Global warming...
- Started
- Last post
- 1,047 Responses
- flagellum0
Yes, the issue of Global Warming does have similarities to the Evolution debate. It is similar in that the establishment is seeking to enforce an orthodox position and it attacks dissenters. And by enforcing doctrines via judicial fiat. This is not how science should work. And should cause objective observers to be skeptical and want to look at all sides of the issue. Science should avoid taking a political position.
Having said that, the difference between global warming and the evolution debate is that, in the former case, the orthodox position is likely correct because the data does seem to indicate global temperature increase. Whereas with the Darwinian brand of evolution, the data does not support the orthodox position.
- Mimio0
Or maybe the contrary positions are indefensible and have much in the way of their own ideologies at stake. Corporate oil's influence on our treasury and foreign policy, and a religious fundamentalist world view on the other.
- flagellum0
Mimio: There certainly are ideologies at stake. In the case of Darwinism, you have staunch philosophical materialists who cannot stomach the idea of their victorian-era creation myth no longer being the reigning paradigm. And they know they can no longer prop it up with evidence, so they resort to judicial fiat. Any port in a storm, you know.
- flagellum0
and of course the data demonstrates that dissenters of both Darwinism and Global Warming have nothing to do with religious fundamentalism.
I am inclined to believe that Global Warming is happening. I just question the causes.
- ********0
flagellum - do you believe geologists/scientists who say that since the last 3 millions years, the earth has experienced regular Ice Ages usually over a 40,000-100,000 year cycle?
- flagellum0
kuz: Yes, i generally accept the appearance of age to be actual. Though I still find the arguments of my YEC friends to be compelling. I try to remain objective on that particular issue since there is a tremendous amount of conflicting evidence.
- ********0
who the 'ummers are your YEC friends??
so you accept that the earth is coming out of an ice age that ended 10,000 years ago.
- OSFA0
i luv how Bush after years of ignoring this issue is now concerned and accepted it is a threat so that he can distract people while he sends more troops to Iraq.
- flagellum0
kuz: YEC's - Young Earth Creationists.
As for ice ages and chronology, I haven't made any concrete decisions on where I stand yet.
- Mimio0
It's very telling that you believe that there is even a speck of evidence supporting the YEC world view.
- flagellum0
Mimio: Yes it tells that I'm objective and I consider all the evidence.
Why do I doubt that you've ever given even a cursory glance at the data which supports a young earth interpretation of the evidence?
- Mimio0
No, it's telling that you would reject one explaination for the natural world (Natural Selection) for an incredibly improbable world view(Creationsism). There's nothing rational about that choice, it's a far more extravagant claim with no evidence.
- ********0
the mind seeks evidence to support its prejudices
i want to believe!!
I would take any and all evidence presented by objective scientific institutions/academics etc into consideration - even if they propoese the theory that the earth was some 8,000 years old (tho that sounds fucking baffling).
However, i'll take anything espoused by dogmatic, ideological, christian fundamentalist, relgious pressure groups with a pinch of salt ;)
- ********0
Flagellum, go the F--K away, this thread is about Global warming. Don't come in here and spread your tired, boring personal views on your religion.
We don't care.
- flagellum0
Mimio: The evidence screams of intelligent causation in both cosmology and biology. So, explain to me how my inference to a telic designing force is unwarranted. Explain how my conclusion is "improbable" or irrational.
The only thing that is improbable is the notion that Natural Selection can generate Specified Information required for biological novelty. The probablistic hurdles are dizzying actually.
- Mimio0
I was referring to YEC and the idea that you think it has some merit.
It doesn't.
- flagellum0
Mozilla: put on your thinking cap and go back up and read how Lemming brought up how Global Warming relates to the Evolution debate.
- flagellum0
Mimio: saying "it doesn't" doesn't make it so. In order to make it without merit, one must demonstrate how each argument is flawed. I haven't been able to do that. There simply remains evidence which defies an old-earth explanation.
- ********0
Stay on topic leech.
- flagellum0
kuz: there are few if any "objective institutions" with regard to science. What the objective seeker must do is look at the hard data, regardless of it's source, and form a conclusion after making comparisons.
Judge an argument based on it's own merits. Try not to commit the Genetic Fallacy when at all possible.