More science to chew on....

[Virtual Scott]

Hmm... I didn't say anything about equating 'it's popular so it must be true' moral relativism to my argument. Something tells me that a consensus of scientific opinion and research means a little more than a popularity poll. I can remember merely 10-15 years ago when the research was still being driven in purely scientific circles, most decried a global warming crisis due to human influence as 'speculation' and 'unpopular conjecture' but now that it's been virtually proven beyond question, you deem it 'popular' and therefore, untrue? Maybe I am misundestanding your argument, but are you implying global warming/climate change isn't occuring (and being compounded by human influence) because it's a popular 'theory' now?

Fuck, man, the government has a responsibility to the people of this country to work in their interest. We voted them, and it's their JOB. Sure, let's vote out the fuckers we don't agree with, that's one's fundamental right as a citizenn. But the Government also has a responsbility Not to suppress evidence, or Deceive the Public, and to be held accountable for it's actions, inactions or illegal MO's.

So I would say it IS the governments responsibility to research energy (DOE) as much as it has a responsibility to research military arms, education, economic progress, or any other concept, theory, action, medium, discipline. We pay taxes for this research, these institutions, so, yeah, it IS their responsibility and preferably to do it with a minimum of negligence, incompetence, cronyism, corruption or special interest/religiously-influenced agenda.

Sounds like your opinion on the role of government, basically, is entirely different than mine.

Sorry, I didn't 'shut the fuck up' on this one, though. That's going to cost you money, you know... ;-)

[Fox]

virtualscott said:

Sorry, I didn't 'shut the fuck up' on this one, though. That's going to cost you money, you know... ;-)

Meh, but seriously...

My whole point is the scientific community has been wrong several times throughout history. Look at Newton everyone thought he was right until Einstien proved him wrong. That's a very hard science too, Newton's stuff is still useful and often more practical then Einstein's.

Newton had far more evidence for his theories than much of the crap people spout as fact today, such as evolution or Global Warming. The eugenics is a perfect example of such crap. Heck 30 years ago people were complaining about global cooling.

The fact is if you look at the history of the earth: there have been periods of much warmer temperatures, and much cooler temperatures. Yes the climate has, is and will change. Its already changed much futher in each direction without the aid of man. Is the earth warming now? Is it a long upcycle, is it a short one? Is it simply returning the the equilibrium? Is it just a temporary reversal of a cooling trend?

No one knows, we simply do not have the data available.

Until those questions are answered, asking if man has any effect on it, is a moot point.

[Virtual Scott]

Of course, yes. I agree with your first statement. Obviously, with technology where its at and the general consensus amongst folks in the scientific community (and even outside of it) and academic communities, the odds that these people are ALL wrong is probably minimal, at best. Evolution, Global warming et al, are the results of far more research, study, observation, etc than ever before, and when there's something even approaching consensus in a variety of inter-related (and sometimes far removed) disciplines, this speaks more towards something approaching fact than a few naysayers who tend to be fringe theological or politically-funded groups or individuals. Global warming is a regular occurance through out history, a cyclical event, that's fact as well... the other fact is that human unfluence is driving a new influence in the current global warming trends, and that's with the best data and observations and research currently available and in play right now. It doesn't really take much more than a layman to realize BURNING fossil fuel has negative impact on the atmosphere. Remember CFCs? Acid Rain? Red Tides? Mercury pollutants? There's enough information out there to speak the case for itself...

[Shark Black]

Lets Put this one to bed!! Evolution is real.... #nunchuck#
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution

[SethFWF]

Well, that won't put the debate to bed by any
means...while many evolutionary concepts
make sense and probably are more than just
theory, it doesn't eliminate creation as a
possibility.

To think so is far too haughty and arrogant
for us simple humans.

Seth

[kerrick]

sethfwf said:

To think so is far too haughty and arrogant
for us simple humans.

Seth

"simple humans." Ha ha, no pun intended I'm sure.

[Fox]

That proves absolutely nothing, big dea we witnessed a population variance, we did not witness one species give birth to a different species

[Shark Black]

Silly Humans, Evolution is real.... That's all I said....
It does not disprove anything else...

Now the Cromags and the Neanderthals tend to lean us in the same direction or maybe they were Gods first attempts to make man in his image but he screwed up.
#ohgoon# #loldevil#

[BenMech]

As I read each post here, I get more and more tempted to throw Coconuts at anyone going for "faith-based" bullshit just to spite science.

Especially you Seth. When did you lose your mind to those fucking wackos?

[SethFWF]

I probably should have clarified more, I thought I did somewhat when I didn't say that evolution was bullshit...but that there are aspects of it that make perfect sense even from the standpoint of a person who believes in creation.

I don't ramble about religion or creationism to try and put down or defeat science, I think what man has accomplished is amazing...and they very well should continue to learn. Don't misinterperet the fact that I have religious beliefs(but am much more of a spiritual person rather than religious) for me being a religious nut. Nobody got to me, common sense did. I understand that everyone wants to believe we came from nothing and have no existance other than this one, but that's just not sensible IMO. It doesn't stand up to reason, even if you think science and man's thinking is more reasonable than faith. I understand that thinking because it's easier, doesn't make it right.

But man will always feel he knows everything, in a general sense...but at the same time if you ask many of the most brilliant scientists on the planet, they'll tell you we still know jack about anything compared to what there is to know. That can't be disputed, period...so why do so many think they've got it all figured out?

Seth

[kerrick]

Nicely put Seth. The truth is, it takes just as much faith to completely believe in evolution as creation. Of course, evolutionists (is that a word?) will I'm sure debate that...

[Virtual Scott]

If I am not mistaken, Neanderthals and Cro-magnon man are no evolutionary relation to modern humans. They are off-shoots that died off, and became extinct. Although I could see how some of those "religious wacko's" in the news more often than they should be, could be misconstrued as almost obvious offshoots of that hereditary lineage... ;-)

[Virtual Scott]

Well, there's a big difference between faith and science. Science has a body of evidence to support it. Faith (take yur religious detour here) is a much more personal belief system. So I see a distinct difference between the two. The search for truth (science) versus the search for meaning (faith).

[kerrick]

Agreed, but in the creation vs evolution debate, neither are "proved" so to say, but people believe strongly in both of them. What I meant by my previous post was that both require a certain level of faith for someone to believe in them. Not all the facts are there for anyone to be sure of either. I've heard extremely convincing speeches proving that the Bible is legitimate and true as well as for evolution. It's up to the individual to make his/her own decision based on the facts that we know.
-Kerrick

[Virtual Scott]

One really can't prove faith, though. The presence of God or Gods or any divine being is unproveable, regardless of what religious zealots and bible-thumpers will postulate. I think believing in both is fair, of course, but I've never heard ANYTHING convincing regarding the bible or the Koran or any other religious volume or scripture. THe problem is when you have a large religious faction basing political processes and legislation upon FAITH and Belief systems that not everyone adheres to or even follows, much the less supports.

You are right, it IS up to the individual, hence, keep the debate out of the textbooks and political process.