politicians' !

Galileo, Lemaitre, Planck, were not wrong, the academic/political consensus was

Global warming is about as far from science as it's possible to get!

Could you name some reputable scientist who claim that global warming is a falsehood?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, we can confirm empirically, that 1 or 2 extra molecules CO2 in 10000 of air, cannot possibly trap enough heat to have any significant effect on the climate

but we can't be so sure about the virgins, (not my thing though, I prefer experienced women!)

So global warming would be the more scientifically illiterate belief

There are aspects of how GW works which are in dispute.
But such is science....lots'o theorizing, testing, & arguing.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Another concern is religious agendas attempting to undermine how science is taught in schools.

Science has no ethical basis.
Without Christian ethics, science would teach us to kill our enemies like animals.
Without Christian ethics, science would teach us to lie and steal like animals.
That is why for the last 100 years, science has degenerated from the noble method that
it once was. That is why the Nazi's built such horrendous technology out of 19th century science,
and all but destroyed civilization.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ecosystems.


Do you have a citation from an actual scientific source, rather than a recently-created political group whose stated mission is to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming?


And just how much did that change their conclusions?


They're refining the models. It looks to me like you're all for refining models when they're refined in the way you want, but not when they're refined the other way.

And speaking of models and reality, the last few years consecutively breaking temperature records is causing climatologists to realize that warming is actually happening faster than the models predicted, especially in the oceans and arctic.

WMO: Global Warming Happening Faster Than Predicted

Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015 | Science Advances


Um.....ok. So they adjusted the range of ECS by 0.5 on both ends. Why did you only focus on the adjustment downwards?

I hope you are not one of those misanthropic types that populate the eco community. Anyways, climate modelling is a much more complex task than anything you deal with, and at this stage, the models are no where near accurate, hence the deviation of projections from reality.

Dr Curry produced, it appears in other media outlets, do you challenge her credibility?

Well in the UN IPCC 2007 AR4 time, the position was that humans were seen as the predominate cause of global warming, in the 2013 AR5, this had changed to it being extremely likely that humans was the predominate cause of global warming. Note the lessening of confidence in their conclusions s more data becomes available.

Models are worthless unless they have predictive value, at present they are not accurate because they overestimate the impact of human GHG emissions.

The temperatures spikes of the last two years were due to the Pacific Oscillation, the El Nino, similar to the spikes in 1998/9, and as the La Nina comes into effect, the temperature are dropping back.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric about how fast the planet is warming, observe the actual data....the planet is less than 1 degree C warmer since records began.....and at the present warming trend may add another degree by the year 2100. Big deal...