Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

I would recommend 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath to help open ones eyes about Dawkins

I'd recommend this to everyone too. It's a very funny book. I wonder how long it took McGrath to write it - I could have written it in 10 seconds:


CHAPTER 1

Quantum Mechanics is really weird. No seriously, really, REALLY weird.

So God exists.

THE END

Weird indeed. You make up and setup unknown nonexistent unproved unprovables to correspond with your predetermined scam I mean scientific law and abra cadabra ala kazaam presto chango poof shazaam look it's 'science'.

Yeah. I did all that just yesterday.

Think maybe I'll try it.

Does it mean we're in the God clique? Are there secret words, symbols, handshakes and stuff? Hopefully a cool decoder ring.



[dawkins]

So tell me, if some 'unfortunate' thing happens tuh dis dawkins fella, I'm duh Big Canoli in charge then, yuh no what I mean.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Dawkins sadly is just dishonest and an obvious con man (which is and was the main thing that turned me off and against that side), he is certainlly a high priest in the scientism cult, he IS 'the sound of one hand clapping' and as most uses Soviet style teaching and reasoning. I would recommend 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath to help open ones eyes about Dawkins, and another help would be 'The Devil's Delusion' by David Berlinski.

So essentially you are going to ignore my advice and continue to base your opinions on second-hand, inaccurate, out-of-context, misleading information from hostile sources and make ad-hominem attacks against someone you don't even know.

You are of course free to do so but I feel it only fair to tell you that you are fooling no one except maybe yourself and others of a similar bent. If you are attempting to make a convincing argument you need to be at least IN the argument and not standing outside poking at straw men.

I have read neither of the above books beyond some skimming at a book store. Both seem hung up on Dawkins as an athiest and pretty much ignore any direct confrontation with evolutionary theory itself, other than to misrepresent or twist the meaning of some of the things Dawkins actually says. Or to completely misunderstand the meaning -- can't be sure which -- but since everything is misrepresented in a negative way it sure comes across as dishonest. Maybe there is a nice calmly reasoned section in one of those books but I didn't find it.

Well, evolution is a proven, robust, scientific theory that is accepted by the scientific community as a whole, and not disputed by any reputable scientists. Its absolutely true.

Climate change doesn't have nearly the same body of evidence behind it. I'd say that its likely, but not proven. Now, the thing about that is there is a huge misinformation campaign aimed at climate change by a lot of people with a whole lot of money, and some of the science behind climate change is very speculative, according to my understanding. So, sorting through the BS is the hard part. But, like I said, I think its likely, but I don't consider it in the same category of "proven" as things such as the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, ect.

Originally Posted by jcd

If I had written the second statement as "Humans are descended from animals who were not human. Humans, crocodiles and spiders all have a common ancestor", how would you have voted?

That would have pushed me to an "I don't know," because I simply don't. While I do believe that life has undergone Darwinian evolution (as I understand what Darwinian evolution to be), I'm still quite ignorant of how modern evolutionists theorize the process of evolution as having taken place and I have no trouble saying I am too ignorant (meaning I've not done any research or serious thinking about it) to have an informed opinion.

For example, Darwin noted various species of birds on different islands - I do believe that there were common ancestors there. But going way back, I'm not sure whether all life stems from one "location" (be it a single organism or gene pool or whatever) or multiple "locations" nor about which may be the "ancestor" of what exists today.

Again, I realize this is my ignorance, and having read and attempted to participate in this thread, it's something I will begin to look at more closely.

Originally Posted by Pete_S

Well, evolution is a proven, robust, scientific theory that is accepted by the scientific community as a whole, and not disputed by any reputable scientists. Its absolutely true.

category of "proven" as things such as the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, ect.

I've snipped up your statement just because I'd like to interject something about theories. No theory is "true." A theory may be well supported, but it actually cannot be shown to be true. This is part of the definition of a theory.

One could attach a truth value to the statement "life has evolved" in much the same way that one could attach a truth value to the statement "gravity exists," but the theories that explain evolution or gravity do not have truth values.

Maybe I'm just a bit anal after having sat through no only years of science classes but also years of philosophy of science classes...

Originally Posted by TexasBob

So essentially you are going to ignore my advice and continue to base your opinions on second-hand, inaccurate, out-of-context, misleading information from hostile sources and make ad-hominem attacks against someone you don't even know.

You are of course free to do so but I feel it only fair to tell you that you are fooling no one except maybe yourself and others of a similar bent. If you are attempting to make a convincing argument you need to be at least IN the argument and not standing outside poking at straw men.

I have read neither of the above books beyond some skimming at a book store. Both seem hung up on Dawkins as an athiest and pretty much ignore any direct confrontation with evolutionary theory itself, other than to misrepresent or twist the meaning of some of the things Dawkins actually says. Or to completely misunderstand the meaning -- can't be sure which -- but since everything is misrepresented in a negative way it sure comes across as dishonest. Maybe there is a nice calmly reasoned section in one of those books but I didn't find it.

I've done nothing of the kind Bob.
If Dawkins was nice and reasoned then we wouldn't be having this particular discussion, by his own claim his design and intents are an assault on religion and christianity in particular, not science, he's a third rate scientist, if he was honest then he would at least be a second rate one. His objective is not scientific truth but rather to push his atheistic world view, the science is just window dressing. He's a self centered immoral dishonest egomaniac, and of course in his scientism religion there is nothing wrong with that stuff. I'm just pointing out what he is and people don't like it, just like the little boy who told the emperor that he didn't have any clothes on, you're just not supposed to do that.
And I realize that this could be hurled at many, but he has become very wealthy selling his books. Big business, big money in books.
You want to be open minded and check out an honest scientist (to me it's just refreshing to read from an honest author) then check out Stephen Meyers' Signature In The Cell, he is very nice and very reasoned, unlike Lord Dawkins. Are you gonna do it?

Originally Posted by Pete_S

Well, evolution is a proven, robust, scientific theory that is accepted by the scientific community as a whole, and not disputed by any reputable scientists. Its absolutely true.

Climate change doesn't have nearly the same body of evidence behind it. I'd say that its likely, but not proven. Now, the thing about that is there is a huge misinformation campaign aimed at climate change by a lot of people with a whole lot of money, and some of the science behind climate change is very speculative, according to my understanding. So, sorting through the BS is the hard part. But, like I said, I think its likely, but I don't consider it in the same category of "proven" as things such as the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, ect.

It's not even a bum guess.
It's only accepted by the scientism cult as a whole, and anyone who disagrees is excommunicated and declared a heretic - aka not a real scientist - regardless of their education intelligence schooling or credentials.
And like any tenent of any false religion, they have to keep jumbling it around to make it line up with the real and unavoidable science unless they can suppress it when the faults of their doctrine get exposed.