Stuff Republicans say.

[metis]

like sacrificing to the weather Gods to prevent bad weather? that's the oldest most self destructive superstition known to man. Christianity freed much of the world from superstitious yokes like this

But many feel that most of what's taught within Christianity is superstition. It appears that one person's "faith" is another's "superstition".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But many feel that most of what's taught within Christianity is superstition. It appears that one person's "faith" is another's "superstition".

I think there is an important distinction, faith acknowledges itself as such. superstition like angering weather God's does not, it is blind faith, and is more easily abused to extort sacrifices. I know religion has not been immune from this also, but it's usually where personal faith is oppressed

 

[metis]

I think there is an important distinction, faith acknowledges itself as such. superstition like angering weather God's does not, it is blind faith, and is more easily abused to extort sacrifices. I know religion has not been immune from this also, but it's usually where personal faith is oppressed

Sorry, but more often than not, I see people here and elsewhere portraying their religious faith as if it were fact.

Also, most religions rely heavily on miracles, portraying them as real events even though we really cannot substantiate them. How can we substantiate a miracle today that supposedly took place 2-3000 years ago? Just because some people wrote about supposedly seeing them? Are we to believe everything we read written by people whom we do not know who wrote thousands of years ago?

To me, if a religion relies on miracles for its main justification of faith, then I have to use the word "superstition"-- even if it were to turn out that at least some of the miracles could hypothetically at least have happen.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry, but more often than not, I see people here and elsewhere portraying their religious faith as if it were fact.

Also, most religions rely heavily on miracles, portraying them as real events even though we really cannot substantiate them. How can we substantiate a miracle today that supposedly took place 2-3000 years ago? Just because some people wrote about supposedly seeing them? Are we to believe everything we read written by people whom we do not know who wrote thousands of years ago?

To me, if a religion relies on miracles for its main justification of faith, then I have to use the word "superstition"-- even if it were to turn out that at least some of the miracles could hypothetically at least have happen.

I think there are clearly far more instances of people directly literally claiming global warming, evolution etc as proven undeniable fact. As opposed to merely talking about them as if they were.

Most people of faith acknowledge their faith, and even doubts from time to time. Faith is inherent to religion, and I think ironically- that's the more scientific approach. I have faith there is a God in the same sense that we both have faith that when we get in a car we will arrive safely at our destination, and we operate on that assumption.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think there are clearly far more instances of people directly literally claiming global warming, evolution etc as proven undeniable fact. As opposed to merely talking about them as if they were.

That's because they are. We have piles and piles and piles of evidence, spanning across multiple fields of science and academic disciplines, that all support evolution and global warming.
And science does not take things on faith. It takes things on observation, experiment, testing, reexamination, re-observing, retesting, peer review, and do it all again. It's a very active and rigorous process when properly carried out.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's because they are. We have piles and piles and piles of evidence, spanning across multiple fields of science and academic disciplines, that all support evolution and global warming.
And science does not take things on faith. It takes things on observation, experiment, testing, reexamination, re-observing, retesting, peer review, and do it all again. It's a very active and rigorous process when properly carried out.

just like steady state, classical physics, Piltdown man and global cooling.

blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

 

[metis]

I think there are clearly far more instances of people directly literally claiming global warming, evolution etc as proven undeniable fact. As opposed to merely talking about them as if they were.

Except that these are not hypotheses since they have been observed through various methods that are not based on speculation but on real live observations and/or measurements. Why would you not accept which can be verified and yet believe in your religious beliefs that can't?

Most people of faith acknowledge their faith, and even doubts from time to time. Faith is inherent to religion, and I think ironically- that's the more scientific approach. I have faith there is a God in the same sense that we both have faith that when we get in a car we will arrive safely at our destination, and we operate on that assumption.

Over and over again we see people dealing with their faith as if it were fact, and I'm quite positive that you're one of them, based on so many of your previous posts. There's a far cry difference between saying "God created..." versus "I believe God created...".

I have no problem at all with the issue of faith, but I have problems when people elevate their faith to fact level at the expense of other faiths, or at the expense of basic reality that science tries to deal with and explain. I really don't have one iota of doubt that if Genesis said the "God caused animals and plants to evolve" that you and most other fundamentalists would accept that narrative literally and without hesitation.

 

[metis]

just like steady state, classical physics, Piltdown man and global cooling.

The steady-state theory was/is actually a hypothesis, classic physics is still valid in terms of what it deals with, Piltdown Man was a hoax that was detected and corrected by an anthropologist (Loren Eisely), and global cooling was a hypothesis.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

just like steady state, classical physics, Piltdown man and global cooling.

Piltdown man was a hoax.
Climate change is very real. All data shows that the massive increase of carbon emissions has caused the natural cycles of the earth to accelerate. And although some places have cooled and winter weather has gotten worse in some places, even when global warming was the more commonly used term it was still acknowledged that such weather patterns would happen. And even with that fact in mind, the average global temperature has increased. This is not blind faith, but facts supported by data.

blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

That is rather ironic coming from someone who touts their faith as fact.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that these are not hypotheses since they have been observed through various methods that are not based on speculation but on real live observations and/or measurements. Why would you not accept which can be verified and yet believe in your religious beliefs that can't?


Over and over again we see people dealing with their faith as if it were fact, and I'm quite positive that you're one of them, based on so many of your previous posts. There's a far cry difference between saying "God created..." versus "I believe God created...".

I have no problem at all with the issue of faith, but I have problems when people elevate their faith to fact level at the expense of other faiths, or at the expense of basic reality that science tries to deal with and explain. I really don't have one iota of doubt that if Genesis said the "God caused animals and plants to evolve" that you and most other fundamentalists would accept that narrative literally and without hesitation.

There's nothing wrong with conjecture as long as one knows and makes it clear to others that's all it is. It's human nature to speculate, and everyone does it, but it's the awareness that we're speculating that's important.

we were in agreement here. I believe God created the universe and humanity yes, and so I may talk about God doing so, I don't think I ever stated God was an incontrovertible proven scientific fact- or was 'without question' as was claimed of Piltdown man

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Piltdown man was a hoax.
Climate change is very real. All data shows that the massive increase of carbon emissions has caused the natural cycles of the earth to accelerate. And although some places have cooled and winter weather has gotten worse in some places, even when global warming was the more commonly used term it was still acknowledged that such weather patterns would happen. And even with that fact in mind, the average global temperature has increased. This is not blind faith, but facts supported by data.

That is rather ironic coming from someone who touts their faith as fact.

I tout my faith as faith, do you?

Piltdown man and global cooling were considered 'very real' at the time too

a couple of molecules in 10000 is not massive. No data shows any casual correlation other than CO2 fluctuations lagging temp by 8-900 years. The opposite is only observed in computer simulations. Global warming predicted that snow coverage, albedo effect, would lessen as one of the simulated feedback loops essential in multiplying a tiny forcing into a Hollywood disaster movie..

meanwhile in observed reality..


Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab show the 2014 fall Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent exceeded 22 million square kilometers, exceeding the previous greatest fall extent recorded in 1976.

 

[metis]

we were in agreement here. I believe God created the universe and humanity yes, and so I may talk about God doing so, I don't think I ever stated God was an incontrovertible proven scientific fact- or was 'without question' as was claimed of Piltdown man

Actually Piltdown was questioned even earlier on because no human fossils that got even anywhere near its appearance was ever found in the UK. The Brits certainly were overejoyed, but you know those Brits.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually Piltdown was questioned even earlier on because no human fossils that got even anywhere near its appearance was ever found in the UK. The Brits certainly were overejoyed, but you know those Brits.

President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"

 

[metis]

President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"

So? People make mistakes.

But what's more important is the fact that it was the scientific community that found and corrected the mistake. Also, the procedure for handling such finds was changed, so no longer could an archaeologist keep others from inspecting and testing a new find.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So? People make mistakes.

But what's more important is the fact that it was the scientific community that found and corrected the mistake. Also, the procedure for handling such finds was changed, so no longer could an archaeologist keep others from inspecting and testing a new find.

so exactly, people make mistakes, big mistakes, see what they want to see, their 'credentials' as experts take precedence over scientific method- and they can't be questioned, so the entire community and large segments of the population accept something false without evidence.

Similarly, how many global warming believers have carefully examined the simulations the entire theory rests on? and how many say- it must be true cos the scientific community believes it, and they should know.

 

[metis]

so exactly, people make mistakes, big mistakes, see what they want to see, their 'credentials' as experts take precedence over scientific method- and they can't be questioned, so the entire community and large segments of the population accept something false without evidence.

Similarly, how many global warming believers have carefully examined the simulations the entire theory rests on? and how many say- it must be true cos the scientific community believes it, and they should know.

False on all counts.

Expert opinions and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Nor does any "expert" opinion ever take priority over the scientific method. You've managed to believe in another fairy tale.

Secondly, how many times do you have to be told that we know there is a "global warming" process going on because it is based on actual recorded measurements and not "simulations"? Why do you constantly repeat this lie?

 

[sun rise]

I would think that the majority would vote to largely trust professionals, craftsmen, to the degree that they are held to practical results, they would not vote to agree with academics on evolution and global warming, and certain opinion/politically driven elements of history, so yes I think it works.

i.e. science is a method, not a political opinion is the point

Stalin replaced the method of the common farmer with academic, 'scientific' elite opinion, and killed millions

Yes, Stalin put ideology ahead of science by promoting pseudo-science just like the science deniers who deny evolution and climate change do in America today. Stalin had faith that being politically correct was the way to go and those who deny evolution, global warming, the age of the earth, physics, astronomy etc do that here today.

 

[sun rise]

I tout my faith as faith, do you?

Piltdown man and global cooling were considered 'very real' at the time too

a couple of molecules in 10000 is not massive. No data shows any casual correlation other than CO2 fluctuations lagging temp by 8-900 years. The opposite is only observed in computer simulations. Global warming predicted that snow coverage, albedo effect, would lessen as one of the simulated feedback loops essential in multiplying a tiny forcing into a Hollywood disaster movie..

meanwhile in observed reality..


Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab show the 2014 fall Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent exceeded 22 million square kilometers, exceeding the previous greatest fall extent recorded in 1976.

And the great drought in California continues. The greater variability of temperatures and weather is one of the effects of global warming. So your point about snowfall reinforces the fact of global warming.

Not that you care about facts really but could easily attribute this to a world-wide conspiracy of many governments and most scientists who are keeping a secret about their collusion in spite of how hard it is to keep secrets but just for the record:

• The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.
• The 2014 global average ocean temperature was also record high, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F), breaking the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). Notably, ENSO-neutral conditions were present during all of 2014.
• The 2014 global average land surface temperature was 1.00°C (1.80°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record.
• Precipitation measured at land-based stations around the globe was near average on balance for 2014, at 0.52 mm below the long-term average. However, as is typical, precipitation varied greatly from region to region. This is the third consecutive year with near-average global precipitation at land-based stations....
  
  
  ...Because land surfaces generally have low heat capacity relative to oceans, temperature anomalies can vary greatly between months. In 2014, the average monthly land temperature anomaly rose from +0.31°C (+0.56°F) in February to +1.32°C (+2.38°F) in March, a difference of 1.01°C (1.94°F). These anomalies also represent the lowest and highest monthly anomalies observed during 2014. The ocean has a much higher heat capacity than land and thus anomalies tend to vary less over monthly timescales. During the year, the global monthly ocean temperature anomaly ranged from +0.46°C (+0.83°F; January, February) to +0.66°C (+1.19°F; September), a difference of 0.20°C (0.36°F).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, Stalin put ideology ahead of science by promoting pseudo-science just like the science deniers who deny evolution and climate change do in America today. Stalin had faith that being politically correct was the way to go and those who deny evolution, global warming, the age of the earth, physics, astronomy etc do that here today.

the farmers, the millions of victims were the 'science deniers'

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And the great drought in California continues. The greater variability of temperatures and weather is one of the effects of global warming. So your point about snowfall reinforces the fact of global warming.

Not that you care about facts really but could easily attribute this to a world-wide conspiracy of many governments and most scientists who are keeping a secret about their collusion in spite of how hard it is to keep secrets but just for the record:

No, greater temp variability is the exact opposite of what the greenhouse effect does. It is a form of insulation, it warms colder areas disproportionately - this is not controversial in science, in climastrology perhaps.

Venus is a perfect example, almost pure CO2 atmos, baking hot temps, which hardly vary from pole to equator- thus very little wind either at surface. Don't take my word for this, it's pretty basic stuff- no computer sims needed.

Yes, Climategate reminded them how hard it was to keep secrets. But that global governments have an interest in advancing global governance... is hardly a conspiracy theory!

[record] snowfall reinforces the fact of global warming.

I think that speaks for itself