Global Warming Revisited

[deep]

It's a committee, he only has one vote
At least he will be there to hear a few scientists put forth their views
A lot of NASA money runs through red states, I expect it to keep flowing

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

How do you, as a non-scientist (I assume -- maybe you're a professor of climatology or geology), "disagree" with established, researched science? On what basis do you form your disagreement? What research have you done that enables you to "disagree"? What is the "other side of the spectrum" of science? How can there be another "side"?


Sent from

I'm a biology major. Doesn't make me a scientist by any stretch, but keeps me pretty informed.
And yes I've done quite a bit of research on the tie ins with science and the Bible. My biggest issue with science, though, is accountability with research. It's a very complicated field and therefore the "elites" of the science world can manipulate just about any commoner. But the same can be said of a variety of topics.
The other side is religious scientific studies. It's not all about creation vs. evolution. The ideas can coexist and it's a very entertaining (yet semi-pointless imo) debate.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by deep

It's a committee, he only has one vote

At least he will be there to hear a few scientists put forth their views

A lot of NASA money runs through red states, I expect it to keep flowing

As much as I am not a fan of Newt Gingrich, he would've been a better republican consultant. But that's obviously not very realistic.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

As a Christian, I don't agree with many of the scientific opinions

what an infuriating statement.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by BVS

what an infuriating statement.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I don't give a crap.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

As a Christian, I don't agree with many of the scientific opinions

I hope you realize that just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean it's not true.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

I hope you realize that just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean it's not true.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I don't agree with a lot of it because it's just flat out wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

Within your branch of biology is medicine
Do you disagree with majority opinions in medicine?

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by deep

Within your branch of biology is medicine

Do you disagree with majority opinions in medicine?

That's a pretty broad statement. However, the advancements in medicine are absolutely incredible (obviously) and medicine and religion don't really have much conflict in facts. Obviously many religious people object to some medical practices, but across the board the more lives it can save the better.
I'm talking more along the lines of disagreeing with many of the non-Darwin evolutionary, counter-creationist arguments. The biggest thing about creation is that, contrary to anyway people want to spin it, there is no way we can prove any creation theories. Whether you're religious or not, it's still a faith in what you believe. Whether that is creationism or the Big Bang.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

There was a time religion and medicine were at odds

Religion and science was at odds over the solar system until fairly recent times

Most religion is not at odds over evolution or age of earth anymore
It seems that what some want to hold onto is Adam being the first man?

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by deep

There was a time religion and medicine were at odds



Religion and science was at odds over the solar system until fairly recent times



Most religion is not at odds over evolution or age of earth anymore

It seems the only some want to hold onto is Adam being the first man?

Religion used to be very anti-science because they viewed it as a threat and would just disagree with everything. But contrary to common thought, evolution and science do not "disprove" the Bible. In fact, in many cases it helps enhance theological and historical studies.
So I don't think that the two are at odds in many areas now, but also they've escalated quite a bit in others. So the debate will always be there until the end of time.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

I don't agree with a lot of it because it's just flat out wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I'd be curious what science you believe to be flat out wrong?

You seem to be contradicting yourself; you refer to science as opinion, say some of it's flat out wrong, you state because you're "Christian" is why you don't agree, and then say the church used to be anti-science. It sounds to me that your church still is very anti-science.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by BVS

I'd be curious what science you believe to be flat out wrong?

You seem to be contradicting yourself; you refer to science as opinion, say some of it's flat out wrong, you state because you're "Christian" is why you don't agree, and then say the church used to be anti-science. It sounds to me that your church still is very anti-science.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I'm not anti-science. Do you have any kind of reading comprehension? I don't agree with many scientific theories, doesn't make me anti-science. I'm a lot more pro-science than most religious people.
And I'm not gonna waste my time arguing scientific theories on a U2 forum. Seems really pointless and I don't have enough time to waste to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

I'm not anti-science. Do you have any kind of reading comprehension? I don't agree with many scientific theories, doesn't make me anti-science. I'm a lot more pro-science than most religious people.
And I'm not gonna waste my time arguing scientific theories on a U2 forum. Seems really pointless and I don't have enough time to waste to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

If you're going to come into FYM, and make some of the comments you do then you're going to have to learn how to debate like a big boy. So far, you haven't shown you're capable.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by BVS

If you're going to come into FYM, and make some of the comments you do then you're going to have to learn how to debate like a big boy. So far, you haven't shown you're capable.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

You're not worth my time


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

You're not worth my time


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It's not a matter of if you're worth my time or vice versa, the question is are you willing to discuss the topics and be willing to actually be a part of the discussion, for that is how we grow. Or are you going to continue to walk in with your ears plugged, and get angered when someone questions you?

I think we all know the answer. Are you worth FYM's time?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

I don't agree with a lot of it because it's just flat out wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

What theories are flat out wrong? Is evolution or the Big Bang Theory wrong because those have been all but completely proven. There's a lot more evidence for the Big Bang Theory and evolution than there is for intelligent design or creationism (both of which have no evidence supporting them).


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

I'm not anti-science. Do you have any kind of reading comprehension? I don't agree with many scientific theories, doesn't make me anti-science. I'm a lot more pro-science than most religious people.
And I'm not gonna waste my time arguing scientific theories on a U2 forum. Seems really pointless and I don't have enough time to waste to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Upon what basis do you "disagree"?

I have such a problem with that word, here and in other contexts. How do you "disagree" with what is empirical data?


Sent from

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

Whether you're religious or not, it's still a faith in what you believe. Whether that is creationism or the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory, like any scientific Theory, makes predictions that can be either confirmed or falsified upon further examination.

For instance, the Big Bang Theory (and particle physics) predicted the existence of a particle that had never existed. But the theory itself suggested it, even though it had never been seen and was never known to even exist. The Theory itself relied upon this particle existing and if it had never been found, you could say it was a theory based on a lot of (educated) faith and that had it never been found...maybe it was wrong?

So what happened? They kept looking and they found it. It basically proved the Big Bang theory as totally true.

I'm not here to suggest that creationism doesn't (or couldn't) make similar predictions that might somehow come true because that's not an argument that is worth anyone's time...but that if they did come true...I wouldn't deny them and you wouldn't either. You should really think about denying something simply because you don't believe it. That doesn't do anyone any good least of all yourself.

The Big Bang theory simply doesn't exist on faith. It's fact. And not only is it fact, it doesn't conflict with the basic idea of creation. I mean, the theory itself suggests creation from a single source. If I were religious, I would totally laud it, not reflexively claim it's based on faith, because it simply isn't.

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

My biggest issue with science, though, is accountability with research. It's a very complicated field and therefore the "elites" of the science world can manipulate just about any commoner. But the same can be said of a variety of topics.

Perhaps you can manipulate "commoners" (why?) but you can't manipulate other scientists. If scientists are losing a scientific debate, they're losing because of their science, not because someone is conspiring for or against them.