A Republican Case for Climate Action

[marywollstonecraft]

I thank gawd (ok it was really my mom's doing) I was raised an Atheist.
The people I've met in my life that seem to hate religion the most are those that were raised in a religious household.
They know it's silly to believe in ghosts n goblins but they just can't get that nagging doubt out of their minds because it was burned into their ROM programming from such an early age. Me I was programmed in just the opposite manner and feel sorry for those who can never shake off their superstitions.

shrug ... I don't really care.

I was raised a catholic but I gradually became an atheist. evolved into atheism perhaps?

I respect people's right to believe in God - or gods .... and I understand why for many people their faith is important.

but we live in a pluralistic society, and faith is a personal matter.

it is not something to use to beat others over the head with - either literally or figuratively.

it should never give one a sense of moral superiority over others.

and it should never be used as a substitute for scientific knowledge.

faith resides in a world of myth and allegory (and I don't use those terms in a pejorative sense - there can be a lot of value in myth and allegory)

it does not belong in the world of science and hard facts.

 

[code1211]

For a guy who said 'all I know about Creationism was what I've read on this thread', you certainly seem to have caught up on the topic.

I meant this forum.

When I was in school, I took some philosophy courses and among the topics to train logical thinking was the existence of God.

I know that you hate any kind of creative thinking, but connecting Franklin's view of the universe with Creationism is not a very large leap.

Another of Franklin's thought's on the topic was that the Almighty in our little neighborhood was not the big guy but rather something more akin to a provincial governor. Franklin didn't think we were close enough to the center of things to be governned by the top dog.

I was also raised Catholic, but, again, the word Creationism was not in use too much at that time. About as close as it came to this was the first question in the Baltimore catechism: q: Who made us? a: God made us.

The notion that this was a literal statement was not considered.

 

[code1211]

Don't pretend to know what I was taught in school.

I learnt about religion in catechism class, and science in science class.

there was no confusion between the two.

"creationism" was never discussed in science classes, because catholics know it is not science.

I'm sorry that I have once again bruised your incredibly thin skin.

 

[code1211]

And when we aren't poking in a hole in a tree looking for grubs we scratch ourselves and wonder what the answer is to that question
(and many others) might be, then we invent calculus the internet and launch an infrared space telescope to L2 to try and poke the Cosmos to give us an answer.
Thinkin' thar musta bean sum old codger up in the sky that dunnit worked ok for a hunter gatherer society but today it just makes ya look silly and you'd be further ahead to keep your belief in Santa Claus and eternal life under wraps Sonny boy.
Now as for global warming hah I'd as soon believe that there was this dude up in the sky pulling all the levers, if he wants to warm the place up who am I too say he cain't?

I don't really care what made the ball start to roll.

You seem to have a stake in the fight, though.

If you favor the Big Bang, what caused that to bang? If I have not read your post correctly and you are on the God did it side of things, what made God?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

You seem to have a stake in the fight, though.

you bet your sweet bippy I do
as an Atheist I am part of a vanishingly small minority of the world's population.
whether I 'favor' the big bang or the Flying Spaghetti doesn't change reality.
Holding a belief in deities does NOT make your life better in any way shape or form
bet that's a tough concept to git yer head 'round ain't it?

oh and that eternal life thing might work for Christians but if yer jihad jonny hoping for virgins
yer really not too bright at all eh?

 

[marywollstonecraft]

I'm sorry that I have once again bruised your incredibly thin skin.

What can I say?

Your knowledge of other scientific debates is about on a par with your knowledge of climate science.

despite your claims to having learnt all you know about creationism from forums, this appears to be another porky pie.

I suspect that you may be a closet creationist!

 

[code1211]

you bet your sweet bippy I do
as an Atheist I am part of a vanishingly small minority of the world's population.
whether I 'favor' the big bang or the Flying Spaghetti doesn't change reality.
Holding a belief in deities does NOT make your life better in any way shape or form
bet that's a tough concept to git yer head 'round ain't it?

oh and that eternal life thing might work for Christians but if yer jihad jonny hoping for virgins
yer really not too bright at all eh?

Both my mother and my sister have found great comfort their religious faith.

I was never possessed of the need after a certain age.

I have actually seen that faith does improve the lives of some. Recovering alcoholics use this as a main pillar of their life and sobriety.

I don't see them as having the right to inflict their faith on you anymore than I see you as having the right to remove their faith from them.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

I'd never assume that I was ever in any position to try to dissuade anyone from believing in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny.
That would just be mean

 

[code1211]

What can I say?

Your knowledge of other scientific debates is about on a par with your knowledge of climate science.

despite your claims to having learnt all you know about creationism from forums, this appears to be another porky pie.

I suspect that you may be a closet creationist!

Your suspicion would be wrong.

 

[code1211]

What can I say?

Your knowledge of other scientific debates is about on a par with your knowledge of climate science.

despite your claims to having learnt all you know about creationism from forums, this appears to be another porky pie.

I suspect that you may be a closet creationist!

I find it interesting that I have struck you as a "Closet Creationist". You have expressed this less directly in the past. No particular reason for you to hold this opinion. Can you produce a quote from me that has brought you to this conclusion? Ease of recognition for you to pre-judge a person to allow you to dismiss that person?

If a person examines both sides of an idea, do you feel that the examination of the other side makes them a proponent of that side?

I happen to enjoy exploring ideas. In these forums, I have run into many nice discussions and some not so nice. I've been playing in these forums for years and it's a nice diversion.

Why do you think that I'm a Closet Creationist?

 

[marywollstonecraft]

I find it interesting that I have struck you as a "Closet Creationist". You have expressed this less directly in the past. No particular reason for you to hold this opinion. Can you produce a quote from me that has brought you to this conclusion? Ease of recognition for you to pre-judge a person to allow you to dismiss that person?

If a person examines both sides of an idea, do you feel that the examination of the other side makes them a proponent of that side?

I happen to enjoy exploring ideas. In these forums, I have run into many nice discussions and some not so nice. I've been playing in these forums for years and it's a nice diversion.

Why do you think that I'm a Closet Creationist?

you choose to discuss scientific based topics, but talk about 'examining both sides of an idea' as if you believe that creationism is a potentially valid theory.

you also try to conflate 'creationism' with more general religious belief, in what appears to be an attempt to make it appear more widely held, and therefore more legitimate.

 

[code1211]

you choose to discuss scientific based topics, but talk about 'examining both sides of an idea' as if you believe that creationism is a potentially valid theory.

you also try to conflate 'creationism' with more general religious belief, in what appears to be an attempt to make it appear more widely held, and therefore more legitimate.

I said that in the case of the origin of things, we are faced with two options within my experience: The Big Bang or God. With the origin of life, we are faced with two options: Coincidence or God.

Following either of these two points, it's pretty obvious to me that natural law rules the day. However, there cannot be a compelling case to present as to what existed and why before anything existed. I am satisfied that there was a Big Bang, but have not heard or read a real satisfying explanation for WHY it happened and why it didn't happen sooner or if it is a cycle that happens again and again. I sleep at night just fine in either scenario.

I feel that there is compelling evidence for a pretty wild west approach to the evolution of species as opposed to an orderly, intelligently designed poofing of the whole thing.

All of that said, if you accept the idea of hybrid corn that is genetically designed to have bigger kernels or be more drought resistant or less prone to blights of whatever origin AND you are a creationist who thinks that God is the better option over the Big Bang, how will this impact your understanding of the world in which you live?

If the only impact is that you sleep better at night, I say go for it! the same is true if you choose the Big Bang.

Do you think that a scientist should examine only one side of any and every topic? Curiosity seems like a good thing for a scientist to have.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm getting tired of this terraforming argument.

Can we move on?

Take that argument to a different thread?

 

[marywollstonecraft]

I said that in the case of the origin of things, we are faced with two options within my experience: The Big Bang or God. With the origin of life, we are faced with two options: Coincidence or God.

there is a third option. some people believe in God AND accept BBT.

but I am not sure what this has to do with creationist claims that evolutionary theory states that we evolved from monkeys.

Following either of these two points, it's pretty obvious to me that natural law rules the day. However, there cannot be a compelling case to present as to what existed and why before anything existed. I am satisfied that there was a Big Bang, but have not heard or read a real satisfying explanation for WHY it happened and why it didn't happen sooner or if it is a cycle that happens again and again. I sleep at night just fine in either scenario.

... ie, you perhaps are inclined towards the third option .... which IMHO is not an anti science position at all .... St Augustine recognized the need to reinterpret the scriptures in the light of new information, and there are many scientists throughout history who have done so.

I feel that there is compelling evidence for a pretty wild west approach to the evolution of species as opposed to an orderly, intelligently designed poofing of the whole thing.

lols ... I don't know that I would describe it as "wild west" .... successful adaptations are successful for a reason, so it isn't completely random ... and although it is survival of the fittest, its actually survival of those most fitting for that particular niche within that particular ecosystem. and there may be several adaptations that prove to be successful responses to certain environmental factors, which may eventually evolve into separate species. but I get what you mean.

All of that said, if you accept the idea of hybrid corn that is genetically designed to have bigger kernels or be more drought resistant or less prone to blights of whatever origin AND you are a creationist who thinks that God is the better option over the Big Bang, how will this impact your understanding of the world in which you live?

good question.

I suspect that many creationists must have split personalities on some subjects .... especially some related to medicine!

If the only impact is that you sleep better at night, I say go for it! the same is true if you choose the Big Bang.

lols ... probably not something most people ever dwell on too much! although whether we are descended from monkeys or not might cause sleepless nights for some!

Do you think that a scientist should examine only one side of any and every topic? Curiosity seems like a good thing for a scientist to have.

no - I think its important to be open minded enough to explore new knowledge and test new theories ...

but once something is known to be true, it seems pretty silly to waste time on alternative theories which can be proven as without foundation.

I don't see any benefit in continuing to argue that oval wheels will help move the cart along as well as circular wheels can do.

 

[code1211]

there is a third option. some people believe in God AND accept BBT.

but I am not sure what this has to do with creationist claims that evolutionary theory states that we evolved from monkeys.





... ie, you perhaps are inclined towards the third option .... which IMHO is not an anti science position at all .... St Augustine recognized the need to reinterpret the scriptures in the light of new information, and there are many scientists throughout history who have done so.




lols ... I don't know that I would describe it as "wild west" .... successful adaptations are successful for a reason, so it isn't completely random ... and although it is survival of the fittest, its actually survival of those most fitting for that particular niche within that particular ecosystem. and there may be several adaptations that prove to be successful responses to certain environmental factors, which may eventually evolve into separate species. but I get what you mean.



good question.

I suspect that many creationists must have split personalities on some subjects .... especially some related to medicine!



lols ... probably not something most people ever dwell on too much! although whether we are descended from monkeys or not might cause sleepless nights for some!



no - I think its important to be open minded enough to explore new knowledge and test new theories ...

but once something is known to be true, it seems pretty silly to waste time on alternative theories which can be proven as without foundation.

I don't see any benefit in continuing to argue that oval wheels will help move the cart along as well as circular wheels can do.

That monkey's uncle or nephew thingy is a bit misinformed and just a debating technique. As i understand the question, both we and all of the higher primates evolved from a common ancestor somewhere in the deep past.

Beyond that, though, it is striking that most land animals have about the same skeletal components. This was apparently a pretty successful design. It seems to me that ID would almost require that various designs, both good and bad got Poofed into existence.

An Intelligence doing the designing would seem to have gotten bored at some point and just decided why not make a real Centaur or some other concoction of parts? We as a species did it in our mythologies. We might actually start, may have already started, doing this for real in the lab.

It is the consistency, not the variety in nature, that argues in favor of evolution.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

That monkey's uncle or nephew thingy is a bit misinformed and just a debating technique. As i understand the question, both we and all of the higher primates evolved from a common ancestor somewhere in the deep past.

there are people who believe that this is what evolution theory argues ... and there are plenty of them. anyone familiar with the actual theory has the same understanding that you do.

Beyond that, though, it is striking that most land animals have about the same skeletal components. This was apparently a pretty successful design. It seems to me that ID would almost require that various designs, both good and bad got Poofed into existence.

An Intelligence doing the designing would seem to have gotten bored at some point and just decided why not make a real Centaur or some other concoction of parts? We as a species did it in our mythologies. We might actually start, may have already sctarted, doing this for real in the lab.

Id and creationism requires a lot of reinventing wheels .... not saying nature doesn't reinvent the wheel from time to time (jerboas may look like a type of macropod, but they are not even remotely related - there are however certain advantages to certain physical characteristics especially when living in nutrient poor and extreme environments, colour vision has evolved more than once and so on), but skeletal structure and optics are two areas that demonstrate that in many cases, the wheel just adapted to different environments/uses.

It is the consistency, not the variety in nature, that argues in favor of evolution.

very true. ....

 

[Empirica]

What I find amazing is what cons believe is based on what they want to believe. what I believe is based on the facts. I make clear straight forward statements and then back it up with solid factual links. I don’t have to lie to make a point. Cons have to post what editorials tell them is true. and the funny thing is even when you prove the editorial is lying, their opinion doesn’t change.

And once again; the "cons" say nearly the same thing about the "libs" and their so-called "peer reviews"_

go figure~ :coffeepap

 

[Vern]

And once again; the "cons" say nearly the same thing about the "libs" and their so-called "peer reviews"_

go figure~ :coffeepap

Of course they say the same thing. But you really should check out some of my threads to see the difference. might I recommend my Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs or Bubble Bubble Can you spot the bubble.

 

[Empirica]

Of course they say the same thing. But you really should check out some of my threads to see the difference. might I recommend my Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs or Bubble Bubble Can you spot the bubble.

I've already seen the evidence from both sides and fairly sure everyone's mind is pretty much locked in_

So there's nothing left but for each of us to feel smug in our superiority over the other, as life goes on_

 

[Vern]

I've already seen the evidence from both sides and fairly sure everyone's mind is pretty much locked in_

So there's nothing left but for each of us to feel smug in our superiority over the other, as life goes on_

sorry empirca, cons don't have evidence. They have 'edtirorials' and repetition. Now global warming isn't as cut and dry as the Bush Mortgage Bubble, the Great Bush Recession, WMDs, 9-11, Tora Bora ect but the evidence is clear. So please stop with the generic "both sides do it" and be specific.

 

[Lord of Planar]

sorry empirca, cons don't have evidence. They have 'edtirorials' and repetition. Now global warming isn't as cut and dry as the Bush Mortgage Bubble, the Great Bush Recession, WMDs, 9-11, Tora Bora ect but the evidence is clear. So please stop with the generic "both sides do it" and be specific.

LOL...

Can we please keep hackery out of this?

It only shows you have no better argument when it comes to science.

 

[Vern]

LOL...

Can we please keep hackery out of this?

It only shows you have no better argument when it comes to science.

Oh lord you do make me laugh. I've never seen somebody so many posts without getting one fact right then to turn around and accuse someone of hackery is beyond hysterical. And no matter how many falsehoods you posted, you never slowed down. In fact you went faster.

Now Lord, I really enjoyed your linkless "losses and stuff" narrative but 16 kW the Volt needs to travel 38 miles. at 10 cents a kW, that a 1.60. If you have a car that gets 38 mpg, a gallon of gas costs about 3.71. Now before you start your "taxes and stuff" narrative, the cost of just the oil for a gallon of gas at 98 dollars a barrel is 2.34 (63%). Refining costs are about 60 cents.
What do I pay for in a gallon of regular gasoline? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
"
1. Crude Oil: 63%. The cost of crude oil as a share of the retail price varies over time and among regions of the country. Refiners paid an average of about $98.00 per barrel of crude oil, or about $2.34 per gallon, in March 2013.
2. Refining Costs and Profits: 16%
3. Distribution, Marketing, and Retail Costs and Profits: 10%
4. Taxes: 11%. Federal excise taxes were 18.4 cents per gallon and state excise taxes averaged 23.47 cents per gallon
“

 

[Empirica]

LOL...

Can we please keep hackery out of this?

It only shows you have no better argument when it comes to science.

And dragging GWB into a AGW argument is a dead give-away of a liberal desperately grasping at straws_:giggle1:

 

[Glowpun]

The climate goes in cycles, period. There is no man-made global warming, it's nothing but environmental crazy tree-huggers who want to have their say.

I prithee my good man, why doth thou have a problem with this? :lamo

 

[Lord of Planar]

The climate goes in cycles, period. There is no man-made global warming, it's nothing but environmental crazy tree-huggers who want to have their say.

I didn't notice your response until I saw it quoted in post 299.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. There is man made warming. Even I will class you as a denier of truth and science if you keep that point of view.

I see the largest portion of AGW to be from soot. I suspect, that at best, CO2 is responsible for 1/4 of the warming the alarmists give it credit for. There are other studies that also say CO2 has a net cooling effect. Thought I think CO2 does warm, I keep this possibility real as a skeptic as well.

There are so many problems associated with the dogma of CO2. One of them is that we really don't know the actual total warming of natural and anthropogenic combined. That is because heat island have corrupted out consistency of readings throughout our use of thermometers. Now, adjustments in the raw data have to be made, and it's impossible to know if these adjustments are accurate.