NASA Chief Questions Global Warming as a "problem"

[forrestkc]

It shows us that when things get politicized, good science is not always the result. people are constantly referring to the number of scientists that believe in Global Warming as prrof that it is true, and that the results they are predicting will come to pass. But, when shown errors from the past that numerous scientists believe, they want to say "the numbers don't matter"

The bottom line is that it wasn't true, although the scientists who were touting it were just as convinced as the ones who tout warming now. Why should we believe the current "concinced" as opposed to the past "convinced"?

Back in the 1970s we were going through a climatic cooling period. At the time, there were some scientists (not nearly a concensus though), that were worried we may have been headed for another ice age. However, we now know what caused the cooling experienced from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s. Prior to the clean air act in the United States and other laws being enacted like it in other western industrialized nations, so much particulate pollution was being introduced into the atmosphere that the amount of sunlight that actually reached the earth

[forrestkc]

See Forrest, that just doesn't reach the level of intelligence I'm looking for. It doesn't deal with what I'm saying and, in fact, it bit back into the argument against naturalism (you're using naturalism to defend naturalism).

This is not a philosophical debate though. We are talking about good science. You are basically making a philosophical attack against modern science. I am merely stating why science is naturalistic. Thats all. If you want to discuss the peer reviewed science behind evolution, then fine, but as modern science is by definition naturalistic, you are going to have to adhere to the guidelines of modern science. If you can't then your ideas belong in a class on philosophy rather than in a science class.

[apothanein kerdos]

See Forrest, that just doesn't reach the level of intelligence I'm looking for. It doesn't deal with what I'm saying and, in fact, it bit back into the argument against naturalism (you're using naturalism to defend naturalism).

This is not a philosophical debate though. We are talking about good science. You are basically making a philosophical attack against modern science. I am merely stating why science is naturalistic. Thats all. If you want to discuss the peer reviewed science behind evolution, then fine, but as modern science is by definition naturalistic, you are going to have to adhere to the guidelines of modern science. If you can't then your ideas belong in a class on philosophy rather than in a science class.

That's what I mean by you're using naturalism to support naturalism. Modern scientific principles are partially built on naturalism, that's the point. The idea that we can't imply a supernatural designer when the evidence presented contradicts naturalistic beliefs is purely from naturalism - it's not science.

This is why I keep ignoring your arguments - they're ill-informed. You keep using empty rhetoric and don't really have anything intelligent to contribute - just regurgitated arguments on a subject you know nothing about.

[forrestkc]

That's what I mean by you're using naturalism to support naturalism. Modern scientific principles are partially built on naturalism, that's the point.

This is why I keep ignoring your arguments - they're ill-informed. You keep using empty rhetoric and don't really have anything intelligent to contribute - just regurgitated arguments on a subject you know nothing about.

Because I am right. There is nothing more to say on the subject. Modern science and the scientific method agrees with me. You are trying to redefine modern science. I think thats absurd. Every scientific society on earth thinks thats absurd. The National Academy of Sciences thinks thats absurd, and the American Federal Judiciary (a conservative one at that), thinks its absurd.

I am not ill-informed. I know quite a lot about the science behind evolution, and I know the arguments that the ID croud uses, 99% of them of course have been completely refuted by peer reviewed papers, including the Irreducible Complexity one you spouted off. The fact is, half an eye is better than a forth of an eye, and a forth of an eye is better than no eye and so on and so forth.

See:

# Halder, G., Callaerts, P. and Gehring, W.J. (1995). "New perspectives on eye evolution." Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 5 (pp. 602

[apothanein kerdos]

That's what I mean by you're using naturalism to support naturalism. Modern scientific principles are partially built on naturalism, that's the point.

This is why I keep ignoring your arguments - they're ill-informed. You keep using empty rhetoric and don't really have anything intelligent to contribute - just regurgitated arguments on a subject you know nothing about.

Because I am right. There is nothing more to say on the subject. Modern science and the scientific method agrees with me. You are trying to redefine modern science. I think thats absurd. Every scientific society on earth thinks thats absurd. The National Academy of Sciences thinks thats absurd, and the American Federal Judiciary (a conservative one at that), thinks its absurd.

I am not ill-informed. I know quite a lot about the science behind evolution, and I know the arguments that the ID croud uses, 99% of them of course have been completely refuted by peer reviewed papers, including the Irreducible Complexity one you spouted off. The fact is, half an eye is better than a forth of an eye, and a forth of an eye is better than no eye and so on and so forth.

See:

# Halder, G., Callaerts, P. and Gehring, W.J. (1995). "New perspectives on eye evolution." Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 5 (pp. 602

[The Lorax]

The same argument you're using is generally what people use against discrimination. "You mean there aren't any black people tenured at your university? Oh, well they just didn't meet the qualifications."

So even though I can supply quotes of scientists saying Christians shouldn't be admitted into scientific programs until they accept naturalistic evolution, even though I can supply case after case of professors being denied tenure, even though I can show you how Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his belief in ID quoted directly from someone that voted no on his tenure, even though I can show you how a journal editor suffered persecution for allowing a pro-ID piece through...even though I can go on showing all of this, you're just going to call it all anecdotal?

By your standard, all the evidence for the Holocaust victims being innocent is just "anecdotal" as well. How do we know that they weren't just trying to usurp the government?

I'm not denying that there may be discrimination in the scientific community against ID. There is, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Like forrest said, if it can't be tested, it's not science. ID can be included in science only to the extent that it can be falsified. Until ID can be fit into a scientific framework, you can cry me a river about Stalin and totalitarianism.

[apothanein kerdos]

The same argument you're using is generally what people use against discrimination. "You mean there aren't any black people tenured at your university? Oh, well they just didn't meet the qualifications."

So even though I can supply quotes of scientists saying Christians shouldn't be admitted into scientific programs until they accept naturalistic evolution, even though I can supply case after case of professors being denied tenure, even though I can show you how Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his belief in ID quoted directly from someone that voted no on his tenure, even though I can show you how a journal editor suffered persecution for allowing a pro-ID piece through...even though I can go on showing all of this, you're just going to call it all anecdotal?

By your standard, all the evidence for the Holocaust victims being innocent is just "anecdotal" as well. How do we know that they weren't just trying to usurp the government?

I'm not denying that there may be discrimination in the scientific community against ID. There is. I just don't think it's widespread or systematic enough to invalidate the modern scientific paradigm and to justify the dramatic terms you are using. Cry me a river about science and ID, AK. If it can't be tested, it's not science. ID can be included in science only to the extent that it can be tested, like forrest said. If that doesn't meet the level of intelligence you're looking for, then you'll just have to look elsewhere.

So even though it can be tested, has been tested, has elements within it that can be tested, and the leading witness against ID at the Dover trial came out and admitted that ID is science post-trial...you're just going to sit there and justify what is being done to silence ID proponents?

The fact is, these acts of discrimination occur and no one in the academic world speak out against it. That is totalitarian - their silence on the issue is deafening.

If we accept or act like pure naturalists, or if we accept "science," then we have to deny God any involvement in creation. We can't even say that He created the natural laws. When a "Christian" gets to this point, he ceases to really think like a Christian.

[forrestkc]

So you're an atheist is what you're saying. You function and believe in a naturalistic approach to science. That's something a true Christian can't do.

And of course I think I'm right and those biologists are wrong - I'm not the only one. There are quite a bit of scientists that believe the same thing.

Regardless, you are still acting ill-informed and shooting off rhetoric. Now you're showing yourself to be an atheist (which isn't a surprising, since you support killing babies as a "mother's choice")...I'm failing to see why I should even debate you forrest. I'm looking for intelligent debate, not rhetoric and people who quote wikipedia.

I was unaware that you had such an all seeing window into the hearts of other men. No, I am not an atheist. However, I can certainly separate science and empiracle observation from my personal faith and any bias that might originate from it. Science is not atheistic. If anything I guess one could consider it agnostic. Science has no way of proving nor disproving the existence of God. Therefore, science simply does not address the issue. There is no conflict between modern science and empiracle observation, and faith unless one wants to create such a conflict.

You are trying to meld science and theology and then you seem to assert that anyone who does not wish to do so is an atheist. We figured out over 300 years ago that the two fields do not serve each other well at all when they are melded together. Science is the only truly reliable source of knowledge about the natural world. Faith is the only truly reliable source of knowledge about God and the nature of man. I am not sure why some people have such a hard time with separating the two fields.

[forrestkc]

So even though it can be tested, has been tested, has elements within it that can be tested, and the leading witness against ID at the Dover trial came out and admitted that ID is science post-trial...you're just going to sit there and justify what is being done to silence ID proponents?

The fact is, these acts of discrimination occur and no one in the academic world speak out against it. That is totalitarian - their silence on the issue is deafening.

If we accept or act like pure naturalists, or if we accept "science," then we have to deny God any involvement in creation. We can't even say that He created the natural laws. When a "Christian" gets to this point, he ceases to really think like a Christian.

ID has been tested? How? How has ID been tested? It is simply a hypothesis with none of the defining qualities of science. A default argument cannot replace positive evidence. To test ID, to hold it to the same standard that which the theories that underline evolution are held to (meaning actually have positive evidence in favor of it), there are two things that would have to be shown:

1. A theory would have to at least be suggested to explain the transcription from supernatural force to organic reality.

2. Positive and repeatable evidence would have to be found for a supernatural intelligent force that created and guided the evolution of life.

Do you understand that there is not a scientist on the face of this earth that does not dream of making a discovery of that kind of magnitude. Essentually for ID to actually be held to the same standards as any other scientific theory, we would have to have positive empiracle evidence for the existance of God. If that would not get a scientist the Nobel Prize, then I don't know what would.

But you see that is the difference between science and faith. I have faith that God exists. I know in my heart that he does. Yet I have not one shread of empiracle evidence to offer up that would prove it. No one alive does.

[The Lorax]

I was unaware that you had such an all seeing window into the hearts of other men. No, I am not an atheist. However, I can certainly separate science and empiracle observation from my personal faith and any bias that might originate from it. Science is not atheistic. If anything I guess one could consider it agnostic. Science has no way of proving nor disproving the existence of God. Therefore, science simply does not address the issue. There is no conflict between modern science and empiracle observation, and faith unless one wants to create such a conflict.

You are trying to meld science and theology and then you seem to assert that anyone who does not wish to do so is an atheist. We figured out over 300 years ago that the two fields do not serve each other well at all when they are melded together. Science is the only truly reliable source of knowledge about the natural world. Faith is the only truly reliable source of knowledge about God and the nature of man. I am not sure why some people have such a hard time with separating the two fields.

Well said. I agree completely.