2016 Election
Quote: ams288Doesn't surprise me one bit. Huckabee is a loon.
He has zero chance at ever becoming president.
And on that we all agree
Quote: RonCThere are six candidates on the Republican side. Can you please list them as loon/non-loon for us? Thanks--it will help in the discussion moving forward.
...and the same for the potential Democrat candidates....simply list:
Clinton (D) loon
Warren (D) non-loon
Huckabee and Cruz are loons. Rand Paul might be, it's hard to tell - his positions are changing so much.
Jeb, Scott Walker, and the lady who tanked HP aren't loons.
Edit: I forgot the ones that have actually declared... Rubio isn't a loon (but close), Ben Carson is the biggest loon of all at the moment.
How many of them think it is ok to burn the American flag, but burning the Koran is hate speech?
Quote: FaceWhat's up with this Bernie Sanders fellow? He's saying a lot of things that makes sense, which makes me highly suspicious. Since this (and a bit of FB) is my only exposure to the clown show election, I thought I'd ask y'all.
Quote:The day Sanders announced he was challenging Hillary, Jon Stewart commented that, “He has a set of consistent principles that he has run on his entire political life. She is going to crush him.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/dont-underestimate-bernie-sanders/392450/
Quote: FaceWhat's up with this Bernie Sanders fellow? He's saying a lot of things that makes sense, which makes me highly suspicious. Since this (and a bit of FB) is my only exposure to the clown show election, I thought I'd ask y'all.
He is extremely liberal.
But his redeeming feature is he is more against gun control than most Ds. And many Rs. However, this is historical, who knows what his position will be when running in the Dem. Pimary.
But he beleive in a single payer Healthcare system...
Quote: ams288Huckabee and Cruz are loons. Rand Paul might be, it's hard to tell - his positions are changing so much.
Jeb, Scott Walker, and the lady who tanked HP aren't loons.
Edit: I forgot the ones that have actually declared... Rubio isn't a loon (but close), Ben Carson is the biggest loon of all at the moment.
But a bigger question is how many of them said they are too unintelligent to use one email for work and one for personal use?
Quote: rxwineQuote:The day Sanders announced he was challenging Hillary, Jon Stewart commented that, “He has a set of consistent principles that he has run on his entire political life. She is going to crush him.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/dont-underestimate-bernie-sanders/392450/
LOL! I know very little about him, but the little I did see made me think "Huh. Sounds like something I would say". That thought, I swear to god, was immediately followed by "He doesn't have a chance" XD
This, of course, is why I've spent the last many years planning my coup, as opposed to my presidential bid ;)
Thanks for that =)
Quote: Gandler
He is extremely liberal.
But his redeeming feature is he is more against gun control than most Ds. And many Rs. However, this is historical, who knows what his position will be when running in the Dem. Pimary.
But he beleive in a single payer Healthcare system...
Anything else? I don't subscribe to party lines, so red or blue means nothing to me. Gun stance? Pfft. Come and take em. Whatever.
I was looking for more depth about real issues. Everything I saw had to do with the economy and middle class. Ain't seen nothing about guns, gays, or other pointless topics that are either untouchable or none of the feds damn business. He has my curiosity. I'm trying to see if he can catch my attention.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut a bigger question is how many of them said they are too unintelligent to use one email for work and one for personal use?
Had nothing to do with intelligence. You'll need to try harder.
Blackberrys only allowed one email account up until 2013.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-emails-blackberry/24725993/
Quote: FaceWhat's up with this Bernie Sanders fellow? He's saying a lot of things that makes sense, which makes me highly suspicious. Since this (and a bit of FB) is my only exposure to the clown show election, I thought I'd ask y'all.
He also has zero chance at ever becoming President.
Quote: FaceWhat's up with this Bernie Sanders fellow? He's saying a lot of things that makes sense, which makes me highly suspicious. Since this (and a bit of FB) is my only exposure to the clown show election, I thought I'd ask y'all.
Bernie Sanders...calls himself a “democratic socialist,”
http://www.newsweek.com/14-things-about-bernie-sanders-328159
The label "loon" fits him as well as it does the others we've decided to label that. The problem with that is the dismissal of decent ideas because a "loon" supported them; that won't do us any good.
Here is enough to make him a "loon":
"14. He asked President Obama to raise taxes without Congress. In a letter to Obama, Sanders said the president should “act on his own” to close tax loopholes for “the most profitable corporations.”
There needs to be reform and loopholes need to be closed, but the President needs to work towards it and not just take more power into his own hands. This would scare me if he ended up a serious contender.
Here is a reasonable position:
"9. But Bernie shares with some conservatives a deep suspicion of government threats to privacy. In fact, Politico noted, on that topic Sanders sometimes sounds much like Senator Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, the candidate rated most conservative."
Taking away our privacy has made us endure things like longer lines at the airports but only provides a false sense of security. We need to be vigilant, but doing false things that invade our privacy does not help anyone but those who don't like us.
Might check here? http://www.zerohedge.com/search/apachesolr_search/ Type in Bernie SandersQuote: FaceI was looking for more depth about real issues.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf Hillary was the best my side had I would be trying to talk about anything but substance.
Isn't "best" judged by election returns? Of the current or potential opponents for Clinton in 2016, who do you think has an actual shot at beating her?
And, more importantly, who do you think will have a shot at beating her after the GOP primary season is over?
Based on her Congressional testimony today, the administrative head of the State Department barely knows what an e-mail message is.Quote: AZDuffmanBut a bigger question is how many of them said they are too unintelligent to use one email for work and one for personal use?
That could be very easily seen as a racist commentary.Quote: ams288Ben Carson is the biggest loon of all at the moment.
Even jocularly that does not sound politically correct.Quote: terapinedIf a Muslim or Buddhist that is against dancing runs for President, damm right there will be a discourse :-)
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat could be very easily seen as a racist commentary.
Or a commentary on the incredibly insane things he has said. Some people on the right think people on the left think all attacks on Obama are racist and are trying to pull a see you're racist too for insulting a black guy. No racist attacks against Obama were racist and there were plenty like the ever present Birther issue, the claims that he must be Muslim because his father was a Kenyan Muslim and he spent some time in Indonesia, along with some other blatantly racist signs and things seen at Tea party rallies. There have been attacks about him being a affirmative action candidate who didn't earn his way into Harvard. If you want to attack him for things he's said or done that is fine, but in at least some cases that is not what the right is doing.
Calling Ben Carson a loon because he says things like
"I think most people when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for ISIS.”
~Ben Carson, claiming the AP History curriculum will cause students who learn about civil disobedience in this country to join a violent terrorist group, September 2014.
or
“Anyone caught involved in voter fraud should be immediately deported and have his citizenship revoked.”
~Ben Carson, advocating for stripping non-citizens of their no-existant American citizenship if they are caught voting, November 2014. NOTE: quote was later removed from Carson’s WND column.
or
On the importance of the GOP winning the Senate in 2014: In August, Carson said he couldn't be sure "there will even be an election in 2016" if Republicans didn't go on to win that fall. (His wife also said they were keeping their son's Australian passport handy if the election didn't go their way.)
or
“According to their scheme, it (the eye) had to occur overnight, it had to be there. I instead say, if you have an intelligent creator, what he does is give his creatures the ability to adapt to the environment so he doesn’t have to start over every 50 years creating all over again.”
The guy is a loon with no understanding of history, civics, politics, or evolution. He is a brilliant neurosurgeon. Perhaps one of the best neurosurgeons to ever live, but that's where it ends.
Quote: ams288
He also has zero chance at ever becoming President.
See what RonC did below you? He provided an opinion, but then showed the reasons behind it. That's helpful. You just gave me an opinion, and we all know what they say about opinions.
Zero chance because he's a war criminal? Zero because he burned huge back in the 70's? Zero because he's a decent and honorable bloke who will get steamrolled? Zero because he thinks the world is 6,000 years old and Jesus rode dinosaurs?
If you're willing, you sort of need to speak to me like I'm a slow child. I'm not much for politics and am therefore way behind.
whack job. Don't like him, don't trust
him. And he lost a ton of weight and
put it all back on. A reporter had a
breakfast interview with him last month
and said he was putting away mountains
of pancakes the whole time. Yeah, he's
sure to get elected any day. Him and
the fat boy from NJ.
Quote: ams288Had nothing to do with intelligence. You'll need to try harder.
Blackberrys only allowed one email account up until 2013.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-emails-blackberry/24725993/
Has everything to do with intelligence. Lets look at the quote:
"I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two," Clinton said.
Which is funny, because on my iPhone I easily use two emails. Many people I know use a personal and work account. When I was at the bank you would be fired for doing business with your personal account.
Hillary is just not very intelligent.
Quote: AZDuffman
Hillary is just not very intelligent.
I have a friend that is a hard core conservative.
He hates Obama.
My friend is extremely smart, a scientist that graduated from Princeton.
I asked him, being a scientist, how he can vote for people that are not intelligent because they ignore science.
His answer.
All republican candidates are intelligent and LIE during the primary regarding evolution to win the nomination.
Is this true.
Either they are all "just not very intelligent" for ignoring science or they lie.
Quote: terapinedI have a friend that is a hard core conservative.
He hates Obama.
My friend is extremely smart, a scientist that graduated from Princeton.
I asked him, being a scientist, how he can vote for people that are not intelligent because they ignore science.
His answer.
All republican candidates are intelligent and LIE during the primary regarding evolution to win the nomination.
Is this true.
Either they are all "just not very intelligent" for ignoring science or they lie.
All politicians lie. Even if somehow an entirely noble and virtuous politician got into office he will have appeared to lie after the fact by having to agree to pass legislature his initial platform didn't support or being unable to get his legislature passed that his initial platform did support after the fact.
My usual argument to people who don't believe in evolution involves referring to the animal kingdom. Explain to me why there are so many different species of felines such as lions, tigers, panthers, cougars, etc. if they didn't evolve from a common ancestor. Explain to me how different species of animals can mate and produce offspring such as a lion and tiger or horse and donkey if they didn't evolve from a common ancestor.
Quote: terapined
I asked him, being a scientist, how he can vote for people that are not intelligent because they ignore science.
GOP candidates do not "ignore science." They actually are intellectually curious because they don't just buy into whatever scientists are selling at the moment.
For example, I am not sure about you but I don't buy global warming in major part because the measurements are not accurate enough or long enough. 100 at best of reasonable records doesn't cut it with me.
Many people take the arrogant view that it is impossible that there is a higher power that guided development. The same people will though, say, "mother nature" to describe that which cannot be readily explained. We cannot explain why life "just happened." Logic is against it being entirely random. Scientists do not like being stumped so they shout down those that suggest we teach that there may be something greater than us that made the world.
So to me the unintelligent ones are the ones saying I should not think for myself and just "listen to scientists." Liberals who say this might as well just yell, "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!"
Quote: terapined
I asked him, being a scientist, how he can vote for people that are not intelligent because they ignore science.
GOP candidates do not "ignore science." They actually are intellectually curious because they don't just buy into whatever scientists are selling at the moment.
For example, I am not sure about you but I don't buy global warming in major part because the measurements are not accurate enough or long enough. 100 at best of reasonable records doesn't cut it with me.
Many people take the arrogant view that it is impossible that there is a higher power that guided development. The same people will though, say, "mother nature" to describe that which cannot be readily explained. We cannot explain why life "just happened." Logic is against it being entirely random. Scientists do not like being stumped so they shout down those that suggest we teach that there may be something greater than us that made the world.
So to me the unintelligent ones are the ones saying I should not think for myself and just "listen to scientists." Liberals who say this might as well just yell, "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!"
Quote: AZDuffman
Many people take the arrogant view that it is impossible that there is a higher power that guided development. The same people will though, say, "mother nature" to describe that which cannot be readily explained. We cannot explain why life "just happened." Logic is against it being entirely random. Scientists do not like being stumped so they shout down those that suggest we teach that there may be something greater than us that made the world.
So to me the unintelligent ones are the ones saying I should not think for myself and just "listen to scientists." Liberals who say this might as well just yell, "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!"
Not impossibly just utterly meaningless. Saying God did it is not a start it is an end of intellectual curiosity and can be applied to anything even things that are quite well explained. For instance ancient people and Bill O' Reiley couldn't explain the tides so the answer was god did it. It is intellectually lazy and unnecessary. Also the problem isn't that the GOP worships a god of the gaps its that they believe things that are objectively false. Its one thing to say that god guided evolution it cannot be proved or disproved so its not science but that's another matter, it is quite another to claim that evolution doesn't occur and the probability of it happening are so low that it shows it is impossible like people who believe in intelligent design do. Also most not only believe that they also profess young earth creationism something that goes against not just all knowledge about biology but also what is known of physics, geology, and tons of other science.
Also lets be honest you are being no more intellectually curious then any other conspiracy theorist is being curious. You want to talk about how you are smarter then all those scientist without actually spending time getting the credentials to be able to question them in meaningful ways. The arguments against global warming are for the most part the equivalent of jet fuel cannot melt steel so the twin towers must have been brought down by controlled demolition.
Quote: terapinedI have a friend that is a hard core conservative.
He hates Obama.
My friend is extremely smart, a scientist that graduated from Princeton.
I asked him, being a scientist, how he can vote for people that are not intelligent
Even including 2008 (50%-48%), college graduates have voted majority Republican in every presidential election in the last half century.
Meanwhile high school dropouts vote overwhelmingly for the racist Party Of Owe. Last hard figure I have is from the leftist professor Larry Sabato. In his book on the 2010 election, "Pendulum Swing" he tells us on page 37 that while college graduates (as usual) voted Republican in landslide numbers (58%-40%) high school dropouts voted for the racist Party Of Owe by 57%-36% and in 2008 by 63%-35%.
Thanks for playing and enjoy your parting gifts.
Quote: AZDuffmanMany people take the arrogant view that it is impossible that there is a higher power that guided development. The same people will though, say, "mother nature" to describe that which cannot be readily explained.
When I hear the weatherchannel person say something like, "Mother Nature sent us an icy blast of cold weather last night" I usually infer informal usage.
Also, such as when they mention that Santa should have good weather on Christmas Eve locally.
I would always vote republican if I wasn't concerned about thinly veiled attempts at integrating religion and state and legislating personal ethics, but as it is I rarely find a candidate to vote for on either side, often only vote if there's an issue particularly important to me on the ballot. Hoping to see Rand Paul on the ballot but I think it's unlikely.
You want intellectual curiosity? Try explaining the development of languages. I've never heard any anthropologist, paleontologist or sociologist even attempt a plausible or an adequate explanation.Quote: Twirdmanyou are being no more intellectually curious then any other conspiracy theorist is being curious. You want to talk about how you are smarter then all those scientist without actually spending time getting the credentials to be able to question them in meaningful ways.
Quote: rxwineWhen I hear the weatherchannel person say something like, "Mother Nature sent us an icy blast of cold weather last night" I usually infer informal usage.
Also, such as when they mention that Santa should have good weather on Christmas Eve locally.
OK, lets try something new. Science disproved "spontaneous generation" was disproved by Louis Pasteur over 150 years ago using scientific methods. But the same people who say, "shut up and listen to science!" say life just "happened" on earth. You cannot have it both ways.
One theory is to use the current term, "intelligent design." You can call it "God" or "mother nature" whichever you are comfortable with. But to ban a valid idea is just wrong.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYou want intellectual curiosity? Try explaining the development of languages. I've never heard any anthropologist, paleontologist or sociologist even attempt a plausible or an adequate explanation.
Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean the differentiating of languages between each other that is somewhat understood but complex. If you mean the very earliest development of language that is an incredibly complex thing which isn't fully explained. There are some hypothesis but none yet fully accepted. I'm not much personally interested in the topic so have no idea about current research but I don't see what this has to do with anything. I mean what are you actually getting at?
Quote: Twirdman
Also lets be honest you are being no more intellectually curious then any other conspiracy theorist is being curious. You want to talk about how you are smarter then all those scientist without actually spending time getting the credentials to be able to question them in meaningful ways. The arguments against global warming are for the most part the equivalent of jet fuel cannot melt steel so the twin towers must have been brought down by controlled demolition.
I do not need to get "credentials" to question what is being put forth about global warming. I am not asking to be published in a science journal. AFIK no person needs a degree to ask how you can compare temps today vs 200 years ago if you do not have records of temps 200 years ago.
Global Warming is an opiate for atheist masses.
Quote: FaceSee what RonC did below you? He provided an opinion, but then showed the reasons behind it. That's helpful. You just gave me an opinion, and we all know what they say about opinions.
Zero chance because he's a war criminal? Zero because he burned huge back in the 70's? Zero because he's a decent and honorable bloke who will get steamrolled? Zero because he thinks the world is 6,000 years old and Jesus rode dinosaurs?
If you're willing, you sort of need to speak to me like I'm a slow child. I'm not much for politics and am therefore way behind.
Zero chance because he has zero chance.
Anyone with a baseline knowledge of politics knows he's not a serious contender.
If you're not one for politics you're in the wrong thread. Don't feel like talking to anyone like they're a slow child. Sorry.
Quote: AZDuffmanMany people take the arrogant view that it is impossible that there is a higher power that guided development. The same people will though, say, "mother nature" to describe that which cannot be readily explained. We cannot explain why life "just happened." Logic is against it being entirely random. Scientists do not like being stumped
No true scientist would ever say that it's impossible that a higher power guided development, and true scientists *love* being stumped. That's what research is -- trying to find the answers to questions that haven't yet been solved. The real problem is that many people simply can't handle "I don't know yet" as a sufficient answer. Instead of simply accepting the state of knowledge as it is (and then trying to expand it), those people use divine explanations as the spackling paste to cover over gaps in that knowledge. The problem with that approach is that it leaves the divine open to replacement by science. That cheapens religious tradition, the last thing any person of faith should actually want.
"Why does the sun move across the sky?"
2500 years ago the answer was "Apollo is pulling it in his chariot."
Today the answer -- due to inquiry and observation -- is that the Earth is rotating. Humanity didn't know that back then, so the default was some supernatural explanation. Now nobody believes the sun is being pulled across the sky in a chariot, and nobody worships Apollo.
It's a personal choice to hew to the behavior of certain ancient Greeks and Romans and adopt a supernatural explanation for other aspects of the natural world. But don't pretend that, like the quaint and outdated mystical explanations for things we now take for granted, that any present supernatural explanations you favor won't similarly fall into disuse as human knowledge increases. It's okay to say "I don't know yet." It's also okay to accept that science and religion are orthogonal and shouldn't both attempt to address explanations for how the universe works. An examination of the course of human knowledge has demonstrated that scientific explanations for natural phenomena eventually supplant religious explanations for those same natural phenomena. Always. And it's not even a fair comparison -- the purpose of scientific inquiry is to promote the progress of knowledge, while the purpose of religious orthodoxy is to preserve tradition.
In other words, the extent to which you use faith to explain that which science can address is the extent to which science will eventually replace that faith. If you don't want your faith to be disproven, don't extend it to cover falsifiable beliefs.
Quote: MathExtremistNo true scientist would ever say that it's impossible that a higher power guided development, and true scientists *love* being stumped. That's what research is -- trying to find the answers to questions that haven't yet been solved. The real problem is that many people simply can't handle "I don't know yet" as a sufficient answer. Instead of simply accepting the state of knowledge as it is (and then trying to expand it), those people use divine explanations as the spackling paste to cover over gaps in that knowledge. The problem with that approach is that it leaves the divine open to replacement by science. That cheapens religious tradition, the last thing any person of faith should actually want.
In other words, the extent to which you use faith to explain that which science can address is the extent to which science will eventually replace that faith. If you don't want your faith to be disproven, don't extend it to cover falsifiable beliefs.
My issue is this. If we are going to say "we don't know yet" an in fact may have to say, "we don't know and we many never know" what is wrong with saying, "we don't know it all yet, but here are the best ideas put forward" instead of just closing minds to the fact that we may never know?
Quote: AZDuffmanAFIK no person needs a degree to ask how you can compare temps today vs 200 years ago if you do not have records of temps 200 years ago.
I don't have a degree in this, but here is one way:
Get a strong correlation between the temperatures of the past 100 years and one or more other things alone or in combination, which can be measured both within the last 100 years and before that, such as: tree ring growth, ice layer thickness.
Quote: AZDuffmanMy issue is this. If we are going to say "we don't know yet" an in fact may have to say, "we don't know and we many never know" what is wrong with saying, "we don't know it all yet, but here are the best ideas put forward" instead of just closing minds to the fact that we may never know?
That is what is done. Stuff like intelligent design isn't pushed forward because its not the best idea. "God did it" as an explanation leads no where. Every major scientific breakthrough in history has been from people who tried to go farther then just saying "God did it" and finishing for the day. No one actual attempting to do research closes their mind to the fact we may never know, but they also don't spout out nonsensical answers because they feel better then not knowing.
Take Alzheimer we currently don't know what causes it so there is just as much reason to throw up our hands and say no explanation can be given so God did it and go home as their is for any other gap we have in our scientific knowledge. That thinking gets us no where. Sure it could be the case that God or Satan causes every case of Alzheimer and because there is no natural explanation we'll never know, but that is not a very likely or good explanation.
Quote: AZDuffmanMy issue is this. If we are going to say "we don't know yet" an in fact may have to say, "we don't know and we many never know" what is wrong with saying, "we don't know it all yet, but here are the best ideas put forward" instead of just closing minds to the fact that we may never know?
Because the more often you use divinity as "the best ideas put forward" and then have that supplanted with a researched, scientific explanation (like the Earth's rotation), the more often you're essentially disproving that divinity. If you say "see this thing I can't explain? That means God did it," and then ten years later a natural explanation is discovered by scientists, you've just replaced "God did it" with a better explanation.
Is that what you want? To put "God did it" to the test? That doesn't sound particularly spiritual to me.
Like I said, if you don't want your faith to be disproven, don't extend it to cover falsifiable beliefs.
Religion and tradition still play an important role in our society. Don't cheapen them by attempting to stretch them too far.
Quote: MathExtremistBecause the more often you use divinity as "the best ideas put forward" and then have that supplanted with a researched, scientific explanation (like the Earth's rotation), the more often you're essentially disproving that divinity. If you say "see this thing I can't explain? That means God did it," and then ten years later a natural explanation is discovered by scientists, you've just replaced "God did it" with a better explanation.
Is that what you want? To put "God did it" to the test? That doesn't sound particularly spiritual to me.
Like I said, if you don't want your faith to be disproven, don't extend it to cover falsifiable beliefs.
Ah, but I did not say you had to say "God did it!" I said it can be attributed to whatever power one believes. I see nothing wrong with that.
Quote: Dalex64I don't have a degree in this, but here is one way:
Get a strong correlation between the temperatures of the past 100 years and one or more other things alone or in combination, which can be measured both within the last 100 years and before that, such as: tree ring growth, ice layer thickness.
This is very flawed. Trees at best go back 100 years, and are only sporadic in where they are located. For example, you will find plenty of trees, though not 100 years old, in Vermont but very few in Texas. Ice is only in arctic regions. Even where these things are found, the temp is just estimated to within a few degrees, which is useless when they are saying we only had 1-2C in change in the first place!
9.5 years ago Algore said we have just 10 years left to change things! They Kyoto Protocol that was supposed to "save" things has already expired. It is just all doomsday talk and always has been.
Ice and trees aren't the only ways they have done this.
Where does it say that temperature records derived from ice thickness is only accurate to within a few degrees?
These people seem pretty confident that they have measured a 2 degree difference over time:
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
What have you got, other than your opinions, to refute them?
Quote: Dalex64There are fossilized trees which can be reliably dated which go back much further than that. They don't don't do this with live trees or deadfall.
Ice and trees aren't the only ways they have done this.
Where does it say that temperature records derived from ice thickness is only accurate to two degrees?
It is bad data in any case. A dry season could have an effect on tree rings. So could other things.
I doubt that it gets even as close as 2C. At best it is like looking at just the hour hand on clock to get the time.
I have said it before and will again, we have nowhere near the data to see what is a trend and when it turns. If they can get 4 million years of accurate measurement on a 4.5 billion year old planet then you are just touching when you can see a trend. What we have is like looking at the stock market just today and saying how the trend for the last 100 years is going.
Quote: AZDuffmanAh, but I did not say you had to say "God did it!" I said it can be attributed to whatever power one believes. I see nothing wrong with that.
Really? It's the same problem regardless of whatever power or supernatural explanation you want to ascribe to the cause of some phenomenon that later turns out to be explainable within natural causes. If you say "supernatural cause X is responsible for unexplained phenomenon Y" and then later science discovers why Y happens, then you were wrong about supernatural cause X being responsible. Whether X is God, Apollo, Zeus, Ra, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, aliens, ghosts, that doesn't matter.
Any time you put a deity or mystical force in a position of being proven wrong, you diminish its holiness and cheapen it. Apollo does not carry the sun across the sky. The sun doesn't even actually move across the sky -- the seemingly flat ground you're standing on is actually a big rotating ball in space and once you understand that, it's easy to see that the Apollo myth isn't what's actually happening. Do you really want to put any other spiritual power in the same position as Apollo, to be disproven and diminished?
Quote: MathExtremistReally? It's the same problem regardless of whatever power or supernatural explanation you want to ascribe to the cause of some phenomenon that later turns out to be explainable within natural causes. If you say "supernatural cause X is responsible for unexplained phenomenon Y" and then later science discovers why Y happens, then you were wrong about supernatural cause X being responsible.
So what? When science figures out why life "just happened" then they can say so. Meantime we say, "this is one idea among many we have now."
Is science so arrogant that they cannot admit that intelligent design just *might* be the correct answer? Well, probably.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: MathExtremistReally? It's the same problem regardless of whatever power or supernatural explanation you want to ascribe to the cause of some phenomenon that later turns out to be explainable within natural causes. If you say "supernatural cause X is responsible for unexplained phenomenon Y" and then later science discovers why Y happens, then you were wrong about supernatural cause X being responsible.
So what? When science figures out why life "just happened" then they can say so. Meantime we say, "this is one idea among many we have now."
Is science so arrogant that they cannot admit that intelligent design just *might* be the correct answer? Well, probably.
Is science so arrogant that it cannot admit that evil leprechauns just might be the cause of Alzheimer. No its just that that is a freaking useless route to go down. Sure it might be correct just like intelligent design might be right, but you cannot test it cannot disprove it and so it is not science.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is bad data in any case. A dry season could have an effect on tree rings. So could other things.
I doubt that it gets even as close as 2C. At best it is like looking at just the hour hand on clock to get the time.
So your admitting you actual have no idea how they account for these things or how accurate it really is but by golly you must definitely be right and those scientist just don't know what they are talking about. Argument from incredulity isn't a good look on you.
