Mattshark Posted January 12, 2010 #126 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, it is. Just because God has answered my prayers consistently does not mean I have proven God is real, right? You are still TRUSTING the assumptions to continue to be true, the next second, and the next hour, and the next day, week, month, year, century, etc., you don't know they will be. You can ASSUME they will because they have so far, but it is still just an ASSUMPTION. Your are still simply TRUSTING that the assumptions will hold true. Sorry but that is a false analogy. One is conjecture (yours) and one is observation (science) and repeatable. No we are being sensible, expecting them to suddenly change would not be sensible. The fact that scientific principles clearly work (like the fact that your computer works) is clear evidence that this observation based assumption holds true. That isn't taking it on faith, that is taking it on evidence. No. I asked if you had ever learned about the basic assumptions of science since you seem to be insulted by the fact that science is ultimately based on faith that certain things will hold true and have always done so. Really? Now I'm starting to really wonder. You're a scientist and you never learned about the basic assumptions of science? That is clear implication in my eyes. You can squirm all you want, but if you are having to trust something to remain true without being able to know it will, you are engaging in faith. I'm not squirming, you are merely repeating a false statement about science being faith based and seem to somehow thing that repeating it might make it true. You are arguing a topic you don't understand on the basis that a few of its components do not fit your world view and this threatens you (evolution) or doesn't fit with what your political ideals tell you (climate change). That is what this is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 12, 2010 #127 Share Posted January 12, 2010 you do understand that the earth is closest to the sun this time of year right. Yes, but that is affecting the southern hemisphere more than us. We don't exactly get the benefits of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted January 12, 2010 #128 Share Posted January 12, 2010 That is not at all how science works brother. Faith is not used sometimes hope but not faith. Science has to follow strict guide lines or it would not be science. Science did not pray for anything to happen, it is a well thought out process that science may or HOPE there science holds up to theory. If so than it was not an act of a devine being but a will thought out process. Science does not pray. The scientist may pray but thats because of the individual. I did not say science work like religion, brother. I said it is based on certain assumptions. Since there is no way to prove these assumptions have always been true, or that they will always be true, we just have to assume that since to date, as far as we can ascertain they have held true, they will continue to do so. Which is FAITH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted January 12, 2010 #129 Share Posted January 12, 2010 (edited) Sorry but that is a false analogy. One is conjecture (yours) and one is observation (science) and repeatable. No we are being sensible, expecting them to suddenly change would not be sensible. The fact that scientific principles clearly work (like the fact that your computer works) is clear evidence that this observation based assumption holds true. That isn't taking it on faith, that is taking it on evidence. Do you know they will hold true tomorrow? No. You can ASSUME/TRUST/HAVE FAITH they will do so, because as far as we can tell they always have, but you don't know they will. Really?That is clear implication in my eyes. You need to get your eyes checked. You even quoted what I said, and still got it so wrong. Let me help you: Now I'm starting to really wonder. You're a scientist and you never learned about the basic assumptions of science? I never said you'd said they didn't exist. I'm not squirming, you are merely repeating a false statement about science being faith based and seem to somehow thing that repeating it might make it true. You trust the assumptions are true and will continue to be true right? You are arguing a topic you don't understand on the basis that a few of its components do not fit your world view and this threatens you (evolution) or doesn't fit with what your political ideals tell you (climate change). That is what this is about. LMAO! You really are squirming now! I LOVE science! I think it's wonderful that man can study the universe and learn about it's wonders! I think it's amazing that we can learn how to use nature to help us improve our lives. I have no fear at all that science will "destroy" my faith in God, I have absolutely nothing to fear from science. On the other hand, you seem to be deathly afraid of the concept that science is at it's roots relying on faith. Edited January 12, 2010 by IamsSon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted January 12, 2010 #130 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Sorry but that is a false analogy. One is conjecture (yours) and one is observation (science) and repeatable. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm Speaking of repeatable... ScienceDaily (Oct. 20, 2008) — Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free. Mother nature is repeatable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 12, 2010 #131 Share Posted January 12, 2010 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm Speaking of repeatable... ScienceDaily (Oct. 20, 2008) — Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free. Mother nature is repeatable... all of the maps i have studied of the ice ages. the arctic was ice free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 12, 2010 #132 Share Posted January 12, 2010 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm Speaking of repeatable... ScienceDaily (Oct. 20, 2008) — Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free. Mother nature is repeatable... Yes, it does also say "Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 12, 2010 #133 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Do you know they will hold true tomorrow? No. You can ASSUME/TRUST/HAVE FAITH they will do so, because as far as we can tell they always have, but you don't know they will. Why wouldn't they? Not changing is just the default unless you have evidence to suggest it will. It doesn't make science faith based. You need to get your eyes checked. You even quoted what I said, and still got it so wrong. Let me help you: I never said you'd said they didn't exist. That still seems you are making that implication (I never said you said, I said you implied) and that is how you came across, if that is not what you meant I apologise. You trust the assumptions are true and will continue to be true right? I expect them to because the evidence suggests so. LMAO!You really are squirming now! I LOVE science! I think it's wonderful that man can study the universe and learn about it's wonders! I think it's amazing that we can learn how to use nature to help us improve our lives. I have no fear at all that science will "destroy" my faith in God, I have absolutely nothing to fear from science. On the other hand, you seem to be deathly afraid of the concept that science is at it's roots relying on faith. Nope not squirming. You are simply just incorrect, it is fallacious to claim science is faith based, it isn't it is (and this includes its roots) based on evidence. Repeating your error will not stop it being an error I am afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 12, 2010 #134 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Quote "Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” (sorry didn't know how to quote this) but the key word in it is (seem) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 12, 2010 #135 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Quote "Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” (sorry didn't know how to quote this) but the key word in it is (seem) Yes, but this is science speak remember. No definitives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 12, 2010 #136 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Yes, but this is science speak remember. No definitives. then why do you state that it has been proven when it hasn't been Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 12, 2010 #137 Share Posted January 12, 2010 then why do you state that it has been proven when it hasn't been You don't prove in science. Mainly because you can never prove anything, you evidence and accept what the evidence shows until (if it does) new evidence shows something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted January 12, 2010 #138 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Quote "Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” (sorry didn't know how to quote this) but the key word in it is (seem) Someone else noticed that too... Science speak or not, Matt, and you just admitted it, it's not difinitive...which is the point people are trying to make you realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 12, 2010 #139 Share Posted January 12, 2010 (edited) Someone else noticed that too... Science speak or not, Matt, and you just admitted it, it's not difinitive...which is the point people are trying to make you realize. no people like matt say that but a matter of fact statement. like global warming is caused by man. ignoring evidence such as ice core samples which prove that the heating and cooling go in cycles and we just happen to be at the top of one of those normal cycles. or that abiogenesis has been proven when it hasn't been nor can it be, at least not in a lab. or my favorite since there is no proof of god then there can't be any god. not thinking that god can change the outcome so we can't see the proof of god. Edited January 12, 2010 by danielost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 12, 2010 #140 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Someone else noticed that too... Science speak or not, Matt, and you just admitted it, it's not difinitive...which is the point people are trying to make you realize. As I said, there is no such thing as a definitive in science. The available evidence suggests that what happened 8000 years ago was not the same as what is presently happening. no people like matt say that but a matter of fact statement. like global warming is caused by man. ignoring evidence such as ice core samples which prove that the heating and cooling go in cycles and we just happen to be at the top of one of those normal cycles. or that abiogenesis has been proven when it hasn't been nor can it be, at least not in a lab. or my favorite since there is no proof of god then there can't be any god. not thinking that god can change the outcome so we can't see the proof of god. That is not true at all daniel, I agree with the evidence that suggests that our current warming is caused by us and that this is not natural. I could be wrong, and no one is dismiss the fact that climate has altered many times historically, I have never stated such. Nor have I stated that abiogenesis is proven daniel, that is an out and out lie. I have already said nothing is proven in science. And to say it can't be done in a lab is simply not true, there is absolutely no reason for it not to be do able in a lab. Very dishonest of you daniel, there is no excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 12, 2010 #141 Share Posted January 12, 2010 As I said, there is no such thing as a definitive in science. The available evidence suggests that what happened 8000 years ago was not the same as what is presently happening. That is not true at all daniel, I agree with the evidence that suggests that our current warming is caused by us and that this is not natural. I could be wrong, and no one is dismiss the fact that climate has altered many times historically, I have never stated such. Nor have I stated that abiogenesis is proven daniel, that is an out and out lie. I have already said nothing is proven in science. And to say it can't be done in a lab is simply not true, there is absolutely no reason for it not to be do able in a lab. Very dishonest of you daniel, there is no excuse. the reason abiogenesis cannot be done in a lab is because an intellegent being is designing the condition behind how said life might come from nothing. ie spontanously pop into being. to me there is no doubt about global change, there is no doubt about us having an affect, however the question is how much 1% to 100%. personally i think it is about oh i don't know 25%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 12, 2010 #142 Share Posted January 12, 2010 the reason abiogenesis cannot be done in a lab is because an intellegent being is designing the condition behind how said life might come from nothing. ie spontanously pop into being. That isn't true, it is simply a recreation of conditions that no longer exist in nature on this planet. What it would show is that it is possible, under certain conditions. That is most certainly not intelligent design. to me there is no doubt about global change, there is no doubt about us having an affect, however the question is how much 1% to 100%. personally i think it is about oh i don't know 25%. That is entirely possible, I doubt anyone thinks it is 100%. However, we must acknowledge that even a small amount from us can cause a major shift. But our evidence at present appears to show that we are driving this current change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 12, 2010 #143 Share Posted January 12, 2010 That isn't true, it is simply a recreation of conditions that no longer exist in nature on this planet. What it would show is that it is possible, under certain conditions. That is most certainly not intelligent design. That is entirely possible, I doubt anyone thinks it is 100%. However, we must acknowledge that even a small amount from us can cause a major shift. But our evidence at present appears to show that we are driving this current change. perhaps we will not sink all the way to an iceage this cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 12, 2010 #144 Share Posted January 12, 2010 As I said, there is no such thing as a definitive in science. The available evidence suggests that what happened 8000 years ago was not the same as what is presently happening. In the last thread you said nothing happened 8000 years ago. So animal boy, what happened 8000 years ago and what is happening now ? Of course I will expect you to prove your answer to within a 95% error bar, what with you being a 'scientist' and a 'specialist'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 12, 2010 #145 Share Posted January 12, 2010 In the last thread you said nothing happened 8000 years ago. So animal boy, what happened 8000 years ago and what is happening now ? Of course I will expect you to prove your answer to within a 95% error bar, what with you being a 'scientist' and a 'specialist'. haven't you read that it doesn't matter what took place 8000 years ago. all that matters is the data that shows that we might be the ones at fault here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted January 12, 2010 #146 Share Posted January 12, 2010 no people like matt say that but a matter of fact statement. like global warming is caused by man. ignoring evidence such as ice core samples which prove that the heating and cooling go in cycles and we just happen to be at the top of one of those normal cycles. or that abiogenesis has been proven when it hasn't been nor can it be, at least not in a lab. or my favorite since there is no proof of god then there can't be any god. not thinking that god can change the outcome so we can't see the proof of god. Be careful 'restating' the positions of others. I think you need to include links to the exact posts you're referring to. No one likes to have others 'put words into their mouths'. So, please include links to the original statements when paraphrasing the opinions of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted January 12, 2010 #147 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Why wouldn't they? Not changing is just the default unless you have evidence to suggest it will. It doesn't make science faith based. Nice try, but notice I did not state they would, I just pointed out you cannot KNOW they will, you can ASSUME, i.e. have faith, that they will not since they have not so far. That still seems you are making that implication (I never said you said, I said you implied) and that is how you came across, if that is not what you meant I apologise. Seems like you've made an assumption and holding to it. I expect them to because the evidence suggests so. Correct. I do not disagree with that. But you do not KNOW they will. You can make a valid ASSUMPTION that they will since they have so far. I'm not saying it's not proper to do so. Nope not squirming. You are simply just incorrect, it is fallacious to claim science is faith based, it isn't it is (and this includes its roots) based on evidence. Repeating your error will not stop it being an error I am afraid. And this is how we end up with scientists "knowing" man is causing warming even with full knowledge that they are having to fudge numbers, manipulate data, use crappy models, and manipulate the peer-review process. Don't worry, I'll stop trying to make you face the fact your religion is based on faith, Matt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormalcy Posted January 12, 2010 #148 Share Posted January 12, 2010 OKAY, SO... Let us be done and finished with making assumptions, putting words in other peoples' mouths, characterizing other peoples' methods or conclusions in some aggressive way. Post your OWN thoughts on the matter and quit trying to correct or "catch out" how other people arrive at what they have, unless it is for polite discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siara Posted January 12, 2010 #149 Share Posted January 12, 2010 (edited) no people like matt say that but a matter of fact statement. like global warming is caused by man. ignoring evidence such as ice core samples which prove that the heating and cooling go in cycles and we just happen to be at the top of one of those normal cycles. It doesn't say we're at the top of one of the cycles. It says we've drastically surpassed any normal max recorded in any previous cycle You're right that there have been cycles, as you can see on this. Look at the extreme right. Does that look like part of the normal cycle? Here's another graph of the data with the extreme right stretched out, so that you get a horizontal axis that shows decades instead of millenia. (the graphs start at different years so the lower one show 4 former cycles instead of three) cf- http://igutek.scripts.mit.edu/terrascope/?page=why350 (measurements taken from Vostok Ice Core by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.) Edited January 12, 2010 by Siara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 12, 2010 #150 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Be careful 'restating' the positions of others. I think you need to include links to the exact posts you're referring to. No one likes to have others 'put words into their mouths'. So, please include links to the original statements when paraphrasing the opinions of others. i tried looking it up but got at least three pages of things that were close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now