Science
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Scientific Method
–noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
It seems to me that science has become the enemy of the right wing. Scientific facts like global climate change and evolution are being politicized. Science is not faith, and it is not politics.
Science is the study of the world around us and interpretation of the knowlege gained throuhg observation and experimentation. There is no room for faith in science. Unlike religion, science requires observation and tests to form an opinion. Religion relies almost exclusivley on faith. Not the same thing.
Science has become politicized by the right wing. I can't help but wonder if the reason for the resistance to the evidence of climate change isn't the fact that Al Gore became an advocate of the fight against climate change. The right wing would rather disagree with Al Gore than work to preserve our planet. When did sustaing human life become a liberal idea?
And evolution. Evolution is complex yet simple. Ideas about the mechanisms of evolution are very complex, but the concept of the biological proecess of evolution is pretty simple. And yes, there is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that life has evolved, is evolving and will evolve in the future. It's not rocket science, but it is science.
When did gathering knowledge about the world through observation and experimentation become a liberal thing?
It seems that, to most conservatives, if the facts contradict our beliefs then the facts must be wrong. I don't get it.
Global warming and evolution are not controversies among scientists. They are only controversies among people who are unaware of the evidence, or who are resistant to it.
I had to do a little venting there. But before I go, let me give you some numbers.
97% of climatologists believe that global warming is real and that humans are playing a role.
99.85% of biologists believe in evolution.
|
|
| |
|
|
I blame God for evolution and global warming. It works like magic. :)
http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_2.asp
loo
k at the plate movement and then reference the google map satalite
veiw
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=c
arlsbad%20
you will see that the caverns are increasing in elevation due to the plates movement and its proximity to the mountains separating the west from the remainder of the continent.
About the formation of Carlsbad Caverns:
http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info
.htm#esta, and... White Sands: http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/whsa/
caverns are formed by hot water emitting from the mantle layer. it is similar to how most minerals are injected to certain parts of the world and not others, and since you do live in a mineral rich region it would be expected to have hydraulic activity in the region. However i am not 100% sure of the plate direction however it would be logical that the area was submerged when the elevation was much lower. and planet killers are many things, but breif is not one of them.
BD - Carlsbad Caverns were formed when the ocean covered this part of the world. Such caverns would require a long period of time to form, not something brief such as water being splashed by an asteroid.
I never said that water covered the whole of the earth wiz... although I imagine it is a possibility. Volcanoes and seismic activity however can change what parts of the earth ARE covered by the ocean.
If there is a genetic bottleneck 5,000 years ago and if those fossils have been dated as being 5,000 years ago, there may indeed have been a great flood.
RS you live within the crater pattern of the planet killer that hit where today's Yucatan pennisila is. it set debris 1000's of miles into the air. this coupled with the ever changing tectonic plates would account for "sea" creature fossils being found at higher elevations.
I highly doubt that there was a period in history where water covered the whole of the earth. If that was true, then where did it all go? I suggest that the sea life was deposited there by a mass extinction event. A Meteor that sent waves of ocean water across the world. And deposited the intact sea creatures. You can find them in the open, but if you dug under you would find no such creatures.
elevation may be a better word than altitude, sorry
Wiz, I live in New Mexico. Specifically, I'm at 5,000 feet in altitude. The fossils found around here indeed are of sea life, but a closer look also reveals to even the casual observer that New Mexico is very mountainous. It's split in half by the Rio Grande Rift (the same rift that opened up the Gulf of Mexico), and has several volcanoes. New Mexico used to be covered by the ocean... seismic and volcanic activity changed that.
How do you explain fish fossiles being found on top of mountains 10,000 feet above sea level. The only way that they could get up there dead and not consumed was from a mass extinction event. A great flood. These fish did not have legs.
"Forget microscopic organizations. Let's talk about the big animals. How many fish crawled out of the water and choked to death before a fish evolved lungs? Along those lines, why would a fish evolve lungs if their environment had not changed?" Amphibians would be the likely link here, being able to breathe both under water and on land. The environment likely had changed... likely from things getting a little too crowded underwater, and the oceans not holding enough oxygen to support the live that was evolving. As for male and female sex organs... organisms that reproduce through sex start off as females. It requires a hormone change at the right time to change this. Would it surprise you to know that your testicles started off with all the makings of ovaries? So far friday, you are not offering evidence in favor of creationism, just skepticism of evolution.
In short, what I said was: Keep the purpose of science, not the culture of science.
Evolution has to account for Mass Extinction events. Paleontologists dispute this hotly, but have determined that each EON ended in a mass extinction. But somehow fossiles are found, like the Trilobite that existed throughout 10 mass extinctions except for the Cambrian period. The bible has one mass extinction event, the great flood. But it is not the only religion that has the story of the great flood. In fact most major religions and religions of past spoke of the great flood. The fossile evidence that is percieved as 10 events was most probably deposited in one event that humans have recorded throughout history.
My personal opinion about this blog is that, yes, science requires some amount of faith in it. Notice how I mention SOME. The current climate of the scientific community is not conducive to the purpose of science, which is to seek out out the truth. They place their ABSOLUTE FAITH into the scientific THEORIES (Not FACTS, THEORIES.) that are popular at the time. They go to the extent of believing these theories to be infallible. The fact is that science is NEVER EVER set in stone. The earth is round and revolves around the sun. This was a theory at the time of its creation, and has been proven to be a fact. You would be laughed out of the country or even worse if you said those things five hundred years ago, due to the prevalent scientific theory at the time, which was backed by religion. That climate has returned when alternate theories are presented, even ones that may even make more sense than the popular theory, which may or may not be wrong. And no, it is the Left that has found it politically advantageous to use the anthropogenic global warming card as a way to usurp more freedoms away from the people. I can say the FACT that the temperature rose BEFORE the carbon dioxide appeared by about 800 years in the ice cores. I can say the FACT that water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas BY FAR (about 99% of the greenhouse gasses, which are less than one percent of the atmosphere in total). I can say the FACT that it has been warmer in the past. I can say the FACT that the sun has not had any sun spots recently and that the global mean temperature is actually DECREASING, meaning massive crop failures. So there.
Well, chew on that. I have to work tomorrow, so I'm going to bed.
Male and female sex and reproductive organs are not similar enough that they would automatically evolve simultaneously. I suppose you could argue it happening once, I mean people win the lottery. But it would have to happen with every species.
I gave you evidence based on symbiotic relationships. How about sex? For evolution to be factual, then every single separate species would have to evolve separate male and female sex organs within one generation or the new species would die out. You can't mate evolved species with their predecessors or relatives and produce generations of offspring.
Forget microscopic organizations. Let's talk about the big animals. How many fish crawled out of the water and choked to death before a fish evolved lungs? Along those lines, why would a fish evolve lungs if their environment had not changed?
I am also still waiting for evidence in favor of creationism.
I'm also talking about microscopic organisms with short lifespans and thus faster evolution, friday.
Another interesting thing... while most flowers have a sweet, kind of sugary smell to them to attract insects, there is one type of flower that took a different approach entirely in its evolution to attract insects. It's commonly known as the corpse flower. It is a large flower, the color of rotting meat, and smells like it, too. So, it is pollinated by insects you'd normally see buzzing around dead animals.
RS, you are talking about adapting to something over hundreds of thousands to billions of years that would kill off the entire species as fast as immediately.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
I always figured symbiotic relationships to be evidence toward, not against, evolution. If everything evolved to be too similar, all life would die. The earliest life... Oxygen was effectively poisonous to it, and a by-product of it, the same as carbon dioxide is to us. Oxygen continued to build up in the atmosphere, so life evolved and adapted to it... we have a nice little cycle now to where life forms basically live off each other's by-products. Evolution is the result of eons of adaptation. Try again?
The flower DID come before the bee by about fifty million years. Other insects pollinated flowers, and continue to do so today. Flowers mutated by chance to produce nectar. These flowers were favored by the insects, as they found another, more efficient food source. As the flowers with nectar were more likely to be pollinated by insects, more and more flowers had nectar. Bees, finding this food source very efficient, have evolved specifically to survive on this food source alone.
Funny C-Mach, since bees need the nectar produced in flowers to survive.
Insects DID evolve before FLOWERING plants by about 200 million years. Good job, RSobien and Imagine89.
Doubtful. The world population was probably very small in the beginning and there were enough plants without polination. Some plants reproduce via the wind or other animals. Bees aren't needed for every plant to reproduce. Today, however, with a massive world population, bees are needed in order for enough plants to grow to sustain the world. In the beginning, not as many were needed. Anyway, I ahve to go to bed. read a biology book. if you remain willfully ignorant, that is your choice. Good day, sir.
So if all the bees died, then everything else would die, then the question is how did everything survive before the bees evolved? Are you suggesting bees evolved before plants?
I believe I asnwered that. That still doesn't prove literal Biblical creationism. Get over it.
That wasn't really a clear answer. I didn't say everything was symbiotic. I just asked what would happen if all the bees died.
Everything else would die. What happens if all plants die? All bees die. What happened when all the dinosuards died? Life went on. Not everything is symbiotic.
Imagine, what would happen if all the bees died?
Intricate design isn't "proof" because many organisms have problematic features. How would you explain that? I believe in evolution because it's been proven and God because I have faith. I have no desire to prove the existence of God because I can't and neither can anyone else.
RS, the most blatant evidence for creation is the intricate design of even just the cells of the human body. But since that satisfies few evolutionists, what about symbiotic relationships? For example, what will happen if all the bees die out?
You gave me a list of fossils of animals that are similar to two different species. You did not provide a chain of developmental links from one species to another. Considering studies have shown that almost every species of animal alive today is present in the fossil record, to say that we should expect wide gaps where all the intermediary species went is a little ridiculous.
Well, we could try this from a different angle... you see, evolution does have some scientific basis to go on. Certainly, it is incomplete... it's not like early life forms really cared where they came from, or that later, we might wonder about it. We can only go on what evidence we have, which points strongly toward evolution, and just as strongly debunks creationism. Disagree? Alright... then present real scientific evidence that favors creationism. Bible verses count for nothing.
Last question I saw from him, he wanted to know where the transitional fossils are. I gave him an extensive list and he refused to accept it. If he wants to know about evolution, he can take a fuckin biology class. I'm not his professor. If he wants to debate foreign policy or economics, fine. But I'm not debatign FACTS like evolution. Read a biology book.
I think curly said it all right there.And Imagination you STILL haven't answerd Fridays question .......... but then again you can't can you
RSobien is clearly winning the evolution debate. Good job, RSobien. I have grown tired of debating facts so I just stopped with Friday. I'll debate opinions all day, but I'm tired of debating facts like evolution.
Eh... any idea of how little Bible verses mean to me?
Curly, isn't it awesome how God does things sometimes?
What is the shortest chapter in the Bible?
Answer - Psalms 117
What is the longest chapter in the Bible?
Answer - Psalms 119
Which chapter is in the center of the Bible?
Answer - Psalms 118
Fact: There are 594 chapters before Psalms 118
Fact: There are 594 chapters after Psalms 118
Add these numbers up and you get 1188
What is the center verse in the Bible?
Answer - Psalms 118:8
Does this verse say something significant about God's perfect will for our lives?
The next time someone says they would like to find God's perfect will for their lives and that they want to be in the center of His will, just send them to the center of His Word!
Psalms 118:8 "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."
Now isn't that odd how this worked out (or was God in the center of it)?
Really? Tell me the difference then, from a biological standpoint.
Adaptation is not evolution RS. not to mention evolution is all speculation
Again, friday... Can you tell me a reason for the useless leg bones in whales, other than an evolutionary by-product? The same goes for tail bones in humans. Neither are visible without looking at the skeleton - whales don't presently have legs, humans don't presently have tails.
correct friday, but I doubt Imagine would agree LOL
Intelligent design, whether as a precursor to evolution or creation, is provable scientific fact and can be demonstrated through the scientific method.
Neither do I friday. As I stated earlier it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism or intelligent design
Imagine, if could find one complete chain between species in the fossil record I would concede that evolution is a possibility. If you could find it for 5% of all species I would admit that evolution is a probability. If you could find it for 50% of all species I would agree with you that evolution is fact. Since you cannot find it for just one instance of speciation, I'm afraid I just don't have that much faith.
considering the expansion of the universe, the miracle of the human eye, the survival of earth as long as it has, I seriously doubt man has the explanation that is even vaguely possible through the means of "science" we still don't even understand basic forces like gravity. We understand it effects but not the causes that are so delicate yet so unstoppable. I don't buy that everything happened as a "cosmic accident" Science actually only knows less than 1 thousand of one percent of the forces effecting our little planets position in space. Sorry, but when it knows so little and only speculates on the rest I place no "faith" in it
By the way Imagine, I'm still waiting for your blog post showing a fossil record of an unbroken chain between two species. Any two species. I'm not even asking for a chain between every single instance of speciation in macro evolution, although you should be able to produce that as well if evolution is truly an unassailable fact.
Imagine, there is nothing better than proven facts that can't be proven.
You are actually the first person to ever give me a straight answer on that. lol. Usually, people are knocked off their feet when they hear that.
Nothing can prove itself by itself. Science in general doesn't need to be proven. Sometimes several branches of science can prove another branch. Science isn't a dogma, so it doesn't need to be "proven." Science assesses the evidence and scientific opinion changes upon new evidence. Science isn't an ideology or a religion. It doesn't need to be "proven." Science is what what we use to prove and disprove other things.
Well, yes, it was a joke because I "do" believe in certain kinds of science, like astronomy, meterology, or whatnot, but honestly, you really can't prove science with the scientific method. It can't be done.
I'll assume that to be a joke.
I will start believing in science when the scientific method can prove science itself. lol.
RSobien is right. Evolution is not a controversy anymore. It is a proven fact. My faith does not rest on the Bible being 100% literal and 100% innerant and perfectly translated by men for 3,000 years. Evolution is a fact, therefore, Genesis must not have happened literally 6,000 years ago as the fundamentalists would like me to believe. That does not shake my faith in our Lord. It just shows me that the Bible is not a science book, and that God had more inportant things to teach me than how dinosaurs evolved into birds. That's something we can let science take care of. The prophets and apostles are meant to teach us things that science is not concerned with. If evolution shakes your faith, you may have missed the point of the Bible.
As a general rule of thumb for skeptics, any science whose empirical evidence is made up almost entirely of conceptual art deserves a heavy dose of skepticism.
So we have a whale-hippo fossil? Do we have a fossil of an animal roughly the size of a whale with some features that remind us of a hippo too? Or do we actually have a chain of fossils linking us directly from the hippo to the whale, or from a common ancestor to both?
Friday - developing immunity to poisons is a good example of adaptation. While not changing species, it is a change nonetheless, and a significant one as it assists in survival of species. As for whales out of dinosaurs, fossil records show that whales more likely started off as animals perhaps resembling hippos... warm blooded mammals, of course. Mammals and dinosaurs actually evolved at around the same time, just that most mammals were relatively small, and dinosaurs were definitely the dominant species.
RS, developing immunity to poisons over time is hardly the same as one species gradually turning into another species over time. It makes perfect sense to design animals to adapt to their environment and make tiny changes over time. However, growing whales out of dinosaurs is what we have no evidence of (or vice versa, I would only assume it went that way since whales are the ones with leg bones).
Agreed, RSobien.
Agreed, RSobien
That was me, btw... pressed the wrong button.
First of all, yes... there is hard evidence of evolution without resorting even to the fossil record. The human tailbone is thought to be remnants of an actual tail, whales have leg bones, but currently have no legs. In killing roaches, a poison loses its effectiveness over generations... and on that same note, we're seeing viruses and bacteria that are becoming resistant to current antibiotics and antivirals. Please bear in mind, the bible was written by man. Call it divinely inspired if you like, but it was filtered through the imperfect minds of men, thus it is imperfect... it is not an idol to be worshipped and for people to hang on its every word, it is simply a guidebook.
One major problem with Evolution is the lack of respect for reason why we find fossile evidence. The Trilobite is the most misused ancient creature that exists througout 5 large periods of earths history. Fossils are found because of mass extinction events. There is no reason to find a fossile unless a mass extinction event happens. That requires the destruction of the earth or massive changes to kill these animals, so that they are found intact in rock preserved for millions of years. Usually when an animal dies of natural causes, its body is usually eaten or decomposes. The trilobites were obviously not a victim of being eaten, because they are found intact even during the Cambrian period. So what kind of mass extinction event occured that killed only the trilobites and not the rest of the species of creatures. What mass extinction event occured that killed only the dinosaurs and left them intact in the fossile record. Full bodies and unhatched eggs. You see these are the mysteries that confound the theory of Evolution. It is not foolproof.
Whats true is it takes more faith to believe in a farce like evolution than to believe in creationism or intelligent design. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that man "Evolved". Talk about hypocritical Imagine................ you say you are a christian in one breath and say you believe in evolution in the next. If you believe in evolution you call the Bible a tissue of lies.
Well, when you find one you can put it in one of your famous "Friday is wrong, here's why...oh wait, turns out he's right again" blog posts and I'll read it tomorrow. Good night everyone.
Bjorn Kurten determined that 99% of the species currently in Europe could be found in the fossil record. If the fossil record gives us such a complete record of the species we have today, wouldn't we have enough fossils over even the last 100,000 years to find two species with a chain between them?
The problem with Paleontology it is not a science. Its taking unlike things and giving them greek names. This "science" has been around for a very long time, so in fact some of the orginal creatures that were classified, were in fact something other than what they really are based on genetic coding. But because all of this has been cataloged already for hundreds of years there has been no attempt by biologists to fix the classifications. Biology is like an ancient false science based on assumptions and unfortunatly is still being taught in college. For example Lobster is classified as an arachnid same as spiders. Just because they had 8 legs.
With billions of years we would have many many more fossils than what we have. I don't think you have taken the time to conceptualize a billion years in your head and exactly how long that actually is.
I didn't ask for extinct species that are similar to other species. I asked for a completed chain linking one species to another species. If you mated a Hynerpeton with a Labyrinthodonts, what would you get?
Further, the fossil record is incomplete and always will be. We're talking about millions of species over billions of years. Not all bones fossillize and not all fo thsoe that do survive and not all of thsoe that survive are found. We're talking billions of years dude, seriosuly.
You don't look very hard
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h
tml
I googled it and couldn't find any. Maybe you'll have better luck. By the way, I am only asking for one. If evolution is true, we should have enough transitional fossils to connect every species completely from amoebas to humans.
Give me one example of two different species with enough missing links to prove that one came from the other.
we have thousands of transitional fossils. GOOGLE.
Prove it. Give me one example of two different species where we have enough missing links in the fossil record to prove that one came from the other.
We have many transitional fossils, not just one. Do some research.
No, not even in the fossil record. In order to have proof in the fossil record you would have to have not just one "missing link" that was similar to two different species. You would have to have a chain of missing links with all the tiny variations intact. For example, if you were to mate any human being with any other primate, they would not produce offspring. You would need a chain of links in the fossil record to connect the two and we do not have that for ANY similar species.
Except in the fossil record...
I reject macro speciation evolution and you cannot demonstrate one place where it has been observed. We have been down this road before.
You reject evolution, and I'm a joke? That's a good one. Evolution is a fact like gravity. Somewhere north of 99% of biologists accept evolution. it's been proven and observed, so much so that a debate with you would be nonsense. Just read a biology book.
I do reject evolution. I've given many reasons for that which have thus far been unassailable. But I do not reject medicinal values for marijuana, and I own stock in a stem cell company, so really you are a joke.
The evidence is stacked on one side of the global warming "debate" along with every scientist on earth. If you reject global warming, why not evolution?
Imagine, I love how when you are defeated you put words in peoples mouths.
And evolution is a religion, marijuana has no medical value and stem cell research is pointless. Right?
Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a politician and part time date rapist. Scientific method is only as valid as the data. You cannot rationalize data that you take and make broad predictions of future events that far into the future using climetology. I am amazed that the weatherman is at least right about the 5 day forcast. But beyond that has a weatherman ever predicted exact rainfall for a season. If any weatherman could do that he would be a billionaire. Al Gores use of science is nothing more than a circus freak show with leading graphics. I could show you a bar chart that looked significant if I reduced the size of the Y axis to between .1 and .3 degrees. But all you see is the big changes. Increase it to 1 to 3 degrees and the change is minimal. Obamas job charts are like that. Month to month they look terrible. 6 months at a time they still look terrible, but not as much.
When science leaves the realm of the proveable, it becomes a matter of faith. For example, telling me that 637,982 years ago mankind was living in caves, banging rocks together and saying ook ook, and then 354,024 years later they were still in caves banging rocks together and saying ook ook, and then 15,000 years ago they were still in caves banging rocks together and saying ook ook, and then in 8,000 years they went from caves to spaceshuttles, micro computers, stem cell research, and nuclear power, I say that takes an ounce of faith at the very least.
I have to concur with Govco on this one.
You honestly believe water won't exist on earth in liquid form? It evaporates, and then it condences. It is a cycle that will continue until the Earth is destroyed by the expanding sun before it supernovas. If you live in a desert you have no watter. I am sure the swamps of alabama need no more watter than what they have already. Do not fearmonger, unless you wish of others to do the same.
Do you look forward to billions more people without a water supply? I joke about being excited for global warming, but it is actually a serious matter.
As someone who lived north of Albany for two years, I second that FnG. Florida is hot, but we like it that way. Global Warming will mean more beach days :).
I look forward to global warming. Everybody in Buffalo, NY does.
I mean how selfish is that? What if the Neanderthals had prevented global cooling (the ice age). We might still be dragging our knuckles.
Good, then we should get out of the way so that the X-men can evolve.
Actually, when the environment changes, not everything survives. Those that adapt survive. Some speciaes don't adapt and they become extinct. That's why so many species are extinct. They didn't adapt to the changing environment.
If we go forward with a hydrogen economy, we could actually be exporting energy in the not too distant future.
Instead we are loaning George Soros $2 billion to join China in drilling in Brazil.
That's true to FnG. Renewable energy is a win-win. We reduce global warming, end dependence on foreign oil, and unlike oil, renewable energy won't ever run out.
FnG, exactly.
Imagine has an excellent point. That's really just one more reason why I don't worry about global warming. Either God exists and cares and won't kill us all with global warming, God exists and doesn't care but we will evolve, or God doesn't exist, and we will just evolve anyway like we always have. Who knows, maybe we are all just waiting to become X-men mutants and global warming is the catalyst. Who am I to stand in the way of evolution?
I would like to see a reduction in our fossil fuel use, not specifically to stop global warming, but to get off the arab oil tit.
What?
Take that shit and shove it up ass.
Yeah, FnG. We'll have to evolve. lol.
And I did forget to cite my numbers. The evolution survey comes from a survey on www.religioustolerance.org. The global warming survey comes from academics at the University of Illinois.
There's not a hell of alot we can do about global warming except to adapt.
Point taken, Kemp. And to friday, what I mean by ligitamte biologist is one with an actual degree in biology. There are plenty of people with degrees of questionable origins that publicly deny evolution. There are even actual scientists that deny evolution. I used the example before. A rocket scientist may not be very knowlegable about evolution and not believe it to be true. He is a scientist, but his area of study is not biology.
Here’s the deal as I see it. You want to put a magnifying glass on radicals who denounce and deny science. You want to magnify those few so much that, that you depict them as the major representatives of the conservative ideology which is at the heart of those on the right. That is insincere. That is looking at a few imperfections in the grain of reality and saying that those who deny science make up the entire reality of the right wing. That is as wrong as my classifying all Democrats and liberals as socialists. The vast majority, the overwhelming majority, of the those on the right, do not deny scientific fact. Many see a world where evolution is a fact and where evolution is a natural progression that took place after a greater power set it all into motion and triggered the beginning of evolution. Most of those on the right do not have a problem with religious instruction taught outside of public educational institutions while the legitimate facts of science are taught in public schools. This is what the overwhelming majority of conservatives look like. Not the picture that you paint of them. As for who politicized what, I believe not that the right politicized science but that the left politicized both science and religion. I believe that if one is sincere about science they understand, through fact and study, that no long term climate change effects can be truly accurate given the difference between the actual age of the earth and the span of time that scientific evidence and recorded history can cover. This vast differential in time studies prevents there from being enough historical analytical evidence to compare conclusions that are reached today to. This makes, no matter what anyone says, global warming a hypothesis not a fact. A hypothesis is defined as a theory needing investigation and a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation. The lack of an actual recorded history of all the natural phenomena throughout history makes conclusions that we reach on global warming today all a theory that can never actually be proven and turn the hypothesis of global warming into the fact of global warming. None of this is to say that man made pollutants and mans exploitation of natural resources does not damage our environment. That is not a hypothesis, that is a proven fact. But what people like Al Gore did was exploit an issue and try to turn a hypothetical into a reality. Not only that, he did so by exaggerating any scientific evidence that may point to legitimate evidence, so much that he losses credibility. His entire Academy Award winning, global warming movie on the issue was a gross exaggeration intended to scare people and misinform them about the extent of the severity of the damage that global warming might create, if it is real. Personally I believe that there is a global warming effect. We see it in cities, where suburbs could have temperatures as much as ten degrees lower than the big cities they surround. I believe it is a fact that smog and pollutants react with sun light and many cases creates a reflectivity of the sun that prevents it from its proper natural heating of the earths surface. But that is not global warming, that is global cooling. It is my opinion that the earth repairs itself if given the chance. It is an atmosphere of natural filters and cleansers that if not overwhelmed purifies itself, its atmosphere, its seas and forests. This would all lead me to believe that we can not overwhelm our earth and overtake its natural ability to repair itself. That is why, surprisingly, I am an environmentalist. Two of my greatest pleasures are the mountainous forests and oceans and lakes of our world. Their serenity and beauty overwhelms mw and on a daily basis, my heat beckons me to go to one or the other where I rejuvenate and bask in their majesty. So I want a safer and cleaner environment. But I do not exploit our environment by politicizing it by making a propaganda tool. And that is what people like Al Gore did. And he was a genuine hypocrite all along the way. Between the making of his movie and his own lifestyle, Al Gore has so far left a carbon footprint that is 5 times larger than the one I will leave behind when I die. Yet he chastises me for driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee. I do not politicize religion or the environment. It is people on the left who magnify the claims of some overly zealous religious fanatics, and paint a picture of all conservatives being that way. Those on the left are the ones trying to claim Republicans want to destroy the environment when in fact they want to preserve it while at the same time not destroying the economic quality and everyday lives of the people they lead. President G.W. Bush designated more land and regions as national preserves than any other President before him. Is the fact that he preserved the natural purity vitality of more land than any other President mentioned by the left. No. And why not? Because that does not fit into the stereotype of Republicans that the left wants to create. Is that sincere? Is that good for the environment? No, it is not. But it is an example of just how the left politicizes the environment and distorts the facts, exaggerate their claims and lie about the truth. Is this to say that Republicans do not participate in politicizing events and that they do not use propaganda? Certainly not. Some Republicans are as guilty as some Democrats. However it is I, a Republican who is pointing out that the right is as guilty as the left in some cases and it is you, a member of the left, that is claiming the only everyone on the right is guilty. As to your closing facts. It is important to remember that in the field of science in general, there is far less than a 97% consensus on a full scale global warming theory. Many conclude that the earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. The statistic you chose to use is one that interestingly enough has recently evolved in what is now know the title of climatologists. Those who have taken on this name are overwhelmingly liberal individuals who took on the title of climatologists because they already had a predisposition to the belief of global warming and this group of people do not seek all the evidence, they seek only more and more hypothetical evidence that advances their belief. They do not ever try to find any errors in their finds. Nor do they explore other possible reasons for their conclusions. Many of these people ignore and hide any evidence that may contradict their findings. That is not scientific sincerity. That is the politicizing science.
The difference between science and faith, in your mind, is that if I believe something it is faith, if you believe something it is science. Where did you get your numbers from? Considering your definition of a legitimate biologist is a biologist who believes in evolution, I'm surprised you changed the number from 100%.
a few hundred years ago, all scientists believed in the earth being the center of the universe. that automatically makes them right, no? At least according to your logic. You Amerikans need to stop making divisions, and start finding common ground or you will only lose and never win. Look to my nation, it was divided until it gave up division, united, and became an economic superpower. this is not politics, it is not left or right, but you on the left and right keep assigning the blame to one another. there will be more theories, such as existentialism, which will challenge both of your beliefs, which will eventually lead to your division, and downfall.
|
<< Home