The contributions of Religion to sciences

[Guy Threepwood]

It's always informative when someone thinks they're smarter than 5,500 climate scientists. Not to mention amusing. But it gets even funnier when someone thinks 5,500 climate scientists could be in a conspiracy to cover up the truth without even a single one of those scientists coming forward to say there's a conspiracy going on.

It's always informative when someone thinks they're smarter than thousands of cryptozoologists, astrologers and paranormal investigators
It informs us that they are more impressed by evidence.. than the consensus of niche groups
Never let anyone tell you that you are not smart enough to figure this out yourself Sunstone, you are.

 

[metis]

I love the phrase they used for the global temp scale- 'Estimated actual' almost sounds real!

I think you're misinterpreting what that means in context. Certain areas of the world were not always measured temperature-wise a century and a half ago or even some decades thereafter, but what scientists have done is to take mean temperatures from myriads of known measurements throughout the world and compare those results.

Again, these results are based on real measurements.

 

[metis]

And it's been more than a decade - even this el Nino didn't top 1998 temps.. but more than that

U.S. tornado numbers among lowest in recorded history in 2014

it's been nearly a decade since a Hurricane made landfall in the US..

I gotta be very brief-- sorry.
The above is irrelevant to the issue.

Arctic ice rebounding

Absolutely false.

The great lakes after being at low levels from 'global warming' are now back above average

Not quite, but the recovery may not have anything to do with global warming as the lake level's here have always fluctuated.

this is very troubling, not only does global warming cause record cold, snow, drought, flood, earthquakes,
volcanoes - but something far more terrifying:

Boring weather!

A recently leaked preview of the next IPCC report summary:

"Our latest studies now reveal that the planet is experiencing a period of unremarkable weather not seen for 900 million years. Computer simulations clearly show we are poised on a tipping point, beyond which we will trigger a runaway feedback loop of ever more mind numbingly boring weather, interesting weather may be just a fond memory by 2020.
Regions already suffering from boredom will be hardest hit, we must act now to save future generations from catastrophic climate tedium"

Please give us a link to the source because there's something wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

It's always informative when someone thinks they're smarter than thousands of cryptozoologists, astrologers and paranormal investigators
It informs us that they are more impressed by evidence.. than the consensus of niche groups
Never let anyone tell you that you are not smart enough to figure this out yourself Sunstone, you are.

So, what is your reasoning for doubting the consensus of experts?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, what is your reasoning for doubting the consensus of experts?

Do you think an astrologer is the most qualified person to judge the validity of astrology? or the least qualified?

But this aside, which 'experts' are we talking about

expert reviewers for the IPCC?

Cassandra Brooke, World Wildlife Fund International
Sharmind Neelormi, GenderCC-Women for Climate Justice
Habiba Gitay, The World Bank
Bradley Hiller, The World Bank
Benedikte Jensen, Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change
Natasha Kuruppu, Institute for Sustainable Futures
Ahsan Uddin Ahmed, Centre for Global Change (CGC)
Leisa Perch, United Nations Development Programme / World Centre for Sustainable Development
Cao Jianting, General Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Planning
Juan Hoffmaister, Third World Network
Avelino G. Suarez, Institute of Ecology and Systematic, Cuban Environmental Agency



or experts that are skeptics?:

Stanley B. Goldenberg, Research Meteorologist, NOAA, AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Dept. of Atmospheric Science), Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, AustraliaFerenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor & Director, Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.

We can argue all day about which experts are more qualified- alternative energy investors, special interest groups, local government officials, or actual accomplished research scientists like Roy Spencer.

But the point of science is NOT having to take anybody's word for it.

Bottom line:
How do you make plants grow faster and more drought resistant? add CO2, anyone can test, measure and repeat this experiment- whether they work for Solyndra or BP

How do you get serious climate disruption from 2 extra molecules of CO2 in 10,000 of air? In computer simulations, Hollywood movies, political speeches perhaps. But whether you work for Solyndra or BP you will find no scientific mechanism-

 

[Skwim]

Do you think an astrologer is the most qualified person to judge the validity of astrology? or the least qualified?

But this aside, which 'experts' are we talking about

expert reviewers for the IPCC?

Cassandra Brooke, World Wildlife Fund International
Sharmind Neelormi, GenderCC-Women for Climate Justice
Habiba Gitay, The World Bank
Bradley Hiller, The World Bank
Benedikte Jensen, Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change
Natasha Kuruppu, Institute for Sustainable Futures
Ahsan Uddin Ahmed, Centre for Global Change (CGC)
Leisa Perch, United Nations Development Programme / World Centre for Sustainable Development
Cao Jianting, General Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Planning
Juan Hoffmaister, Third World Network
Avelino G. Suarez, Institute of Ecology and Systematic, Cuban Environmental Agency

or experts that are skeptics?:

Stanley B. Goldenberg, Research Meteorologist, NOAA, AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Dept. of Atmospheric Science), Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, AustraliaFerenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor & Director, Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.

We can argue all day about which experts are more qualified- alternative energy investors, special interest groups, local government officials, or actual accomplished research scientists like Roy Spencer.

But the point of science is NOT having to take anybody's word for it.

Bottom line:
How do you make plants grow faster and more drought resistant? add CO2, anyone can test, measure and repeat this experiment- whether they work for Solyndra or BP

How do you get serious climate disruption from 2 extra molecules of CO2 in 10,000 of air? In computer simulations, Hollywood movies, political speeches perhaps. Whether you work for Solyndra or BP you will find no scientific mechanism-

Reminds me of the My Scientists vs Your Scientists contest going on between creationists and evolutionists

Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

<snip>

Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
source
​

Meanwhile, Project Steve so far has a list of 1,230 scientists named Steven who support evolution.

"Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution".
Source:Wikipedia

 

[metis]

GT, pleas check my post #63 as I made a grammatical error in my rush. Sorry about that.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems this thread has gone spectacularly, if not predictably, off-topic. I would suggest we reign it in.

 

[leibowde84]

Do you think an astrologer is the most qualified person to judge the validity of astrology? or the least qualified?

This is nothing but a straw man. Do I think that an astrologer is the most qualified to judge the validity of whethet a specific aspect claimed to be part of astrology is adherent to what astrology demands ... OF COURSE!!

Scientists are without a doubt the most qualified people to judge the validity of specific scientific theories. Your point was "straw", because it was an unfair comparison. You aren't doubting the scientific method or science in general, are you? You are doubting a specific scientific theory. Night and day.

 

[leibowde84]

Reminds me of the My Scientists vs Your Scientists contest going on between creationists and evolutionists

Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

<snip>

Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
source
​

Meanwhile, Project Steve so far has a list of 1,230 scientists named Steven who support evolution.

"Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution".
Source:Wikipedia

A great showing of the overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution.

 

[McBell]

Changes? Please expand.

How about the repealing of 613 laws from the OT to the NT?
Or did you not know about them?

 

[Sunstone]

Never let anyone tell you that you are not smart enough to figure this out yourself Sunstone, you are.

I am at least certain of one thing: There is nothing that I can say which will convince you that you do not know everything.

 

[Robert.Evans]

How about the repealing of 613 laws from the OT to the NT?
Or did you not know about them?

613 Laws is debatable even among the Jews, of which it is there interpretation. It might even be said they shouldn't write it that way as they might add to the law. Considering the interpretation of some of them, they don't even seem to be out of the same book let alone the same verse.

As for the changing of the law, it hasn't; but it is "fulfilled" in the Saviour. The law is holy and we are incapable of completing it without him.

 

[McBell]

613 Laws is debatable even among the Jews, of which it is there interpretation. It might even be said they shouldn't write it that way as they might add to the law. Considering the interpretation of some of them, they don't even seem to be out of the same book let alone the same verse.

As for the changing of the law, it hasn't; but it is "fulfilled" in the Saviour. The law is holy and we are incapable of completing it without him.

Sugar coat how you like, it is still a change.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sugar coat how you like, it is still a change.

It is not a change if it has not changed but you need to help to fullfil them. The OT says plainly that we won't be able to keep them.

 

[McBell]

It is not a change if it has not changed but you need to help to fullfil them. The OT says plainly that we won't be able to keep them.

Wow.
Your denial skills are most impressive.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Wow.
Your denial skills are most impressive.

Tell me how it has changed then.

 

[McBell]

Tell me how it has changed then.

animal sacrifices

 

[paarsurrey]

This is not true. The whole point of science is that it doesn't recognize authority or absolutetes, like religion. Theories are constantly being challenged and improved upon by fellow scientists. Religion, otoh, claims absolute or final truths. Science is an ongoing process, never afraid to recognize it's own mistakes.

Science is just a tool of human beings. Do tools speak or have any opinion? Nobody could speak on behalf of science, it would be an illusion. Science is deaf and dumb and is like a dead corpse, man uses it for his benefit whatever way he likes. Science cannot deny the authority of one who uses it, what to speak of the absolute authority of the Being who created man.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The mistakes don't belong to 'science' they belong to scientists. And many scientists certainly are very reluctant to admit any possibility that they may have made a mistake.

A marvellous point.
Regards