Why do you think people deny science?

[heckler73]

An increase of 1.0 is a tenfold increase in alkalinity. So a 20% increase meant it when from 5.6 to 5.8 Pretty much not worth mentioning EVEN IF true.

That's also assuming that is what he meant.
(quickly rifles through Schroeder's book on Thermal Physics)
Ahhh Yes...

If he meant the molality (moles of solute per kg of solvent) then it is even less (~5.7). Natural variation over a few days can cause that.

And here's my moment of synchronicity for today:

In the first 10 minutes, Acheson discusses the issue of verification vs falsification, and the (unfortunate) side which science tends to lean on.

 

[Rrog]

Surely I must have something else to do...

 

[reasonevangelist]

I feel like Kynes won the argument here. I started reading from a completely objective and intellectually honest standpoint, not knowing any of the involved members, and Kynes dropped that hammer like a Boss.

Does that make him perfect or infallible? No.

Heckler73 also raised valid and important points, the most notable of which was this: disseminated information can be manipulated, regardless of the validity of the source. Science isn't about trust, it's about verifiable results.

As for the question in the title of the OP: "Why do you think people deny science?"

My answer: Fear and Faith.

Even science requires a degree of faith, in that what we think we know, is actually an accurate understanding of it, and that it has been communicated (both expression and interpretation) in such a way as to minimize or eliminate any significant misunderstanding.

Scientists are still human, and many of them do indeed "rely upon" grants, in order to preserve their own careers, so it's possible for motive to develop, to bend truth or creatively interpret findings, in order to get those next grants. Politics and money corrupt most things easily. Anything with enough integrity to protect itself against such corruption, should be revered.

"Distrust is a shield of the wise."

Never "just believe" anything, from anyone, no matter how trustworthy you might think they are, or how appealing their claims may be.

 

[Padawanbater2]

disseminated information can be manipulated, regardless of the validity of the source. Science isn't about trust, it's about verifiable results.

The purpose of the scientific method is to avoid mistakes, manipulation and incorrect conclusions. The process itself produces repeatable results and it's by far the best method we have of understanding reality.

Even science requires a degree of faith, in that what we think we know, is actually an accurate understanding of it, and that it has been communicated (both expression and interpretation) in such a way as to minimize or eliminate any significant misunderstanding.

No, that's wrong

sci·ence

1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Science is science because it deals with things that are true and requires evidence, the definition of faith is belief in something without any evidence

Scientists are still human, and many of them do indeed "rely upon" grants, in order to preserve their own careers, so it's possible for motive to develop, to bend truth or creatively interpret findings, in order to get those next grants. Politics and money corrupt most things easily. Anything with enough integrity to protect itself against such corruption, should be revered.

Like I said, the scientific method was developed to avoid exactly that problem and the peer review process does a good job publishing good science in favor of junk science, which is why you don't usually see things like intelligent design or poltergeists in scientific journals. That's not to say that it's 100% perfect, because it's people who also do the peer review, but if you consider how science works, that repetition is fundamental to the strength of a theory, even if a single piece of bad science does somehow manage to get through the peer review process which is extremely unlikely, it would be a weak source of evidence anyway because it wouldn't be repeatable (not science)

"Distrust is a shield of the wise."

Never "just believe" anything, from anyone, no matter how trustworthy you might think they are, or how appealing their claims may be.

Denial is not the same as skepticism

 

[reasonevangelist]

sci·ence

1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Science is science because it deals with things that are true and requires evidence, the definition of faith is belief in something without any evidence

I said "a degree," not "absolute faith." Huge difference. This is a philosophical nuance of "knowledge" that most miss, until they confront the issue themselves.

What is "knowledge?" How do you know?

We are all humans subjectively experiencing (what we believe to be) an objectively real environment.

But... is anything real? How do you know?

There's something called a "phaneron." Essentially, due to the understanding that each person's interpretation, no matter how accurate they believe it to be, is indeed Subjective... a person's "phaneron" is his personal, individual, subjective interpretation conduit that links his consciousness to the "real world." Almost everyone's phaneron is at least slightly different, and at most, drastically so.

Skipping the potentially verbose parts: this is what i mean by "a degree of faith."

You have to "believe" that you are indeed interpreting whatever you observe, accurately enough that it can be said to be "correct" or "true."

But how do we know anything is true? Comparison and Consensus. You can have any number of people use the scientific method to gather their own data, then compare data to arrive upon a consensus, so that a thing may be defined as "true," but it ultimately requires a degree of "faith," in that what we perceive as "real," actually is.

This also ties into the other thing... you basically restated what i already said, but in different words. Is science still science, are the actual findings still valid, if the person subjectively interpreting them does so inaccurately? The science is still science... but then that person goes on to communicate his misunderstanding (or miscommunicate his accurate understanding) of those things, as if they were "cold hard facts," because he has not realized, due to faith, that what he thought was an accurate interpretation, actually wasn't.

The "chinese telephone game" happens with more than just whispers in a circle. People have different subjective interpretations of the exact same data, whether textual, numerical, or visually represented. Sometimes, the most accurate interpretation of any certain thing might be the least popular... why? Because no one wants to believe their own phaneron is inaccurate, or that they have failed to correctly interpret any data. Fear and Faith. But then there's also the politically motivated aspects, in which even qualified, capable, real scientists, who know exactly what they're doing, might tweak their representation of said data, in order to have a higher chance of winning grants, or other funding, or even just recognition, to get their name out there, giving them a higher chance of finding other options, should they require them.

And not everyone has the time or resources to become an actual scientist... so people have to "trust" that scientists remain "true scientists," ethical and unflinching in pursuit of the actual truth. Trust is pretty much faith too.

For regular people, it's difficult to "know" whose information is the most credible, and since they are not experts, they can often be rather easily manipulated by tweaked or misrepresented data, or even just emotional manipulation... such as: "save the planet, think of the children!!"

I'm not disagreeing that humans are indeed generating obscene amounts of pollution... but i also won't agree that climate change has not previously happened naturally. Should we just not change anything? That's probably not the right move. Should we use climate change-phobia to emotionally manipulate people into accepting ridiculous taxes that have zero chance of eliminating or significantly reducing the waste so many industries excitedly thrust into the environment? Nope.

And with something called "infobesity," regular people tend to default to whatever feels right, intuition, emotional manipulation, and will cling to that, because it's the only frame of reference available to them, and they don't want to be the one guy standing alone saying "but that's not true!" while everyone lambasts them for "doubting climate change." (example)

Science is science, but regular people have no real reliable way of ensuring that they get the most correct possible version of the truth. So they just kinda go along with whatever feels right... which includes the "layman consensus" factor.


Anyway... IMHO applies.

 

[Padawanbater2]

But how do we know anything is true? Comparison and Consensus. You can have any number of people use the scientific method to gather their own data, then compare data to arrive upon a consensus, so that a thing may be defined as "true," but it ultimately requires a degree of "faith," in that what we perceive as "real," actually is.

No, that's wrong and here's why;

"Human values, knowledge, convictions and even creeds are relative. Nothing in this universe can be categorized as ‘Ultimate Truth’. The ‘Ultimate Truth’ does not exist under our current laws of physics. In order to be realistic in our approach, we will not speculate what the future may bring around, or discuss what the past had imprinted in our collective subconscious. Rather, we will be as objective and detached as possible, and deal with what we have right here in this life in the light of the latest scientific discoveries pertaining to what we think is true or false.

Our knowledge comes to us through the limited tools we have: the mind and the intellect, the senses, the experiments we conduct, and through casual confrontations or unplanned individual discoveries. In as much as those tools are aided by scientific experiments and systematic methods on the relevant fields and in laboratories, the results, as well as the methods applied and the tools used, are subject to the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, physiology …etc. Those laws are sketched and imprinted in the DNA of all that exists. You may add intuition as a tool if you wish, but it won’t make big difference as it will tend to be subjective and limited to the person or individual, consequently; relative and unreliable.

What we refer to as solid facts, are determined by the aforementioned tools. Therefore, their solidity follows the same rules. The world of matter is interchangeable and in continuous formation and reformation, and its seemingly solid facts tend to change accordingly. However, the principles are repeatedly noticed to be consistent, and, based on those principles, matter’s behavior is said to be constant.

The spiritual world, i.e., the non-material, is still uncertain. We have no reason to claim so far that Man has established solid facts pertaining to spirituality – other than the belief that such powers do exist. But all human knowledge about this world comes from individual experiences and general speculation, imagination, deduction, or just by sheer act of blind faith. It might sound strange to refer to the big word “faith” so lightly and insignificantly, but this is because we are not discussing faith here, rather, we are discussing solid facts and given truth(s) using our available tools. Faith is not a tool. We cannot use it to verify a solid fact or determine whether this or that is true.

So far, we have been mainly talking about “facts”, not about the concepts of “true” and “false”. The reason why I started from there is that you cannot describe something as “true” or “false” unless you first refer it to some relevant facts to determine its factuality. I cannot say, “What you’re saying is true” without consulting at least one established “fact” in my mind that is related to it. True and false concepts are contingent with factual and imaginary, without this relationship every aspect of life will be misleading or illusive.

Here we come to a conclusion: To say that “X” is definitely true or definitely false, you need to use the same tools used in determining the factuality of “X”, in addition to your mental archive as a frame of reference (i.e., your individual and personal recorded experience which might include established or given facts), plus, if you wish, your own intuition. All those tools have been established to be relative; therefore, the truth or the falsehood resulting from using them must be relative too. This brings us to what may be argumentatively termed as “situational truth” or “situational falsehood”. In plain English, you know that something is true or false according to the situation; the circumstances; the given facts and your own frame of reference. Here you can say “I know this is true” or, “I know this is false”. But whether your next door neighbor agrees with you or not, depends on explaining the situation to them, and getting them to see the picture you have formed in your mind about the truth or falsehood pertaining to what you believe is true or false.

Most of us have a number of “truths” archived in their minds and tend to perceive the truth or falsehood of new things according to those truths. That is called “personal induction” rather than established “knowledge”. Calculating, measuring, deducing by using the traditional tools we mentioned above for one, and the pre-established set of truths archived in their minds as a frame of reference, for another.

Looking at things from this stand, we can say that our knowledge is relative, and the tools we use to gain this knowledge are relative; therefore the truth or falsehood of things based on such knowledge is relative too."[/quote]

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080221052750AAIFRTu

This also ties into the other thing... you basically restated what i already said, but in different words. Is science still science, are the actual findings still valid, if the person subjectively interpreting them does so inaccurately? The science is still science... but then that person goes on to communicate his misunderstanding (or miscommunicate his accurate understanding) of those things, as if they were "cold hard facts," because he has not realized, due to faith, that what he thought was an accurate interpretation, actually wasn't.

Example?

The "chinese telephone game" happens with more than just whispers in a circle. People have different subjective interpretations of the exact same data, whether textual, numerical, or visually represented. Sometimes, the most accurate interpretation of any certain thing might be the least popular... why? Because no one wants to believe their own phaneron is inaccurate, or that they have failed to correctly interpret any data. Fear and Faith. But then there's also the politically motivated aspects, in which even qualified, capable, real scientists, who know exactly what they're doing, might tweak their representation of said data, in order to have a higher chance of winning grants, or other funding, or even just recognition, to get their name out there, giving them a higher chance of finding other options, should they require them.

Again, the claim that scientists fudge data to secure grant funding.. And again, I don't deny this has probably happened, but again, I stress the importance of peer review and the scientific method; bad science has an extremely low ratio of being published after peer review because it weeds out bad science, as is it's function.. It's like getting pissed off when someone on live TV yells "fucked her right in the pussy!" when your network censors explicit language..

And not everyone has the time or resources to become an actual scientist... so people have to "trust" that scientists remain "true scientists," ethical and unflinching in pursuit of the actual truth. Trust is pretty much faith too.

No, they don't..

Anyone can verify anything scientifically if they want to. If you disagree, give me one example of something that I couldn't go verify scientifically

For regular people, it's difficult to "know" whose information is the most credible, and since they are not experts, they can often be rather easily manipulated by tweaked or misrepresented data, or even just emotional manipulation... such as: "save the planet, think of the children!!"

It's difficult because the opposition to credible science puts out propaganda and they have a deep checkbook to do so. The problem is that the less educated/more religious don't know how to tell the difference and/or are religiously constrained to act a certain way.

"Regular people" accept the science of things like anthropogenic climate change, tea party idiots don't, they're the fringe who make up a fraction of a percentage of the population..

Science is science, but regular people have no real reliable way of ensuring that they get the most correct possible version of the truth. So they just kinda go along with whatever feels right... which includes the "layman consensus" factor.

The "real reliable way of ensuring that they get the most correct possible version of the truth" is trusting the scientists and understanding how science actually works. Knowing that science is the best method we have for understanding reality.

You are essentially saying "well we don't know shit, we have no way of accurately knowing anything, so I guess everyones guess is as good as mine...".

Fucking absurd.

 

[reasonevangelist]

Let me begin by saying: i'm not quite sure how to correctly nest quotes in this particular forum, so i can't use my normal approach, which has me at a disadvantage.

You've incorrectly framed my position several times, amidst what i qualify as "argumentum ad nauseam."

I wrote a lot, because i'm verbose.

(counter assertion)
You wrote a lot, probably because you're not pleased that i read the thread and saw that your opponent prevailed. Of course, that's my opinion, which i think is fair, and to which i am entitled... but it certainly was never intended as a personal attack, or to be demeaning in any way. I don't think you need to care about my opinion, and i "feel" as though you're trying to create an argument that doesn't need to exist.

Again, the claim that scientists fudge data to secure grant funding.. And again, I don't deny this has probably happened, but again, I stress the importance of peer review and the scientific method; bad science has an extremely low ratio of being published after peer review because it weeds out bad science, as is it's function.. It's like getting pissed off when someone on live TV yells "fucked her right in the pussy!" when your network censors explicit language..

^ i agree here (though not sure what the censorship reference is supposed to mean...). i never said anything about peer review being bad (in fact i agree with it, and support it in other ways, such as the Open Source communities), just that it is conducted by humans; i merely questioned the reliability and purity of the intent of some of those humans, but i agree it's most likely a minority who would intentionally skew science in order to benefit themselves.

Anyone can verify anything scientifically if they want to. If you disagree, give me one example of something that I couldn't go verify scientifically

^ You? Would you classify yourself more accurately as "a scientist" or "regular people?" I would put you in the scientist category, judging merely by this thread and your responses. YOU could easily verify things that "regular people" cannot, or will not. "Anyone" includes people who do not have the tools, capacity or inclination to verify whether a claim is or isn't valid science. People who understand the information they encounter, may and/or should be capable of adequate discernment.

It's difficult because the opposition to credible science puts out propaganda and they have a deep checkbook to do so. The problem is that the less educated/more religious don't know how to tell the difference and/or are religiously constrained to act a certain way.

"Regular people" accept the science of things like anthropogenic climate change, tea party idiots don't, they're the fringe who make up a fraction of a percentage of the population..

"Faith" isn't always a religious or theological reference. "Regular people," like it or not, includes quite a large percentage of theists and religious (not the same thing, but typically used synonymously).

I'll admit ignorance about Tea Party people; i have no idea what they believe. I don't claim affiliation with any political group, because IMO, they're all wrong, and all after their own agendas, and i've never encountered any group who bore a 100% match to my own views, which i have spent most of my life arriving upon and refining on my own, for various reasons. Every "group" i've encountered or identified, has always had some significant degree of incompatibility with my own ways of interpreting the world (which i believe to be as correct as i can make them, with what i've got to work with); even in the cannabis realm.

The "real reliable way of ensuring that they get the most correct possible version of the truth" is trusting the scientists and understanding how science actually works. Knowing that science is the best method we have for understanding reality.

You are essentially saying "well we don't know shit, we have no way of accurately knowing anything, so I guess everyone's guess is as good as mine...".

Fucking absurd.

Now, see... "trusting the scientists (and understanding what science actually is and how it works)," requires two things that quite a lot of "regular people" (e.g. theists) find inadmissible. I'm not a theist, haven't been in a very long time... but i have to accept that they comprise a large portion of the population, and that this makes them "regular" and/or "normal." I'm the one who isn't. Of course i agree that science is the best available method for attempting to understand reality. But there is an inherent duality, due to the problem that i mentioned before, which you seem to have misinterpreted for the purpose of manufacturing an argument.

I'm Not saying "we don't know shit, so inventing any imaginary answer is as good as science!" Not at all!

Here's another way to put it: we don't know what we think we know, until we know we know it. Science would agree with that statement, instead of insisting anyone leap to premature conclusions just because someone showed a fancy graph or some strategically presented statistics in order to support an argument.

However... there is usually a possibility that new information could be discovered at any time, which would cause us to realize: we did NOT "know" what we thought was a certainty, which is when we have to adjust our "models" to account for such information.

I'm not saying anything that is "fucking absurd," no matter how much you want to paint any opposition with such a brush.


In closing, i will say that i have learned, through repeated empirical tests, that it is typically unwise to blindly trust any person or group who relies upon my trust to function. I also know a bit about human nature, and the effects of desperation and the craving for affluence and fame, upon them. Scientists, while i agree SHOULD be invulnerable to such things... are still but human. They are perhaps Less fallible than "regular people," but are fallible nonetheless.

It is not impossible that the majority of "the scientific community" could actually "conspire," with good intentions, to produce something that seems irrefutable, in order to combat an entity such as "creationists" or "theologists." It's possible they could agree that some things might need a little embellishing, in order to win an endlessly obfuscated debate with a relentless opponent who does not feel obligated to agree to reasonable standards of discourse (aka "prove me wrong! you can't, therefore god exists!"). They will demand "evidence" or "proof," while neither respecting what that is or how it is obtained, nor subjecting themselves to that same requirement.


Still, my original answer remains the same: Fear and Faith, are the primary causes of "science deniers."

 

[ghostdriver]

The Son of GOD wasn't conceived by a father or mother he was born a virgin and was with GOD before creation. GOD made creation through HIS Son



They said have developed equations to suggest rip apart molecules and make what they call a vacuum not nothing. LOL
At the heart of this work is the idea that a vacuum is not exactly nothing.

"It is better to say, following theoretical physicist Paul Dirac, that a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter -- particles and antiparticles.Their density is tremendous, but we cannot perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out," Sokolov said.


"The basic question what is a vacuum, and what is nothing, goes beyond science," he said. "It's embedded deeply in the base not only of theoretical physics, but of our philosophical perception of everything -- of reality, of life, even the religious question of could the world have come from nothing."


What your religion calls logic and reason for believing the impossible
1. Animals are built a certain way based on there function - LOL truth yet this screams creation not darwinism bacteria people.
2. Living matter is somewhat similar on a molecular level. -Doesn't suggest darwins theory LOL but yes organic material is somewhat similar when compared to sand, metal, water, oxygen.
3. In certain whales sometimes abnormal bone growth has been found on their pelvic bone which is a average a inch. On a eighty foot whale. And all animals and people can have abnormal growth where numerous complex bones grow. Like I had with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sever's_disease or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoliosis- So this is true
You then just assume? The rest of your theory on what? LOL
From those three things you leaned that man and all living things started as the same organism? And that THE HOLY BIBLE isn't true?
WHAT! lets re-read darwins "facts" lol facts that don't suggest his theory in anyway. ^^^
Lets go over the Right whales and Sperm Whales bones again.

Your responses leave me in shame over mankind. A small growth sometimes appears in right whales and sperm whales and is typically a inch and you start to deny GOD.
Everhard Johannes Slijper (1907–196 was professor of general zoology at Amsterdam University, Netherlands. He was the world’s leading authority on whales. Chapter 2 of his classic work is entitled ‘Evolution and External Appearance.’ In it, he talks about a bone in whales that he calls the ‘pelvic bone,’ which is some 30 centimetres (12 inches) long, ‘but unlike the pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column.’ This bone serves as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs. Slijper goes on to say that sometimes ‘another small bone may be attached to it.’ Being an evolutionist, he naturally interprets this smaller piece of bone as a throw-back to the femur, or thigh bone, of the whale’s evolutionary ancestor. However, he states that in these occasional cases, the bone in question is generally 2.5 cm (just over an inch) in length, and that it is sometimes ‘fused’ with the pelvic bone.
Note how to this point he has not mentioned anything about a ‘leg’ protruding from a whale’s side. The evidence so far fits just as easily with the idea that some whales (who normally have functional bones in their pelvic region, as he admits) can be born with abnormal bits of bone. There is a complex DNA program which causes the development of the normal bone in this part of the whale’s anatomy. A mutational defect in this program could easily cause one or more extra pieces of bone to form, which would almost inevitably be in the same region, either separate from or fused with the normal bone. In the same way, people can be born with extra fingers, ribs, nipples, etc. If this should extend to two extra pieces of bone, no matter how misshapen or otherwise these were, enthusiastic evolutionists would no doubt interpret one additional piece of bone as a ‘femur,’ and any second one would be labeled a ‘tibia’ (shin bone). Sure enough, Slijper refers to an occasional third bony structure attached to what he has already called a ‘femur’ and labels it as a ‘tibia.’ It occurs in some Right whales and occasionally in some Sperm whales.

Lets talk about some of the impossible things you claim happen because of those three things you observed in the world.
Like my marijuana, you think this seed came from a germ. And it can appear from nothing. And it happens over time.
And Light and water and man and women who physical design is completely exposed to the elements and if we were to attempt to live like "animals" we would die, from too much sun exposure or frostbite and hypothermia. But you claim that we are all one super organism and mankind just decided to do what?Mankind is completely different WOW mankind must of been thinking some happy thoughts? Do thoughts change species form one to another? You are claiming that, Claiming that and then that "law" suddenly changed.
And elephants decided to want to be big? How? Did the "think real big?
This is painful that people believe this blaspheme trash. I think the only reason is because their pride of "i'm perfect and do nothing wrong" contradicts with the truth so they just choose not to involve themselves with the truth, the unavoidable, unstoppable, impending truth.
And light and water and man and women the sun and moon, clouds... and you think these germs can do all these things and leave no evidence and just stop coming from nothing and you don't question how they could do this? Or where they came from? Or why you are physically made the way you are?
And that these germs that have always been here somehow seem to have stopped transforming into things now? And appearing from nothing? Because in reality things don't appear from nothing randomly unless it's made. Things don't switch species when becoming extinct. They just die, and people can't run into the water (us you claiming be the germs) and start to slowly grow gills over generations and become mermaids and be fish people and build Atlantis and have sharks as pets. Shark's, butterflies, scorpions you think came from this same (super organism) that became billions of species and animals based upon what they chose to do while alive. What did the butterfly do to became what it is? What about the shark? What if I want my family to start becoming butterfly people for millions of years later in generation? Best advice?
Or maybe becoming a water melon or marijuana since they are are relative in your religion, you guys got a lot of half melon people in your darwin following?
This is reality not something George Lucas or Steven Spielberg wrote.

Real questions for you^
And you choose to ignore and deny all of these facts because..
Because creatures develop abnormalities on there bone!! Not everyone but some in rare occasions
Also I asked people if they smoked marijuana because from my experience people who don't worship GOD can't handle the increase cognitive thoughts that are as associated with marijuana.
bho poison hash doesn't count as marijuana your smoking poison http://www.hempcity.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3627
you not getting high you're getting poisoned. Obviously some illuminati idea to kill smokers or to have BHO kill kids so marijuana can become illegal again.

"You think because GOD ALMIGHTY is the beginning and the end, you can state that the universe can be the same because it's following the same principal? That's completely erroneous.
GOD made the Laws of Physics and is not bound by them.
Before the beginning GOD was.
Matter lacks the ability to create something from nothing, and is bond by the Laws of Physics.


Ceepea : "No, matter has always existed in some form or another. We have no reason to believe matter can be created or destroyed. "

Me:- If matter is here it got created do you have proof that something is able to come from nothing? EXACTLY


THIS IS A FACT, YOUR DARWIN OCCULT RELIGION IS A KNOWN IMPOSSIBILITY. NO insult or spam will change this.

Feel free to print off anything and show people the ignorance of this occult religion with impossible statements they claim.

Although many won't care like I said, they have only chosen this religion because this religion promotes homosexuality and sexual perversion.
NOT BECAUSE IT'S POSSIBLE Turn to page 76 in the link of "The forbidden TRUTH" see Revelations happening now and watch the videos and click the links.https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-forbidden-truth.825771/page-80
GOD BLESS



How many of you aren't freemasons or satanist out of Ceepea, Penofrdywriter, TylerDurden, mushroombandit.
People who take hours and hours out of their lives to spam a thread about the truth of mankind surely has a agenda.
They are masons, shriners, satanist, muslim, or work for the government. Padawanbater2^


Lets not forget this "padawanbater" in the beginning of this thread stated he wanted a mass genocide of Christians which is talked about in Revelation in THE HOLY BIBLE.
Which is the exact time period we are in.^ It's happening now click my link https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-forbidden-truth.825771/page-80

So this insanity is a battle for your mind by the Anti Christ people, don't be mindless cows going to the slaughter and the Eternity which is THE LAKE OF FIRE.
Seek the LORD JESUS CHRIST GOD's Son and get SAVED.

 

[Silky Shagsalot]

i think maybe some people have a problem with science because a great deal of it is simply theory...

 

[ghostdriver]

People who can't admit that they do sexual abominations and other sins, and knowingly chose that over GOD can't handle that they can't stop so they make the excuse of attempting to act as if they doubt GOD's existence so they can live a life they want filled with gross sexual sin (and others like abortions and ect) So they deny the Truth and they deny Science
Science= The observation of material and mass supports Creation.

The Son of GOD wasn't conceived by a father or mother he was born a virgin and was with GOD before creation. GOD made creation through HIS Son



They said have developed equations to suggest rip apart molecules and make what they call a vacuum not nothing. LOL
At the heart of this work is the idea that a vacuum is not exactly nothing.

"It is better to say, following theoretical physicist Paul Dirac, that a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter -- particles and antiparticles.Their density is tremendous, but we cannot perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out," Sokolov said.


"The basic question what is a vacuum, and what is nothing, goes beyond science," he said. "It's embedded deeply in the base not only of theoretical physics, but of our philosophical perception of everything -- of reality, of life, even the religious question of could the world have come from nothing."


What your religion calls logic and reason for believing the impossible
1. Animals are built a certain way based on there function - LOL truth yet this screams creation not darwinism bacteria people.
2. Living matter is somewhat similar on a molecular level. -Doesn't suggest darwins theory but yes organic material is somewhat similar when compared to sand, metal, water, oxygen.
3. In certain whales sometimes abnormal bone growth has been found on their pelvic bone which is a average a inch. On a eighty foot whale. And all animals and people can have abnormal growth where numerous complex bones grow. Like I had with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sever's_disease or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoliosis- So this is true
You then just assume? The rest of your theory on what?
From those three things you leaned that man and all living things started as the same organism? And that THE HOLY BIBLE isn't true?
WHAT! lets re-read darwins "facts" lol facts that don't suggest his theory in anyway. ^^^
Lets go over the Right whales and Sperm Whales bones again.

Your responses leave me in shame over mankind. A small growth sometimes appears in right whales and sperm whales and is typically a inch and you start to deny GOD.
Everhard Johannes Slijper (1907–196 was professor of general zoology at Amsterdam University, Netherlands. He was the world’s leading authority on whales. Chapter 2 of his classic work is entitled ‘Evolution and External Appearance.’ In it, he talks about a bone in whales that he calls the ‘pelvic bone,’ which is some 30 centimetres (12 inches) long, ‘but unlike the pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column.’ This bone serves as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs. Slijper goes on to say that sometimes ‘another small bone may be attached to it.’ Being an evolutionist, he naturally interprets this smaller piece of bone as a throw-back to the femur, or thigh bone, of the whale’s evolutionary ancestor. However, he states that in these occasional cases, the bone in question is generally 2.5 cm (just over an inch) in length, and that it is sometimes ‘fused’ with the pelvic bone.
Note how to this point he has not mentioned anything about a ‘leg’ protruding from a whale’s side. The evidence so far fits just as easily with the idea that some whales (who normally have functional bones in their pelvic region, as he admits) can be born with abnormal bits of bone. There is a complex DNA program which causes the development of the normal bone in this part of the whale’s anatomy. A mutational defect in this program could easily cause one or more extra pieces of bone to form, which would almost inevitably be in the same region, either separate from or fused with the normal bone. In the same way, people can be born with extra fingers, ribs, nipples, etc. If this should extend to two extra pieces of bone, no matter how misshapen or otherwise these were, enthusiastic evolutionists would no doubt interpret one additional piece of bone as a ‘femur,’ and any second one would be labeled a ‘tibia’ (shin bone). Sure enough, Slijper refers to an occasional third bony structure attached to what he has already called a ‘femur’ and labels it as a ‘tibia.’ It occurs in some Right whales and occasionally in some Sperm whales.

Lets talk about some of the impossible things you claim happen because of those three things you observed in the world.
Like my marijuana, you think this seed came from a germ. And it can appear from nothing. And it happens over time.
And Light and water and man and women who physical design is completely exposed to the elements and if we were to attempt to live like "animals" we would die, from too much sun exposure or frostbite and hypothermia. But you claim that we are all one super organism and mankind just decided to do what?Mankind is completely different WOW mankind must of been thinking some happy thoughts? Do thoughts change species form one to another? You are claiming that, Claiming that and then that "law" suddenly changed.
And elephants decided to want to be big? How? Did the "think real big?
This is painful that people believe this blaspheme trash. I think the only reason is because their pride of "i'm perfect and do nothing wrong" contradicts with the truth so they just choose not to involve themselves with the truth, the unavoidable, unstoppable, impending truth.
And light and water and man and women the sun and moon, clouds... and you think these germs can do all these things and leave no evidence and just stop coming from nothing and you don't question how they could do this? Or where they came from? Or why you are physically made the way you are?
And that these germs that have always been here somehow seem to have stopped transforming into things now? And appearing from nothing? Because in reality things don't appear from nothing randomly unless it's made. Things don't switch species when becoming extinct. They just die, and people can't run into the water (us you claiming be the germs) and start to slowly grow gills over generations and become mermaids and be fish people and build Atlantis and have sharks as pets. Shark's, butterflies, scorpions you think came from this same (super organism) that became billions of species and animals based upon what they chose to do while alive. What did the butterfly do to became what it is? What about the shark? What if I want my family to start becoming butterfly people for millions of years later in generation? Best advice?
Or maybe becoming a water melon or marijuana since they are are relative in your religion, you guys got a lot of half melon people in your darwin following?
This is reality not something George Lucas or Steven Spielberg wrote.

Real questions for you^
And you choose to ignore and deny all of these facts because..
Because creatures develop abnormalities on there bone!! Not everyone but some in rare occasions
Also I asked people if they smoked marijuana because from my experience people who don't worship GOD can't handle the increase cognitive thoughts that are as associated with marijuana.
bho poison hash doesn't count as marijuana your smoking poison http://www.hempcity.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3627
you not getting high you're getting poisoned. Obviously some illuminati idea to kill smokers or to have BHO kill kids so marijuana can become illegal again.

"You think because GOD ALMIGHTY is the beginning and the end, you can state that the universe can be the same because it's following the same principal? That's completely erroneous.
GOD made the Laws of Physics and is not bound by them.
Before the beginning GOD was.
Matter lacks the ability to create something from nothing, and is bond by the Laws of Physics.


Ceepea : "No, matter has always existed in some form or another. We have no reason to believe matter can be created or destroyed. "

Me:- If matter is here it got created do you have proof that something is able to come from nothing? EXACTLY


THIS IS A FACT, YOUR DARWIN OCCULT RELIGION IS A KNOWN IMPOSSIBILITY. NO insult or spam will change this.

Feel free to print off anything and show people the ignorance of this occult religion with impossible statements they claim.

Turn to page 76 in the link of "The forbidden TRUTH" see Revelations happening now and watch the videos and click the links.https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-forbidden-truth.825771/page-80
GOD BLESS



How many of you aren't freemasons or satanist out of Ceepea, Penofrdywriter, TylerDurden, mushroombandit.
People who take hours and hours out of their lives to spam a thread about the truth of mankind surely has a agenda.
They are masons, shriners, satanist, muslim, or work for the government. Padawanbater2^


Lets not forget this "padawanbater" in the beginning of this thread stated he wanted a mass genocide of Christians which is talked about in Revelation in THE HOLY BIBLE.
Which is the exact time period we are in.^ It's happening now click my link https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-forbidden-truth.825771/page-80

So this insanity is a battle for your mind by the Anti Christ people, don't be mindless cows going to the slaughter and the Eternity which is THE LAKE OF FIRE.
Seek the LORD JESUS CHRIST GOD's Son and get SAVED.

 

[ghostdriver]

If you think you can act unsure of GODs existence and it gives you the ability to live a sinful life and live never obeying GOD.
Which would somehow lead to you not going to the Lake of Fire you're wrong.
GOD knows every thought you ever had, and will ever have.

 

[heckler73]

 

[heckler73]

This is an interesting read from a few days ago on the WSJ.

Confessions of a Computer Modeler
The climate debate is heating up again as business leaders, politicians and academics bombard us with the results of computer models that predict costly and dramatic changes in the years ahead. I can offer some insight into the use of computer models for public-policy debates, and a recommendation for the general public.

After earning a master's degree in environmental engineering in 1982, I spent most of the next 10 years building large-scale environmental computer models. My first job was as a consultant to the Environmental Protection Agency. I was hired to build a model to assess the impact of its Construction Grants Program, a nationwide effort in the 1970s and 1980s to upgrade sewer-treatment plants.

The computer model was huge—it analyzed every river, sewer treatment plant and drinking-water intake (the places in rivers where municipalities draw their water) in the country. I'll spare you the details, but the model showed huge gains from the program as water quality improved dramatically. By the late 1980s, however, any gains from upgrading sewer treatments would be offset by the additional pollution load coming from people who moved from on-site septic tanks to public sewers, which dump the waste into rivers. Basically the model said we had hit the point of diminishing returns.

When I presented the results to the EPA official in charge, he said that I should go back and "sharpen my pencil." I did. I reviewed assumptions, tweaked coefficients and recalibrated data. But when I reran everything the numbers didn't change much. At our next meeting he told me to run the numbers again.

After three iterations I finally blurted out, "What number are you looking for?" He didn't miss a beat: He told me that he needed to show $2 billion of benefits to get the program renewed. I finally turned enough knobs to get the answer he wanted, and everyone was happy.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images/iStockphoto

Was the EPA official asking me to lie? I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he believed in the value of continuing the program. (Congress ended the grants in 1990.) He certainly didn't give any indications otherwise. I also assume he understood the inherent inaccuracies of these types of models. There are no exact values for the coefficients in models such as these. There are only ranges of potential values. By moving a bunch of these parameters to one side or the other you can usually get very different results, often (surprise) in line with your initial beliefs.

I realized that my work for the EPA wasn't that of a scientist, at least in the popular imagination of what a scientist does. It was more like that of a lawyer. My job, as a modeler, was to build the best case for my client's position. The opposition will build its best case for the counter argument and ultimately the truth should prevail.

If opponents don't like what I did with the coefficients, then they should challenge them. And during my decade as an environmental consultant, I was often hired to do just that to someone else's model. But there is no denying that anyone who makes a living building computer models likely does so for the cause of advocacy, not the search for truth.

Surely the scientific community wouldn't succumb to these pressures like us money-grabbing consultants. Aren't they laboring for knowledge instead of profit? If you believe that, boy do I have a computer model to sell you.

The academic community competes for grants, tenure and recognition; consultants compete for clients. And you should understand that the lines between academia and consultancy are very blurry as many professors moonlight as consultants, authors, talking heads, etc.

Let's be clear: I am not saying this is a bad thing. The legal system is adversarial and for the most part functions well. The same is true for science. So here is my advice: Those who are convinced that humans are drastically changing the climate for the worse and those who aren't should accept and welcome a vibrant, robust back-and-forth. Let each side make its best case and trust that the truth will emerge.

Those who do believe that humans are driving climate change retort that the science is "settled" and those who don't agree are "deniers" and "flat-earthers." Even the president mocks anyone who disagrees. But I have been doing this for a long time, and the one thing I have learned is how hard it is to convince people with a computer model. The vast majority of your audience will never, ever understand the math behind it. This does not mean people are dumb. They usually have great BS detectors, and when they see one side of a debate trying to shut down the other side, they will most likely assume it has something to hide, has the weaker argument, or both.

Eventually I got out of the environmental consulting business. In the 1990s I went into a completely different industry, one that was also data intensive and I thought couldn't be nearly as controversial: health care. But that's another story.

Mr. Caprara is chief methodologist for PSKW LLC, which provides marketing programs for pharmaceutical firms.

 

[burgertime2010]

There will come a time, in my opinion, where logic and linear thought models will fail even the most gifted. A conundrum, a paradox, an illogical or impossible observation will deflate modern science....it is happening. The Tao has spoken of these, perhaps it is not us denying science rather science denying us. Like religion, Newtonian science is infallible, however, our advancements into quantum physics shows that to be problematic. I think that truth and wisdom are incomprehensible, a perfect way to spend a life, but there is a philosophical way that merge the two if we surrender to faith that science will bring. Embrace what you cannot prove and prove what you won't embrace. I am not religious, but the binary is science and when a simultanaety is the only explanation, the system has begun to show its' mystical side. I don't deny science or religion, I do not need certainty... in my experience there are doubts abd personal truths, ways to use your faith without god, and moments I feel a connection to something intentional. Be confused until you accept it....then the answer you are lacking will provide you something, Call it wisdom or content but I just smile.

 

[Red1966]

The purpose of the scientific method is to avoid mistakes, manipulation and incorrect conclusions. The process itself produces repeatable results and it's by far the best method we have of understanding reality.


No, that's wrong

sci·ence

1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Science is science because it deals with things that are true and requires evidence, the definition of faith is belief in something without any evidence



Like I said, the scientific method was developed to avoid exactly that problem and the peer review process does a good job publishing good science in favor of junk science, which is why you don't usually see things like intelligent design or poltergeists in scientific journals. That's not to say that it's 100% perfect, because it's people who also do the peer review, but if you consider how science works, that repetition is fundamental to the strength of a theory, even if a single piece of bad science does somehow manage to get through the peer review process which is extremely unlikely, it would be a weak source of evidence anyway because it wouldn't be repeatable (not science)



Denial is not the same as skepticism

You blather about "repeatability" while using examples of failed models for predicting warming. All your models predicted much warmer conditions than actually occurred, yet you insist your version of "science" is infallible.

 

[burgertime2010]

You blather about "repeatability" while using examples of failed models for predicting warming. All your models predicted much warmer conditions than actually occurred, yet you insist your version of "science" is infallible.

Predicting anything is not science exactly....is it? The fucking weatherman is no scientist. It is an educated guess, warm or not, science has variables, it has uncertainty, and it has the observer. "Repeatability" is what technolology nees. Science starts as theory, in the mind, it evolves to be fact or fiction but never to a point where it is infallable. One bad model does not negate a good theory.

 

[Red1966]

If it was only one bad model, you might have a point. But it seems ALL the models were wrong. The "science" of AGW is nothing but predicting higher temps. And all the predictions said it would be much warmer today than it actually is. So the theory behind the predictions was contraindicated by the facts. But the Chicken Little's still still cry "The sky is falling!" It's not "science" at all. It's a religion.

 

[burgertime2010]

If it was only one bad model, you might have a point. But it seems ALL the models were wrong. The "science" of AGW is nothing but predicting higher temps. And all the predictions said it would be much warmer today than it actually is. So the theory behind the predictions was contraindicated by the facts. But the Chicken Little's still still cry "The sky is falling!" It's not "science" at all. It's a religion.

The 'Climate Change" idea is more than the earth is heating up. I don't want to rant here, but the clock is not done ticking and evidence does exist. I am not a bullshitter but I do believe reasonable standards should be alloted to geologic time. You may be right.....I hope you are, but calling it a religion is hardly pure faith.

 

[ghostdriver]

I think the answer to why people deny science is pretty obvious; because the answers that science provides either makes them uncomfortable or contradicts their preconceived worldviews. The answer to the question of what we should do about it is much more complicated..

It seems we're in somewhat of a difficult spot.. the scientifically minded among us who understand what science is, how it works and how it's applied are labeled "bullies" when they state scientific facts that contradict, more often than not, traditional or religious beliefs, when nobody in their right mind would label a mathematician a "bully" for saying 2+2=4..

How do you think we should treat these people?

IMO, they should be publicly shamed, no different than holocaust or climate change deniers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

So you think it's okay to kill people who disagree with your incorrect theory?
And people who are right and worship THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and THE ALLMIGHTY HEAVENLY FATHER OF CREATION are some how a bigot, yet you can literally suggest a mass murder of family's that are Christians?
Only on a online forum that few see is this not bombarded with reply's of how ignorant and plain Evil your thread is.

This is plain and simple proof on a miniscule level of how we are in the times of Revelation mentioned last in THE HOLY BIBLE which is after The Son of GOD and is the final chapter.
See evidence at
https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-forbidden-truth.825771/page-79

 

[tightpockt]

and there ya go.

you think the term "Climate Change" exists solely within the bounds of the "Anthropogenic" adjective.

you cannot comprehend climate change unless somebody is to blame, and yes, 0.5 degrees C over the last 100 years is EVER SO SLIGHT warming.

all the rest of your gabbling is nonsense since "Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change" exists, even the IPCC says so, yet you refuse to accept that "Climate Change" can happen without an "Anthropogenic" tacked onto it.

thats the sort of thing a dumbass believes.

Man, you're really stuck on this climate change thing. It's true that there have been multiple extinction events throughout the Earth's history. a few of those events occurred due to the sudden release of co2 and methane. We're taking what used to be a natural process and industrializing it.
Nobody denies the climate is changing, the question is are we as humans contributing to it? Never before has the earth been home to a species whose byproduct is pollution. When you argue about climate change it sounds like you're in favor of polluting which is weird because I don't understand how more pollution benefits you personally.