The world was created in six days, and temperatures are going to increase 6C this century, and we are all going to drown as the ice sheets collapse, and the planet will become unrecognizable and unlivable, and all life on the planet is threatened, and ……
 | gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… |
| gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
Look, how many times do I have to tell you, Jesus is coming to save us so there is no need to panic. We welcome apocalyptic scenarios because they fit right into our mind-set….besides Big-oil is downstairs waiting for the arrival of the next gravy train.
/sarcoff
What I wrote on Romm’s site,
“You guys are a riot. “students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level.”
And yet, I see a very notable list of Christian scientists who have made historic contributions to all facets of science.
Let’s see……Roger Bacon, Michael Servetus, Michael Stifel, John Napier, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Marin Mersenne, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, John Wallis, John Ray, Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Stephen Hales, Thomas Bayes, Leonhard Euler, Samuel Vince, William Buckland, Edward Hitchcock**, Adam Sedgwick, Temple Chevallier, John Bachman, *Gregor Mendel*,*Asa Gray*, Louis Pasteur, Pierre Duhem, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, Dmitri Egorov, Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin, John Ambrose Fleming, *Max Planck*, Robert Millikan, Charles Stine, Arthur Compton Arthur Compton, *Georges Lemaître*, Henry Eyring, William G. Pollard, C. F. von Weizsäcker….
And many more scientists who happen to be Christians. I tell you, if that lot would likely not succeed in science courses taught in college, I’d have to rethink what was being taught. Not the intellectual capacity of the student. “
Well, still “awaiting moderation.”
As usual, I’m no longer awaiting moderation, the posting just doesn’t exist. When one can’t argue intellectually, simply poke your fingers in your ears and shout “I can’t hear you!” over and over again.
Its interesting how the atheists have hi-jacked man’s quest to discover our origin. The “big-bang” theory was first articulated by a Catholic Priest.
Re. CP
I know what you mean:
http://fnieuwenhuis.xanga.com/734719672/victim-of-censorship/
They won’t print my post, but they will print this….
” peter whitehead says:
December 2, 2010 at 2:32 pm
“Sadly this is not a joke. Your country is heading for theocracy. These people do not realise how much they have in common with the Taliban, Al-Q, and other Wahabi Islamists. They also reject evolution, and Copernicanism. Wait till the Tea Party decide to abolish NASA. The age of reason is ending – welcome to the Dark Ages. Everyone remembers Galileo – time to remember Giordano Bruno.”
I guess the dolt forgot that Galileo was a devout Catholic. Also forgotten, is the issue in which caused such controversy was his support of Copernicanism and heliocentric cosmology. Copernicus being a Catholic priest and canonized himself.
“And yet, I see a very notable list of Christian scientists who have made historic contributions to all facets of science.”
And how many of these notable Christian scientists believed that the Flintstones was a reality show?
Nice Laz, thanks for the contribution to the discussion.
Don’t mention it. Saying that many scientists through history were religious is as relevant as saying that many chicken pluckers were religious.
Most Chicken PLUCKERS are religious.
Do you really believe that the Flintstones were not a reality show?
Next thing we know you will be claiming things like the Jetsons and the Road Runner were not reality shows either!
They are based on as much reality as the so called reality shows that are being promoted these days are!
“They are based on as much reality as the so called reality shows that are being promoted these days are!”
Which sort of proves my point. Romm isn’t being anti-religious or anti-Christian, he criticising the ant-science of creationism. If you belief that dinos were on the Ark, the world is less than 0K years old or whatever then no amount of reasoned argument or evidence should convince you otherwise.
His religion is the anti-science of global warming.
Creationists are no more anti science than scientists are anti religion.
The pathological science philosophy that Romm follows is anti everything but that which supports his personal agenda. This guy attacks alarimists that are not alarmist enough in his opinion!
Mike says;
“Creationists are no more anti science than scientists are anti religion.”
So teaching as fact and against all credible scientific research that the world is only a few thousand years old and Dinos walked with man isn’t anti-science in your book?
I fear the gulf between your reality and the world may be too large to cross.
LAZ:
I made a specific statement with words that have specific meanings and your attempt to put a different meaning on them shows evidence of your lack of reading skills. It appears you are getting plenty of exercise jumping to conclusions and running off at the mouth!
There are extremists in all philosophies your claims are like saying all scientists must be Atheists because they can not believe in science and still believe in a creator!
Mike says;
“I made a specific statement with words that have specific meanings and your attempt to put a different meaning on them shows evidence of your lack of reading skills. ”
I’m not sure my lack of reading skills have much to do with it. Your specific statement was “Creationists are no more anti science than scientists are anti religion.”
Now we know for a fact that creationists are anti-science – or do you disagree with that?
So you must be saying that scientists are anti-religion (or the opposite if you favour creationism) but I know prominent scientists that are both religious and anti-religious.
So you see it is not my reading skills but you inability to write sense that is at fault.
LAZ:
You lump people into a group. Every one who believes in a creator is by definition a Creationist and everyone who has a degree in a science field is a scientist with a group of citizen scientists with no “Formal” training.
Just as you say there are scientists that are religious there are creationists that believe in science. You are agreeing with what I am saying with your examples yet claiming I am wrong. Do you always contradict your self?
LAZ:
This goes back to what I see in this web site. Steven is showing that weather and climate are shades of gray while the climatologist Chicken Little Brigade claim it is all black and white. I am pointing out this issue is about shades of gray while you claim it must be Black and White.
This is not a see saw but a measuring stick with degrees of belief or misbelief, if you want.
“Every one who believes in a creator is by definition a Creationist”
Agreed, but that is clearly not the definition of creationist that Romm is using because they don’t all support Creationist Museums that contradict evolution and even have Dinosaurs running around with humans – so are you just altering the definition to suit?
“and everyone who has a degree in a science field is a scientist with a group of citizen scientists with no “Formal” training.”
Utter rott! I am not a scientist. Following your logic every one with a literature degree is an authour and anyone who has read a book on neuology a brain surgeon.
For someone who would claim to be a skeptic it doesn’t appear to require much in the way of qualification or credibility for you to be un-skeptical – apparently just someone telling you what you want to hear.
“You are agreeing with what I am saying with your examples yet claiming I am wrong. Do you always contradict your self?”
Nice try, but as clearly demonstrated you had to alter the intended meaning of creationist to make this statement and shame for attempting to twist things to suit your beliefs.
“This is not a see saw but a measuring stick with degrees of belief or misbelief, if you want.”
The only credible measuring stick a true skeptic would ever accept is published science. Belief should not, and in my case does not, have anything to do with it.
LAZ:
If a sceptic accepted published science he would not be a real sceptic but a pseudo sceptic!
I guess by your definition the theories of relativity and gravity should not be accepted because they were not published in peer reviewed literature. Maybe the Heliocentric theory is wrong because it was not peer reviewed.
You again get it wrong because every author does not have a literary degree.
A Brain surgeon may not have studied neurology as that is not a surgical study. Here you are getting into specialized fields.
I do not attempt to interpret the drivel coming from Romm because like you he exists in a world with separate meanings from the real world.
Thanks Mike, Things are now much clearer – you have no idea what being skeptic means.
Accepting science and being a skeptic does not mean accepting every piece of research published, you would for ever flip flop your understanding.
It does not mean rejecting things you simply don’t want to hear or can’t handle.
It means accepting that the most likely is also the most supported by the experts with their interpretation of the data.
It means not being so arrogant that you think you know better than specialists, particularly when most agree.
It means accepting the general directions and conclusions of the many separate threads of evidence.
The only real way to do this is to accept statements from the scientific communities on a subject, while being skeptical of research than contradicts this and highly sceptical of ‘evidence’ from non-expert sources like unqualified blogs and news reports.
In all your posts I have never seen you skeptical of anything that tells you what you want to hear while you completely dismiss sound science that adds to understanding but contradicts your otherwise unfounded beliefs that can only be supported by unqualified or pseudo-science and conspiracy theory. This puts you right at the heart of the same boat of the type of people who believe that the world is a few thousand years old and man and dinosaurs coexisted, despite the scientific evidence to to contrary, while erroneously believing this isn’t and anti-science but a skeptical position.
I accept where the science points. I can never be wrong by doing this because if the research reveals evidence that modifies our understanding , that is still what I will accept.
If the worlds national science academies start to issue statements saying that AGW is over blown, that is what I will accept.
Or if the scientific community band together to declare climatology is using unsound methodologies, then that is what I will accept.
Your problem is that you already believe these position without the evidence to support them, that isn’t skepticism its beliefs supported by ignorance.
Laz, I was perfectly content in letting you guy hash things out, but you’re over the top here.
‘I accept where the science points. I can never be wrong by doing this because if the research reveals evidence that modifies our understanding , that is still what I will accept.”
I should just leave it at that, but I’ll continue somewhat…..”…..people who believe that the world is a few thousand years old and man and dinosaurs coexisted,….”—–Laz, while I can’t state that no one believes that, I can state that I’ve never seen that thought in print, never heard that thought articulated, and have never met any one that has. Can you show me where someone has posited that man and dinosaurs co-existed? I tend to believe some whack job has stated this and atheists have attempted to paint creationists with that brush. Is that what you’re doing?
Back to your acceptance of all general scientific consensus.(Jeez you must have changed your egg diet 1/2 dozen times by now.) Why don’t you try and use logic and reason? That way, you don’t have to acquiesce your your right to independent thought.
Dr. Michael Gillan the ex-science reporter on ABC recently converted to Christianity and was bapisted on TV at the Glass Cathedral. I believe I saw a documentary about the universe that one of the gents who came up with quarks has been ordained as an Anglican priest.
I pointed out Newton was what is now called a creationist on the blog LGF and they got upset.
Since I firmly accept the first law of thermodynamics that energy nor matter can be created nor destroyed under natural processes, I must by logic accept that a “miracle” happened to the create the universre.
Absolutely! I, too, find that it cannot be otherwise. Here’s what Newton had to say on the subject…….
“…The main busisness of natural Philosophy is to argue from phaenomena without feigning Hypotheses, and to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which certainly is not mechanical…. What is there in places almost empty of Matter, and whence is it that the Sun and Planets gravitate towards one another, without dense Matter between them? Whence is it that Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises all that Order and Beauty which we see in the World? To what end are the Comets, and whence is it that Planets move all one and the same way in Orbs concentrick, while Commets move all manner of ways in Orbs very excentrick; and what hinders the fix’d Stars from falling upon one another? How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art, and for what ends were their several Parts? Was the Eye contrived without Skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?…. And these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from Phaenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite Space, as it were in his Sensory, sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly by their immediate presence to himself… And though every true Step made in this Philosophy brings us not immediately to the Knowledge of the first Cause, yet it brings us nearer to it, and on that account is to be highly valued.”
Thanks suyts.
Any and every time.
Depending on the interpretation: Nothing in science contradicts religion and nothing in Religion contradicts science.
The important WORD is INTERPRETATION!!!!! There are many ways to interpret the religious teachings and many ways to interpret natural forces that science attempts to explain!
There are only different levels of understanding! About 6.5 Billion the last number I read!
While I was hesitant for a bit, I thought about it and decided this would be a good time to state a few things.
First, so you can know where I’m coming from, I’m a believer in Christ. It isn’t about knowledge or science, it is about faith. That said……..
The teachings of Paul said not to be a “stumbling block” for other believers. This implies much. There is but one light, one way. It is true that we are all fallible. See, that we all die.
Science is the attempt to explain Nature. Nature is the expression of God. Most of the people I listed earlier had similar views. It is natural that we try to understand how we came to be. For many people, it is enough to believe God made us. For others, we want to know how. If one reads the Book, it says as much.
Genetics? Exploring the universe? These are common themes of mankind today. And they should be. The more we know, the more it is affirmed that we came from Will, not happenstance. See here
YES! AND?
I see no conflict just as I see no conflict with a cousin who is a Pentacosal or and Ex who is a Mormon or even In- laws that are Catholics.
I said there is more than one interpretation of the truth and that is why there are so many religions around the world. In my life I have known people from most every faith and even those who claimed no faith. The conflict is in the interpretation of the one truth, the one light, and the one way. There is one path but not all people are at the same location on that path.
Life is simple and complex depending on how each views the mysteries.
Mike, I was trying to add to, not detract from, your earlier statement. It wasn’t a refutation of what you said, rather an addition, with the caveat, that you may or may not entirely agree with my statement. In other words, I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth.
You said, “Life is simple and complex depending on how each views the mysteries.”
I said, “It is natural that we try to understand how we came to be. For many people, it is enough to believe God made us. For others, we want to know how.”
That’s pretty much the same, nes paux?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/414998399_4b1b06b1b8_b.jpg
That’s nice Dave. Do you have anything of substance?
Late and tired. BBL
I don’t see where anyone has the answer as far as whose beliefs or lack thereof are correct. We don’t even have scientific proof of an afterlife.
suyts
I have tried to reply to you last comment to me on this thread;
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/romm-criticizes-another-religion/
several times but it doesn’t appear – here goes again;
“Can you show me where someone has posited that man and dinosaurs co-existed?”
I assume that you don’t mean posted this here but on the internet as a belief that goes against the general opinion of science. This post links to Romm’s which is about a creationist theme park that will include Dinos that promotes the idea the earth is only a few thousand years old and Man was created on the 6th literal day. It can be assumed that all the dinosaurs that were created on that day too had not all gone extinct by midnight.
For a more theological view the popular Christian creationist web site –Answers in Genesis – explains about how Dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. This has nothing to do with Atheists trying to paint creationists, it is what the most fundamentalist ones believe, and the ones that Romm is talking about.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/dinosaurs-ark
“Why don’t you try and use logic and reason? That way, you don’t have to acquiesce your your right to independent thought.”
Logic and reason is accepting peer review. There is no logic or reason in believing something might be right if the conclusions made by the experts on the evidence say it is unlikely – this is arrogant ignorance. Having a right to independent thought is a great thing but it does not mean that your independent thoughts are in anyway right.
If you really want to understand my position it mirrors Prof. Brian Cox’s as explained in his recent lecture on you tube;
Links removed in case they are the cause of these technical issues, so you will have to search for ‘Brian Cox Lecture – Science: A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy’. Part 2 (if you have limited time) explains it best.
If you want to reply to this it might be better on my own blog (linked from my user name) if these technical issues persist.