Global Warming On Hold

[HauteHippie]

I didn't say "A Wedge Movement", I said "The Wedge"[1]. CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer, the writer of the document linked here, is one of the authors of the famous "Wedge" document.

He also started the "Teach the Controversy"[2] movement, whereby they try to say ID is as valid as Darwinism in the science classroom.

Oh, and militant secularism has its place in the science classroom and is valid as militant baking in the home economics classroom. Science is not religion and religion isn't science.

I could go on, but I'll just post the link to Vengenza and leave it at that for the night.

http://www.venganza.org/

Oh, and as a footnote for anyone reading:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_controversy

"Freedom of religion means freedom from religion, too." Hrmm, no it doesn't. Aren't these the same liberals who are installing footbaths in the airports?

Oh, and wikipedia is not a credible source for political matters.

[ryyannon]

Upward and Onward in the I.D. Debate:

Is God (or similar) a meth-head?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cultur...human-evolution

[z80]

Does this world REALLY look like the product of INTELLIGENT Design?

If the Earth is God's crowning achievement... what does that say about God?

Al Gore discovered Global Warming shortly after creating the Internet.. He's my hero. Seriously, he's pretty great.

[Nanuq]

@Ryyannon

I'm not telling anyone if I believe in ID, the Easter Bunny, or Groucho Marx. What I am doing is pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of people who reject an entire realm of thought as vapid or empty simply because they don't agree with it, or don't understand it.

Here's an eye opener: Darwinism deals with probabilities... those of the chances of random mutations being suppressed or expressed. It attempts to describe nature "selecting" for mutations based on their potentially advantageous changes to an organism. Probabilities and chances. Exactly like the probabilities and chances used in my cited article to discuss the expression of genetic information by random chance, and the chance combinations of enzymes to form workable proteins etc.

So to those who support Darwin but reject ID ... exactly which statistic and probabilistic mathematics do you prefer? Darwin's or ID's? Why? Please be precise and distinct so I can tell them apart.

Good luck with that.

[Pugwash]

"Freedom of religion means freedom from religion, too." Hrmm, no it doesn't. Aren't these the same liberals who are installing footbaths in the airports?

Oh, and wikipedia is not a credible source for political matters.

Since when did Liberal become a dirty word?

Wikipedia is not reliable, true. However, it's a good starting point. Oh, and Discover.org is exceedingly unreliable as it;s funded for one purpose.

ps. Atheist is an option when you declare your religion on a census. I want the right not to have to choose a religion. I want freedom from religion. I also want separation of church and state.

[hambone]

Most would agree that the hot air combined with the methane from Pugwash's beer farts is a major contributing factor to 'climate change' , global warming' or whacky weather, your choice. Ease up on the pale ale Pug and don't talk so much.

[Pugwash]

Most would agree that the hot air combined with the methane from Pugwash's beer farts is a major contributing factor to 'climate change' , global warming' or whacky weather, your choice. Ease up on the pale ale Pug and don't talk so much.

Was there any need for that?

Look up "ad hominem". Someone on your farm must have a dictionary.

Ps. It's spelled "Quayle"; ironic that you're quoting him for being stupid

[r11co]

Just to get back OT.... [censored] to Global Warming.

I think the transcript of Sean Gabb's lecture is particularly interesting!

To my eyes, carbon offsetting just looks like a modern day equivalent to medieval Papal Indulgences, and junk science is the new religion.

Climate science, like all science, is never settled, but to say it is smacks of censorship motivated by self interest.

[ryyannon]

@Ryyannon

I'm not telling anyone if I believe in ID, the Easter Bunny, or Groucho Marx. What I am doing is pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of people who reject an entire realm of thought as vapid or empty simply because they don't agree with it, or don't understand it.

Here's an eye opener: Darwinism deals with probabilities... those of the chances of random mutations being suppressed or expressed. It attempts to describe nature "selecting" for mutations based on their potentially advantageous changes to an organism. Probabilities and chances. Exactly like the probabilities and chances used in my cited article to discuss the expression of genetic information by random chance, and the chance combinations of enzymes to form workable proteins etc.

So to those who support Darwin but reject ID ... exactly which statistic and probabilistic mathematics do you prefer? Darwin's or ID's? Why? Please be precise and distinct so I can tell them apart.

Good luck with that.

Thanks for replying, Nanuq...personally, I'm pretty comfortable with Groucho Marx.

My second response is that an intelligent mind can entertain (and admit) two (apparently) contradictory ideas at the same time: I have no problem in admitting both Darwin and I.D. as part of the Big Picture.

Where I do hesitate, is when people start teaching kids that our ancestors lived with the dinosaurs, that the earth is 4,000 years old, and that some guy with a long white beard is overseeing it all.

You know what I mean. There are a lot of parasites who've latched on to I.D. and who are spinning it in ways that simply aren't acceptable. Just as the Nazis - to name only one example out of many - attempted to use Darwin to justify their programs to 'improve the race.'

Darwin's message* is actually one which is quite compatible with the tenets of Christianity (speaking morally and ethically here, rather than scientifically): it is one of a natural order of connectedness and compassion in the universe: if that's not another way of saying Intelligent Design, then call me Herman Goering.

Just think of it: if survival were simply survival of the fittest (meaning the meanest, cleverest and toughest) we'd already all be gone. Only TTK would remain.

Thank God (my apologies to the atheists and commie rats out there) for Intelligent Design.

And bravo to Uncle Darwin for having the intelligence to have figured it out.

In the meantime, here's something else for you to chew on, and which is creating a great deal of buzz at the moment: Garrett Lisi's "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything", which is Lisi's own Unified Field Theory using E8 root mathematics. I've already left the same links posted here and there in other threads in the hopes you would have gone for the bait.

As for me, I love his statement that (paraphrase) "any mathematical model of the universe should reflect the beauty of the universe itself" - but then, I'm just a hopeless romantic (to put it charitably) as some of you already know.

First, a general introduction from the press:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../scisurf114.xml

Followed by the paper itself with all its glorious mathematics and graphics: (can't seem to access his .pdf file right now - but I'll try to post it ulteriorly. In the meantime, here's the host page):

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770

And for the mathematically challenged (like me):

*In his own words and his own clarifications: He was appalled at the simplistic distortions that were made concerning the concept of 'the survival of the fittest.'

[hambone]

Since Quayle could not spell "Potatoe", I wondered how long it would take till someone noticed I spelled his name wrong in tribute. Leave it to you to discover something as insignificant as that to make an argument over. Cmon up to the farm we could use some barn cleaners. Unfortunately, I am only up in Finland during the summer for a couple of weeks,

but I will make certain they give you a sturdy shovel and a couple bottles of beano. Dictionary on request. :laugh:

Oh, and if you really new about Dan, our former VP you would also know that it was not 'Daniel', but James Danforth aka "dan". Always be sure to get your corrective jabs in from a learned position.

[HauteHippie]

To my eyes, carbon offsetting just looks like a modern day equivalent to medieval Papal Indulgences, and junk science is the new religion.

Climate science, like all science, is never settled, but to say it is smacks of censorship motivated by self interest.

Today's liberals seek to provide a simple answer to an extremely complex problem that may never be fully understood. And I, for one, don't trust them to be able to tell me what the weather will be like 100 years from now. Hell, the NOAA can't even tell me what the weather will be like 1 week from now with reasonable accuracy.

[HauteHippie]

Since when did Liberal become a dirty word?

Wikipedia is not reliable, true. However, it's a good starting point. Oh, and Discover.org is exceedingly unreliable as it;s funded for one purpose.

ps. Atheist is an option when you declare your religion on a census. I want the right not to have to choose a religion. I want freedom from religion. I also want separation of church and state.

Why do atheists deserve special rights? And why bother appeasing them, if they won't be joining us in the next life anyhow?

[Victoria]

Since when did Liberal become a dirty word?

Since 1922, when David Lloyd-George became the last Liberal Prime Minister of the UK.

Oh and Pug, it's freedom of religion, not "from" for a reason. That means the State cannot say to the People, practise our religion. It just means you are free to worship or not, as you please. Atheism is also an imposition of their values on society, and that's just not going to happen. People will fight back.

Minor victory today -- I said "Merry Christmas" at Macy's and the roof didn't collapse. I blame Global Climate Change.

[HauteHippie]

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071...land-magma.html

Ironically, I'll bet that news doesn't make the man-made global warming crowd too happy. (Ironically because it should!)

[ryyannon]

Re my last post above: looks like ya punked-out, Nanuq.