Without the United States, what would the world look like?

how does believing in a divine creator contradict anything in science?

Because it is almost impossible to reconcile both trains of thought. I do realise there are Christian scientists, but generally, you can't have one with the other...

enlighten me

how does god contradict any of the laws of science? does believing in god mean you can't believe in gravity? or kepler's law? or laws of thermodynamics?

It's more the other way around. I think Christians can quite easily reconcile a god with science. But I can tell you as an atheist - a true non believer - that I can't. Science is a dynamic that, through various methods, can be proven true or false - not with everything of course, but with a lot of things.

God is a belief system with no tangible proof...
 
Because it is almost impossible to reconcile both trains of thought. I do realise there are Christian scientists, but generally, you can't have one with the other...

enlighten me

how does god contradict any of the laws of science? does believing in god mean you can't believe in gravity? or kepler's law? or laws of thermodynamics?

It's more the other way around. I think Christians can quite easily reconcile a god with science. But I can tell you as an atheist - a true non believer - that I can't. Science is a dynamic that, through various methods, can be proven true or false - not with everything of course, but with a lot of things.

God is a belief system with no tangible proof...

and yet, if one reads A Brief History of Time, it seems to me that science and creation are reconcilable. What isn't reconcilable is a literalist view of the bible and science.
 
how does believing in a divine creator contradict anything in science?

Because it is almost impossible to reconcile both trains of thought. I do realise there are Christian scientists, but generally, you can't have one with the other...

enlighten me

how does god contradict any of the laws of science? does believing in god mean you can't believe in gravity? or kepler's law? or laws of thermodynamics?

Believe whatever you want. If you want to believe the inside of the moon is made of "soft and gooey cheese", then fine, I can't prove that it isn't. But the likelihood of the existence of magical Middle Eastern spirit beings is equally likely.
 
Because it is almost impossible to reconcile both trains of thought. I do realise there are Christian scientists, but generally, you can't have one with the other...

enlighten me

how does god contradict any of the laws of science? does believing in god mean you can't believe in gravity? or kepler's law? or laws of thermodynamics?

It's more the other way around. I think Christians can quite easily reconcile a god with science. But I can tell you as an atheist - a true non believer - that I can't. Science is a dynamic that, through various methods, can be proven true or false - not with everything of course, but with a lot of things.

God is a belief system with no tangible proof...

if we only dealt with things we could "prove" we wouldn't live very interesting lives.

i believe the things we take on faith are just as important and what sets us apart as human.
 
Because it is almost impossible to reconcile both trains of thought. I do realise there are Christian scientists, but generally, you can't have one with the other...

enlighten me

how does god contradict any of the laws of science? does believing in god mean you can't believe in gravity? or kepler's law? or laws of thermodynamics?

Believe whatever you want. If you want to believe the inside of the moon is made of "soft and gooey cheese", then fine, I can't prove that it isn't. But the likelihood of the existence of magical Middle Eastern spirit beings is equally likely.

what religion teaches that the moon is made of soft and gooey cheese?
i'm serious. i don't think that a belief in god contradicts a belief in science. of course, if you want to literally interpret the bible and believe the earth is a few thousand years old, i think you're pretty fucking silly.
but if i believe god created the universe, why can't i believe in scientific principles? or vice versa. i believe you can do both, you don't seem to think that's possible.
do you have a better reason for that, other than your gooey moon example?
 
You're making that up. Science and religion are exact opposites.

What is especially funny, you can go on the Internet and find a "Gay" Scientist organization, "Women" Scientist organization, "Black" Scientists organization and right on down the line of diversity.

I have yet to find a Scientific organization made up of "Conservatives".



Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

how are those exact opposites?

Because science deals with what can be quantified.

Religion, the supernatural, spirits and the occult have no basis in reality.

One is "right there" the other is "no where".

Are you disrespecting your President?
 
Because it is almost impossible to reconcile both trains of thought. I do realise there are Christian scientists, but generally, you can't have one with the other...

enlighten me

how does god contradict any of the laws of science? does believing in god mean you can't believe in gravity? or kepler's law? or laws of thermodynamics?

It's more the other way around. I think Christians can quite easily reconcile a god with science. But I can tell you as an atheist - a true non believer - that I can't. Science is a dynamic that, through various methods, can be proven true or false - not with everything of course, but with a lot of things.

God is a belief system with no tangible proof...

Do you believe in man made global warming? Care to provide soem evidence with science it is true?
 
enlighten me

how does god contradict any of the laws of science? does believing in god mean you can't believe in gravity? or kepler's law? or laws of thermodynamics?

It's more the other way around. I think Christians can quite easily reconcile a god with science. But I can tell you as an atheist - a true non believer - that I can't. Science is a dynamic that, through various methods, can be proven true or false - not with everything of course, but with a lot of things.

God is a belief system with no tangible proof...

Do you believe in man made global warming? Care to provide soem evidence with science it is true?

fancy computer models tell us its true. that's enough proof we need to drastically change our way of life.
 
if we only dealt with things we could "prove" we wouldn't live very interesting lives.

i believe the things we take on faith are just as important and what sets us apart as human.

I agree with what you say, but what does that have to do with reconciling science with a god.

I disagree with your last premise...there are many things that set us apart, but the main thing is that we are Sentinent beings (well, compared to others on this planet)...

I would rather have certainty over faith any day of the week...
 
fancy computer models tell us its true. that's enough proof we need to drastically change our way of life.

Actually, you wrong. Data collected by CLIMOTOLOGISTS, which has been studied and peer reviewed says so. Note I cap the type of scientist who studies this, not some geologist or other scientist who specialises in another area...
 
if we only dealt with things we could "prove" we wouldn't live very interesting lives.

i believe the things we take on faith are just as important and what sets us apart as human.

I agree with what you say, but what does that have to do with reconciling science with a god.

I disagree with your last premise...there are many things that set us apart, but the main thing is that we are Sentinent beings (well, compared to others on this planet)...

I would rather have certainty over faith any day of the week...

maybe you're right. i just think in terms of relationships and love, science is limited in what in can tell us.
 
fancy computer models tell us its true. that's enough proof we need to drastically change our way of life.

Actually, you wrong. Data collected by CLIMOTOLOGISTS, which has been studied and peer reviewed says so. Note I cap the type of scientist who studies this, not some geologist or other scientist who specialises in another area...

i would really appreciate your help with this matter. i'm being serious, there is no sarcasm. i admit, i'm a man-caused global warming skeptic, but i'm also open-minded enough to realize that i don't know much about the subject. any info i can gather would help. so here are my issues. if you can me answers , i'd appreciate it.

the world is millions of years old right?
the world has gone through countless (tens, hundreds, thousands) of periods of warming/cooling?
almost all of them occurred before man existed and all but one/two occurred before man related CO2 levels spiked?
is the increase in temperatures in the past 100 years out of the ordinary?
how has science eliminated all other factors that could contribute to global warming (i.e. the sun) in order to positively conclude that the warming that has gone on in the past 100 years is manmade?
previous warming periods have been know to be advantageous to humans, while cooling periods have been negative. why would this one be any different?
i read increased levels of co2 follow warming periods, not cause them. that's incorrect?
what data in the 1970's led scientists to believe we were entering a period of global cooling?
 
[]

i would really appreciate your help with this matter. i'm being serious, there is no sarcasm. i admit, i'm a man-caused global warming skeptic, but i'm also open-minded enough to realize that i don't know much about the subject. any info i can gather would help. so here are my issues. if you can me answers , i'd appreciate it.

the world is millions of years old right?
the world has gone through countless (tens, hundreds, thousands) of periods of warming/cooling?
almost all of them occurred before man existed and all but one/two occurred before man related CO2 levels spiked?
is the increase in temperatures in the past 100 years out of the ordinary?
how has science eliminated all other factors that could contribute to global warming (i.e. the sun) in order to positively conclude that the warming that has gone on in the past 100 years is manmade?
previous warming periods have been know to be advantageous to humans, while cooling periods have been negative. why would this one be any different?
i read increased levels of co2 follow warming periods, not cause them. that's incorrect?
what data in the 1970's led scientists to believe we were entering a period of global cooling?

I don't know enough about the subject to comment, which is why I generally stay away from these threads....

I believe man is having an effect, but not too sure how much of an effect.

If a reasonable percentage of climotologists (even as low as 10%) had reservations about it, then so would I. People spend their whole working life studying this stuff. I read news items...shrug....
 
fancy computer models tell us its true. that's enough proof we need to drastically change our way of life.

Actually, you wrong. Data collected by CLIMOTOLOGISTS, which has been studied and peer reviewed says so. Note I cap the type of scientist who studies this, not some geologist or other scientist who specialises in another area...

Data that has been "adjusted" using computer programs written by non-professional programmers. The procedures to statistically analysis this data has been implemented by people with no formal training in statistics.

But go ahead and say that the Climatologists are experts here. They are amateurs in the fields that matter with regards to data aggregation and analysis.
 
[]

i would really appreciate your help with this matter. i'm being serious, there is no sarcasm. i admit, i'm a man-caused global warming skeptic, but i'm also open-minded enough to realize that i don't know much about the subject. any info i can gather would help. so here are my issues. if you can me answers , i'd appreciate it.

the world is millions of years old right?
the world has gone through countless (tens, hundreds, thousands) of periods of warming/cooling?
almost all of them occurred before man existed and all but one/two occurred before man related CO2 levels spiked?
is the increase in temperatures in the past 100 years out of the ordinary?
how has science eliminated all other factors that could contribute to global warming (i.e. the sun) in order to positively conclude that the warming that has gone on in the past 100 years is manmade?
previous warming periods have been know to be advantageous to humans, while cooling periods have been negative. why would this one be any different?
i read increased levels of co2 follow warming periods, not cause them. that's incorrect?
what data in the 1970's led scientists to believe we were entering a period of global cooling?

I don't know enough about the subject to comment, which is why I generally stay away from these threads....

I believe man is having an effect, but not too sure how much of an effect.

If a reasonable percentage of climotologists (even as low as 10%) had reservations about it, then so would I. People spend their whole working life studying this stuff. I read news items...shrug....

but aren't these the same people who were telling us 30 years ago we were heading towards global cooling? these people live off of government grants. if governments have an interest in promoting global warming, and they control whether or not you
$5 million to study global warming, maybe you'd be for global warming.
 
Data that has been "adjusted" using computer programs written by non-professional programmers. The procedures to statistically analysis this data has been implemented by people with no formal training in statistics.

But go ahead and say that the Climatologists are experts here. They are amateurs in the fields that matter with regards to data aggregation and analysis.

What do you mean 'adjusted'....
 
Data that has been "adjusted" using computer programs written by non-professional programmers. The procedures to statistically analysis this data has been implemented by people with no formal training in statistics.

But go ahead and say that the Climatologists are experts here. They are amateurs in the fields that matter with regards to data aggregation and analysis.

What do you mean 'adjusted'....

The raw data is adjusted to compensate for a variety of variables so as to provide an even baseline for comparison.

I question the methods used for this adjustment. I've seen the leaked source code of the fortran routines - quite amateur work with no statistical methodology.

A decent summary of other adjustments to the data here:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...t/2930-noaa-and-the-new-qclimategateq-scandal
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top