What Creationists Say About Global Warming
-
OK Touche... But I think poof is probably a drastic understatement of the big bang. But seriously, with their apparent discovery that the universe is accelerating in expansion, I'm not so sure that we need to invent dark energy so much as question big bang. It's always sounded reasonable to me, but now... I'd be interested in what DemonBoy thinks on the subject, he's the resident authority on heavenly bodies, but I don't know how much he's into cosmology in general. I was skeptical when they invented dark matter, but now dark energy? Sounds like somebody let the string theorists out of their pens.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
I was skeptical when they invented dark matter, but now dark energy? Sounds like somebody let the string theorists out of their pens
Without wanting to place myself in any camp, I have thought for a long time that the 'scientific' explanations of the creation of the universe require no less taken on faith than does intelligent design. All of them start with - "you have to accept that X, Y, and Z are true, because I tell you they are. Therefore it follows. . ."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I was skeptical when they invented dark matter, but now dark energy? Sounds like somebody let the string theorists out of their pens
Without wanting to place myself in any camp, I have thought for a long time that the 'scientific' explanations of the creation of the universe require no less taken on faith than does intelligent design. All of them start with - "you have to accept that X, Y, and Z are true, because I tell you they are. Therefore it follows. . ."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
True. Personally, 'Intelligent Design' sounded like me from the title, until you read what they believe. I believe in intelligent design, but not as that group portrays it. ID seems to have come about from a dislike of the misconception that evolution assumes complete randomness. Most mainstream creationists seem to take great offense that science is trying to explain God away. Despite the fact that science is doing no such thing. Science doesn't care at all what religion says or does, and it doesn't care what the answer is, it just wants to know what the answer is. With the creationist movement, it seems to me that religion, holding a steak knife, started a fight with a sherman tank that barely notices that a fight was provoked.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
True. Personally, 'Intelligent Design' sounded like me from the title, until you read what they believe. I believe in intelligent design, but not as that group portrays it. ID seems to have come about from a dislike of the misconception that evolution assumes complete randomness. Most mainstream creationists seem to take great offense that science is trying to explain God away. Despite the fact that science is doing no such thing. Science doesn't care at all what religion says or does, and it doesn't care what the answer is, it just wants to know what the answer is. With the creationist movement, it seems to me that religion, holding a steak knife, started a fight with a sherman tank that barely notices that a fight was provoked.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
With the creationist movement, it seems to me that religion, holding a steak knife, started a fight with a sherman tank that barely notices that a fight was provoked
LOL. You have nailed it. The problem lies not with a belief in God as first cause, but in various man-made religions which purport to explain what God did, when he did it, why he did it and why he'll punish you unless you give the religion 10% of your income.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
With the creationist movement, it seems to me that religion, holding a steak knife, started a fight with a sherman tank that barely notices that a fight was provoked
LOL. You have nailed it. The problem lies not with a belief in God as first cause, but in various man-made religions which purport to explain what God did, when he did it, why he did it and why he'll punish you unless you give the religion 10% of your income.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Yep. And I believe that God never intended anybody to try to prove or disprove anything in the book. Religion is based on faith (oil), science is based on observation (water). They really should never try to mix, and really have no reason or need to try. I fail to see why they have to disagree. The Bible says God created everything, and science strives to explain how. Literal translations are dangerous, and many many things in the Bible don't apply to us now (primarily old testiment). Science doesn't invalidate the book, but it does invalidate some goofy interpretations. I hate to see so many people fight for religion with stupid arguments (I won't name names like Iliot's). I don't like to see religion discredited, because I believe in God. And I don't like to see people follow something with completely blind unquestioning faith (not to name names like a lot of AGW proponents). Faith is important, but so is reason. Many people don't have a good mix of the two.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
OK Touche... But I think poof is probably a drastic understatement of the big bang. But seriously, with their apparent discovery that the universe is accelerating in expansion, I'm not so sure that we need to invent dark energy so much as question big bang. It's always sounded reasonable to me, but now... I'd be interested in what DemonBoy thinks on the subject, he's the resident authority on heavenly bodies, but I don't know how much he's into cosmology in general. I was skeptical when they invented dark matter, but now dark energy? Sounds like somebody let the string theorists out of their pens.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Yep. And I believe that God never intended anybody to try to prove or disprove anything in the book. Religion is based on faith (oil), science is based on observation (water). They really should never try to mix, and really have no reason or need to try. I fail to see why they have to disagree. The Bible says God created everything, and science strives to explain how. Literal translations are dangerous, and many many things in the Bible don't apply to us now (primarily old testiment). Science doesn't invalidate the book, but it does invalidate some goofy interpretations. I hate to see so many people fight for religion with stupid arguments (I won't name names like Iliot's). I don't like to see religion discredited, because I believe in God. And I don't like to see people follow something with completely blind unquestioning faith (not to name names like a lot of AGW proponents). Faith is important, but so is reason. Many people don't have a good mix of the two.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
I think where we part company is in our view of religion - I certainly believe that there are many good people who practice a religion and that their faith in God is part and parcel with their religion. However, I am amazed that regular, put your pants on one leg at a time, humans have the effrontery to claim that they and God have been having a conversation and they are now going to spend their time explaining to us what God told them He wanted. What presumption they show! If indeed there is a Day of Reckoning, I would not want to be in their shoes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I feel that you are both comparing apples and oranges. Knowing that current flows in a particular direction is not the same as saying that the climate will change in a particular manner over a period of time just because it may have done so in the past. The Earth is a dynamic system, changing and evolving constantly. We simply don't have the tools or understanding (yet) to be able to accurately predict what the climate may be in 10 or 20 years.
digital man wrote:
I feel that you are both comparing apples and oranges
It was an analogy to show that systems can appear complex over the short-term, but not so over the long-term.
digital man wrote:
Knowing that current flows in a particular direction is not the same as saying that the climate will change in a particular manner over a period of time just because it may have done so in the past.
True, and I never said otherwise. All I suggested was that to dismiss any analysis of the climate just because the Earth is a dynamic changing system is like saying 'oh its too complicated' and sticking your head in the sand. We have some tools and we have some understanding. At some point in the future we will have better tools and better understanding.
-
What I think is amusing, is that his arguments uses historic data. Data that predates the creation date.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
God put the data there, because God opposes global warming!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
DemonPossessed wrote:
Just hope God doesn't read the Codeproject boards. He probably wouldn't appreciate seeing his website made fun of.
I think God not only reads Code Project, but He keeps asking for coding help in broken English.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I think God not only reads Code Project, but He keeps asking for coding help in broken English.
If he designed Ilion and Paul Selormey (or however you spell that), I can't imagine the horrible code he must write.
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
Oakman wrote:
I think God not only reads Code Project, but He keeps asking for coding help in broken English.
If he designed Ilion and Paul Selormey (or however you spell that), I can't imagine the horrible code he must write.
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
DemonPossessed wrote:
If he designed Ilion and Paul Selormey (or however you spell that), I can't imagine the horrible code he must write.
I didn't make your list? :sigh:
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God" Me blog, You read
-
I think where we part company is in our view of religion - I certainly believe that there are many good people who practice a religion and that their faith in God is part and parcel with their religion. However, I am amazed that regular, put your pants on one leg at a time, humans have the effrontery to claim that they and God have been having a conversation and they are now going to spend their time explaining to us what God told them He wanted. What presumption they show! If indeed there is a Day of Reckoning, I would not want to be in their shoes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Once upon a time I dated a girl that was sure she had conversations with God. She was a lunatic. I get nervous seeing 'heelings' at these mega-churches. Actually, mega-churches freak me out plenty by them selves. I don't think God has direct interactions with people like in Biblical times. I don't know why some people want that so bad that the imagine it really happens. It's proof seeking.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
I was under the impression that when scientists weight the universe, something was missing and that missing is explained by dark matter http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/map_weighing.html[^]
I think dark matter original came from people really wanting to show that the universe was closed, meaning it contained enough matter so that gravity would eventually counteract expansion and retract everything back down. Which would go a long way toward crediting the big bang theory. But it resurfaced when we noticed that galaxies don't move the way we would expect them to unless there was more matter there that wasn't visible. Since we now think that the universe is accelerating in expansion, the original intent is now a moot point. They just found a new use for the concept.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Oakman wrote:
I think God not only reads Code Project, but He keeps asking for coding help in broken English.
If he designed Ilion and Paul Selormey (or however you spell that), I can't imagine the horrible code he must write.
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
Once upon a time I dated a girl that was sure she had conversations with God. She was a lunatic. I get nervous seeing 'heelings' at these mega-churches. Actually, mega-churches freak me out plenty by them selves. I don't think God has direct interactions with people like in Biblical times. I don't know why some people want that so bad that the imagine it really happens. It's proof seeking.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Actually, mega-churches freak me out plenty by them selves. I don't think God has direct interactions with people like in Biblical times.
This is pretty funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CEKzn8-OaY&feature=related[^]
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
I assume you were just being a little antagonistic, so I don't expect that you really meant to suggest that all religious people are creationists. If, on the off chance you were, let me point at me and say "see?" Just because I believe in a creator doesn't mean I subscribe to the *poof* theory of creation. There are a couple of us that have faith and thoughts (granted our numbers are dwindling).
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
so I don't expect that you really meant to suggest that all religious people are creationists.
No, I wasn't referring to all religious people, the person in the video was an evangelical Christian.
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Actually, mega-churches freak me out plenty by them selves. I don't think God has direct interactions with people like in Biblical times.
This is pretty funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CEKzn8-OaY&feature=related[^]
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
Preying on the stupid. If there is a God, that f@#ker will burn in hell. Nicely choreographed though, the spotters have lots of practice avoiding lawsuits. And the goofy faces on the head wounds in the audience... Obsession is unhealthy no matter what the subject.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
so I don't expect that you really meant to suggest that all religious people are creationists.
No, I wasn't referring to all religious people, the person in the video was an evangelical Christian.
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
I didn't figure you were. But the dude made good points and he made sense. Coulda done without the lame-ass countdown though.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
digital man wrote:
I feel that you are both comparing apples and oranges
It was an analogy to show that systems can appear complex over the short-term, but not so over the long-term.
digital man wrote:
Knowing that current flows in a particular direction is not the same as saying that the climate will change in a particular manner over a period of time just because it may have done so in the past.
True, and I never said otherwise. All I suggested was that to dismiss any analysis of the climate just because the Earth is a dynamic changing system is like saying 'oh its too complicated' and sticking your head in the sand. We have some tools and we have some understanding. At some point in the future we will have better tools and better understanding.
Johnny ² wrote:
It was an analogy to show that systems can appear complex over the short-term, but not so over the long-term.
Fair enough but I'd have been more convinced had the analogy been of a non-man-made system.
Johnny ² wrote:
True, and I never said otherwise. All I suggested was that to dismiss any analysis of the climate just because the Earth is a dynamic changing system is like saying 'oh its too complicated' and sticking your head in the sand. We have some tools and we have some understanding. At some point in the future we will have better tools and better understanding.
But at present it is too complicated for us but I agree that it would be wrong to stick our heads in the sand. I hope that we are able to develop the tools and understanding to properly explain the presently inexplicable.
-
God put the data there, because God opposes global warming!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistIf you ever get out of the programming business, then maybe you have a future as televangelist. ;)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I was skeptical when they invented dark matter, but now dark energy? Sounds like somebody let the string theorists out of their pens
Without wanting to place myself in any camp, I have thought for a long time that the 'scientific' explanations of the creation of the universe require no less taken on faith than does intelligent design. All of them start with - "you have to accept that X, Y, and Z are true, because I tell you they are. Therefore it follows. . ."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
require no less taken on faith than does intelligent design
Not entirely true. The problem with ID is "we don't know X. We can't know X. Therefore god must be responsible for X. Don't argue about it!" With science, it's different, because you are allowed to argue about it. Although, if you are going argue about it, you better have a case for your argument. I.e., you can't have some wiener proclaiming that he/she knows the truth, just because they had an epiphany. ID is creation wrapped in "science", in order to capture those who are unwilling to buy the magic wand theory.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit