What Creationists Say About Global Warming
-
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
-
If you ever get out of the programming business, then maybe you have a future as televangelist. ;)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Televangelist - programming simple minds every since after that late night show...
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 -
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
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
With science, it's different, because you are allowed to argue about it.
There is some truth in what you say. On the other hand once something reaches the acceptance level of Theory - which the Big Bang did, I believe - arguing against it is not easy and can be dangerous to your occupational health.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface