Science isn’t always the answer.

[LittleNipper]

An atheist blog spot. I'm so impressed with your research.

Haha..now this is irony. You don't seem too impressed with the research of the entire global scientific community, either. But reading a creationist blog full of laughable lies? Now THAT'S impressive!

The entire global scientific community is not refuting the Bible. You atheists are.

Not the entire scientific community just most of it.

So Hindu, muslims, jews, atheists, Buddhist and most scientists don't believe the virgin birth story.

Hindi, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and many atheists do believe Jesus actually existed. However, there is no safety in numbers if one doesn't have the Messiah on his side.

Why can't you convince Jews Muslims Hindu and Buddists that Jesus was the real messiah?

You guys spend a lot of time telling us atheists why you think we don't believe. We don't want to or we are evil. Well then, why don't these other groups buy in to your story if it's so obvious?

Some do come to believe. However it takes a humble heart. Not everyone is willing to accept that their tradition is only that. Jews, Muslims, Hindi, and Buddhists are born into their belief. That is even true of many so-called "christians". However to be a TRUE CHRISTIAN, one must be BORN-AGAIN!

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ RetiredGySgt, et al,

BLUF: Oh yeah! I can hardly argue with you there. There is quiet, but none the less, controversies among Atmospheric Scientist on the issues in both:

◈ Regional Climatology ​

◈ Physical Climatology​

And yet we have a whole field that never used the scientific method and there is supposedly a scientist consensus that it is true, climate change caused by man. Or perhaps YOU unlike the others I have asked can provide the tests retest and experiments used to come to this scientific consensus

(COMMENT)

As the Great Smog of 1952 demonstrates well, there are a great many factors that affect the climate. And there are a great many impacts that adverse climate conditions affect. But the Study of Climate Change (Environmental Science), that is the recorded variations that have a temporal persistence is relatively new, thus the data necessary to produce reliable impact studies that will extend into the future is about as predictable as Sun Spots. But as modeling applications improve, and more data is accumulated, causes, patterns, and effects will become distinguishable and detectable.

Can I argue that your point that the scientific method is not used in the Study of Climate Change? (Rhetorical) No! In the sense that the observation of data is not yet as revealing as it could be; and, tests on the environment are limited to computer modeling for the most part.

Science is not perfect. Science is NOT beyond corruption through commercial influences. And science is not beyond the effects of politics in all its forms. While America is better than many countries in terms of scientific development, it is not the Mecca for scientific study. Congress has seen to that. While America did, at one time, have the world's strongest manned-space program in the world, today our Astronauts have to Hitchhike into space. July 20, 1981, marked the end of the US space shuttle program and the beginning of a lengthy hiatus in manned space efforts; now nearly four decades-long. Congress would rather go to war than go to the Moon or Mars. But that is another topic.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ LittleNipper, et al,

When was this established and by whom?

BLUF: I simply believe that this is a false Bible Pounding...

Some do come to believe. However it takes a humble heart. Not everyone is willing to accept that their tradition is only that. Jews, Muslims, Hindi, and Buddhists are born into their belief. That is even true of many so-called "christians". However to be a TRUE CHRISTIAN, one must be BORN-AGAIN!

(COMMENT)
There is no such thing as a "True Christian." This "Born Again" label is merely an Evangelistic sales gimmik.

Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, Vol 1, Pg 285
​

The term Christ (Hebrew mâshîach, messiah*; Greek christos, anointed) recapitulates the confession of Christian faith. The whole body of titles attributed to Jesus of Nazareth are summed up in this word, which has semantically subsumed all other titles that indicate
the identity of Jesus (Lord, Son of God*, and so on) and has imposed itself in the designation of the one called Jesus Christ. This is so true that in Antioch, the “disciples of the way” of Christ were called Christians (Acts 11:26). Later, Ignatius of Antioch invented the
neologism “Christianity (Ad Magn. 10. 3, SC 10 bis, 105).

For this obvious reason, many other articles in this encyclopedia take up in one way or another the subject of Jesus in history* and in Christian dogma*: the Son of the Father* in the Trinity, the Son* of man, the Servant, the Lamb* of God. They deal with his “mysteries”
(Incarnation*, Passion*, Resurrection*) as well as with the development of Christology (particularly on the basis of the first seven ecumenical councils*). On the other hand, the primary motivation for Christology lies in the doctrine of salvation. This article, devoted
principally to the human-divine identity of Christ, sets out a synthesis and refers throughout to relevant specialized articles.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[forkup]

starts with a guess then makes assumptions

But that is not all science does or is made of, despite your moronic claim to the contrary. Got it?

YES it is they make a guess then they make assumptions and then after a GUESS they test what they can and for most of it never prove anything. Lets start with man made climate change shhall we, NO ONE has tested the supposed theories of how man CAUSED global warming they just made assumptions and in most cases IGNORED what science actually does know. LIKE CO2 follows rises in temperature it doe snot cause them and that CO2 has a lessening effect on added hit as more is added.

NO ONE has tested the supposed theories of how man CAUSED global warming they just made assumptions and in most cases IGNORED what science actually does know.

.
why lie christian what does your disinformation do for you ...

View attachment 342689

oh, the fine points - that's where it doesn't work for you.

Be specific NOW and link to these TESTS and the RETEST to verify man made global warming.

What specific hypothesis you have a problem with?
Hypothesis 1: The world is warming up. -
Can be tested quite easily by making periodic temperature readings over long periods globally. Something that has been done.

NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

Naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling could easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming, according to a recent study.

www.nasa.gov

Hypothesis 2: CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gasses. Easily supported both in a lab and by direct observation. Just look at Venus a comparable planet to ours yet hellishly warm because large amounts of CO2 in it's atmosphere. This is a test in a lab

Hypothesis 3: Mankind has caused an increase of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. That's a bit trickier since we don't just have to establish that there's an increase in the CO2 levels but that this CO2 is not being added by natural causes. We can do both by drilling ice cores and measuring the composition of air bubbles captured in them.
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey No explanation beyond man can be given for this increase. Since the record shows a stable and predictable increase and decreases for these gasses right up until the industrial revolution after which it didn't just started increasing but increasing faster and faster, this without any natural reason for it to do so (no large vulcanic eruptions.)

You are welcome to object to any of these 3 hypothesis but I will ask you to show me the tests that support your position.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you claim because we can NOT prove God exists that he does not

I have never said or implied such a thing. Gods may, indeed, exist. You're just making stuff up, at this point.

So, define "transitional species", so that i can show you one.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You should just give up and stop trying to have discussions of any kind.

Neat! And he should define "transitional species", so that i can show him one.

 

[basquebromance]

if you're not Christian, get the hell out of America, and never come back. America is a Christian nation, that's how it was founded

 

[RetiredGySgt]

starts with a guess then makes assumptions

But that is not all science does or is made of, despite your moronic claim to the contrary. Got it?

YES it is they make a guess then they make assumptions and then after a GUESS they test what they can and for most of it never prove anything. Lets start with man made climate change shhall we, NO ONE has tested the supposed theories of how man CAUSED global warming they just made assumptions and in most cases IGNORED what science actually does know. LIKE CO2 follows rises in temperature it doe snot cause them and that CO2 has a lessening effect on added hit as more is added.

NO ONE has tested the supposed theories of how man CAUSED global warming they just made assumptions and in most cases IGNORED what science actually does know.

.
why lie christian what does your disinformation do for you ...

View attachment 342689

oh, the fine points - that's where it doesn't work for you.

Be specific NOW and link to these TESTS and the RETEST to verify man made global warming.

What specific hypothesis you have a problem with?
Hypothesis 1: The world is warming up. -
Can be tested quite easily by making periodic temperature readings over long periods globally. Something that has been done. View attachment 342898

NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

Naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling could easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming, according to a recent study.

www.nasa.gov

Hypothesis 2: CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gasses. Easily supported both in a lab and by direct observation. Just look at Venus a comparable planet to ours yet hellishly warm because large amounts of CO2 in it's atmosphere. This is a test in a lab

Hypothesis 3: Mankind has caused an increase of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. That's a bit trickier since we don't just have to establish that there's an increase in the CO2 levels but that this CO2 is not being added by natural causes. We can do both by drilling ice cores and measuring the composition of air bubbles captured in them.
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey No explanation beyond man can be given for this increase. Since the record shows a stable and predictable increase and decreases for these gasses right up until the industrial revolution after which it didn't just started increasing but increasing faster and faster, this without any natural reason for it to do so (no large vulcanic eruptions.)

You are welcome to object to any of these 3 hypothesis but I will ask you to show me the tests that support your position.

And yet science is clear on CO2, it has a DIMINISHING effect on warming as it increases and it FOLLOWS warming does not cause it by itself. Further in the 1900's it was predicted PREDICTED that the earth would warm by 1 degree by 2000 or so and it did just that, the only thing is most of the warming occurred in the last 50 years of 1900's which freaked some of you retards out.

Now be specific for us and explain why not ONE of the models that claims we will warm by x amount by 2100 has panned out and the dire predictions about current warming have all failed? I can, because the COMPUTER models used are totally flawed and BOGUS. That's right YOUR science is WRONG on every level. Also not one experiment has been proven or reproducible on supposed warming in the future and NONE explain how man supposedly caused current warming but the hypothesis fails to predict a provable future and has since the 1980's.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you claim because we can NOT prove God exists that he does not

I have never said or implied such a thing. Gods may, indeed, exist. You're just making stuff up, at this point.

So, define "transitional species", so that i can show you one.

Again dumb ass it IS YOUR JOB TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM it is not my job to do so, you have to provide the evidence not me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet science is clear on CO2, it has a DIMINISHING effect on warming as it increases and it FOLLOWS warming does not cause it by itself.

Shameless lies. Get your lies out of here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again dumb ass it IS YOUR JOB TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM

Which i plan to try to do. Define "transitional species". You said we have never found one. Well, define that term, so we can test your claim.

But you won't. Because you know you are wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again dumb ass it IS YOUR JOB TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM

Which i plan to try to do. Define "transitional species". You said we have never found one. Well, define that term, so we can test your claim.

But you won't. Because you know you are wrong.

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

Defining your own term is your work. Youre asking me to provide examples of transitional species. As soon as you tell me what that means, i will attempt to do so.

But you won't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

Defining your own term is your work. Youre asking me to provide examples of transitional species. As soon as you tell me what that means, i will attempt to do so.

But you won't.

It is pretty simple really YOU claim they exist so it is on YOU to prove that point, not mine to provide you the proof you need.

 

[basquebromance]

i'm a christian, a conservative, a republican...in that order

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

is pretty simple really YOU claim they exist

No. I cant claim what you are calling "transitional species" exist, until i know what your definition is. Remember, the claim on the table, actually, is your claim that we have never found one. Try to keep that in mind.

So, define "transitional species", then i will see if i can show an example of one we have found.

But again, you won't. And everyone knows why.

 

[forkup]

starts with a guess then makes assumptions

But that is not all science does or is made of, despite your moronic claim to the contrary. Got it?

YES it is they make a guess then they make assumptions and then after a GUESS they test what they can and for most of it never prove anything. Lets start with man made climate change shhall we, NO ONE has tested the supposed theories of how man CAUSED global warming they just made assumptions and in most cases IGNORED what science actually does know. LIKE CO2 follows rises in temperature it doe snot cause them and that CO2 has a lessening effect on added hit as more is added.

NO ONE has tested the supposed theories of how man CAUSED global warming they just made assumptions and in most cases IGNORED what science actually does know.

.
why lie christian what does your disinformation do for you ...

View attachment 342689

oh, the fine points - that's where it doesn't work for you.

Be specific NOW and link to these TESTS and the RETEST to verify man made global warming.

What specific hypothesis you have a problem with?
Hypothesis 1: The world is warming up. -
Can be tested quite easily by making periodic temperature readings over long periods globally. Something that has been done. View attachment 342898

NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

Naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling could easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming, according to a recent study.

www.nasa.gov

Hypothesis 2: CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gasses. Easily supported both in a lab and by direct observation. Just look at Venus a comparable planet to ours yet hellishly warm because large amounts of CO2 in it's atmosphere. This is a test in a lab

Hypothesis 3: Mankind has caused an increase of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. That's a bit trickier since we don't just have to establish that there's an increase in the CO2 levels but that this CO2 is not being added by natural causes. We can do both by drilling ice cores and measuring the composition of air bubbles captured in them.
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey No explanation beyond man can be given for this increase. Since the record shows a stable and predictable increase and decreases for these gasses right up until the industrial revolution after which it didn't just started increasing but increasing faster and faster, this without any natural reason for it to do so (no large vulcanic eruptions.)

You are welcome to object to any of these 3 hypothesis but I will ask you to show me the tests that support your position.

And yet science is clear on CO2, it has a DIMINISHING effect on warming as it increases and it FOLLOWS warming does not cause it by itself. Further in the 1900's it was predicted PREDICTED that the earth would warm by 1 degree by 2000 or so and it did just that, the only thing is most of the warming occurred in the last 50 years of 1900's which freaked some of you retards out.

Now be specific for us and explain why not ONE of the models that claims we will warm by x amount by 2100 has panned out and the dire predictions about current warming have all failed? I can, because the COMPUTER models used are totally flawed and BOGUS. That's right YOUR science is WRONG on every level. Also not one experiment has been proven or reproducible on supposed warming in the future and NONE explain how man supposedly caused current warming but the hypothesis fails to predict a provable future and has since the 1980's.

And yet science is clear on CO2, it has a DIMINISHING effect on warming as it increases and it FOLLOWS warming does not cause it by itself.

Is it now? You will of course be able to provide sources for this claim. Since it literally is the exact opposite we see in the ice cores. Feel free to check the link which is provided.

the only thing is most of the warming occurred in the last 50 years

True but a marked increase was seen before that. Also, the fact that the heating is accelerating in no way contradicts climate change, in fact, it supports it. Since people have likewise been accelerating their CO2 emissions something we know because air composition is being monitored globally for quite some time now.

Now be specific for us and explain

This is not how this works. You asked to be specific both in the hypothesis and the tests conducted to support it. I have done both. Now it's your turn to be specific and cite both the objections you have to the hypotheses and supporting evidence for those objections.

 

[forkup]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

Defining your own term is your work. Youre asking me to provide examples of transitional species. As soon as you tell me what that means, i will attempt to do so.

But you won't.

It is pretty simple really YOU claim they exist so it is on YOU to prove that point, not mine to provide you the proof you need

He isn't asking you to prove anything. He is asking you to clarify a term you used ( transitional species) to describe something he has to provide in order to rebuff your assertion that it doesn't exist. That's a reasonable request. The fact that you seem unwilling to clearly define what you claim doesn't exist speaks volumes.

If I claim the color blue doesn't exist and you show me something sky blue after which I claim it's not dark enough to be recognized as blue, you will never be able to resolve the truth of your assertion. You defining "transitional species" something you are adamant on that it doesn't exist, prevents you from moving the goalposts.