Please don't act like this is a 50/50 argument about the affect humans have on the environment. Human neglect caught the Cuyahoga River on fire, and human attention fixed the problem, thanks, weirdly enough, to Richard Nixon.

 

Do you burn styrofoam for heating fuel?

I wasn't debating if there is, or is not human effects on the environment, I was stating science does provide multiple answers to many questions, just like religion and is not always as clear as some would like to state it is.

I wasn't debating if there is, or is not human effects on the environment, I was stating science does provide multiple answers to many questions, just like religion and is not always as clear as some would like to state it is.

 

I was going to respond to your earlier post, but did not, it sounded like an insincere post; this one does not. I might have misjudged the earlier one.

 

Science should be differentiated from scientists. At any given point, on any issue, scientists may come to different conclusions. Science, and the scientific method, is the way that we build our knowledge, test our knowledge, advance our knowledge, confirm it, and disprove false conclusions. On a particular issue, we may be toward the beginning of the process, but just because we have not figured out the answer, does not mean there is not one.

 

Back up our knowledge for an example. Let's take 100 scientists, and say as a hypothetical, they don't know the composition of a molecule of water. We put them in a lab and tell them to figure it out. They may have all sorts of ideas at first, but the answer is there, whether they know it or not. The answer is not "science", it is "reality". Science is the process by which we figure out our reality. A conclusion is accepted as valid when it can be confirmed repeatedly by observation, experimentation and has predictive abilities.

 

Back to your original question, about the scientists that have different conclusions about climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists have concluded that climate change does exist, a lesser majority have concluded that it is at least partially due to human activity. Reality doesn't really care if there is a disagreement about this, the reality is the reality. One side is correct, one side is not. I think we ought to err on the side of caution, given that we only have one planet to live on.

I used to be really curious about both sides of this argument. I spent probably 3 years of my life studying evolutionist and creationist books and other materials.

 

IMO there are things that make perfect sense under both theories, and there are serious flaws within both theories. I have concluded that the scientists from both sides (and to my surprise I found non-christian scientists on the creationist side) both come at the problem with the answers already in their mind and simply interpret whatever evidence exists to fulfill the answer they were looking for.

 

I was able to find scientists on both sides that would publicly admit the issues that exist in the theory they support. But most won't do so publicly.

 

If you're locked in to evolution because you're anti-religion, or if you're a creationist because you're pro-religion, then I don't have anything to suggest for you. For anyone in the middle or just curious how both sides can believe 100% they're right, I suggest spending some time studying the topic.

 

It is fascinating. I don't know what the real answer is for how we got here. But I don't really believe 100% in either of these theories we're discussing.

I used to be really curious about both sides of this argument. I spent probably 3 years of my life studying evolutionist and creationist books and other materials.

 

IMO there are things that make perfect sense under both theories, and there are serious flaws within both theories. I have concluded that the scientists from both sides (and to my surprise I found non-christian scientists on the creationist side) both come at the problem with the answers already in their mind and simply interpret whatever evidence exists to fulfill the answer they were looking for.

 

I was able to find scientists on both sides that would publicly admit the issues that exist in the theory they support. But most won't do so publicly.

 

If you're locked in to evolution because you're anti-religion, or if you're a creationist because you're pro-religion, then I don't have anything to suggest for you. For anyone in the middle or just curious how both sides can believe 100% they're right, I suggest spending some time studying the topic.

 

It is fascinating. I don't know what the real answer is for how we got here. But I don't really believe 100% in either of these theories we're discussing.

Great post

I used to be really curious about both sides of this argument. I spent probably 3 years of my life studying evolutionist and creationist books and other materials.

 

IMO there are things that make perfect sense under both theories, and there are serious flaws within both theories. I have concluded that the scientists from both sides (and to my surprise I found non-christian scientists on the creationist side) both come at the problem with the answers already in their mind and simply interpret whatever evidence exists to fulfill the answer they were looking for.

 

I was able to find scientists on both sides that would publicly admit the issues that exist in the theory they support. But most won't do so publicly.

 

If you're locked in to evolution because you're anti-religion, or if you're a creationist because you're pro-religion, then I don't have anything to suggest for you. For anyone in the middle or just curious how both sides can believe 100% they're right, I suggest spending some time studying the topic.

 

It is fascinating. I don't know what the real answer is for how we got here. But I don't really believe 100% in either of these theories we're discussing.

So are you saying the "answer" lies in embracing both science and non-science, i.e., religion, myth, tradition, etc.?

I used to be really curious about both sides of this argument. I spent probably 3 years of my life studying evolutionist and creationist books and other materials.

 

IMO there are things that make perfect sense under both theories, and there are serious flaws within both theories. I have concluded that the scientists from both sides (and to my surprise I found non-christian scientists on the creationist side) both come at the problem with the answers already in their mind and simply interpret whatever evidence exists to fulfill the answer they were looking for.

 

I was able to find scientists on both sides that would publicly admit the issues that exist in the theory they support. But most won't do so publicly.

 

If you're locked in to evolution because you're anti-religion, or if you're a creationist because you're pro-religion, then I don't have anything to suggest for you. For anyone in the middle or just curious how both sides can believe 100% they're right, I suggest spending some time studying the topic.

 

It is fascinating. I don't know what the real answer is for how we got here. But I don't really believe 100% in either of these theories we're discussing.

 

The bolded parts are the parts that miss the mark. How did you come to the conclusion that scientists "come at the problem with the answer already in mind". That simply is not the case. If it were, and you could back this conclusion up, you would be holding the Nobel prize. And I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it quite literally. There is no debate within the scientific community as to the approximate age of the earth, and no debate as to the existence of the evolutionary process. If you see a scientist questioning either one of these, that scientist is simply incorrect, and most likely cashing in on the combination of his/her college degree and the desire of a certain segment of the population to discredit the theories.

 

As to the part about being locked into evolution due to being anti-religion, this completely ignores, and sells short, the scientific knowledge. The knowledge about evolution is not based on being anti-religious. It is based on observation, testing, and experimentation and has passed every conceivable test. The science of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is entirely possible to accept the science of evolution and be religious, including Christian. Most Christians do just that. It is just a small percentage of them that believe the earth is 6,000 years old, so their religion has a problem with evolution, not the other way around. To suggest that the consistent belief in evolution is due to simply being anti-religious ignores all the evidence.

The bolded parts are the parts that miss the mark. How did you come to the conclusion that scientists "come at the problem with the answer already in mind". That simply is not the case. If it were, and you could back this conclusion up, you would be holding the Nobel prize. And I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it quite literally. There is no debate within the scientific community as to the approximate age of the earth, and no debate as to the existence of the evolutionary process. If you see a scientist questioning either one of these, that scientist is simply incorrect, and most likely cashing in on the combination of his/her college degree and the desire of a certain segment of the population to discredit the theories.

 

As to the part about being locked into evolution due to being anti-religion, this completely ignores, and sells short, the scientific knowledge. The knowledge about evolution is not based on being anti-religious. It is based on observation, testing, and experimentation and has passed every conceivable test. The science of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is entirely possible to accept the science of evolution and be religious, including Christian. Most Christians do just that. It is just a small percentage of them that believe the earth is 6,000 years old, so their religion has a problem with evolution, not the other way around. To suggest that the consistent belief in evolution is due to simply being anti-religious ignores all the evidence.

I agree with much of this post with the exception that you pass off the science as repeatable and accepted fact when it comes to evolution. And I don't have the gumption this afternoon to get into a debate on the theory of evolution, if that's what you're alluding to as "having passed every conceivable test" (unless I misunderstood). Even those who can agree about the age of the planet and refer to the beginning as big bang (for lack of a better distinction) admit that there's not science to disprove intelligent design. I just don't think it's worth the argument that ensues over the age of this globe. In the grand scheme of things, it matters not.

No, but the dismisser crowd acts as though there's nothing we can do to adversely affect things. And that annoys me. So, to them I say, start burning styrofoam for heating fuel and back up your position, and let me know how that turns out.

 

Problem is though, some on the far left would have you believe/want people to think that "global warming"...whoops can't use that term now since it's not true..."climate change"...is almost totally due to human interaction with the environment. However, the fact is that man/humans probably have very very little to do with it, and forces much greater than anything we do is responsible for change...and always has been.

 

Now, that's not to say we shouldn't be good stewards of the planet, cause we should. But the government also can't make policy that helps bankrupt the country and makes it much harder on the individual family unit by using false premises either.

Science should be differentiated from scientists. At any given point, on any issue, scientists may come to different conclusions. .

 

. There is no debate within the scientific community as to the approximate age of the earth, and no debate as to the existence of the evolutionary process. If you see a scientist questioning either one of these, that scientist is simply incorrect, and most likely cashing in on the combination of his/her college degree and the desire of a certain segment of the population to discredit the theories.

.

 

Huh ?

Huh ?

:popcorn:

Huh ?

 

Evolution is now settled, at this given point, at this time, there is no longer debate within the scientific community.

 

Edit. Science isn't static. So, yeah, on any issue, at any time, scientists could come to differing conclusions. So they keep at it, and learn more, and eventually reach a consensus. That is where evolution is now. And like I said in a previous post, If anyone could disprove it, they are guaranteed a nobel prize.

Evolution is now settled, at this given point, at this time, there is no longer debate within the scientific community.

 

Edit. Science isn't static. So, yeah, on any issue, at any time, scientists could come to differing conclusions. So they keep at it, and learn more, and eventually reach a consensus. That is where evolution is now. And like I said in a previous post, If anyone could disprove it, they are guaranteed a nobel prize.

 

Huh x2 ? I'm thinking that some of your argument is circular, as opposed to flat....

Huh x2 ? I'm thinking that some of your argument is circular, as opposed to flat....

 

Okay. Any given scientific idea remains the same forever and ever. No matter what. If there was ever any confusion, or conflicting ideas, they never get resolved. Ever. Scientists used to think that it would be impossible to build a machine to fly people thru the air. And so it is. The jury will remain out on that forever.

There are a number of topics in which scientists disagree. Evolution is hardly 'proven'. We certainly can't recreate macro evolution.

 

1. Is evolution complete? Is evolution still occurring? Given the vast number of species on earth and the pace with which believers claim evolution has taken (5-7 million years for humans), we should see hundreds if not thousands of species in 'transitional' forms. Why do we not see that. Why do we all appear to be in what I would call 'final form'? Why aren't there transitional species out there for us to observe?

 

2. Why does the fossil record show just exact opposite of what you would expect for millions/billions of years ? The fossil record is rife with holes and missing time periods (which many evolutionists acknowledge), and show nearly 100% of fossils in essentially 'final form'. If evolution occurred as taught, the number of transitional forms in the fossil record would be thousands of times more common than final forms. But they're not. The transitional forms, apart from a small number of questionable claims, do not exist in the fossil record.

 

3. Irreducible complexity - Michael Behe (non-christian scientist) and others have written about certain parts of the human anatomy are of a level of complexity that they could not have evolved from lesser forms. Blood clotting, how the human eye works, and others. Behe demonstrated how there is no path through which these functions could have evolved under the traditional understanding of evolution. He didn't claim to support creationism, simply that our understanding of evolution isn't correct.

 

Now hurry and google Behe's book so you can see what certain scientists complaints are about it. Behe actually correctly predicted what complaints would come from some in the scientific community and already included rebuttals in the original printing of the book.

 

4. The second law of thermodynamics says that all systems move in the direction of disorganization, the opposite of what would have to happen for evolution to be true. Now certain scientists will point to the energy source that is the sun as a cure all. Meaning since we have a heat/energy source, basically anything is possible. But it's not really possible without a mechanical advantage, which hasn't been found or proven.

5. Most genetic mutations are not positive. Few are. Yet to get from nothing to single cell entities, to multiple cell entities, to human being with a central nervous system would require what is essentially an impossible chain of positive mutations. This part requires a lot of 'faith' for evolutionists. It can't be proven. It has to be believed. This is the common sense argument. Does it make sense to you that nature literally started with nothing and reached the point we are at now with the human brain and central nervous system? Or does it make more sense that we started in some middle form and reached this point? I really don't know what to believe here. It's essentially mathematically impossible to have arrived here from nothing, with positive mutation after positive mutation building on each other.

 

6. Evolutions can't even prove how single cell organisms in the beginning suddenly (in evolutionary terms) converted to huge numbers of multi-cell organisms in the Cambrian period. I actually learned about that reading a book by noted evolutionist Stephen Gould. He acknowledged that there was no evolutionary explanation for such change in too short a period of time.

 

Another thing I got from reading Gould is that evolutionists can't fully explained how we got vertebrates from invertebrates. How did invertebrates (hard shelled essentially) convert to vertebrates (spines)?

 

The point of this list of questions is that none of this is consensus even within evolutionists. They argue about what the answer is to all these questions, and in some cases admit there is no good answer.

 

The discussion may be over for you. But there are many unanswered questions out there, way more than I've listed here.

 

So go and study. Read materials from every source. You might learn something.

Okay. Any given scientific idea remains the same forever and ever. No matter what. If there was ever any confusion, or conflicting ideas, they never get resolved. Ever. Scientists used to think that it would be impossible to build a machine to fly people thru the air. And so it is. The jury will remain out on that forever.

 

Oh, I get it...like global warming