Republicans for science group

[ScienceRocks]

Republicans for science group. Yep, at one time the religious and people on the right loved science. Why not again???

Post if you love science.

Newton was a fellow of Trinity College and the second Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian and, unusually for a member of the Cambridge faculty, he refused to take holy orders in the Church of England, perhaps because he privately rejected the doctrine of trinitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

Maxwell was an evangelical Presbyterian, and in his later years became an Elder of the Church of Scotland.[78] Maxwell's religious beliefs and related activities have been the focus of a number of papers.[79][80][81][82] Attending both Church of Scotland (his father's denomination) and Episcopalian (his mother's denomination) services as a child, Maxwell later underwent an evangelical conversion in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Galileo_Galilei

The relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and science is a widely debated subject. The church has often been a patron of science, and founded schools, universities and hospitals. Catholic scientists, both religious and lay, have led scientific discovery in many fields. Conversely, the conflict thesis and other critiques posit that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between the Church and science. Pope John Paul II wrote that "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."

 

[rdean]

Good for you. Probably the first attempt at a Republican/Conservative science "something".

Remember, it's not about a "conservative" or a "liberal" slant to science. It's about getting the next generation interested.

Hopefully, you can find some living conservatives who are in to science.

 

[whitehall]

Ike Newton was a republican? Surely you radicals might sober up sometime.

 

[daveman]

Republicans for science group. Yep, at one time the religious and people on the right loved science. Why not again???

We never stopped.

Next stupid question?

 

[rdean]

Republicans for science group. Yep, at one time the religious and people on the right loved science. Why not again???

We never stopped.

Next stupid question?

Do you believe evolution is science?

How about climate change?

Do vaccines cause autism?

Can man destroy the world?

I know. You said "one". But I couldn't help myself.

 

[daveman]

Republicans for science group. Yep, at one time the religious and people on the right loved science. Why not again???

We never stopped.

Next stupid question?

Do you believe evolution is science?

Yes. It is a theory, with some evidence to support it. It does not, however, explain the origin of life, as many supporters mistakenly believe.

How about climate change?

The climate has always changed. However, you mean anthropogenic climate change, which has only been "proven" with manipulated and cherry-picked data and faulty computer models.

Do vaccines cause autism?

No.

Can man destroy the world?

Man could render most of the planet uninhabitable. But if you're referring to an Alderaan-type destruction, no.

I know. You said "one". But I couldn't help myself.

I know. Poor impulse control is a sign of immaturity and weak-mindedness.

 

[Old Rocks]

We never stopped.

Next stupid question?

Do you believe evolution is science?

Yes. It is a theory, with some evidence to support it. It does not, however, explain the origin of life, as many supporters mistakenly believe.

The climate has always changed. However, you mean anthropogenic climate change, which has only been "proven" with manipulated and cherry-picked data and faulty computer models.

No.

Can man destroy the world?

Man could render most of the planet uninhabitable. But if you're referring to an Alderaan-type destruction, no.

I know. You said "one". But I couldn't help myself.

I know. Poor impulse control is a sign of immaturity and weak-mindedness.

Abiogenisis is not in the realm of evolution. That is in the realm of organic chemistry. Once life starts to replicate accurately, then evolution has began.

In the geological history of this planet there have been a number of times in which there was a rapid change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere from what had been the norm. In each case, there were extinction events, some large, some small. Just because we are the source of the GHGs does not change the laws of physics. It has been proven time and again that the GHGs absorb longwave IR. You add more GHGs to the atmosphere, the atmosphere absorbs more energy. And that creates a warmer world. Rather rapidly, as we are seeing at present. Man is changing the climate, and doing so at a rate that is unique in the history of this planet.

Dave boy, you have proven time and again that your grasp of any aspect of science is quite weak. You would do well to do some real research and learn what real scientists are stating, rather than following the rants of an obese junkie on the radio.

 

[daveman]

Do you believe evolution is science?

Yes. It is a theory, with some evidence to support it. It does not, however, explain the origin of life, as many supporters mistakenly believe.

The climate has always changed. However, you mean anthropogenic climate change, which has only been "proven" with manipulated and cherry-picked data and faulty computer models.

No.

Man could render most of the planet uninhabitable. But if you're referring to an Alderaan-type destruction, no.

I know. You said "one". But I couldn't help myself.

I know. Poor impulse control is a sign of immaturity and weak-mindedness.

Abiogenisis is not in the realm of evolution. That is in the realm of organic chemistry. Once life starts to replicate accurately, then evolution has began.

I know that.

Many evolution supporters do not.

In the geological history of this planet there have been a number of times in which there was a rapid change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere from what had been the norm. In each case, there were extinction events, some large, some small. Just because we are the source of the GHGs does not change the laws of physics. It has been proven time and again that the GHGs absorb longwave IR. You add more GHGs to the atmosphere, the atmosphere absorbs more energy. And that creates a warmer world. Rather rapidly, as we are seeing at present. Man is changing the climate, and doing so at a rate that is unique in the history of this planet.

Yes, I'm familiar with the dogma of your faith.

Dave boy, you have proven time and again that your grasp of any aspect of science is quite weak. You would do well to do some real research and learn what real scientists are stating, rather than following the rants of an obese junkie on the radio.

You don't want me to do any research. You don't want me to think for myself.

You want me to instantly and unquestioningly accept and endorse everything your cult preaches.

You know -- just like you do.