Posted on 07/21/2009 8:37:13 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
“I couldn’t help but notice this passionate plea to see “science” as a neutral arbitrator and seeker of truth. Have you not noticed the data for the global warming theory doesn’t match the theory, yet many “scientists” are saying it’s been scientifically proven?”
Who is saying that today that can legitimately be called a scientist? I never said it, and neither did legions of scientists. Global warming has been about socialist control, it was just convenient that some thought the data supported it for a while.
“creation science” is analogous to the “science” behind global warming - it never was true, and it required falsified data to gain traction, which failed upon review.
Lots of them. Hundreds of them signed the UN garbage about AGW climate change. Most universities have tons of research grant money going to scientists to "prove" global warming. I'm afraid your "scientists" aren't quite as pure as you say, and that the politics of the day often skew what they say.
Do as I say, not as I do, eh?
Evos do the same thing anytime a creationist makes an off hand remark. Like with geocentrism. One comments on it and all of a sudden , evos have every creationist not only labeled a geocentrist, but a flat earther, moon landing was a hoaxer, as well.
Can't take it as well as you dish it out, can you? (first person singular)
Hmmm, an almost complete fossil with patterns of fur still visible. What a find! This is great! Just what we’ve been looking for.
*cough* archaeoraptor *cough*
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
If it’s genuine, fine. No problem that they found a nice, well preserved fossil.
But after archaeoraptor and Piltdown Man, if scientists want to believe that this fossil is some kind of missing link so bad that they aren’t willing to consider that something that fits in just a little bit to conveniently might not be another hoax, they, and you, have nothing to complain about when it comes back to bite them.
Interesting scenario.
Evo scientists are debating how to classify this fossil and where it belongs in the fossil record.
So ultimately, they will decide and put it in where they THINK it fits best, and then offer that up as evidence that the ToE is valid because it can predict where fossils go and here’s the evidence: all these nice fossils neatly transitioning from one to another, because of where they were placed based on human decision, not because anyone REALLY knows that that’s where they go.
Here's the thing: I don't hold every creationist responsible for everything one of them says. In another recent thread, you were objecting to someone's assertion that creationists think evos are going to hell. I almost replied with examples of where a creationist said that--because they have--but decided against it because (1) I haven't seen those posters around for a while--I think one of them was banned--and (2) you've never said that, as far as I know. So no, I don't dish it out.
Now, got anything to say about what I actually posted?
Like I said, the archaeoraptor "find" was rejected by two science journals and was only published in a popular science magazine, which later printed a 5-page apology. So now you're up to two examples, and yet still maintain that's enough to suggest any new fossil find might be a hoax. Like I said, generalized mudslinging.
The way I read it, the whole thing was found first. But the finder only gave the 'smaller' half to some museum for study. Then, 20 years later, he produces the more 'complete' half.
As far as 'faked', the tail shown on the 'smaller' half is FAKE, in that it was taken from some other vertebrate. I guess we can call that 'reconstructed'.
However, I would agree that whatever reconstruction was done, was done in good faith.
Why did this person keep the 'bigger' half for 20 years, hidden from the scientific world?
The articles are laced with doubt that this fossil represents the ultimate 'ancestor' of primates.
It would seem it is the reporters looking for some 'sensational news' who are making the 'link' claim, and not really the scientists at all. The scientists are only suggesting it is 'possible'.
Was it? I hadn't read that. I thought they'd probably looked at what they had, figured this animal must have had a tail, and made one that was consistent with what they knew of similar animals.
“I’m afraid your “scientists” aren’t quite as pure as you say, and that the politics of the day often skew what they say.”
I never said they were “pure”. They are not. But “creation science” is completely impure, and has no correcting mechanism because they reject “peer” review from actual subject matter experts.
Global warming is a perfect example of how actual research trumps politics and government “grant” money in politics.
It’s in the article I linked in an earlier post.
Link is in post #46.
How so? How do you see it that way?
So far, all it seems that the global warming debate is about is politics and grant money. Good grief, they even gave Al Gore a Nobel Prize for his work in climatology.
What a slap in the face for meteorologists and climatologists worldwide.
“government “grant” money in politics.”
I meant grant money in SCIENCE...my bad.
The global warming debate has been decisively turned by actual data, and revisiting the fraudulent data (in part) of the past.
The politics has even changed, using “global climate change” as the operative phrase.
There really is little argument in science about “global warming”, the politicians haven’t caught up yet, though.
It sure took a while for that research to trump politics.
I think if the meteorologists and climatologists had realized what those who wish to control were going to do with the data, they would have spoken up sooner.
The meteorologists I know were none too happy about the whole global warming fiasco in its heyday.
Not yet it isn't. Meteorologists are split into two camps, about 50/50 from what I understand. This is far from over, the grant money and the politics can still trump the reality of the data. It has for over ten years now. The data says no cooling for just over ten years, but 50% of meteorological scientists still believe in AGW.
Btw, I've never said a word about creation science, have I, so why are you implying I did? I was just passing by and made my comment. You do seem unable to comprehend that science is not an end all, and perhaps you should re-think that.
“Btw, I’ve never said a word about creation science, have I, so why are you implying I did?”
You posted to a thread that is replete with “creation science” comments and regular posters. If you are truly unaware of this, then I can understand your indignation. Of course, just because you don’t know about the mud doesn’t mean you won’t get any on you.
No offense intended, and you corrected any misunderstanding that anyone may have had with regards to your disinterest in “creation science”. I assume your slap at me on being unable to comprehend science is not an end all was just because you were pissed about getting “creation science” mud on your shoes. Otherwise, not sure how you jump to that conclusion.
No harm, no foul.
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.