All The Things You Aren't Supposed to Talk About : Politics, Religion, & Money! && Grammar!!

Wolven

The Wolf of TNE Street
In part for the reasoning behind it and references to Jefferson. The notion that a nation that was as a majority religious at the time should in no way reflect their ethics, morals, points of view and other beliefs in the democratic government they ran is a paradox; the whole notion of democracy is that it reflects the will of the people whom it consists of.

Likewise the reference solely to Jefferson when discussing the founding fathers in this kind of topic is something I also see often. Jefferson was but one of many of our founding fathers, who just like him, had their own takes on government and what our nation should or should not be founded on and what it should become; yet unlike Jefferson who is frequently quoted for this topic as a deciding factor, they are often completely ignored in other often larger aspects of our nation. (Banks and lending, anyone?) If one wishes to argue with the opinions of one Founding father, then they must also take into equal account those of all the Founding fathers. This has seldom been the case, especially in the past few generations. The United States of America is most definitely completely different being than it was at its conception, for better and for worse.

On the third point, It is more a matter of perspective. If America is as a majority inhabited by Christians, then it is a Christian nation; just the same as if it were inhabited by LGBT citizens as a majority, it would be LGBT nation, same so for Muslim, Atheists, Mormon, or even "Scientology". A democratic Nation is defined by its people. I would however argue that America is no longer a "Christian" nation, although I don't think it has asserted itself as anything else yet either; their are so many competing ideologies and political beliefs competing right now, which makes our current "2-party" system all the baffling and ineffective.
To this I answer this:
http://sufjan.com/post/156895984093

Please take a look the guy is actually really brilliant and talented. Great musician who is also a very devout Christian.
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
I'm going to go through this post in weighty detail, @Odo because you are making some large claims that simply cannot be backed up.

Both creationism and evolutionism are theories.
False equivalency. Creationism may be a theory, but it is not the same kind of theory as evolution... and evolutionism isn't a word. I'm going to go more into the "theory" thing later, so I'll skip it for now.

Evolutionism isn't fact and creationism isn't only religious stuff.
There are many scientists who are creationists.
As with anything in science, you'll find it very hard to get a scientist to say that evolution is 100% fact. However, evolution via natural selection almost certainly is to blame for the diversity of life on Earth. More on this later. It's also true that there are scientists who are creationists, but as wolven pointed out, it's not that many.

More to the point, the Discovery Institute (a creationist organization) started a petition of sorts and asked scientists to sign to voice their dissent against evolution. As of 2008, it contained only 761 names (note that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/us-workforce/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf) and further, less than 20% of the scientists who signed their name to the petition were actually in a biology related field.

If you want to go down the road of "one-side believing the other" I would simply point out that the Vatican accepts evolution. It's hard to get a more authoritative figure in the religious world than the Pope.

Creationism, however, certainly is only "religious" stuff. It's predicated on Christianity being true and genesis being literal. Without that, you've got nothing. This Institute of Creation Research has a page called "Evidence for Creation" [http://www.icr.org/evidence] (which I'm going to go through in painstaking detail later on). There are 5 subheadings: "God is Real", "Real Truth is Knowable", "Nature Reveals the Creator", "Science Verifies Creation", "Scripture is Unique". Only one of them isn't predicated on theology.

Creationism isn't taking seriously because the most important scientific journals and departments are ruled by evolutionists.
In a way, that's true, but only because the overwhelming majority of scientists accept that evolution explains diversity of life. But you have causation wrong - Creationism isn't taken seriously because there is essentially no evidence to support it, it is not science, and is therefore not in Scientific journals.

The same happen with man-made global warming which is not a fact, but a theory and there are many scientists that teach against man-made global warming theory too. (Geologists usually don't believe in global warming, for example ) The media and the scientific journals don't publish them, because they're ruled by the global warming party. Both theories must be discussed.
It's interesting isn't it, how the worlds major bodies of geological study all agree that anthropogenic climate change exists and is a threat to our way of life, but the geologists who depend on the extraction of fossil fuels for their paycheque seem to not want to upset that balance.

The Geological Society of America (http://www.geosociety.org/gsa/positions/position10.aspx) says: "Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species."

The same sentiments are echoed by their counterparts around the globe.

PS: Someone might ask me to share sources. Google them, please. Google for list of scientists that don't believe in global warming and scientists that don't believe in evolutionism.
I did, I talked about it before. Producing a list of ~200 biologists that don't accept evolution out of the 1,000,000 in the US that do is not particularly convincing.

Evolutionism and man-made global warming are just theories that become popular and nobody want to fight against them. Theories can be wrong. Many scientific theories of that past have been proven wrong. Maybe in a thousand years Evolutionism and global warming may be proved wrong, but so far they've not been proved right either.
Now the fun begins. Because this is where we have to actually talk about what evolution is and is not. You claim that "evolutionism" (again, not a word), is just a theory that has yet to be proved right. Because evolution is contentious here, let's use something else to demonstrate the point: gravity.

In science, theories attempt to explain observable phenomena. Gravity, for example, is a phenomenon that we continue to observe: throw a ball in the air, it falls back to the ground. Not only that, but it falls in a predictable way. Various scientists throughout time have attempted to explain gravity in a way that yields the best predictions.

Newton's theory of gravitation, for example says that the attractive force between 2 masses is proportional the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. More specifically: f = Gm1m2/r*r. We can take that, do actual math with real numbers, and very accurately predict how objects will behave in the real world.

Then Einstein comes along proposes the theories of special relativity and general relativity. They don't make Newton any less correct, really, but they do expand our ability to make accurate predictions to high gravity fields and high relative speeds.

My point is, our entire understanding of gravity is "theory". It has not been proven wrong, but like evolution via natural selection, it too has not been proven right. Such is the nature of science - it is a continual march towards better understanding.

Returning then to evolution, we should be clear what we are talking about. Evolution itself is like gravity - it is an observed phenomenon that occurs in the universe. If you prefer not to accept this, that's your business, but it would simply be ignoring reality just as it would be if you expected to float when you jump off a building.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is an attempt to explain that which we observe. This is theory proposed by Darwin, and which continues to be supported by modern science. There is a huge body of evidence to do so:
  • We have the fossil record, which clearly shows the progression from simple organism to complex organisms over millions of years. Some creationists object to the reliability of dating methods that these rely on, specifically to carbon dating, for some reason. It's particularly bizarre, because carbon dating is almost never actually used to date fossils because it can't reliably be used past about 50,000 years. K-40 however, has a much longer half-life than carbon and can therefore be used. Importantly, the various dating methods used (radiometric dating, dendrochronology, relative dating methods, etc) agree and therefore form a basis for reasonable acceptance of the results. There is also this idea in creationist circles that we don't have "missing link" fossils, but that simply misunderstands the nature of evolution. Evolution doesn't go "chimp, chimp, chimp, 1/2 chimp 1/2 man, man, man, man", it goes "pretty chimpish, a little more manish, even more manish, quite manish, starting to look like modern man, I think that's John". In that sense, every fossil is a "transitional fossil." Hominid skulls over millions of years show clear progression to larger brain cavities, associated with greater intelligence, for example: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg
  • Geographic distribution of species combined with plate tectonics also supports natural selection. Evolution via Natural Selection predicts that species from the same ancestors will share commonalities but be specialized to their unique environments. Plate Tectonics tell us that the South America and Africa once abutted. It is interesting then to look at the monkeys found on each continent and see their remarkable genetic similarities.
  • Microbiology supports evolution via natural selection. Life is built from DNA. Mutations to DNA result in changes to the resulting organism. Over many generations, mutations can add up to make larger changes to the organism. Again, this not theory, this is an observed phenomenon. The theory is that those mutations which are beneficial to a species will stick around due to increased ability to live and breed. Therefore natural selection is simply the propagation of beneficial "mistakes". Importantly, if we observe the DNA of species that we suspect are strongly related, we see strong similarities in the DNA.
  • Biology also points to a common ancestor. Animals share physical traits that they really ought not to. For example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It goes from the brain to the larynx in the throat. In humans, it does something a little weird, because it doesn't go straight from the brain to the larynx. Instead, it goes down to the chest, around an artery, and then back up to the larynx. It's a bit odd, not too wasteful, but also the kind of imperfection you would expect from a process driven by random mutation. The thing is, it does the same thing in other animals as well. In fish, which we suppose to be more ancestral to us in a way, the nerve makes a gentle curve from the brain to the heart. In mammals, as the heart drops further from the head, the loop of the nerve grows. Eventually, you end up with a giraffe with a looping laryngeal that is 15 feet long.
  • Speciation (the divergence from one species into multiple species) has been experimentally produced in laboratory conditions with flies. A population was split in two groups and isolated for 35 generations. The resulting populations would not cross-breed (which is typically the definition of distinct species): http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45 These results have also been repeated with various species.
  • Most importantly, all of the evidence for natural selection agrees with each other. In other words, we expect that there should be species in South America and Africa that will share commonalities based on altered proximity due to continental drift. Since those two continents used to be adjoined, we expect animals in each that are similar, and that would not be found, for example in North America which was more distal. And that is what we find: the monkeys I alluded to earlier. They look similar, they share very similar DNA, it seems to align. Or, in another example, when we find two fossils, where one looks like a simpler version of the other, we predict that the simpler is the older, and dating invariably proves us correct.
  • Finally, we actually use evolution via natural selection every day. For example, we exploit evolution to produce antibiotics. Without evolution, such medicines would be impossible.

Now, let's take a look at the evidence for creationism, specifically that listed by the ICR (because they bill themselves as authorities on the subject).

I'm going to ignore all of their subheadings that rely on God. I have to, because God refuses to be explained scientifically. As I explained, scientific theories work to explain observable, repeatable, predictable phenomenon. With God, we have nothing of the kind in a way that can be measured and verified. That leaves only with the "Science Verifies the Creator" subheading. This is further divided as follows:

Physical Sciences
  • The Universe Was Created
    • We are at the Center of the universe
      • The claim is that we see all galaxies around use expanding away from us. This must therefore mean that we are at the center of it all. Cosmology suggest otherwise - claiming the universe is more like the surface of a 4D balloon. Imagine you have a balloon, and you put a few random dots on it with a marker. As you blow up the balloon, all the dots move away from each other - the central point is not on the surface. The ICR claims that this is a contrived explanation for something that is obvious. However, the cosmological explanation is actually simpler once you start to try to make predictions. If you assume that we are near the center of the Earth, the math to make predictions of celestial movements becomes messy. Conversely, if we assume that there is no observable center, ala the cosmologist, then general relativity applies out of the box for every interaction we are aware of. Notably, when Einstein discovered his formulas, he thought something was wrong with them because they predicted that the universe expanded in this way, so he added actually added a term (the cosmological constant) to (incorrectly) correct for this. Later, when red shift was measured and verified expansion, he called this the biggest blunder of his life.
    • The Universe is Stable
      • This is split into various subjects. I'll hit them all quickly:
      • Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet here is the universe full of energy that must have come from somewhere. Therefore some supernatural being outside of the system had to create it. The premise is good, the conclusion isn't. Saying that God did it doesn't actually explain how energy was created. Regardless of supernatural ability, if it happened, there must still be an explainable process by which a universe can exist. One proposed theory is that our universe is in fact a 'net-zero energy universe'. Imagine a ball hurtling towards the center of the earth, it has kinetic energy because of gravitational attraction. But what happens when it reaches the center? The kinetic energy is overcome by the "negative" energy of gravity. The suggestion is that the universe is counterbalanced exactly in this way. Energy didn't need to be created, because its a sum-zero game. Is it right? I don't know. At least it makes an attempt, and the math is apparently sound.
      • Elements are dependable across the universe. Apparently because Hydrogen is the same in other parts of the universe as it is here, the constancy implies a creator. I think that's a bit of a leap. We understand the composition of matter - it would be more surprising if matter and physics behaved differently elsewhere. The fact that behaviour is consistent only implies that the behaviour is constant, not that someone defined said behaviour.
      • The Solar System must have been created, because it is the only one like it, and it supports life. First, I recommend they update their website, because NASA is finding Earth-like planets in habitable zones every second Wednesday, it seems like. Second, of course we would observe our planet as being hospitable for life. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it. Instead, we might be on another planet.
    • Earth was Uniquely Created
      • Earth seems fine-tuned for life. But again, it is only because it supports life that we are able to observe that it supports life, so it's kind of a meaningless thing to say. In addition, if Earth is hand-made just for us, why is the majority of it filled with water that we can't drink. Why does it occasionally shake violently and kill us? Why are some parts so cold we would quickly freeze to death while in other places, it spews out molten rock that would melt our faces off? There are animals that can eat us, plants that can poison us, tiny bugs that can cause incredible amounts of pain. And every now and then, the whole bloody thing freezes over completely.
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
(continued)

Earth Sciences
  • Geological Processes Were Catastrophic
    • They appear to suggest that geologists haven't accepted that there have been large catastrophic events, because such things were before written history, and they are now having to rethink all of their work because of some new evidence found. I guess this is trying to lead to a conclusion about the Great Flood. However, it is simply untrue, just read about Toba.
  • Evidence of the Flood is Everywhere
    • We see evidence of erosion around the world, which apparently must mean there was a global flood. Bizarrely, they use the Grand Canyon as an example, but the processes that created the Grand Canyon are well understood. They also say it was rapid, but dating of the various strata exposed in various sites reveals a very long history of erosion. Further, it claims that most cultures around the world "appear to have" a great flood story. Following a reference link back to themselves, I find an article that says over 200 such stories have been collected, along with some supposed statistics. However, I can't find anything about the stories themselves. Also, what happened to all the water? If sea levels were raised such that all mountain peaks on Earth were covered, that's a ridiculous amount of water - what happened to it all?
  • Fossils Reflects Life's Diversity
    • Fossils show rapid death and burial, I guess suggesting they were quickly killed in a flood. Also, logs through multiple strata apparently shows that the strata do not delineate large time frames. The problem with the first is that indeed such conditions do support fossilization, but we don't need a global flood to cause them. Flash flooding is a thing, volcanoes are a thing, no one denies that. The problem with the second is that it ignores context. These are found almost exclusively in areas of rapid sedimentation, such as subsiding coastal plains and areas of volcanic deposits. This was figured out over 100 years ago.
    • Fossils of complex organisms all appear at the same time, fully formed in what's called the Cambrian Explosion. Again, this just isn't true. It's presented as being a very short amount of time, but dating has it at a 20 million year range, with complex organisms actually showing up 30 million years earlier.
    • Apparently dinosaurs and humans co-existed. The only evidence offered is that the bible references something called a "behemoth", cultures have dragon myths, and soft tissues were discovered in dinosaur bones. Regarding myths, there are myths for all sorts of things, that some may accidentally reflect reality is not outside the realm of possibility. As of yet, I have not heard of the dinosaur that can breath fire. Regarding soft tissues, the woman who discovered them is a devout Christian who is adamant that the bones are 65 million years old. What science took away was not that dinosaurs are younger than thought, but that the processes of fossilization were not fully understood. As one scientist said, it would have been discovered earlier, but she did something no else thought to do, after spending all the time digging it up, she destroyed it in acid.
  • Earth Clocks Indicate Recent Creation
    • Eg. salt accumulates in the sea over time, and there isn't enough it for the Earth to have been around for millions or billions of years. However, we know of many processes that remove salt from the sea (plate tectonics, sea spray, formation of albite, etc).
Life Sciences
  • There are too many subsections for me to go through. They basically amount to the following:
  • The components of life are complex and demand a designer
    • The claim is basically that DNA, for example, is to complex to have arisen randomly from nothing. But i'm not sure that's true. DNA is just a sequence of amino acids. The interesting part is as the chains get longer and create more intricate things. We know the process by which they replicate, we're starting to understand very well how they code for traits. Again we know that it can mutate, and that the mutations can destroy and create information. If it couldn't, we wouldn't have antibiotics.
    • There are claims that things like the eye could not have simply come about from chance, because it doesn't make sense to have an incremental eye. Either you have a fully functional eye, or you have nothing, there is no benefit to having some of the pieces of an eye. But you just have to look at nature to see that it isn't true. Simpler life forms have 'eye spots' that can only detect the presence of light. As we get to more complex life forms, the eye gets more complex. For example, we have lenses that we are able to manipulate with muscles to alter focus. That's really good, but without it, we would still have very useful eyes, they just wouldn't be as good. Besides, are eyes aren't all that. We can only see a limited portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. And on top of that, we have a huge flaw in our eyes. We have a blind spot that our brain corrects for. Check out this image:

      • Cover your left eye with your hand and start at the dot. Then slowly move your face towards the dot. At some point, the cross completely disappears. The problem is that the optic nerve ends on the retina itself, so there is a part of the retina with no light sensing cells. Squids do not have this problem, incidentally.
  • Humans get inspiration from natural designs
    • The argument is that because human inventors look to nature for inspiration, someone smart must have made them in the first place. But that's not necessarily true. All it means is that there are clever things to be found in nature, something that could just as easily be true if a self-directing process of adaptation were allowed to run for hundreds of millions of years.
  • Humans were created fully formed and distinct from apes
    • Finally, getting to the point! The claim is that the fossil record does not have "transitional" fossils. I've addressed this already. They claim that all hominid fossils show humans as is, and there is nothing to link is to the other primates. If they want to claim that each fossil is a distinct thing that is not transitional in nature, then that is quite a stretch, given that we have several fossils which, when lined up, show a clear progression from one form to another.

There are other arguments, but it's getting late. Let me just finish with this. I think you are under the impression that evolution attempts to explain modern life from the very beginning. I think this because of your equivalencies and the general arguments given by organizations like the ICR. But it doesn't. Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory that explains an observable phenomenon that starts after life exists. It does not deal with the creation of life at all. It doesn't deal with the beginning of the universe.

And finally, to reiterate, Evolution by Natural Selection is not just a theory. It is the best explanation we have that accounts for the diversity of life, accommodates the available evidence, and that can be used to make useful predictions that save lives on a daily basis. It starts with an observation that life evolves and attempts to explain it. Should evidence come along that can seriously challenge it, it will be reconsidered or amended, just as Einstein expands upon Newton. Creationism, on the other hand, starts from the position that it is correct based on a religious belief and then looks for evidence to prove itself right. In doing so, it misstates scientific principles, misunderstands scientific findings, and disregards evidence that refutes it. It is the antithesis of science and that is why it is not taken seriously. And yet, it may occasionally stumble upon some truths, and when it does, I'm positive that science will be happy to take those truths on board.

Man... I wish I could offer you a cookie or something if you actually read this all :p
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
Dark, mate, you didn't need to write all this stuff, because I know all this stuff and disagree with it.

I didmt read everything you wrote but I read some bits, though.

I know all this and I wouldn't dare to debate, IVe read books and articles written by the minority party and decided to align with them. I'm with the minority that believe that creationism is a valid scientific theory as evolution is and I'm with that other minority that don't believe in man made global warming.

It's not a religious position either. In fact most of the Christians I know also disagree with me.

I'll not write a long essay defending the minority viewpoint, it's easier if I just share the books and articles I read when I made up my mind. I can do that if somebody's interested but I know that you know their explanations too.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Dark, mate, you didn't need to write all this stuff, because I know all this stuff and disagree with it.

I didmt read everything you wrote but I read some bits, though.

I know all this and I wouldn't dare to debate, IVe read books and articles written by the minority party and decided to align with them. I'm with the minority that believe that creationism is a valid scientific theory as evolution is and I'm with that other minority that don't believe in man made global warming.

It's not a religious position either. In fact most of the Christians I know also disagree with me.

I'll not write a long essay defending the minority viewpoint, it's easier if I just share the books and articles I read when I made up my mind. I can do that if somebody's interested but I know that you know their explanations too.
it IS a religious position, it is just that not all (or actually not many at all.. or should I say a tiny insignificant margin of) Christians believe it
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
Dark, mate, you didn't need to write all this stuff, because I know all this stuff and disagree with it.

I didmt read everything you wrote but I read some bits, though.

I know all this and I wouldn't dare to debate, IVe read books and articles written by the minority party and decided to align with them. I'm with the minority that believe that creationism is a valid scientific theory as evolution is and I'm with that other minority that don't believe in man made global warming.

It's not a religious position either. In fact most of the Christians I know also disagree with me.

I'll not write a long essay defending the minority viewpoint, it's easier if I just share the books and articles I read when I made up my mind. I can do that if somebody's interested but I know that you know their explanations too.
But you see, it's not up to you. The whole point of my writing everything was to say precisely this: "scientific" has a meaning and creationism simply doesn't check any of the boxes. It's not up for debate.

If it's what you believe, that's fine, I don't care. However, do not think that it is scientific, because it simply is not.
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
Dark, mate, you didn't need to write all this stuff, because I know all this stuff and disagree with it.

I didmt read everything you wrote but I read some bits, though.

I know all this and I wouldn't dare to debate, IVe read books and articles written by the minority party and decided to align with them. I'm with the minority that believe that creationism is a valid scientific theory as evolution is and I'm with that other minority that don't believe in man made global warming.

It's not a religious position either. In fact most of the Christians I know also disagree with me.

I'll not write a long essay defending the minority viewpoint, it's easier if I just share the books and articles I read when I made up my mind. I can do that if somebody's interested but I know that you know their explanations too.
I believe the part that stood out to me the most is that you don't believe that Global Warming is man-made. That our carbon emissions and pollution aren't causing this.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
I believe the part that stood out to me the most is that you don't believe that Global Warming is man-made. That our carbon emissions and pollution aren't causing this.
That stuck out for me as well. Sure, there are some environmental scientists out there who do claim that climate change is not man-made, but that is maybe a couple hundred out of hundreds of thousands who do believe it is man-made. It's a lot like the structural engineers who somehow believe that since jet fuel cannot melt structural steel (which is true, it can't), that it would've been impossible for the twin towers to collapse (forgetting the fact that as temps rise, the structural integrity of the steel itself is severely compromised, and thus is weakened to the point where it can no longer hold its design strength). Keep in mind, there are over 100,000 structural engineers that would disagree with those select few.
 

Koenig

The Architect
On the topic of global warming/climate change, I am half in half. I do believe that pollution and greenhouse emissions are contributing the problem and speeding it up, although I think it would have happened eventually either way, just at a much slow a more natural pace. Nature is not a static entity.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I believe the part that stood out to me the most is that you don't believe that Global Warming is man-made. That our carbon emissions and pollution aren't causing this.
That stuck out for me as well. Sure, there are some environmental scientists out there who do claim that climate change is not man-made, but that is maybe a couple hundred out of hundreds of thousands who do believe it is man-made. It's a lot like the structural engineers who somehow believe that since jet fuel cannot melt structural steel (which is true, it can't), that it would've been impossible for the twin towers to collapse (forgetting the fact that as temps rise, the structural integrity of the steel itself is severely compromised, and thus is weakened to the point where it can no longer hold its design strength). Keep in mind, there are over 100,000 structural engineers that would disagree with those select few.
Really? what TV channels are you watching?

Being against man made global warming is much more common than you think.

Ok, give me sometime I'll share here my bibliography on this matter.

Two months ago and I read another article in publication I subscribe arguing against man made global warming. Among conservative circle it's super common. Cmon I'm not stating anything absurdly alien.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
But you see, it's not up to you. The whole point of my writing everything was to say precisely this: "scientific" has a meaning and creationism simply doesn't check any of the boxes. It's not up for debate.

If it's what you believe, that's fine, I don't care. However, do not think that it is scientific, because it simply is not.
Don't argue the meaning of science with me. I'll share my bibliography on the matter and you can argue with the authors. Gimme some time and I'll post here the stuff for you.

You can keep trying to convince me that everything i read is trash. Please, be my guest and educate me if you wish, Just don't think that I'm saying this out from nowhere.
 

TechnoHobbit

Ash nazg durbatulûk
I've been gone so long I have no idea what is actually being talked about, but I see something about climate change and people doubting it. This has been on my mind considerably as of late and the argument surrounding it. Personally I do believe our actions are changing the environment and will be one of the most detrimental things of our era, the basic principles behind it are extremely sound based off my knowledge on the subject. However, I feel getting caught up on climate change "denialism" is often a waste of time and resources.

The problem is climate change has stopped being an issue of our planet and has instead descended into being a political partisan issue which obscures details and causes emotions to run high. Everyone already has a preconceived notion surrounding climate change, so once people hear the words "climate change" they lock up and divulge into tribalism and defense, not a desire to learn and understand the issues. That goes for many people on both sides. This needs to stop if we are ever going to actually change our course.

What needs to be done is to take the environment and return it to its rightful place as common sense non-politicized issue. There are many other aspects beyond climate change that haven't been as politicized or get nearly enough attention that one can focus on besides the changing climate that are just as impactful and many of them share the same root cause(s). Take for example, ocean acidification (the decrease in the pH of the oceans). It doesn't quite have the stigma of climate change (yet), but it is unequivocally vital we flip it around for the sake of our oceans and the creatures and resources contained within. And guess what causes it? The increase in CO2 levels. Ocean acidification is harming the

Or even just an more of an emphasis on the ongoing deforestation and steps we can make to decrease it, such as placing limits on your meat and palm oil consumption. No one in their right mind would support what is going on with many of our forests and jungles and the effects it has on the species, ecosystem, and undeniable effects it has on local climate. In addition deforestation destroys one of our greatest defenses against spiraling CO2 levels and is often done via fire, releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. This in turn helps lead to the above ocean acidification.

Or if you want something that affects us directly, burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil (such as gasoline) is horrendous to our health even here in the United States with all our regulations. Many health issues from respiratory & cardiovascular problems and to cancer can be directly and indirectly linked to our usage of these toxic fuels.

Anyway, that's been on my mind as of late. The scope what we are doing to the environment and ourselves is extraordinary and depressing, global warming is just a piece of the enormous puzzle that so many facets beyond the little I've said. However, since everything is so connected just working on one can end up helping so many of the others.
 
Last edited:

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
Being against man made global warming is much more common than you think.
Not among scientists.

On the topic of global warming/climate change, I am half in half. I do believe that pollution and greenhouse emissions are contributing the problem and speeding it up, although I think it would have happened eventually either way, just at a much slow a more natural pace. Nature is not a static entity.
I don't plan on jumping in front of traffic just because I'll eventually die anyway. Even better, if I see it coming straight toward me, I hope to be prepared to jump out of its way. It really sucks to be joined at the hip with people that insist on standing in the middle of the highway yelling that it's not their fault if they get hit by an 18-wheeler.
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
Don't argue the meaning of science with me. I'll share my bibliography on the matter and you can argue with the authors. Gimme some time and I'll post here the stuff for you.

You can keep trying to convince me that everything i read is trash. Please, be my guest and educate me if you wish, Just don't think that I'm saying this out from nowhere.
I know you aren't saying it out of nowhere. There are a number of popular theologians who try to use science to prove the validity of religious beliefs. Time and time again, they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific process, and time and time again believers eat it up. If your sources included names like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, etc, then you need not bother - I've read them (no fooling!).

And I'm actually not trying to convince you that you should believe something that you dont. Like I said, if creationism is your jam, good for you. My objection here is only to the co-opting of the word science.

Fundamentally, we may have different perspectives on the world. That's OK, we don't need to agree and we can get along just fine. I happen to believe in a natural universe in which science is our best tool for understanding reality. You happen (I think) to believe in a manufactured universe in which our best tool is revelation from a supernatural being. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and still the world spins.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I know you aren't saying it out of nowhere. There are a number of popular theologians who try to use science to prove the validity of religious beliefs. Time and time again, they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific process, and time and time again believers eat it up. If your sources included names like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, etc, then you need not bother - I've read them (no fooling!).

And I'm actually not trying to convince you that you should believe something that you dont. Like I said, if creationism is your jam, good for you. My objection here is only to the co-opting of the word science.

Fundamentally, we may have different perspectives on the world. That's OK, we don't need to agree and we can get along just fine. I happen to believe in a natural universe in which science is our best tool for understanding reality. You happen (I think) to believe in a manufactured universe in which our best tool is revelation from a supernatural being. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and still the world spins.
I see.

In fact I really don't have the skills to debate, so I'm open to learn. My opinion comes from the information I trusted. Of course as a believer I believe that God takes care of things and is the Creator, but besides that I'm open to learn, but so far, nobody could convince me that intelligent design isn't a valid theory.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
On the topic of global warming/climate change, I am half in half. I do believe that pollution and greenhouse emissions are contributing the problem and speeding it up, although I think it would have happened eventually either way, just at a much slow a more natural pace. Nature is not a static entity.
I used to think like you too. But now I'm not convinced that greenhouse gas is the sole cause or the main cause at all. The stuff I read plus all that IPCC corruption that was revealed made me think that the man made theory is yet open to debate. It's not fact that can't be debated.
 

Koenig

The Architect
Don't get me wrong, I am more skeptical than most. However climate change or no, I do feel that we as humans have a duty to act as stewards to the Earth, both to lands and their inhabitants; a duty that we as a society across the globe have utterly failed at up to this point. There is much more that we should be doing with technology we have, let alone what we could do.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
I used to think like you too. But now I'm not convinced that greenhouse gas is the sole cause or the main cause at all. The stuff I read plus all that IPCC corruption that was revealed made me think that the man made theory is yet open to debate. It's not fact that can't be debated.
Are you suggesting that all the smog you see in a lot of those major cities in China, and India for example (and other parts of the world) have absolutely nothing to do with man-made devices that they created (manufacturing facilities, cars, motorcycles, etc), and is all part of the nature course of earth? That there is no conceivable way that mankind has contributed to it?
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting that all the smog you see in a lot of those major cities in China, and India for example (and other parts of the world) have absolutely nothing to do with man-made devices that they created (manufacturing facilities, cars, motorcycles, etc), and is all part of the nature course of earth? That there is no conceivable way that mankind has contributed to it?
Of course not, I'm not talking about smog, I'm talking about anthropogenic global warming. The idea that the greenhouse gases from industrialisation is responsible for the warming trend in the planet since the Little Ice Age.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
Climategate


Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam
https://www.amazon.com/Climategate-...F8&qid=1492174327&sr=8-1&keywords=climategate

The Evidence of Climate Fraud
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-C...rd_wg=3Ajy7&psc=1&refRID=M40JX7R3176SJFJ2PQDX

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uters-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html






The Green agenda

Eco-Tyranny: How the Left's Green Agenda will Dismantle America
https://www.amazon.com/Eco-Tyranny-...rd_wg=3Ajy7&psc=1&refRID=M40JX7R3176SJFJ2PQDX


U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/
https://geopolitics.co/2017/02/04/u-n-official-reveals-real-reason-behind-the-global-warming-scare/





The sceptical thinking among specialists

A Disgrace to the Profession
https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Pro...rd_wg=nC6uf&psc=1&refRID=AE4GPB24MA87KBXD2WQ5


Global Warming-Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks at the Science of Climate Change
https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warmi...rd_wg=nC6uf&psc=1&refRID=AE4GPB24MA87KBXD2WQ5

This one covers very well the viewpoint of many geologists:

"As a young geology instructor in the 1970s, I informed my students of satellite images showing expanding snow cover in North America compared to previous years. I advised them to remain skeptical of the claims then being made in the popular media that this heralded the beginning of the next ice age. A few years later, sensationalist articles about the coming ice age began to be replaced by others saying the earth was growing dangerously warm and we humans were to blame. Why the continuing exaggerations about climate change I wondered, but duly brought this new scare to the attention of my classes with the same caveat as before. I thought it was just more media hype that would fade as quickly as the recent ice age scare. I was wrong. Instead of fading, global warming alarmism increased."


Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus
https://www.amazon.com/Scientists-D...rd_wg=nC6uf&psc=1&refRID=AE4GPB24MA87KBXD2WQ5

"Probably the most widely repeated claim in the debate over global warming is that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made and dangerous, the authors write. This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science."

‘Global warming’ is rubbish says top professor NASA scientist
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....rming-is-rubbish-says-top-professor-1-6536732
http://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/

“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent."


‘CRAZINESS’ in climate field leads dissenter Dr. Judith Curry to resign
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01...-my-tenured-faculty-position-at-georgia-tech/
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".


I personally know geologists and oceanographers that don't believe in the computing models of IPCC nor the sea level stuff.

I'm convinced that global warming is a theory that must be debated and not a fact. All this mess comes from the computers prediction and it's not that sure as it wasn't correct the global cooling theory of the 70's, nor the ozone depletion "catastrophe" of the 90's.
 

TechnoHobbit

Ash nazg durbatulûk
Finished catching up on reading this thread. I'll have to agree with Odo on Creationism being a viable scientific theory as opposed to macroevolution in spite of it not being popular among scientific community. However, it is another subject I don't find practically beneficial debating online as it is one of those subjects everyone seems to have firmly made up their minds about and I don't find belief either way to be detrimental. When I get more time I might still write a long post explaining how I came to my own personal conclusion since while I don't agree I appreciate the work DarkDepths put into his post countering it and think it deserves a reply of sorts.
‘Global warming’ is rubbish says top professor NASA scientist
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....rming-is-rubbish-says-top-professor-1-6536732
http://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/

“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent."
--------------
I'm convinced that global warming is a theory that must be debated and not a fact. All this mess comes from the computers prediction and it's not that sure as it wasn't correct the global cooling theory of the 70's, nor the ozone depletion "catastrophe" of the 90's.
I haven't read all your sources yet, but this point immediately stood out as (excuse the pun) not holding much water. What this professor says is technically correct as far as I know, however it misses some serious points and considers things in a vacuum. First off, we need greenhouses gasses to survive on earth, so yes there are vast quantities of existing greenhouse gasses already up there not caused by us. The trouble is when one of these balances suddenly starts changing rapidly as result of our actions as we are doing with CO2 (and methane which breaks down into CO2 within a few years and various others). This causes some warming, however, due to everything being so connected it doesn't just stop there, it snowballs. The warmer it gets, the more water vapor can exist be in the atmosphere thereby severely amplifying the effect of the CO2 we are pouring in the air, in fact at current rates the amount of water vapour is expected to double in the next century. This is called feedback.

TLTR: Pouring CO2 into the atmosphere will result in increased water vapor levels.

Do you not believe the in the hole in the ozone layer? Or that it is now shrinking?

Anyway, I'm curious, how does not believing in global warming affect your stance on the environment, protecting it, and the policy surrounding it?
 
Last edited:

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
Ugh. These Antifa fools are the exact types that turned me into a conservative. The hypocrisy of them going in to "smash the fasc" of people who aren't even fascist that are having their own peaceful rally. They are akin to the jackboots they so despise. There was a small barricade setup that didn't hold, Antifa starts going in to stir things up. Cops stepped out then they were run off by the Pro-Trump folks. It's more complex than that, and there is so much spin online its stupid.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-trump-rally-20170415-story.html

https://news.grabien.com/story-anti-trump-protesters-savagely-beat-trump-supporters-berkele

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-berkeley-cops-sit-patrol-car-trump-supporters-attacked/

This isn't anything new. Hell, groups like this were around 10 years ago when I was more involved in these types of groups. It's interesting to see the same sort of college kids with little to no life experience that have been coerced into these groups to cause anarchy. Eventually all these people turn on you in the end when you aren't enough of something, as I found out.

I'm sure the early-college simply would have been all about Antifa. I always find this song appropriate in times like these (lyrics-wise, not so much the video.)

Against Me! "I was a teenage anarchist"

I was a teenage anarchist, looking for a revolution.
I had the style, I had the ambition.
I read all the authors, I knew the right slogans.
There was no war but the class war.
I was ready to set the world on fire.

I was a teenage anarchist, looking for a revolution.

Do you remember when you were young and you wanted to set the world on fire?

I was a teenage anarchist, but the politics were too convenient.
In the depths of their humanity all I saw was bloodless ideology.
And with freedom as the doctrine, guess who was the new authority?
I was a teenage anarchist, but the politics were too convenient.

Do you remember when you were young and you wanted to set the world on fire?

I was a teenage anarchist, but then the scene got too rigid.
It was a mob mentality, they set their rifle sights on me.
Narrow visions of autonomy, you want me to surrender my identity.
I was a teenage anarchist, the revolution was a lie.

Do you remember when you were young and you wanted to set the world on fire?

I was a teenage anarchist.

C9gXP12VoAA7GGA.jpg
 
Last edited:

Odo

Well-Known Member
Do you not believe the in the hole in the ozone layer? Or that it is now shrinking?
I believe that there was an overreaction about global cooling in the 70's that ended up to be nothing. Also there was a huge overreaction about the ozone layer back in the 90's, again it ended up being nothing.

I see global warming as another end-of-the-world overreaction.

Anyway, I'm curious, how does not believing in global warming affect your stance on the environment, protecting it, and the policy surrounding it?
I consider myself in the centre. I'm not green, but not screw-the-environment either. I do my best for recycling and all the basic stuff to keep the cities and environment clean for everyone. We need to keep our environment clean even if we need to give up some economic benefits. I don't agree with saving the environment when we're directly hurting the economy though. For example if we need to keep the environment a little bit dirtier to keep the oil flowing, let's do this. I don't think it's fair to hurt the economy just to save some whales.
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
No whales love from me. I love humans and humans need their economy running.
I love humans too, but whales play an important part in ocean ecosystems and in terms of carbon pollution.

http://www.whalefacts.org/why-are-whales-important/

To quote the Lion King "It's the circle of life". Each organism plays a part, and when one is gone, things get thrown out of whack, making it worse over time for everything else.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I love humans too, but whales play an important part in ocean ecosystems and in terms of carbon pollution.

http://www.whalefacts.org/why-are-whales-important/

To quote the Lion King "It's the circle of life". Each organism plays a part, and when one is gone, things get thrown out of whack, making it worse over time for everything else.
Good points. I didn't know how important they are.

The last part of the article made even more sense to me:

Without the existence of the whale species the entire worlds economy would see a huge negative shift and everyone and everything would be affected from this change.

Considering that they are that important for the world, I'd change the whales part of my statement to other species that can't be more important than other economic factors that contribute to the development of the world.
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
Considering that they are that important for the world, I'd change the whales part of my statement to other species that can't be more important than other economic factors that contribute to the development of the world.
Can it be mosquitoes? I'd agree with that.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
I consider myself in the centre. I'm not green, but not screw-the-environment either. I do my best for recycling and all the basic stuff to keep the cities and environment clean for everyone. We need to keep our environment clean even if we need to give up some economic benefits. I don't agree with saving the environment when we're directly hurting the economy though. For example if we need to keep the environment a little bit dirtier to keep the oil flowing, let's do this. I don't think it's fair to hurt the economy just to save some whales.
I couldn't agree with you any less if I tried.

All those oil shales that are in the Rocky mountains. You think it's a good idea to effectively destroy the natural state of those mountains and terrain just for some oil? What about fracking? Do you think it's a good idea to potentially poison the water table just to retreive some oil or gas?

And humans are not the only sort of living species on this planet. In order to maintain an equilibrium among the environment, ecosystems, plants/trees, and whatnot, all those whales, fish, sharks, land mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians, etc, all keep everything in balance, including how we live in society.

And lastly, oil will eventually dry up. This is nothing new. Sure, we are finding new ways and new shales across the world that can provide us with more oil reserves, but again, it'll all eventually be gone. And then what? This is why it is important now to discover and find new ways to power our cars, our cities, and entire countries. We can't sustain ourselves to strip mine the planet in order to get every last drop of oil. It would harm the planet in more ways than it is worth. Now, if we were already in a position where we could consume and conquer the planet itself before moving onto the next habitable one, then I might have a different tune, but that is centuries ahead of our time.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree with you any less if I tried.

All those oil shales that are in the Rocky mountains. You think it's a good idea to effectively destroy the natural state of those mountains and terrain just for some oil? What about fracking? Do you think it's a good idea to potentially poison the water table just to retreive some oil or gas?
I don't know exactly about the Rocky mountains situation, but in general, I don't think it's effectively destroying anything. I don't think it's just some oil either.

Considering oil operations, it's always a lot of oil and it doesn't harm the environment more than the economic benefits it provides imo.

Fracking's becoming less and less dangerous. It's already reasonable and technology will make fracking even more all right down the road imo.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/08/28/fracking-really-isnt-so-bad/#1eeb35561f12
http://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2016/08/Shug Air Contamination.php


And lastly, oil will eventually dry up. This is nothing new. Sure, we are finding new ways and new shales across the world that can provide us with more oil reserves, but again, it'll all eventually be gone. And then what?
Oil will eventually dry up in hundreds of years. It's not gonna happen next decade or next century. It's false.

It's not about how much oil the reserves provide, but how can you extract them. The technology now makes possible to extract oil from deeper and deeper reserves. Plus there are many other reserves to be found.


This is why it is important now to discover and find new ways to power our cars, our cities, and entire countries. We can't sustain ourselves to strip mine the planet in order to get every last drop of oil. It would harm the planet in more ways than it is worth. Now, if we were already in a position where we could consume and conquer the planet itself before moving onto the next habitable one, then I might have a different tune, but that is centuries ahead of our time.
It's important to find new ways, but we still need oil. The developed world needs and the developing world needs even more.

We still can't operate a Boeing without oil. It's impossible now and it'll be impossible for a long time. A world without oil is impossible. We need to go far more in the future to think in a 100% "electrical" world.
 

TechnoHobbit

Ash nazg durbatulûk
I believe that there was an overreaction about global cooling in the 70's that ended up to be nothing. Also there was a huge overreaction about the ozone layer back in the 90's, again it ended up being nothing.

I see global warming as another end-of-the-world overreaction.
It was before my time, but based off research I've done global cooling was more of a media scare than anything, it didn't stand up to much scrutiny.

As for the reason the Ozone scare ended up being "nothing", it is because we took it seriously on a global scale and worked together to ensure it wouldn't turn out to be detrimental. The Montreal Protocol is an amazing example of an international agreement working and protecting the environment.
I consider myself in the centre. I'm not green, but not screw-the-environment either. I do my best for recycling and all the basic stuff to keep the cities and environment clean for everyone. We need to keep our environment clean even if we need to give up some economic benefits. I don't agree with saving the environment when we're directly hurting the economy though. For example if we need to keep the environment a little bit dirtier to keep the oil flowing, let's do this. I don't think it's fair to hurt the economy just to save some whales.
Fair enough overall. However, I can't agree with the last bit. It doesn't have to be the whales vs our economy.

Protecting the environment and helping the economy grow can easily go hand in hand. Since you mentioned oil, in many instances switching from our carbon-fuel economy to a renewable electric economy is beneficial as it encourages innovation, research, and new markets which in turn leads to job growth. Switching to electricity will also save enormous amounts of money on fuel costs, which can then be used elsewhere. In addition it leads to increased health and quality of life which in turn increases productivity.

Even if oil won't dry up for hundreds of years (however, it is getting harder, less efficient, and more detrimental to environment to get to--take oil sands for example), it is vital--even when ignoring climate change--for a number of ecosystems, our entire ocean, and by extension ourselves we wean ourselves off it and other fossil fuels as soon as possible.

Yes, a 100% "electrical" world (using clean sources) is still far off, but that's why we need to take steps towards it now and push towards it as much as we can. Even just converting a small percentage of our fossil fuel usage to a renewable form of energy makes a big difference.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Speaking of Electricity, here's hoping that the new Solid State Batteries pan out. Aside from making my life much more convenient, it would be a huge step forward.

https://news.utexas.edu/2017/02/28/goodenough-introduces-new-battery-technology
battery tech is the new frontier, there is SOOOOO much research going on now in all levels of battery tech, and batteries are currently the biggest bottleneck in tech, so as that problem is chipped away at, huge strides will happen in development...

mostly that much much much smaller devices will be able to be made.. and I don't mean thinner phones... but like smart contact lenses
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
battery tech is the new frontier, there is SOOOOO much research going on now in all levels of battery tech, and batteries are currently the biggest bottleneck in tech, so as that problem is chipped away at, huge strides will happen in development...

mostly that much much much smaller devices will be able to be made.. and I don't mean thinner phones... but like smart contact lenses
Not even Nintendo could convince me to wear a battery on my eye. I'll take glass frames any day.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Not even Nintendo could convince me to wear a battery on my eye. I'll take glass frames any day.
I wont put anything in my eyes period (that means regular contacts... just using an extreme example... another would be that smart glasses will look indistinguishable from regular glasses... right now it is all battery taking up the bulk

the future isn't just 1 kind of battery revolution though, but many

imagine you have a battery in your phone the size of a microsd card, that can keep the phone juiced for 2 days straight... BUT just holding the phone charges it a little bit, through the warmth of your hand, and when you talk outside the tiny solar panels on the back aid in juicing it up to... when you put it on a table at a restaurant, or on your office table it is being charged as well using wireless conductive charging... and when not actively using mobile data it eats the nearby radio frequencies for some power as well...

basically, you never need to charge the phone in the way we think of it now... because countless things we do throughout the day charge it in little steps

it may never happen to this degree, but that PATH is the future of battery tech...

power (meaning battery power, not performance) is like the last major obstacle standing in the way of tech, that and heat (to a lesser extent)

so anytime some story comes out related to battery tech, charging tech, super capacitors, etc... get excited, because those current obstacles are basically what stands between us and our wildest scifi dreams
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
@Odo @TechnoHobbit
Regarding the global cooling thing of the 70's, I've been doing some reading. There is a study that counted the number of peer reviewed papers predicting "global cooling" and "global warming" (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf). From 1965 to 1979, they found 7 papers that predicting global cooling, and 42 predicted global warming. And of those 7, some were actually right, under the circumstances. It definitely seems like a media frenzy more than a scientific frenzy. For example, here is something the Washington Post quoted in 2003 from one such paper:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age."

But the full text is:
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."

Other studies, such as one by Rasool and Schneider stated in the abstract: "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Recent studies support this idea that atmospheric aerosols can substantially reduce temperature. Fortunately, however, aerosol levels peaked in and around the 1970's and decreased dramatically thereafter (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1101/2011/acp-11-1101-2011.pdf).
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
I'll have to agree with Odo on Creationism being a viable scientific theory as opposed to macroevolution in spite of it not being popular among scientific community. However, it is another subject I don't find practically beneficial debating online as it is one of those subjects everyone seems to have firmly made up their minds about and I don't find belief either way to be detrimental. When I get more time I might still write a long post explaining how I came to my own personal conclusion since while I don't agree I appreciate the work DarkDepths put into his post countering it and think it deserves a reply of sorts.
I welcome rebuttals. In the hopes of saving you some wasted effort, however, let me just ask that you focus on the "scientific" aspects. I ask this because, as I've said previously, that is really what I object to. Whether you believe in Creationism is one thing, (and of course something I think is misguided), and whether you think Creationism is scientific is another. Regarding the former, I think there is room for faith, and if you have it, good for you. Regarding the latter, belief doesn't enter into the equation.

A mathematician says: "the commutative property says that a + b = b + a". It's a property of mathematics. If we then say "well, (a + b) + c = a + (b + c), so that's commutative too!" we would just be wrong. The equation part is still correct, but our statement about it is wrong.

That's sort of how I view "scientific" in terms of creationism. Creationism may yet be correct, (I don't think so), but labeling it as scientific is like labeling the associative property as commutative - incorrect. So, if you'd like to reply to me specifically, I'd ask that you focus on why you think Creationism is scientific.
 

Koenig

The Architect
battery tech is the new frontier, there is SOOOOO much research going on now in all levels of battery tech, and batteries are currently the biggest bottleneck in tech, so as that problem is chipped away at, huge strides will happen in development...

mostly that much much much smaller devices will be able to be made.. and I don't mean thinner phones... but like smart contact lenses
Or a Nintendo Switch with more than 3 hours of battery life. Let alone Smart Phones.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
@DarkDepths Sorry for the late reply I will pick up on "I'm not so sure you are a Christian and all the better for it".

I haven't read your reply even if you have given one I'm not sure but I will read it later if you replied. Ok here we go:mthumb:

My strength, joy, power, faith, hope, acceptance and love all come from my acceptance of Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross, not just for me but for everyone in the world.

I accepted the fact and prayed to God and confessed that I was a sinner and I believed with all my heart that Jesus was sent to die on the cross for my sins, and that I wanted him to come live in my heart and be the Lord of my life.

Simple as that and ever since I said that prayer i know I have Jesus in my life. This is how I have 100% confidence that I am a Christian tho I am not perfect, he was the perfect sacrifice given up for me. Anyone who says this prayer and believes will be saved, if it happened to me it can happen for anyone.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
I don't know exactly about the Rocky mountains situation, but in general, I don't think it's effectively destroying anything. I don't think it's just some oil either.

Considering oil operations, it's always a lot of oil and it doesn't harm the environment more than the economic benefits it provides imo.

Fracking's becoming less and less dangerous. It's already reasonable and technology will make fracking even more all right down the road imo.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/08/28/fracking-really-isnt-so-bad/#1eeb35561f12
http://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2016/08/Shug Air Contamination.php




Oil will eventually dry up in hundreds of years. It's not gonna happen next decade or next century. It's false.

It's not about how much oil the reserves provide, but how can you extract them. The technology now makes possible to extract oil from deeper and deeper reserves. Plus there are many other reserves to be found.




It's important to find new ways, but we still need oil. The developed world needs and the developing world needs even more.

We still can't operate a Boeing without oil. It's impossible now and it'll be impossible for a long time. A world without oil is impossible. We need to go far more in the future to think in a 100% "electrical" world.
The issue with oil reserves isn't how much oil there is in the world, it's about how much can we extract like you said. And given the current methods, we have less than a century left of oil. Now, given we will undoubtedly find new methods and likely new shales to extract oil, the issue then turns into the environmental, and the overall costs. Sure, costs do go down over time, but again, all it's doing it delaying the inevitable. Alternative means are better sorted to discover and harness now, not in the next century or two. It's a fool's errand to suggest we should just keep going the way we are without any regard to the potential consequences, and there WILL be consequences. We may not see it in our lifetime, but in the next, and after that? What we do now affects the future generations.

The time is now to start thinking about alternatives to oil.
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
@DarkDepths Sorry for the late reply I will pick up on "I'm not so sure you are a Christian and all the better for it".

I haven't read your reply even if you have given one I'm not sure but I will read it later if you replied. Ok here we go:mthumb:

My strength, joy, power, faith, hope, acceptance and love all come from my acceptance of Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross, not just for me but for everyone in the world.

I accepted the fact and prayed to God and confessed that I was a sinner and I believed with all my heart that Jesus was sent to die on the cross for my sins, and that I wanted him to come live in my heart and be the Lord of my life.

Simple as that and ever since I said that prayer i know I have Jesus in my life. This is how I have 100% confidence that I am a Christian tho I am not perfect, he was the perfect sacrifice given up for me. Anyone who says this prayer and believes will be saved, if it happened to me it can happen for anyone.
Sorry Matt, I got caught up in other discussions, and didn't reply! I just want to be clear, I have no doubt that you believe in your heart of hearts that you are a good Christian, and it's not my place to say otherwise. My point wasn't to say that you weren't.

Rather, you had said that some other people claimed to be Christians, but weren't real Christians. My point was that, if they believe in their heart of hearts that they too are real Christians, how can you say that they aren't? They will say the same as you: they are not perfect, and they make mistakes. There are so many denominations of Christianity, and they all believe in their heart of hearts that they understand the teachings of Christ, and many times those are in conflict with each other.

At some point, I think we just have to take people's word for what they believe in.

For example, something I hear a lot is that I (being an atheist) actually do believe in God/Christ, but that I simply reject him/them because I hate them. That's not a useful place to start a discussion, because the other person is starting from the flawed notion that I am simply lying about the foundation of my position. Though it might be hard to imagine for some, I really and truly do not believe that a God exists, so claiming that I actually just hate him gets us off on totally the wrong footing.

The same is true, I think, for Christians of different intent and belief. It's great to discuss the differences and debate the merits of different positions, but it's not useful to start from a position of "you are lying to me about what you believe and who you are." Even if it's true that they are, it has no real effects on the merits of the position. For example, I could pretend that I really Star Trek and really dislike Star Wars, and I could perhaps have a discussion with a trekkie about the Star Trek lore. Whether I actually like Star Trek is irrelevant to the discussion.

That's my point. Not that you aren't a real Christian, but that it doesn't help anyone to habitually question/dismiss the claims of belief of another person.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
So, if you'd like to reply to me specifically, I'd ask that you focus on why you think Creationism is scientific.
Creationism or intelligent design is a theory discussed by scientists and not only religious people. It neither can be proved in lab nor by maths. Abiogenesis and evolution from non-biological material either. Both are theories that can't be proved.

I can't go on in details, because it's not my field, but it's the field of those educated scientists. You can learn more from them why the theory that somehow life was created or designed makes sense or might be a better explanation than abiogenesis:

Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomer
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_Earth-based_abiogenesis


J Wells, Berkeley Ph.D in Biology
https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolut...qid=1492534579&sr=8-1&keywords=Jonathan+Wells


Thaxton, Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Iowa State University, et al
https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Life...&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Mystery+of+Life's+Origin


Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biological Science at Lehigh University
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Blac...1492538095&sr=8-1&keywords=Darwin's+Black+Box


Scientists who support intelligent design
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/scientists_who_support_intelli/


This article sums up everything very well
http://www.discovery.org/a/3059
Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads."​
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
So I'll hop into the philosophy behind evolution.

First, I don't see why there is not a potential for a supreme being (God in this case) that created a large amount of "things" (matter for instance) and then created the construct of time which threw them all into place. It would help explain why there seems to be the existence of a Big Bang.

Secondly, I also don't see why God could not have put into place various cycles, constructs, and "programs" that cause various organisms to evolve over time. Large portions of science are just trying to figure out how God had essentially designed things as we find far more structure in chaos than we can comprehend. There has been very little that is really random when we look into it, if anything.

Third, we can only "see" .0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum. Everything else involves some other instrument to convert or simplify it so our eyes can comprehend it. So there is a chance that God can operate on a different wavelength or move between them as necessary.

Fourth, we are just now "seeing" dark matter which is what scientists believe hold the universe together. Dark energy is supposedly 68% of all the universe while the dark matter itself makes up about 27%.

Therefore, we have very, very little information to determine whether or not there is not God and far less to understand the forest for the trees, so to speak. There is a long way to go before all of these "random" but interconnected, cyclical things we keep discovering prove anything but a higher being pulling the strings and tweaking the lights behind the scenes.

Until I see more proof that there is not intelligent design then I don't see a reason why I should completely erode the idea of Creationism.

But I still don't think Jesus rode dinosaurs.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
There's a big difference between a concept that makes sense within our limited personal experience and a concept that is scientific. If I said, "it makes sense to me that God is a cosmic octopus that used His eight titanic appendages to create a vacuum, and upon lifting them a big bang was created, and everything that we know was created at that moment," and a million scientists around the world said, "certainly that is a possibility," that wouldn't make my belief in the God-Octopus scientific. Something being scientific isn't just a metaphor for it "sorta making sense". Something being scientific means that it has been hypothesized, tested, re-tested, peer-tested, re-hypothesized, re-tested, and re-peer-tested hundreds of thousands of times, and that everyone has been able to physically observe the same results without variation.

That is why Evolution, like Gravity, is a scientific theory. Hundreds of thousands (and I'm low-balling that number) of experiments have been carried out across the world testing all sorts of related properties and behaviors, and the resulting modern theories are pretty much the parts that these hundreds of thousands of experiments have all proven and that have been physically observed.

When someone says that Creationism isn't scientific, they mean that there is no theory of Creationism that one can use to hypothesize the results of an experiment that can be physically recreated by other scientists, and that can produce results that can be observed independently, and which logically prove the hypothesis. I can say, "God created the Earth 6,000 years ago,' but I cannot come up with an experiment that not only produces results that I can physically observe and which prove that statement to me, but that can also be reproduced by any random person across the globe, who then finds the same results and comes to the same logical conclusion.

Whether you like Creationism, and whether it makes sense to you or not, has absolutely no bearing on it being scientific. Furthermore, you can believe absolutely anything you want as long as it affects only you, but the stakes are very different when it comes to government funding and public education. If we're talking about getting our money's worth when it comes to the taxes we pay, there is no better bet than scientific consensus.

There is a real problem with academia pressuring scientists to publish stuff that scientific journals find appealing, or that investors find worthy of funding, but that is no reason to dismiss the entire scientific method as flawed, and any other bloke's opinion as equally valid. And just because a flat-earther happens to be a scientist doesn't mean the earth is actually flat, or that we should teach public school students that the flat-earth theory is just as valid as anything else.
 
Top