The coming Ice Age

[whatthe?]

Zedmikey has this pristine, varnished view of science and "facts". It must be out of his comprehention that there are variables that influence the facts and science. People are people and not always motivated by the idea of pure, unbiased science. Evolution can not account for preconditions of intelligibility, laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. Basically, something organized and intelligent cannot come from something unorganized with no intelligence. We should stick to global warming, oops climate change, for now it's much more of a current political issue.

 

[ZedMikey]

You are so full of crap about evoluationary theory.Why do you think that after hundreds of years it's STILL a theory? Because they CANNOT prove it yet they teach it like it's fact.

You have no idea how science works. I will explain this again... I'm sure you still won't get it, but hopefully someone else will read this and have half a clue. A scientific theory cannot be proven. Ever. It isn't possible to conclusively prove a theory in science. Theories can only be DISproven. And no matter how many you say it, the theory of evolution has not been disproven. Sciences continues to strengthen evolutionary theory through research from a variety of fields of study.

Also a fact, in science, is what theories explain. A fact is a piece of data. It is the WHAT of science. Theories are the WHY of science... and the last piece of the puzzle are laws. Laws are the HOW. Theories (WHY) explain facts (WHAT) using laws (HOW).

The theory of gravity, germ theory, the theory of evolution... they will always be theories. That is the highest status they can ever reach, because it is the highest status that exists for them!

There is no scientific consensus on what we now call climate change otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions, over and over. Not to mention the intentionally falsified data...

There is scientific consensus on evolution and anthropogenic climate change... both of them.

And falsified data? Are you still hung up on the Climategate email bull****? Again, I've already shown that those emails were not about falsifying or manipulating data. I'll dig up my previous posts to link here.

These are the points that Jaydog is making. Our schools have for years and continue to teach our kids that these and undeniable facts, not possible theories. Yes, they still want to teach our kids that we evolved from Monkeys (maybe you don't have kids and haven't seen what they teach) but that we're still searching for that missing link that must exist because it's necessary to support the theory. The teach the global warming (now called climate change) is an undeniable truth and that it's cause because we're all such bad people. These are politically and socially motivated points of view. You should hear what grade school kids are being taught. It's not being taught as possible explanations, but as hard fact and that, is simply not true.

Thanks for coming into the conversation late and having no idea what you're talking about... as usual.

They have dozens of missing links for hominids alone... you want to talk missing links further back in the evolutionary ladder... they have those, too.

Again, I don't care if they teach that we came from monkeys or 8-legged flying bunnies. The theory of evolution doesn't say that and never has. Humans evolving from a common ape ancestor as the modern great apes? Yes. All of the data supports that... despite what you think you know.

 

[ZedMikey]

Crusty, evolution, the big bang therory, climate change etc, are not taught to our kids at theories.

Yes they are. They are taught as scientific theories. Please see my explanation of a theory.

 

[ZedMikey]

Zedmikey has this pristine, varnished view of science and "facts". It must be out of his comprehention that there are variables that influence the facts and science. People are people and not always motivated by the idea of pure, unbiased science.

What I have in an understand of how the scientific community works. Yes, scientists are human and will have the same flaws as everyone else. Do some of them falsify data? Sure. Do most of them falsify data? No. And the ones that don't will always expose the ones that do... that's what peer review and repeatability of experiments are all about. If the data is fake... it won't be reproducible.

Same thing with manipulating data. Peer review will expose bad math. If you make bad assumptions... bad statistical manipulations... either on purpose or accidentally, it will be discovered. Again, that's what peer review and repeatability are there for.

Evolution can not account for preconditions of intelligibility, laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. Basically, something organized and intelligent cannot come from something unorganized with no intelligence. We should stick to global warming, oops climate change, for now it's much more of a current political issue.

You assert that intelligence cannot come about naturally... do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

 

[ZedMikey]

Yay reposts!

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full - fully cited article about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ - fully cited article about the hacked East Anglia emails.

 

[whatthe?]

You assert that intelligence cannot come about naturally... do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

That's the assumption from evolution, intelligence did come from nothing. You're the one that needs evidence.

 

[Jaydog]

Here is a link to a lot of information http://www.climategate.com/

Here is the open letter that I'm sure you've heard about, but maybe these 100 scientists are all hacks, I don't know http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html

Here is a peer review that states that climate warming is naturally cause and shows no human influence http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html

And another peer review https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf

And another peer review http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

I could do this all day :haha:

And here's a link to the Senate debunking the so called "Consensus" on global warming http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

As far as manipulating data, it has become big money, if not then NOAA would not have just come out with a policy towards ethical standards in science, the current administration is just now pushing through legislation about the ethical standard in science, do you see a pattern here?

Science in it's raw form is great, but when mixed with politics and ideology it becomes tainted, and when you have a peer group with fat wads in their pockets and a huge bias...well all you get is a tainted peer group that will stamp what needs to be stamped and that is why there are so many sceptics like myself.

 

[ZedMikey]

That's the assumption from evolution, intelligence did come from nothing. You're the one that needs evidence.

Basically, something organized and intelligent cannot come from something unorganized with no intelligence.

That is a positive claim. A positive claim requires evidence. What evidence do you have to make the assertion you made.

As for your request for evidence... please clarify. Define intelligence for me. Does a single-celled organism have "intelligence?" Does an insect? Does a fish? Does a dog? Before I can address this, I need to know what you're looking for.

 

[whatthe?]

That is a positive claim. A positive claim requires evidence. What evidence do you have to make the assertion you made.

As for your request for evidence... please clarify. Define intelligence for me. Does a single-celled organism have "intelligence?" Does an insect? Does a fish? Does a dog? Before I can address this, I need to know what you're looking for.

The original claim was that evolution can not explain preconditions of intelligibility, laws of logic and uniformity of nature. Evolution has to explain these things or there is no science to begin with. I'm saying evolution can not explain these things, evolution needs the evidence that it can.

 

[BobR]

Science in it's raw form is great, but when mixed with politics and ideology it becomes tainted, and when you have a peer group with fat wads in their pockets and a huge bias...well all you get is a tainted peer group that will stamp what needs to be stamped and that is why there are so many sceptics like myself.

reminds me of tobacco vs the truth. science knew since the 1920's that cigarettes kill but corporate dollars + advertising revenue for the media and politics ment we had to wait till till the 1970's for any tobacco regulation. banning tobacco adds did more for limiting tobaccos influence than anything else.

ever notice much of our news is supported by car and oil companies?



Bob

 

[ZedMikey]

The original claim was that evolution can not explain preconditions of intelligibility, laws of logic and uniformity of nature. Evolution has to explain these things or there is no science to begin with. I'm saying evolution can not explain these things, evolution needs the evidence that it can.

I see you're changing your mind about what you are asserting. Good plan.

Ok, then... please clarify "preconditions of intelligibility, laws of logic and uniformity of nature."

 

[CrustyJeep]

I'm saying evolution can not explain these things

Why do you think that?

 

[whatthe?]

I see you're changing your mind about what you are asserting. Good plan.

Ok, then... please clarify "preconditions of intelligibility, laws of logic and uniformity of nature."

Go look at my post, that's what I wrote. You need me to clarify the laws of logic? Proposition, argument, conclusion, premise, inductive and deductive. If you don't understand the laws of logic, I can't help you. Science needs the laws of logic and uniformity of nature to exist.

 

[ZedMikey]

Go look at my post, that's what I wrote. You need me to clarify the laws of logic? Proposition, argument, conclusion, premise, inductive and deductive. If you don't understand the laws of logic, I can't help you. Science needs the laws of logic and uniformity of nature to exist.

No, I need you to explain why you think the laws of logic are anything but a construct of the human mind. Science is also a construct of the human mind. They are inventions of mankind.

Also, the uniformity of nature? Are you talking about the consistency of the laws of physics? Science doesn't need that... science observes that.

What I mean by clarify is... what you are saying doesn't make sense. Try saying it in a different way instead of just repeating the same nonsense. Perhaps more detail.

 

[ZedMikey]

Here is a link to a lot of information http://www.climategate.com/

Here is the open letter that I'm sure you've heard about, but maybe these 100 scientists are all hacks, I don't know http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html

Here is a peer review that states that climate warming is naturally cause and shows no human influence http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html

And another peer review https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf

And another peer review http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

I could do this all day :haha:

And here's a link to the Senate debunking the so called "Consensus" on global warming http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

As far as manipulating data, it has become big money, if not then NOAA would not have just come out with a policy towards ethical standards in science, the current administration is just now pushing through legislation about the ethical standard in science, do you see a pattern here?

Science in it's raw form is great, but when mixed with politics and ideology it becomes tainted, and when you have a peer group with fat wads in their pockets and a huge bias...well all you get is a tainted peer group that will stamp what needs to be stamped and that is why there are so many sceptics like myself.

See... now you're actually starting to post worthwhile links! It'll take me a while to work through this stuff. I'll get back to you on it, though.

 

[Jaydog]

reminds me of tobacco vs the truth. science knew since the 1920's that cigarettes kill but corporate dollars + advertising revenue for the media and politics ment we had to wait till till the 1970's for any tobacco regulation. banning tobacco adds did more for limiting tobaccos influence than anything else.

ever notice much of our news is supported by car and oil companies?



Bob

Yep, and that is the same thing with "Climate Change", there is a ton of money in it, and as long as money determines the "scientific consensus" we won't know the full truth.

 

[Jaydog]

See... now you're actually starting to post worthwhile links! It'll take me a while to work through this stuff. I'll get back to you on it, though.

Usually when I debate I hate links, because it becomes a link war and anyone can find some link that supports their argument, I prefer to debate on the fly. :redneck:


Herein lies the problem, there are peer reviews on both sides of the debate, and when experts can't agree then I don't pick sides, that is the whole point of my argument.

 

[whatthe?]

No, I need you to explain why you think the laws of logic are anything but a construct of the human mind. Science is also a construct of the human mind. They are inventions of mankind.

Also, the uniformity of nature? Are you talking about the consistency of the laws of physics? Science doesn't need that... science observes that.

What I mean by clarify is... what you are saying doesn't make sense. Try saying it in a different way instead of just repeating the same nonsense. Perhaps more detail.

How did these things come into existence? Logic and laws exists even if man does not. Physics and the laws of logic happen, man just tries to explain it and understand it. Science needs to be able to explain how these things came to be if they want to use them to. If it cannot be shown how they came to be then it's based on faith that they just always existed, not a good place for science to be. Because evolution tries to explain origins, it needs to explain uniformity, and laws.

 

[ZedMikey]

How did these things come into existence? Logic and laws exists even if man does not. Physics and the laws of logic happen, man just tries to explain it and understand it. Science needs to be able to explain how these things came to be if they want to use them to. If it cannot be shown how they came to be then it's based on faith that they just always existed, not a good place for science to be. Because evolution tries to explain origins, it needs to explain uniformity, and laws.

Logic does not exist without a mind to interpret it. Logic isn't a thing. It is a method of reasoning. The "laws" of logic aren't natural laws... they are a man-made construct.

The "laws" of physics as we know them... are also just man-made mathematical models of what we observe. We're getting into philosophy here... not evolution. I'd be happy to go down this road with you... but this has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution does not explain origins. Evolution is the explanation of the change in allele frequency in a population. It doesn't care where life came from... where the laws of physics came from... where logic came from. It is a theory that explains the observed data regarding the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

 

[whatthe?]

Logic does not exist without a mind to interpret it. Logic isn't a thing. It is a method of reasoning. The "laws" of logic aren't natural laws... they are a man-made construct.

The "laws" of physics as we know them... are also just man-made mathematical models of what we observe. We're getting into philosophy here... not evolution. I'd be happy to go down this road with you... but this has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution does not explain origins. Evolution is the explanation of the change in allele frequency in a population. It doesn't care where life came from... where the laws of physics came from... where logic came from. It is a theory that explains the observed data regarding the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

You don't seem to understand, the laws of physics and logic do exist, man just uses words to explain them. Prior to man explaining them they still existed and were in effect. You can't observe data and use it to support a theory with out the laws of logic or uniformity. Evolution is using laws that it can't explain the origins of. If I was a scientist I'd be interested in why that is. Otherwise your just believing in something "because it always was" or "we know it works, just not how it started". Don't worry, it's a common thing people defending evolution do, narrow the definition (evolution is certainly interested in origins) or dismiss something they can't explain as unimportant.

 

[zukkev]

You don't seem to understand, the laws of physics and logic do exist, man just uses words to explain them. Prior to man explaining them they still existed and were in effect. You can't observe data and use it to support a theory with out the laws of logic or uniformity. Evolution is using laws that it can't explain the origins of. If I was a scientist I'd be interested in why that is. Otherwise your just believing in something "because it always was" or "we know it works, just not how it started". Don't worry, it's a common thing people defending evolution do, narrow the definition (evolution is certainly interested in origins) or dismiss something they can't explain as unimportant.

whatthe?....:redneck::haha:

 

[tlcruiser66]

You don't seem to understand, the laws of physics and logic do exist, man just uses words to explain them. Prior to man explaining them they still existed and were in effect. You can't observe data and use it to support a theory with out the laws of logic or uniformity. Evolution is using laws that it can't explain the origins of. If I was a scientist I'd be interested in why that is. Otherwise your just believing in something "because it always was" or "we know it works, just not how it started". Don't worry, it's a common thing people defending evolution do, narrow the definition (evolution is certainly interested in origins) or dismiss something they can't explain as unimportant.

So according to you until every scientist can give a 100% definite proven answer to the origins of the universe no science can be accepted?

 

[Jaydog]

(evolution is certainly interested in origins)

Not since Kenyon, now they skirt around it, which I totally understand, because the whole Jenga pile falls if life couldn't have ever started in the first place. :haha::haha:

 

[CrustyJeep]

Not since Kenyon, now they skirt around it, which I totally understand, because the whole Jenga pile falls if life couldn't have ever started in the first place. :haha::haha:

Dat's funnay :lol:

 

[whatthe?]

So according to you until every scientist can give a 100% definite proven answer to the origins of the universe no science can be accepted?

No, I'm not asking about the origins of the universe. Read through the post to see what my question was. Science certainly uses the laws of logic and uniformity even if they can't explain their origins. I was pointing out a major flaw in evolution which is very interested in origins

 

[zig80toy]

Holy crap. Just read through this. Global warming to climate change to evolution to laws of physics

 

[whatthe?]

Isn't this "general chit chat"?

 

[Ty.]

Isn't this "general chit chat"?

Yea, bring on the chaos.

 

[ZedMikey]

Usually when I debate I hate links, because it becomes a link war and anyone can find some link that supports their argument, I prefer to debate on the fly. :redneck:


Herein lies the problem, there are peer reviews on both sides of the debate, and when experts can't agree then I don't pick sides, that is the whole point of my argument.

You aren't a scientist... I'm not a scientist. What's the point of debating scientific topics if we don't tap into the knowledge of the people who are actually doing the science?

 

[ZedMikey]

You don't seem to understand, the laws of physics and logic do exist, man just uses words to explain them. Prior to man explaining them they still existed and were in effect. You can't observe data and use it to support a theory with out the laws of logic or uniformity. Evolution is using laws that it can't explain the origins of. If I was a scientist I'd be interested in why that is. Otherwise your just believing in something "because it always was" or "we know it works, just not how it started". Don't worry, it's a common thing people defending evolution do, narrow the definition (evolution is certainly interested in origins) or dismiss something they can't explain as unimportant.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, the theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, the origins of logic, the origins of the laws of physics, etc. Those things have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

If I was a scientist, I'd be interested in the origins of life, the universe, and everything, too. That still doesn't mean those things have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is about the change of allele frequency in a population over time. Change of frequency... not origin of frequency... not origin of anything else, either.