Sadly even here on FreeRepublic. :) 
What Difference Does it Make?
Posted on 03/18/2013 4:06:40 PM PDT by neverdem
You must think we’re just a bunch of stupid hillbillies, we naysayers. But I don’t need a scientific paper or a condescending lecture from you to know scientists are full of crap.
When it comes to warming, I can just look at my 8 local local weather forecasts. Just today they were off by -8 degrees! And it was off -6 degrees last week every day. Forecast is always off. Can’t get the wind, sunshine, or dewpoint right. Been this way for decades. Apparently weather is too hard to model, but global warming is a dead ringer...
REAL scientists provide repeatable, predictable, and controlled models. REAL scientists know they have to measure not only what’s in the box, but also what’s outside the box and goes through the box. They know their science is sound because they can repeat their model. Like Newton, Kepler, and Bohr.
Are the GW clowns doing the walk? No. They can’t, and they won’t. So they fill in the “facts” with assumptions nobody can ever prove, waving their credentials around in protest. That ain’t science, that’s genuine snake oil. When these salesmen can do better than predict daily temperature within 6 degrees and snowfall within 4”, then maybe I’ll take a look. Until then, they can shove their unempirical, uncontrolled “dart board” global warming racket right up their arrogant little noses.
The Scientific Method has been rarely used in the last 60 years in high quality, peer reviewed, Scientific Journals.
What is lacking in these Journals, and in the article that you posted here is OBJECTIVE TESTING.
If for example, if one reads peer-reviewed, scientific literature on the very popular Global Warming Speculation, there will no mention of known cause and effect observations, or repeatable laboratory tests to move the GW Speculation up to the level of an Hypothesis, let alone the very high level of a Theory.
Most Professional Scientists use statistical inference to avoid the tedium of searching and re-searching for an objective test of Empirical Data that can be repeated by their peers by observation, and cause and effect experiments.
This lazy, lack of curiosity, slip-shod method has also found it’s way into Politics.
For example, a majority of American Voters polled during last year’s National Election Campaign concluded that Obama would be better able to reduce the US National Debt than Romney.
I leave to the energetic and curious reader the task of designing one or more objective tests for this popular speculation.
BTW, for extra credit, try objective testing other speculations including the ones mentioned in the above article. Enjoy!
Sadly even here on FreeRepublic. :)
What Difference Does it Make?
> How do those geniuses know that God does not exist?
Because modern science, so-called, starts with the assumption that there is no God.
Your anger won’t help your cause. Neither will confusing localized point-in-time weather events with global climate over large swaths of time.
Was that condescending? I didn’t mean for it to be, but when you confuse really, really simple concepts then yes, people will view you as a “stupid hillbilly.”
If you notice, I haven’t said a thing about climate change on this thread at all. Not sure why you assume I have credentials in that area (I don’t.) I just wish the arguments against AGW were more coherently presented here.
Wrong. And most scientists in the USA are people of faith. Showing how stars can and do form via gravity and nuclear fusion in no way removes God as their creator or diminishes God in any way.
> Wrong.
That’s your assertion.
> Showing how stars can and do form via gravity and nuclear
> fusion in no way removes God as their creator or diminishes
> God in any way.
It removes Christ.
Jesus believed in the six-day Creation, believed that God created Adam and Eve from the dust of the Earth “in the beginning”, believed in the Noahic flood, the genealogies, etc.
It casts doubt on the veracity of God’s Word and His ability to communicate His message to us, without pandering to any supposed lack of sophistication.
That diminishes God.
So to you unless God did it a few thousand years ago using miraculous magic then God is removed as unnecessary! Some of us have a grander view of God. We can see stars forming RIGHT NOW! Is God not the creator of such stars in your view? The Bible tells me I was created from dust. I was also created via cellular processes involving DNA. Does this fact remove God as my creator?
Apparently, yours is not the God of the Bible, neither can Jesus be divine if He were as mistaken as your worldview holds Him to be.
If you’re interested, see Russel Humphreys’ “Starlight and Time”. Read also his responses to his critics. Some higher mathematics and physics are involved, but from your responses, I’m guessing you should be able to handle that.
It’s a hammer for the ruling class,
and it’s an advocacy-based righteousness issue for the sheeperals.
I have a libinlaw whose reason for believing evolution and global warming comes down to
“it has to be true because that’s what the smart people believe”.
No answer to my rather easy questions. Were you created by God from dust? Does knowing how it happens physically remove God as your creator? Do you presuppose that the last two Popes ( and probably this one as well) did not worship the God of the Bible?
> Were you created by God from dust?
Adam and Eve were. We descended from them by the biological process God created when He created them.
> Does knowing how it happens physically remove God as your creator?
I already answered this question, but apparently you did not accept the answer.
What God do you believe in? The God of the Bible, or one that you created from your own understanding?
> Do you presuppose that the last two Popes ( and probably
> this one as well) did not worship the God of the Bible?
As a Bible believing Christian, I do not believe that evolutionists, regardless of any title they may bear, can worship the God of the Bible. Evolution makes the Bible a metaphor at best, and Jesus Christ a liar or lunatic.
As Erasmus once said, when he first read a Bible, “Either this is not the Bible, or we are not Christians.”
So you do not believe that God created you from dust. Ecclesiastes 3:20 and 12:7 and many other places say that God makes us All from dust. Apparently you don’t believe in the God of the Bible.
> So you do not believe that God created you from dust.
> Ecclesiastes 3:20 and 12:7 and many other places say that
> God makes us All from dust. Apparently you don’t believe in
> the God of the Bible.
We all are ultimately dust, regardless of the biological processes from which we emerge.
When we die, we return to the dust from which our original parents were made, even as a reminder to us of that historical fact.
Ecclesiastes was mostly poetry, written by the bitter and jaded old man Solomon had become. He had also become an idolater, having forsaken the God of his youth. Solomon also said more than a few times in Ecclesiastes, “All is vanity and vexation of spirit.” Do you believe that? Why do you think God would want us to read that? How do you suppose God believes we can profit from that? If you’re as smart as I think you are, you should be able to answer these questions if you read the rest of the Bible with an open heart.
Evolutionistic deists and their smarmy atheistic friends love to confound the poetic with the historic passages in the Bible in hopes of confounding their correspondents. I surmise that you are fully capable of discerning the difference, but may be unwilling because it conflicts with your worldview.
I was once an atheistic evolutionist. I had memorized many of their talking points, and had devised a few of my own.
Then I met Jesus Christ.
How about the many passages where it speaks of God forming man in his mother’s womb? All poetic as well? Or where it speaks of God as the creator of ALL THINGS, not just the creator of things in the beginning?
I don't really know any atheists or scientists who would use the phrase "atheistic evolutionist."
I like to refer to myself as a devout agnostic.
μολών λαβέ
Free course management software for homeschoolers and educators.
If you want to get a lib frothing at the mouth, ask him if he believes there is a genetic component to intelligence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.