Author Topic: What can we do?  (Read 10229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5654
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #174 on: January 30, 2012, 08:18:56 PM »
As it stands, it would seem that IDT is gaining ground and becoming more widely accepted as a plausible means of explaining the origins of life.

OK, if it's gaining ground then how about showing the scientific publications that state the origins of like came into existance by some intelligent cause. Do you have anything scientific to support your idea for intelligent design that would make it a worth while theory?

BY theory, I will use this definition (bold mine):

Theory
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html

Do you have anything about ID that is even scientifically testable? If so, present it, or as the saying goes, TGFO.

Show how this so called IDT is gaining ground among reputable scientists and scientific journals, studies and findings.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #175 on: January 30, 2012, 08:22:17 PM »
As it stands, it would seem that IDT is gaining ground and becoming more widely accepted as a plausible means of explaining the origins of life.

OK, if it's gaining ground then how about showing the scientific publications that state the origins of like came into existance by some intelligent cause. Do you have anything scientific to support your idea for intelligent design that would make it a worth while theory?

BY theory, I will use this definition:

Theory
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html

Do you have anything about ID that is even scientifically testable? If so, present it, or as the saying goes, TGFO.

Show how this so called IDT is gaining ground among reputable scientists and scientific journals, studies and findings.

Before he answers I would like to point out hat he has already implied multiple times that ID has no explanatory ability nor ability to be applied in practice.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #176 on: January 30, 2012, 08:44:20 PM »
As it stands, it would seem that IDT is gaining ground and becoming more widely accepted as a plausible means of explaining the origins of life.

OK, if it's gaining ground then how about showing the scientific publications that state the origins of like came into existance by some intelligent cause.

Sure. Here is just one page of content that depicts the vastness of the support the theory is getting, both inside and outside of the scientific community. It’s getting big. I could provide more if you’d like.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php

In addition, I recently read that there are now more than 50 published peer-reviewed papers !!!

Do you have anything scientific to support your idea for intelligent design that would make it a worth while theory?

BY theory, I will use this definition (bold mine):

Theory
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html

Do you have anything about ID that is even scientifically testable? If so, present it, or as the saying goes, TGFO.

This does a good job:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154

Show how this so called IDT is gaining ground among reputable scientists and scientific journals, studies and findings.

My comment was just a personal impression I have. I said "it would seem that IDT is gaining ground...." If there are studies to support this, I will have to locate them.


Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5654
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #177 on: January 30, 2012, 09:00:24 PM »


My comment was just a personal impression I have. I said "it would seem that IDT is gaining ground...." If there are studies to support this, I will have to locate them.

But as it stands I typically find sources that use what they are claiming to be true as their domain name are bullshit and I don't pay attention to what they say. Like: intelligentdesign.com. I mean, hell, I'd dismiss a domain called www.darwinwasright.com, or something stupid like that as bullshit. That's just me being picky and finding that site being bias.

But I did browse that site http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php and didn't find a single article written supporting ID. I found a lot of links to domain names supporting ID, but not a single link on http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php presented evidence for ID.

 
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #178 on: January 30, 2012, 09:11:51 PM »

This does a good job:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154


Fails. It assumes that just because something seems designed (which is very vaguely defined by them, might I add) that it automatically must be designed.

It also provides no way to measure or verify their supposed "CSI".

Also irreducible complexity is a notoriously failed argument already debunked repeatedly.

Also it says that this "CSI" can only be produced through ID but does not provide an evidenced or logical reason why that is. It is merely an assumption that is being made. You see,BS, just because it says that it's producing something testable doesn't mean that they are. Nothing here actually supports their claim of testability.

Nothing here demonstrates any testability, BS. It would help if you had even basic knowledge of......well anything.


http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php


Notably none of those sources are legitimate scientific organizations.


In addition, I recently read that there are now more than 50 published peer-reviewed papers !!!

Then link them. You've been asked to do that for a very long time and have always failed pathetically. Go ahead and let 'er rip.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12172
  • Darwins +261/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #179 on: January 30, 2012, 09:13:54 PM »
Question for you, why does your side have funerals?

Out of tradition for the family and friends to celebrate the 'life' of the person who is now dead.  Not sure what point you want to make stating this.

Well, the soul is physically trapped in a person's body unless there's a funeral.  So the funeral is needed in order for the soul to be able to make it to the afterlife.  Since we don't believe in souls and afterlives, the funeral makes no sense for us, from that perspective.

Unless JTP meant something else, anyway.  I'm just giving it a shot.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #180 on: January 30, 2012, 09:19:19 PM »
But as it stands I typically find sources that use what they are claiming to be true as their domain name are bullshit and I don't pay attention to what they say. Like: intelligentdesign.com. I mean, hell, I'd dismiss a domain called www.darwinwasright.com, or something stupid like that as bullshit. That's just me being picky and finding that site being bias.

Good luck finding a site that you can 100% trust to be neutral on topics relating to the origins of life, evolution, and ID. I try to pay more attention to the accuracy of the evidence rather than "who" is reporting it but I'm a natural born conspiracy theorist to begin with so maybe its just me.

But I did browse that site http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php and didn't find a single article written supporting ID. I found a lot of links to domain names supporting ID, but not a single link on http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php presented evidence for ID.

You would probably have to start reading some of the papers. Here are links to a couple of sites that contain them:

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com/2010/12/18-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-that.html

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #181 on: January 30, 2012, 09:22:45 PM »
Sure. Here is just one page of content that depicts the vastness of the support the theory is getting, both inside and outside of the scientific community. It’s getting big. I could provide more if you’d like.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php

  Do you have anything to contribute from a non religious organization? 

In addition, I recently read that there are now more than 50 published peer-reviewed papers !!!

I'd be interested in seeing this list if possible.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #182 on: January 30, 2012, 09:42:35 PM »
Fails. It assumes that just because something seems designed (which is very vaguely defined by them, might I add) that it automatically must be designed.

Wrong.

"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life."http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Then link them. You've been asked to do that for a very long time and have always failed pathetically. Go ahead and let 'er rip.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com/2010/12/18-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-that.html

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #183 on: January 30, 2012, 09:44:06 PM »

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

The first on that list is from Meyer (a philosopher) and is an essay on DNA. Not a scientific paper.

The second is from Dembski (another philosoper) and is simply a critic and essay of various things regarding information.

So far none of these are scientific papers on anything. Nor are they written by actual scientists. In fact I've gone down this list before with BS and pointed out that none of those are even close (and explained it to him). He already knows that these are all BS. We've been over them before. He's just lying, again.

http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com/2010/12/18-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-that.html
[/quote]
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #184 on: January 30, 2012, 09:45:09 PM »
I'd be interested in seeing this list if possible.
See posts #180 and #182

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #185 on: January 30, 2012, 09:54:06 PM »
Wrong.

"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life."http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Not wrong. You're being dishonest. What you just quoted was not what you posted before. You're changing what you said now that I've pointed out the flaw.

Nice try, but a horrible lie.

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #186 on: January 30, 2012, 09:54:40 PM »

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

The first on that list is from Meyer (a philosopher) and is an essay on DNA. Not a scientific paper.

The second is from Dembski (another philosoper) and is simply a critic and essay of various things regarding information.

So far none of these are scientific papers on anything. Nor are they written by actual scientists. In fact I've gone down this list before with BS and pointed out that none of those are even close (and explained it to him). He already knows that these are all BS. We've been over them before. He's just lying, again.

Does this mean that you are suggesting that none of the authors of any of the papers from either list have the proper scientific credentials?

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #187 on: January 30, 2012, 09:57:04 PM »

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

The first on that list is from Meyer (a philosopher) and is an essay on DNA. Not a scientific paper.

The second is from Dembski (another philosoper) and is simply a critic and essay of various things regarding information.

So far none of these are scientific papers on anything. Nor are they written by actual scientists. In fact I've gone down this list before with BS and pointed out that none of those are even close (and explained it to him). He already knows that these are all BS. We've been over them before. He's just lying, again.

Does this mean that you are suggesting that none of the authors of any of the papers from either list have the proper scientific credentials?

That or they haven't done the work. As I've said before.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #188 on: January 30, 2012, 10:01:13 PM »
Wrong.

"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life."http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Not wrong. You're being dishonest. What you just quoted was not what you posted before. You're changing what you said now that I've pointed out the flaw.

Nice try, but a horrible lie.

I'm not being dishonest. I showed you with the previous link how IDT adheres to the scientific method. This latest quote is just clarification as to what the method endeavors to demonstrate. Two different things. If you are genuinely interested in understanding what IDT is all about, then be fair to yourself and dig into the material and get a better understanding of it. It's not going to bite you. I promise you will have no scars.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #189 on: January 30, 2012, 10:02:43 PM »

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

The first on that list is from Meyer (a philosopher) and is an essay on DNA. Not a scientific paper.

The second is from Dembski (another philosoper) and is simply a critic and essay of various things regarding information.

So far none of these are scientific papers on anything. Nor are they written by actual scientists. In fact I've gone down this list before with BS and pointed out that none of those are even close (and explained it to him). He already knows that these are all BS. We've been over them before. He's just lying, again.

Does this mean that you are suggesting that none of the authors of any of the papers from either list have the proper scientific credentials?

That or they haven't done the work. As I've said before.

What do you mean by "work?"

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #190 on: January 30, 2012, 10:21:17 PM »
See posts #180 and #182

I meant resources that are accepted by the scientific community as being unbiased, objective scientific research, not Christian scientists like Discovery Institute. 

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #191 on: January 30, 2012, 10:34:45 PM »
See posts #180 and #182

I meant resources that are accepted by the scientific community as being unbiased, objective scientific research, not Christian scientists like Discovery Institute.

How do you know it's biased, unscientific work ?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12172
  • Darwins +261/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #192 on: January 30, 2012, 11:06:54 PM »
^^ Usually you can tell from reading it.  Unbiased scientific work is careful not to make claims that aren't supported by its data, or by the data it cites.  You can tell that the person's too busy trying to get their job done and done well for them to pay any time and effort on promoting some political or religious agenda.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7255
  • Darwins +168/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #193 on: January 30, 2012, 11:13:10 PM »
^^ Usually you can tell from reading it.  Unbiased scientific work is careful not to make claims that aren't supported by its data, or by the data it cites.  You can tell that the person's too busy trying to get their job done and done well for them to pay any time and effort on promoting some political or religious agenda.

Not to mention the overwhelming professional shame that would be heaped upon dishonesty and heavy, unnecessary bias.  It happens, no doubt, but it quickly gets replaced with just the facts and evidence.

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #194 on: January 31, 2012, 12:54:33 AM »
^^ Usually you can tell from reading it.  Unbiased scientific work is careful not to make claims that aren't supported by its data, or by the data it cites.  You can tell that the person's too busy trying to get their job done and done well for them to pay any time and effort on promoting some political or religious agenda.

Not to mention the overwhelming professional shame that would be heaped upon dishonesty and heavy, unnecessary bias.  It happens, no doubt, but it quickly gets replaced with just the facts and evidence.

Indeed, there is no place for bias in science. As soon as bias begins to appear, the work is thrown out. Bias is something that anyone trying to make a point in science wants to avoid like the plague. To say that scientists are biased in rejecting creationism is ridiculous.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #195 on: January 31, 2012, 01:25:07 AM »
How do you know it's biased, unscientific work ?

In addition to the other comments, I know Discovery Institute as a theological entity, trying to use science as its tool for evangelicalism.  The blog had some interesting papers, but some had nothing to do with ID, they were simply written by people who advocate ID, and others were not scientific papers (philosophy and mathematics, for example).  Indeed, any resource that suggests science can support ID can be trusted to manipulate information for the purpose of hopefully lending credibility to an idea that keeps getting shut down every time it surfaces in conventionally respected organizations.  They are conventionally respected for a reason - the merits of the scientist's work stand or fall on the information provided, not the belief that somehow, Goddidit. 

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #196 on: January 31, 2012, 01:33:31 AM »
What about anthropogenic climate change? How biased or unbiased is that science?


edit:
corrected spelling
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 01:36:08 AM by jaybwell32 »
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12172
  • Darwins +261/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #197 on: January 31, 2012, 01:43:46 AM »
It's biased.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6024
  • Darwins +652/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #198 on: January 31, 2012, 01:44:25 AM »

"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life."http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

The above is not science talk. "Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information..."

What does this mean? I have sat here trying to parse the above paragraph and all I can get out of it is this, if I paraphrase.

"Wow, hey lookie, a coded message. I must be coded because we can't read it. Who else could do that but some intelligent designer dude of no specific type but who is still way cool. And look at this here biology textbook I got at the used book store dated 1949. It doesn't have any laws in it that apply, so biology must be wrong! We got us symbols, and they are in a sequence, and it goes without saying or without researching that this must be some mysterious but kindly intelligent designer because I can't imagine any other source, even a natural one, because besides that would be inconvenient. And by plausible explanation I mean anything that disagrees with what I hope is true. And we won't bother mentioning the results of our research in the area, but we're pretty sure it couldn't have happened any other way than what we really really really hope it did, so there! And my neighbor peered at this so it's been peer reviewed. Take that, science fawns!"

Here is an abstract from an actual scientific paper. The first one I found when I googled "peer reviewed scientific paper DNA"

"The WRKY transcription factors function in plant growth and development, and response to the biotic and abiotic stresses. Although many studies have focused on the functional identification of the WRKY transcription factors, much less is known about molecular phylogenetic and global expression analysis of the complete WRKY family in maize. In this study, we identified 136 WRKY proteins coded by 119 genes in the B73 inbred line from the complete genome and named them in an orderly manner. Then, a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of five species was performed to explore the origin and evolutionary patterns of these WRKY genes, and the result showed that gene duplication is the major driving force for the origin of new groups and subgroups and functional divergence during evolution. Chromosomal location analysis of maize WRKY genes indicated that 20 gene clusters are distributed unevenly in the genome. Microarray-based expression analysis has revealed that 131 WRKY transcripts encoded by 116 genes may participate in the regulation of maize growth and development. Among them, 102 transcripts are stably expressed with a coefficient of variation (CV) value of <15%. The remaining 29 transcripts produced by 25 WRKY genes with the CV value of >15% are further analysed to discover new organ- or tissue-specific genes. In addition, microarray analyses of transcriptional responses to drought stress and fungal infection showed that maize WRKY proteins are involved in stress responses. All these results contribute to a deep probing into the roles of WRKY transcription factors in maize growth and development and stress tolerance."

(http://dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/01/23/dnares.dsr048.full)

Notice that even those of us who do not know all the technical terms can understand the gist of what they are saying. Notice things like specific numbers and specific values and specific outcomes. Notice the lack of useless words like "meaningful" and how they successfully avoided  giving the outcome some deeper meaning. It's just the facts, ma'am. And nothing else. Nothing in "quotes" and nothing generic. And this is just the abstract. They go into much more detail if you want to read the whole paper. And there are hundreds of papers like this released every single frickin' day. How many intel design "papers" are released a year. If it's over a dozen I'd be surprised.

I know that making stuff up is hard, but your guys need to be more prolific if they are going to make a dent in our knowledge base; i.e., make it smaller. So instead of futile arguments with a bunch of atheists, I suggest you go cheerlead your pack of Intel Design researchers and urge them on. Tell them you have a feeling about golgi apparatus, that they look a lot like something that was photoshopped, so it must be intelligently designed. They need your help, dude.



Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #199 on: January 31, 2012, 01:46:19 AM »
It's biased.

Well, okay...but is it biased towards mans involvement?
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12172
  • Darwins +261/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #200 on: January 31, 2012, 01:47:16 AM »
It's biased.
Well, okay...but is it biased towards mans involvement?

Depends on which supposedly scientific work you're talking about.  There's a lot of both flavors.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12172
  • Darwins +261/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #201 on: January 31, 2012, 01:50:38 AM »
There is also plenty of unbiased science on the topic.  For example, the science of taking geochemical readings from peat cores is - as far as I'm aware - pretty much free from bias.

Is that what you were asking about?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #202 on: January 31, 2012, 02:16:56 AM »
There is also plenty of unbiased science on the topic.  For example, the science of taking geochemical readings from peat cores is - as far as I'm aware - pretty much free from bias.

Is that what you were asking about?

I wasn't asking about anything in specific. Just trying to get a general flavor since we are talking about bias and all. I will admit that I have a hard time believing that man has as much of an impact on the global environment as suggested by some. But over all it is very very difficult for me, as a layman, to decipher who is right and who is over-exaggerating or down playing the issue of catastrophic climate change in conjunction with man's contribution to it all.

The hard science of it does me no good because I am not trained in the sciences. Or math...or anything really. So when I read certain articles which explain how our global environment is on the brink of disaster due to certain activities carried out by man, it sounds very credible to me. However, when I read certain articles explaining how the models used by the other guys don't factor in natural cyclical cycles and earths position and rotation and the activity of the sun etc. it sounds very credible.

It could be the same for people like biblestudent when it comes to the argument of intelligent design vs. evolution.

without the proper indoctrination instruction education, how are we supposed to tell the difference? Who do we trust?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 02:18:35 AM by jaybwell32 »
Quote
"People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don't care. People need certain things" - Senator Leland Yee (D) California