georgerussia 0 #51 April 5, 2007 Quote Science w/o Religion=Soviet Union. No, Norvay. Still wanna "something in the middle"?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #52 April 5, 2007 QuoteIf science one day provides proof for the existence of God, will this question be moot? It will not happen. If something never existed, there is no way to prove it does not exist. Try, for example, to prove that Flying Spahetti Monster does not exist. So this question is useless.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #53 April 5, 2007 Quote I agree with you, but I was trying to make a point about those who love to point out the misuse and abuse of religion, but overlook the misuse/abuse of science (or even the natural by product of scientific advancement such as nuclear waste.) I can remember several examples of science abuse in the name of Lord (religion). I cannot remember any example of religion abuse in the name of science. And your mentioning of nuclear waste is funny as well. Does the science teach that you need to produce nuclear waste to go to Heaven? Or people produce it in the name of science, not to satisfy their own needs, which are in most cases not related to science at all?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #54 April 5, 2007 Quote No, the implication is there are good things that come from religion (charities that feed & clothe, hospitals, orphanages, and even the peace and comfort it brings to some during trials of life) Steve, do you have any proof that charities that feed & clothe, hospitals, and orphanages came directly from religion? Or this is just your belief? Regatding "peace and comfort" - what's the difference with alcohol/drugs then? I still see nothing good which came directly from religion, and would not happen without it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #55 April 5, 2007 Dang George, you're right in everything you post. I should be ashamed of even trying to get in a battle of words with someone of your intellect. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #56 April 5, 2007 QuoteI am going to have talk to my local atheist represtative and make sure we get our people into all the local prisons so that we are well represented You mean the ACLU??? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #57 April 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteI am going to have talk to my local atheist represtative and make sure we get our people into all the local prisons so that we are well represented You mean the ACLU??? Are you claiming Christianity is incompatible with civil liberties? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #58 April 5, 2007 yeah, right! steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #59 April 6, 2007 QuoteScience is correct, it towers on its own merit Obviously being correct is not meaning everyone agrees. Which scientific theory holds the correct answer to global warming. Man made or natural? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #60 April 6, 2007 >Which scientific theory holds the correct answer to global warming. Man made or natural? Which is like asking - which scientific theory holds the correct answer to how gravity works? Answer - we don't know, although we have some pretty good theories. (Needless to say, it would be foolish to assume that therefore gravity does not exist.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #61 April 6, 2007 I'm not saying GW doesn't exist. But if science is correct. Which science is correct about the cause of GW? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #62 April 6, 2007 >But if science is correct. Which science is correct about the cause of GW? Higher levels of CO2 in an atmosphere absorb more reradiated IR, which results in more heat retention. That's provable in a lab, and in our atmosphere, with fairly simple experiments. We've increased the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. That's provable via empirical testing of smokestack gases and pretty simple math. (i.e. X tons of CO2 mixed with Y tons of atmosphere gives you Z percentage change of CO2.) That's the science we know to be correct nowadays. The uncertainties are: -what effects will kick in to reduce heating? Will clouds form more rapidly, thus reflecting more light and reducing the amount of heat we get? Will tropical forests grow more rapidly in the warmer temps and reabsorb some of that CO2? -what effects will kick in to _increase_ heating? Will melting permafrost release methane and accelerate the warming? Will the Canadian forests that are now dying rot (or burn) and release more CO2? -what will people do in the future? Will they emit more/less CO2/NOx/methane? So you have some science that we understand, and a lot of uncertainties about the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #63 April 6, 2007 QuoteQuoteScience is correct, it towers on its own merit Obviously being correct is not meaning everyone agrees. Which scientific theory holds the correct answer to global warming. Man made or natural? The two things you offer as theories are neither theories or mutually exclusive, you're fooled by the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. One thing you can be sure of, the answer to the question of "How much of the observed global warming is caused by man?" is nowhere to be found in your Bible. How do you propose we explore this immensely complex and profoundly important problem? I humbly offer science as the best way forward and invite you to suggest a better alternative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #64 April 6, 2007 I think science is the best resource for finding the "cause" of global warming. Just pointing out all scientist don't agree on the "cause" The purpose of the Bible is to point men to Christ, not be a history or science book. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #65 April 6, 2007 QuoteI think science is the best resource for finding the "cause" of global warming. Just pointing out all scientist don't agree on the "cause" They all agree on using the scientific method to find the cause, and in fact now they almost all agree that both of the factors you listed contribute so strictly speaking you're wrong on the cause, it's just the quantity they're not sure on. It would be rather surprising if every scientist arrived at the same conclusion at the leading edge of an emerging and complex field of scientific research, a winnowing of conflicting candidate theories is how science works. Quote The purpose of the Bible is to point men to Christ, not be a history or science book. On that point you have my complete agreement. So the central goal of your religion is for men to find salvation after death through Christ. The central goal of science is to explain, describe and predict the physical world for the living. Not much to compare there, and let's face it your central goal is all New Testament (ignoring the obligatory early prophecy just to rubber stamp the J. man) most of the angst arises from the literal interpretation of arcane Old Testament stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,136 #66 April 6, 2007 QuoteQuotehow do scientists cause pollution I don't think it was a Miracle of the Almighty that resulted in the internal combustion engine. Nor do I think it is the pursuit of religion that is causing global warming or Amazon deforestation. I think you confuse science with engineering and business. Science is the structured pursuit of knowledge. Scientists didn't oppose CAFE standards or decide to build nuclear power plants without any means of storing the waste, or decide to cut down huge swaths of the rain forest. Those were business/political decisions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #67 April 6, 2007 QuoteDang George, you're right in everything you post. I should be ashamed of even trying to get in a battle of words with someone of your intellect. If you answered my question instead of discussing my person, it would be much more helpful to the discussion. I can even repeat it: could you prove that the "good thinks" you mentioned came directly from religion?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #68 April 6, 2007 My question to you is how the hell did you grow such a big beard and such long hair?------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,136 #69 April 6, 2007 QuoteMy question to you is how the hell did you grow such a big beard and such long hair? Clean living.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 April 7, 2007 QuoteHigher levels of CO2 in an atmosphere absorb more reradiated IR, which results in more heat retention. That's provable in a lab, and in our atmosphere, with fairly simple experiments. We've increased the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. That's provable via empirical testing of smokestack gases and pretty simple math. (i.e. X tons of CO2 mixed with Y tons of atmosphere gives you Z percentage change of CO2.) A question on that - is there empirical data on how much CO2 is being absorbed by forests and the like?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #71 April 8, 2007 good point george! they will not address the issue that you raise because to look at anything other than the cross and christ crucified on it (1 cor 2:2) is their sentence to HELL. THe only people who won't read this are the brain-dead igonrant ones who insist that jesus is the 'only way to reach god(the creation is)'. BTW; www.addictedtowar.com is the real truth about Jehovah(see Exodus 15:3)we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
