"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

[shmogie]

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


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


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 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"?


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


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?


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.


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?

My interest is simple. It is taught in some cases and believed by many as established fact. Lets address your assertions about evidence/data and theories. The big bang theory, a comprehensive and unified theory is supported by a great variety of evidences, the red shift of stars showing the universe is expanding in all directions, the consistent background radiation, the the mathematical equations that predict the behavior of rapidly expanding energy from milliseconds after the bang to todays universe. The Evidence shows this universe is a one off, an open universe that will eventually die.. It all fits elegantly, is linear, and refutes any other theory. Abiogenesis theories in comparison, are a mess. there are many, many problems with them, many unanswered questions, some that appear unanswerable and the fundamental basics don't exist. No observation of the process, no recreation of even a reasonable part of the process, no formula's that are shown to produce anything even remotely resembling life. There is no elegance, no linear path that can be followed because of the unknown variables, no record of the alleged first organism, it is all competing possibilities of a possibility. You tell me this is the scientific process, and I have no problem with that, but by using the term evidence you are using a term that means something that points to a conclusion, an established fact that shows something concrete in the march to the goal, whatever it may be. Evidence in this case cannot exist in a vacuum, it must be tied to some known factors to be evidence of anything. Miller-Urey produced a few amino acids in a glass globe with an environment composed of gases they believed were the components of the early atmosphere, this is still cited as evidence of abiogenesis, without stating that their atmosphere has been shown by science to have been extremely unlikely, and totally hostile to forming chains of amino acids as well as DNA. Hence my interest, hence my exploration of the theory, hence my criticism of alleged evidence that is nebulous at best. I don't believe it happened, could happen, and their is little evidence to show it happened.

 

[Father Heathen]

Science has no ethical basis.

Science is a tool used to obtain knowledge and understanding. It's how that is used by people is where ethics come into play.

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.

Science is defined as "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions". How does that teach anyone to kill, lie, or steal? Also, considering lying, stealing, and killing to be immoral is hardly original or exclusive to "Christian ethics". They're common sense rules required for any functioning society.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, but ultimately it is for nought in a random universe. We die, they die and ultimately the universe dies. It all is gone in a relative flash of time in infinite time.

Sure. It is up to each and every one of us to find meaning in life. There is nothing meaningless about it if we can impact even one other person. Human society has evolved to do great things (and bad things as well). It seems like a slap in the face to everyone who has risked their lives for other people. There is meaning in that, you must agree, regardless of whether God exists.

 

[shmogie]

Sure. It is up to each and every one of us to find meaning in life. There is nothing meaningless about it if we can impact even one other person. Human society has evolved to do great things (and bad things as well). It seems like a slap in the face to everyone who has risked their lives for other people. There is meaning in that, you must agree, regardless of whether God exists.

Oh, I agree totally. Let me revise the term to ULTIMATE meaning. My life has had meaning,certainly to my family, I hope to the many employees I supervised over the years, to those I studied with helping to get a clearer view of God, and to those I taught in professional training, and my University lectures. I HOPE I had some positive and meaningful impact on them. However, in 50 years I will be long gone, most of these people I interacted with will to. Who and what I was will be unknown, unless somebody in a dusty library somewhere stumbles on to an article I wrote that will be hopelessly outdated, or if they happen to read my name in an ancient copy of "Who's Who In the West". At that point, if not sooner, if the natural view is true, I have no ultimate meaning. I will be a skeleton in a hole somewhere that means absolutely nothing to anyone, and never will for eternity.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh, I agree totally. Let me revise the term to ULTIMATE meaning. My life has had meaning,certainly to my family, I hope to the many employees I supervised over the years, to those I studied with helping to get a clearer view of God, and to those I taught in professional training, and my University lectures. I HOPE I had some positive and meaningful impact on them. However, in 50 years I will be long gone, most of these people I interacted with will to. Who and what I was will be unknown, unless somebody in a dusty library somewhere stumbles on to an article I wrote that will be hopelessly outdated, or if they happen to read my name in an ancient copy of "Who's Who In the West". At that point, if not sooner, if the natural view is true, I have no ultimate meaning. I will be a skeleton in a hole somewhere that means absolutely nothing to anyone, and never will for eternity.

That's life though. We have to do what we can with the time we have. Live for today and not rely on some afterlife for meaning. I think that it is the human condition to want more from life than what actually is. But, that doesn't make "ultimate meaning" any more likely.

 

[Jose Fly]

the models are no where near accurate, hence the deviation of projections from reality

Given how you rely exclusively on denialist sources for your info rather than actual climatologists, I can see how you would think that's the case.

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

If Dr. Curry feels she has a valid case, she needs to publish it in a scientific journal.

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.

Let's check your claims against the actual reports.

In the AR4, the IPCC concluded: "Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)."

In the AR5, the IPCC concluded: "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

So they went from "very likely" to "extremely likely", yet you're trying to cast that as a "lessening of confidence"? That raises an obvious issue.....did you deliberately misrepresent their conclusions, or were you copying from someone else who misrepresented the conclusions?

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

You can keep making that claim, but as I showed earlier the reality is that warming is currently happening faster than the models predicted.

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...

Given your fundamental errors/dishonesty above, I understand how you see it that way.

 

[Jose Fly]

My interest is simple. It is taught in some cases and believed by many as established fact.

Where? Please provide a citation to where any abiogenesis scenario is taught as an "established fact".

Abiogenesis theories in comparison, are a mess.

Given that you seem to get all your info on this field of science from creationists, it's not surprising that you see it that way.

by using the term evidence you are using a term that means something that points to a conclusion, an established fact that shows something concrete in the march to the goal, whatever it may be.

I asked this before and you ignored it......where did you get this idea that evidence can only exist when there's a conclusion that's a "established fact"?

 

[leibowde84]

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...

Are the only sources you have from climate change skeptics websites and such?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Can you name a reputable one who claims it's not?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Can you think of any aspect of it that's not? that's actually got any scientific validity?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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...

I think climate 'model' is a little deceptive also. a 'model' suggests something that has some sort of practical predictive ability

these are extremely crude simulations which show exactly, and only, what they are programmed to- you can predict their results before they are written, which are invariably the greatest possible increase in temperature that does not entirely go beyond all credulity.

All vastly exaggerated any modest observed increases and none predicted the hiatus

.and at the present warming trend may add another degree by the year 2100

not a whole lot, even the IPCC concedes that warming would be beneficial up to about 2 degrees, but it's certainly better than subtracting a degree!

 

[leibowde84]

Can you name a reputable one who claims it's not?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[Guy Threepwood]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

So no non-political sources then

 

[Father Heathen]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

People who deny climate change are usually the same folks who believe that the Apollo missions were hoaxes, so they wouldn't trust NASA as a source, anyway.

What they do believe to be real, though? Pro wrastlin'..

 

[Jose Fly]

People who deny climate change are usually the same folks who believe that the Apollo missions were hoaxes, so they wouldn't trust NASA as a source, anyway.

What they do believe to be real, though? Pro wrastlin'..

They're also usually creationists, and employ almost the exact same dishonest tactics as creationists. That stands to reason since when you boil it all down, all of them are really just variations of the same theme......science denialism.

 

[Father Heathen]

So no non-political sources then

What makes them "political"?

The only side that would have a political agenda would be those working for the industries who are trying to avoid the expense that comes with reducing emissions.

The idea that the overwhelming majority of scientists would all take part in some vast convoluted conspiracy despite having everything to lose (career, credibility, reputation, etc.) and nothing to gain from it is simply kooky cartoon nonsense.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is there one believer who was around during teh global cooling

What makes them "political"?

The only side that would have a political agenda would be those working for the industries who are trying to avoid the expense that comes with reducing emissions.

The idea that the overwhelming majority of scientists would all take part in some vast convoluted conspiracy despite having everything to lose (career, credibility, reputation, etc.) and nothing to gain from it is simply kooky cartoon nonsense.

100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, the idea that they would all be involved in some vast conspiracy theory is obviously kooky cartoon nonsense!

 

[shmogie]

Where? Please provide a citation to where any abiogenesis scenario is taught as an "established fact".


Given that you seem to get all your info on this field of science from creationists, it's not surprising that you see it that way.


I asked this before and you ignored it......where did you get this idea that evidence can only exist when there's a conclusion that's a "established fact"?

If you want to continue this discussion, stop the smart *** digs, they only show your insecurity. Either listen (read) and speak ( write ) civilly or this ends and you can FO. Either you are interested in exchanging ideas and considering a well established and coget view of many with much greater scientific qualifications than you, or you are interested only in not so subtle verbal aggression. If the latter, I have already wasted way too much time on you. Let me know.

 

[shmogie]

That's life though. We have to do what we can with the time we have. Live for today and not rely on some afterlife for meaning. I think that it is the human condition to want more from life than what actually is. But, that doesn't make "ultimate meaning" any more likely.

It is as likely as anything else you can imagine.

 

[Jose Fly]

100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, the idea that they would all be involved in some vast conspiracy theory is obviously kooky cartoon nonsense!

I hear 100% of geographers and cartographers believe in a spherical earth. Conspiracies everywhere!!