- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Further, I'm very suspicious as to the often claimed 97% concensus.
I'm not certain that there's 97% scientific consensus any ANYTHING.
Mutation is not evolution. Did matter appear from nowhere and mutate to multi-celled organisms like humans? No, that theory hasn't been proven - with any certainty.
Mutation is not evolution. Did matter appear from nowhere and mutate to multi-celled organisms like humans? No, that theory hasn't been proven - with any certainty.
Although 'evolution-believing' politicians haven't been as successful as 'AGW-believing' politicians in making their ideologies law...
Mutation is not evolution. Did matter appear from nowhere and mutate to multi-celled organisms like humans? No, that theory hasn't been proven - with any certainty.
Although 'evolution-believing' politicians haven't been as successful as 'AGW-believing' politicians in making their ideologies law...
Evolution for that matter is still theory as is the explanation for the origins of our Universe.
But Creationist are still treated like scientifically illiterate back woods hicks.
Of-course that can be attributed to the innate toxic nature of the type of people who generally oppose Creationism.
Creationism is just as scientifically sound as global warming denialism.
Problem is YOU can't scientifically refute creationism nor can you prove the existence of AGW.
Well unless you trot out some Computer models that were built on corrupted data.
You people constantly rely on the pretense that you're ideological driven agendas are somehow based on scientifically sound principles.
But nothing is further from the truth.
The NOAA just back tracked on their assertion that July 2012 was the hottest month on record.
How is that possible ? If they used Scientific principles to arrive at that conclusion how could they have been so wrong ?
Maybe its because they used the pretense of Science and just fudged the numbers instead of using accurate temperature data.
Says you can't believe the data, scientists fudge the numbers.
Says look at this data the scientists just reported. It shows they fudged the numbers!
So the NOAA didn't fudge temperature data when they falsely claimed that July 2012 was the hottest month on record ?
Of-course they did
Problem is YOU can't scientifically refute creationism nor can you prove the existence of AGW.
Well unless you trot out some Computer models that were built on corrupted data.
You people constantly rely on the pretense that you're ideological driven agendas are somehow based on scientifically sound principles.
But nothing is further from the truth.
The NOAA just back tracked on their assertion that July 2012 was the hottest month on record.
How is that possible ? If they used Scientific principles to arrive at that conclusion how could they have been so wrong ?
Maybe its because they used the pretense of Science and just fudged the numbers instead of using accurate temperature data.
Says: The NOAA fudges the data.
Says: You can tell by looking at the NOAA data.
Yes, one can prove a scientific theory. One has proven scientific theories. It's the 'drive' of scientists to prove or disprove a scientific theory.I can't but the scientists that deal with these things can. Again, you cannot "prove" anything in science. You can only support ideas with evidence. Gravity is not "proven", our understanding of the phenomena simply allows us to navigate the characteristics that can be reliably used again and again. We can apply maths to an object rolling down a plank at a certain angle and figure its speed and acceleration. These systems work so we use them. How gravity actually works we don't really know, gravitons? Even if we knew that we still couldn't "prove" gravity because of other unknowns. What are gravitons made of? What are the things gravitons are made of made of? How do all these things work together? Where did they come from? You can't prove anything in science, you can only gravitate towards the seemingly best ideas.
Btw, you don't capitalize science and scientific, it is not a magical entity like Jesus.
So... you believe mainstream science is all corrupt, so who are the real scientists? What are the true scientific institutions?
Mutation is not evolution. Did matter appear from nowhere and mutate to multi-celled organisms like humans? No, that theory hasn't been proven - with any certainty.
Although 'evolution-believing' politicians haven't been as successful as 'AGW-believing' politicians in making their ideologies law...
I'm a guy who can read and write English, and can therefore comprehend the words "I do/don't have qualifications in the area of nuclear physics."
This isn't about opinions. An example of an opinion is "Breaking Bad is terrible" or "Cardinal can dance really well," and while both examples would be really bad opinions, they're still subjective statments and thus legitimately opinions. The comment "nuclear physics isn't real," however, isn't an example of an opinion, but of a terribly uninformed statement by an uneducated person.
But all of this is a detour from my main point of interest which is this: why are you more interested in the "opinions" of people who have no training in a scientific field than those who do? What makes you think listening to those uneducated people will give you a more informed understanding of the topic? Let's say I'm trying to get my head around the topic of fixing my car. Which method of research is going to leave me more informed on the matter, and which will make me more ignorant?
1) Reading blogs and comments by art and philosophy majors, or
2) Going to forums specifically dedicated to car repair or, better yet, just asking a car mechanic directly
Now, keep in mind, people who are legitimately qualified to repair cars disagree with each other frequently, but which of those options is guaranteed to have me walking away even more of an idiot than I began?
Yes, one can prove a scientific theory. One has proven scientific theories. It's the 'drive' of scientists to prove or disprove a scientific theory.
For example, Einstein eventually concocted his general theory of relativity because he didn't accept the concept of ether postulated by other scientists. Einstein's theoretical Theory Of General Relativity had very little empirical evidence (much like how AGW has been postulated to describe increases in global warming). Sidenote: laws weren't enacted as a result of these theoretical general relativity claims made in 1916?, while, conversely, laws have been implemented, today, to reduce the theoretical effects of AGW on global warming.
General relativity experiments showed light appeared, occasionally, to bend in close proximity to a heavenly object, as general relativity's theories predicted it ALWAYS would bend. It wasn't until 1959 (using an experiment to test the bending of light during a solar eclipse) that light always bent in response to a heavenly object as theorized in Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity. General relativity was on the way to being verified. The scientific community tested Einstein's theories for approximately 45 years before they gave his theories some credence. IMO, biases of the scientific community were as strong in 1916? as they are today. The scientific community wanted, badly, to disprove Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity in 1916? as much as they want to prove AGW's effect on global warming,today.
For example, why scientists haven't declared the randomness of the creation of the universe. No scientist has isolated that primeval boson particle using, for example, The Hadron Collider.
AS the OP stated, only 20% of Americans believe that the debate is settled...You're in the minority whether you like it or not...
That's less (23%) than the number of Germans who believe the US was behind 9/11.AS the OP stated, only 20% of Americans believe that the debate is settled...You're in the minority whether you like it or not...
Says: The NOAA fudges the data.
Says: You can tell by looking at the NOAA data.
Yes, one can prove a scientific theory. One has proven scientific theories. It's the 'drive' of scientists to prove or disprove a scientific theory.
For example, Einstein eventually concocted his general theory of relativity because he didn't accept the concept of ether postulated by other scientists. Einstein's theoretical Theory Of General Relativity had very little empirical evidence (much like how AGW has been postulated to describe increases in global warming). Sidenote: laws weren't enacted as a result of these theoretical general relativity claims made in 1916?, while, conversely, laws have been implemented, today, to reduce the theoretical effects of AGW on global warming.
General relativity experiments showed light appeared, occasionally, to bend in close proximity to a heavenly object, as general relativity's theories predicted it ALWAYS would bend. It wasn't until 1959 (using an experiment to test the bending of light during a solar eclipse) that light always bent in response to a heavenly object as theorized in Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity. General relativity was on the way to being verified. The scientific community tested Einstein's theories for approximately 45 years before they gave his theories some credence. IMO, biases of the scientific community were as strong in 1916? as they are today. The scientific community wanted, badly, to disprove Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity in 1916? as much as they want to prove AGW's effect on global warming,today.
For example, why scientists haven't declared the randomness of the creation of the universe. No scientist has isolated that primeval boson particle using, for example, The Hadron Collider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodThe scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[SUP][1][/SUP] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[SUP][2][/SUP] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[SUP][3][/SUP]
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.
And the OP failed to demonstrate that any of the opinions of the people polled were of any worth whatsoever, as I've shown you and your response rather foolishly, and impotently, runs away from. Your position in this thread is obviously an attempt to justify the use of uneducated people as a legitimate source for scientific discussion. You have failed. Badly.
No, I believe in mutation. Evolution implies matter evolved to a complex state from nothing... and this hasn't been proven.Wait, so you don't accept the scientific fact of evolution bro?
No, I believe in mutation. Evolution implies matter evolved to a complex state from nothing... and this hasn't been proven.
You kinda explained my point for me, thanks. That the scientific community has strong biases as a theory is first introduced... even though they call themselves 'scientists'. However, as the data and consequent testing helps to prove (if no other qualified scientist can find major errors in testing results or interpretation) or disprove a theory, scientists finally come around to accepting or not accepting the validity of a theory, unless the theory has a HUGE amount of ideology to overcome sometimes scientists like, for example, Galileo are disproved even though they have no errors in their logic or findings. Or theories like AGW are 'proved' without any evidence.You cannot prove something to be true, only that something is false. According to you Newtonian physics were "proved true" until Einstein came along and showed there was more to it than the simple motion and in some ways proved it was false, or incomplete. This is the reason nothing can be proven true. What if 100 years from now relativity is found to be partially false, incomplete, missing a critical factor? Wrong about something that seemed to fit? What was once "proven true" would then be false, that makes no sense. Anything that can be falsified cannot be "proven true" and everything has the potential to be falsified.
Now, why you are linking relativity to AGW I have no idea. The skeptical scientific community eventually adopted relativity and therefore the AGW deniers are scientific martyrs like Einstein? lol... this is just silly. Yes science evolves over time and there are good fights for decades, even centuries over what ideas are correct and which are false. With AGW there isn't much debate anymore, there are remnants of something but the science so strongly supports AGW it doesn't make a lot of sense to go heavy as a skeptic. This is an apples to bears comparison and really gives little insight into the debate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?