Dr. Benjamin Carson
- Thread starter cfootball1
- Start date
[quote name='The Crotch']It truly takes outside-the-box thinking to simultaneously pander to a Christian audience and shit on the Bible right in front of them.[/QUOTE]
You should meet my family, TC. If the Texas heat doesn't kill you, surely their incredible insight into the human condition will.
You should meet my family, TC. If the Texas heat doesn't kill you, surely their incredible insight into the human condition will.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
[quote name='usickenme']How so? Please illustrate.[/QUOTE]
Just that Scientists think in logic and empirical data. Logic told many scientists you can't separate conjoined twins from the head. The Dr. disregarded it, becoming the first to do so.
All has to do with keeping an open mind. Logic and reason will always fall apart when debating the ultimate question.
Just that Scientists think in logic and empirical data. Logic told many scientists you can't separate conjoined twins from the head. The Dr. disregarded it, becoming the first to do so.
All has to do with keeping an open mind. Logic and reason will always fall apart when debating the ultimate question.
[quote name='cfootball1']Just that Scientists think in logic and empirical data. Logic told many scientists you can't separate conjoined twins from the head. The Dr. disregarded it, becoming the first to do so.[/quote]
Or...you know...waiting until knowledge, technology, and techniques became advanced enough to make an attempt. From the way you make it sound, this type of surgery could've been done in the 1700's. Hell, why not the Bronze Age or the Stone Age.
And that "ultimate question" would be?
Or...you know...waiting until knowledge, technology, and techniques became advanced enough to make an attempt. From the way you make it sound, this type of surgery could've been done in the 1700's. Hell, why not the Bronze Age or the Stone Age.
I'm almost afraid to ask...
And that "ultimate question" would be?
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']Or...you know...waiting until knowledge, technology, and techniques became advanced enough to make an attempt. From the way you make it sound, this type of surgery could've been done in the 1700's. Hell, why not the Bronze Age or the Stone Age.
I'm almost afraid to ask...
And that "ultimate question" would be?[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. Come to think of it, why would it take till the 1990's to do something like that? When we've been here millions of years? And why would we take a scientists word for it in regards to evolution, when he would be blown out of the water by a scientist from a 1000 years from now? Shows how little we know. The human brain physically can't even comprehend the vastness of the universe, and these people have the balls to say there's no God.
I'm almost afraid to ask...
And that "ultimate question" would be?[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. Come to think of it, why would it take till the 1990's to do something like that? When we've been here millions of years? And why would we take a scientists word for it in regards to evolution, when he would be blown out of the water by a scientist from a 1000 years from now? Shows how little we know. The human brain physically can't even comprehend the vastness of the universe, and these people have the balls to say there's no God.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
And have you ever, like, looked at a word, man? It's, like... just shapes, but with meaning, man!
[quote name='cfootball1']You're missing the point. Come to think of it, why would it take till the 1990's to do something like that? When we've been here millions of years? And why would we take a scientists word for it in regards to evolution, when he would be blown out of the water by a scientist from a 1000 years from now? Shows how little we know. The human brain physically can't even comprehend the vastness of the universe, and these people have the balls to say there's no God.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I don't think I've seen many come out and say there's no God, but that there is no empirical scientific evidence of a God and therefore no reason to believe there is one. That is an important distinction. Even a scientist like Richard Dawkins, who has made quite the name for himself by arguing against the existence of a creator, has said that he admits there is a possibility of a creator, but that there is no evidence to convince him that's the case.
It's basically the approach you would expect a person of science to take.
Actually, I don't think I've seen many come out and say there's no God, but that there is no empirical scientific evidence of a God and therefore no reason to believe there is one. That is an important distinction. Even a scientist like Richard Dawkins, who has made quite the name for himself by arguing against the existence of a creator, has said that he admits there is a possibility of a creator, but that there is no evidence to convince him that's the case.
It's basically the approach you would expect a person of science to take.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
That is one of the most amazing GIFs I've seen.
I'll never understand why anyone feels like it takes a lot of nerve to go against the religious notion of a god. If anything it should be the other way around, it takes a lot of nerve to disregard logic and reason and assume their must be a god when their is absolutely no evidence for it. You're basically disagreeing with the scientific method itself.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']I'll never understand why anyone feels like it takes a lot of nerve to go against the religious notion of a god. If anything it should be the other way around, it takes a lot of nerve to disregard logic and reason and assume their must be a god when their is absolutely no evidence for it. You're basically disagreeing with the scientific method itself.[/QUOTE]
The problem is there is no logical reason why we are here in the first place. So at some point you're going to have throw logic out the window and accept the fact you know nothing in the grand scheme of things. Then suddenly the possibility of a creator doesn't sound as absurd as the notion that we are just here because. Logic is a man-made creation, you can't base your existence on logic because it has been broken time and time again.
The problem is there is no logical reason why we are here in the first place. So at some point you're going to have throw logic out the window and accept the fact you know nothing in the grand scheme of things. Then suddenly the possibility of a creator doesn't sound as absurd as the notion that we are just here because. Logic is a man-made creation, you can't base your existence on logic because it has been broken time and time again.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='cfootball1']Just that Scientists think in logic and empirical data. Logic told many scientists you can't separate conjoined twins from the head. The Dr. disregarded it, becoming the first to do so.
All has to do with keeping an open mind. Logic and reason will always fall apart when debating the ultimate question.[/QUOTE]
swing and a miss. He used a technique that was already in use with other patients. And that was one operation. My point is that the Dr. probably uses inside the box medical thinking 99.99 % of the time. He uses anesthesia, a sterile field, etc.
one can be very successful by breaking conventions. However, being contrarian for sake of being contrarian isn't the same thing as being contrarian and backing that shit up with science / evidence. And no, "gee isn't it cool that eye is complex as a camera..must be a God designing it" isn't evidence.
All has to do with keeping an open mind. Logic and reason will always fall apart when debating the ultimate question.[/QUOTE]
swing and a miss. He used a technique that was already in use with other patients. And that was one operation. My point is that the Dr. probably uses inside the box medical thinking 99.99 % of the time. He uses anesthesia, a sterile field, etc.
one can be very successful by breaking conventions. However, being contrarian for sake of being contrarian isn't the same thing as being contrarian and backing that shit up with science / evidence. And no, "gee isn't it cool that eye is complex as a camera..must be a God designing it" isn't evidence.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='cfootball1']The problem is there is no logical reason why we are here in the first place. .[/QUOTE]
fallacy. It's perfectly logical. The elements and conditions were there for life and OMG, it happened. Shocker!
It's like when idiots see a baby and say "its a miracle of life"..no it's an egg and a sperm.
fallacy. It's perfectly logical. The elements and conditions were there for life and OMG, it happened. Shocker!
It's like when idiots see a baby and say "its a miracle of life"..no it's an egg and a sperm.
The book "The Answers" throws some arguments out there for God. Irreducible complexity, yadda yadda yadda... I don't expect to sway anyone's mind, only God and an open heart will do that. I experienced a miracle in my life, God healed my mom from MS. Brain lesions and all. Worst case scenario is that I die and go into the mindless darkness like everyone else. Best case is eternal life and a life spent trying (mostly failing) to live up to a darn good example. The Sermon on the Mount, even if total fiction, is a great road map for interpersonal relationships and life in general. Its hard not to be judgmental or to be forgiving. Way too easy to fall in and be a jerk like everyone else. I'm guilty of it, gotta try to be better each time.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I'm not an athiest, but "irreducible complexity" (a/k/a the analogy of the watchmaker) is not an argument for the existence of the metaphysical, it is a white flag being waved by individual curiosity.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='egofed']The book "The Answers" throws some arguments out there for God. Irreducible complexity, yadda yadda yadda... I don't expect to sway anyone's mind, only God and an open heart will do that. I experienced a miracle in my life, God healed my mom from MS. Brain lesions and all. Worst case scenario is that I die and go into the mindless darkness like everyone else. Best case is eternal life and a life spent trying (mostly failing) to live up to a darn good example. The Sermon on the Mount, even if total fiction, is a great road map for interpersonal relationships and life in general. Its hard not to be judgmental or to be forgiving. Way too easy to fall in and be a jerk like everyone else. I'm guilty of it, gotta try to be better each time.[/QUOTE]
Look I have no problem with faith. It's all around me. If you say that God Healed your mom, I believe you. My Grandma also believe the same happened to her. There are some unexplainable things. And yes, the open-minded person in me allows for the possibility that one thing could be a dude in the sky.
But I don't think that evolution or our existence is one of the unexplainable things. Quite frankly, it does a disservice to actual miracles to rope easily explainable things into that category. Also, one can find a moral life outside the Bible.
Look I have no problem with faith. It's all around me. If you say that God Healed your mom, I believe you. My Grandma also believe the same happened to her. There are some unexplainable things. And yes, the open-minded person in me allows for the possibility that one thing could be a dude in the sky.
But I don't think that evolution or our existence is one of the unexplainable things. Quite frankly, it does a disservice to actual miracles to rope easily explainable things into that category. Also, one can find a moral life outside the Bible.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
[quote name='usickenme']fallacy. It's perfectly logical. The elements and conditions were there for life and OMG, it happened. Shocker!
[/QUOTE]
That's my problem with atheists, thinking in a mere human mindset exercising reasoning processes that have already been programmed to you since birth by other humans. Elements were discovered by humans, humans named them. So of course to a human it sounds logical and concrete.
Does someone want to venture to answer the question of who created elements? I can almost imagine the spock-like response full of conjecture from someone born in the 1980's on a planet that is millions of years old.
And perhaps if Science had not already discovered every intricate detail of Gods creation. And we were able to look at our existence, our life and our world for what it is, amazing. And in our complete fascination the notion of a God becomes ever so possible.
I will always respect this kind of Atheist. So that we can examine both schools of thought do in fact sound, ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
That's my problem with atheists, thinking in a mere human mindset exercising reasoning processes that have already been programmed to you since birth by other humans. Elements were discovered by humans, humans named them. So of course to a human it sounds logical and concrete.
Does someone want to venture to answer the question of who created elements? I can almost imagine the spock-like response full of conjecture from someone born in the 1980's on a planet that is millions of years old.
And perhaps if Science had not already discovered every intricate detail of Gods creation. And we were able to look at our existence, our life and our world for what it is, amazing. And in our complete fascination the notion of a God becomes ever so possible.
I will always respect this kind of Atheist. So that we can examine both schools of thought do in fact sound, ridiculous.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Every year, hundreds of South Park fans leap to their deaths in the Grand Canyon believing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='cfootball1']That's my problem with atheists, thinking in a mere human mindset exercising reasoning processes that have already been programmed to you since birth by other humans. Elements were discovered by humans, humans named them. So of course to a human it sounds logical and concrete. [/quote]
#1.) I am not an atheist and #2.) Congrats you just perfectly defined religion. #3.) It's pretty damn hard to remove the human equation from everything being a human and all. The fact that we named them doesn't change the fact that they are there. Of course by questioning everything it's a nice little "get out of thinking" card. Hey it could all be a dream too.
Umm, no one? Why does someone have to create them. Sounds like some "human" is using a "human mindset" that has been programmed to understand something. To answer your questions (and a correction). For starters the earth is billions of years old. Big bang happens ( way before that). Protons and neurons are free floating everywhere, universe cools, tritium, Helium-3, and Helium-4 can form, then hydrogen, millions years go by- nuclei become neutral atoms-dust clouds of neutral atoms become stars and density increases, finally heavy elements can form. Not that you're buying any of this. And all those "magic" elements are easily detectable in the universe.
Science has never claimed this..only anti-science people do. Why do you need proof? I don't. Do you know what faith even means
So you "respect" this guy because you agree with what he is saying. Even though, I may point out, what he is saying is complete uneducated bullshit? He would've sounded more informed if he would've said "I reject the Big Bang Theory because who would believe guys are really nerdy like that?"
#1.) I am not an atheist and #2.) Congrats you just perfectly defined religion. #3.) It's pretty damn hard to remove the human equation from everything being a human and all. The fact that we named them doesn't change the fact that they are there. Of course by questioning everything it's a nice little "get out of thinking" card. Hey it could all be a dream too.
Umm, no one? Why does someone have to create them. Sounds like some "human" is using a "human mindset" that has been programmed to understand something. To answer your questions (and a correction). For starters the earth is billions of years old. Big bang happens ( way before that). Protons and neurons are free floating everywhere, universe cools, tritium, Helium-3, and Helium-4 can form, then hydrogen, millions years go by- nuclei become neutral atoms-dust clouds of neutral atoms become stars and density increases, finally heavy elements can form. Not that you're buying any of this. And all those "magic" elements are easily detectable in the universe.
Science has never claimed this..only anti-science people do. Why do you need proof? I don't. Do you know what faith even means
So you "respect" this guy because you agree with what he is saying. Even though, I may point out, what he is saying is complete uneducated bullshit? He would've sounded more informed if he would've said "I reject the Big Bang Theory because who would believe guys are really nerdy like that?"
[quote name='Msut77']Only gospel should be taken as gospel? Otherwise its silly?[/QUOTE]
I like this quote a lot.
That wasn't my meaning. My complaint is that most theories these days are presented as absolute truths, not hypotheses based on the best, most current data made available by whatever latest innovation in technology arises. Discovery Channel will state everything as already being proven versus prefacing a show with "all of our latest data leads us to believe that this is so". Any one familiar with the scientific method might not need this disclaimer, but the millions of ignorant Americans watching take it as "the gospel". I say question everything, religion, science, politics. Take nothing for granted. Bad science exists....a lot. My faith is based on the healing of my Mom like I stated earlier. I can talk to God and feel better also. Is it self hypnosis or hallucination? Maybe. But the scans of my Mom's brain that showed lesions that went away, and the bafflement of her doctors is proof enough for me.
I like this quote a lot.
That wasn't my meaning. My complaint is that most theories these days are presented as absolute truths, not hypotheses based on the best, most current data made available by whatever latest innovation in technology arises. Discovery Channel will state everything as already being proven versus prefacing a show with "all of our latest data leads us to believe that this is so". Any one familiar with the scientific method might not need this disclaimer, but the millions of ignorant Americans watching take it as "the gospel". I say question everything, religion, science, politics. Take nothing for granted. Bad science exists....a lot. My faith is based on the healing of my Mom like I stated earlier. I can talk to God and feel better also. Is it self hypnosis or hallucination? Maybe. But the scans of my Mom's brain that showed lesions that went away, and the bafflement of her doctors is proof enough for me.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
^ AWWWWW, DUDE. CREATION MUSEUM. I grew up just north of that location, and never took the opportunity to visit there before I moved away from KY.
[quote name='egofed']most theories these days are presented as absolute truths, not hypotheses based on the best, most current data made available by whatever latest innovation in technology arises.[/QUOTE]
Can you give an example (in the science community or news media, Discovery Channel is as scientific as the History Channel is historical)? I have to admit I'm really struggling with your sentence above - just because the word "theory" to me, necessarily implies the latter portion of your sentence. So I read it to say "most trucks these days are presented as scooters, not trucks." (i.e., of course theories are hypotheses based on the best...what else could they possibly be and still be theories?)
It is possible to lean too hard on science, absolutely. People lacking in critical thinking skills can fall too firmly on dogma, whether religion or empirically driven. But in the case of science, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's think more critically and skeptically. I'd love that. But unfortunately for those of faith, the level of sophistication and knowledge to think critically about scientific phenomena is far greater than that needed for religion.
[quote name='egofed']most theories these days are presented as absolute truths, not hypotheses based on the best, most current data made available by whatever latest innovation in technology arises.[/QUOTE]
Can you give an example (in the science community or news media, Discovery Channel is as scientific as the History Channel is historical)? I have to admit I'm really struggling with your sentence above - just because the word "theory" to me, necessarily implies the latter portion of your sentence. So I read it to say "most trucks these days are presented as scooters, not trucks." (i.e., of course theories are hypotheses based on the best...what else could they possibly be and still be theories?)
It is possible to lean too hard on science, absolutely. People lacking in critical thinking skills can fall too firmly on dogma, whether religion or empirically driven. But in the case of science, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's think more critically and skeptically. I'd love that. But unfortunately for those of faith, the level of sophistication and knowledge to think critically about scientific phenomena is far greater than that needed for religion.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']^ AWWWWW, DUDE. CREATION MUSEUM. I grew up just north of that location, and never took the opportunity to visit there before I moved away from KY.
Can you give an example (in the science community or news media, Discovery Channel is as scientific as the History Channel is historical)? I have to admit I'm really struggling with your sentence above - just because the word "theory" to me, necessarily implies the latter portion of your sentence. So I read it to say "most trucks these days are presented as scooters, not trucks." (i.e., of course theories are hypotheses based on the best...what else could they possibly be and still be theories?)
It is possible to lean too hard on science, absolutely. People lacking in critical thinking skills can fall too firmly on dogma, whether religion or empirically driven. But in the case of science, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's think more critically and skeptically. I'd love that. But unfortunately for those of faith, the level of sophistication and knowledge to think critically about scientific phenomena is far greater than that needed for religion.[/QUOTE]
He could be talking about the instances like when my 12th grade science teacher swiftly passed off global warming as fact. I challenged him, telling him we had the coldest winter on record the previous year. I pressed him harder, still nothing concrete. He didn't even know it was a theory. Then he pulled the scientific consensus card, which is complete BS and I challenged him on it. A very scary proposition when teaching impressionable kids. Like Liberal academia professors.
Can you give an example (in the science community or news media, Discovery Channel is as scientific as the History Channel is historical)? I have to admit I'm really struggling with your sentence above - just because the word "theory" to me, necessarily implies the latter portion of your sentence. So I read it to say "most trucks these days are presented as scooters, not trucks." (i.e., of course theories are hypotheses based on the best...what else could they possibly be and still be theories?)
It is possible to lean too hard on science, absolutely. People lacking in critical thinking skills can fall too firmly on dogma, whether religion or empirically driven. But in the case of science, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's think more critically and skeptically. I'd love that. But unfortunately for those of faith, the level of sophistication and knowledge to think critically about scientific phenomena is far greater than that needed for religion.[/QUOTE]
He could be talking about the instances like when my 12th grade science teacher swiftly passed off global warming as fact. I challenged him, telling him we had the coldest winter on record the previous year. I pressed him harder, still nothing concrete. He didn't even know it was a theory. Then he pulled the scientific consensus card, which is complete BS and I challenged him on it. A very scary proposition when teaching impressionable kids. Like Liberal academia professors.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='egofed']"Good" science changes as new data becomes available. We have theories on the creation of the universe and life, nothing is proven. Carbon 14 dating,for example,has some issues questioning its accuracy, yet most people take it as the gospel.[/QUOTE]
sorry you're wrong. Not everything is proven but some of it IS proven. We CAN see elements forming compounds (Hydrogen and Oxygen making water). We can measure the fact that the universe is expanding
You are falling into the trap (actually I think you are willingly jumping) that because some science isn't proven then all of it isn't proven. It's certainly fine to question but to pretend it's all equal is silly. You also have to weigh the quality of evidence.
You've complain about bad science is presented as gospel and suckers believing it and in the same damn post you proudly state that your mom's situation "proves" God exists. You are doing exactly what you mock.
sorry you're wrong. Not everything is proven but some of it IS proven. We CAN see elements forming compounds (Hydrogen and Oxygen making water). We can measure the fact that the universe is expanding
You are falling into the trap (actually I think you are willingly jumping) that because some science isn't proven then all of it isn't proven. It's certainly fine to question but to pretend it's all equal is silly. You also have to weigh the quality of evidence.
You've complain about bad science is presented as gospel and suckers believing it and in the same damn post you proudly state that your mom's situation "proves" God exists. You are doing exactly what you mock.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='cfootball1']I challenged him, telling him we had the coldest winter on record the previous year.[/QUOTE]
"It's snowing outside, therefore global warming isn't real" isn't a challenge, friend.
"It's snowing outside, therefore global warming isn't real" isn't a challenge, friend.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='cfootball1']He could be talking about the instances like when my 12th grade science teacher swiftly passed off global warming as fact. I challenged him, telling him we had the coldest winter on record the previous year. I pressed him harder, still nothing concrete. He didn't even know it was a theory. Then he pulled the scientific consensus card, which is complete BS and I challenged him on it. A very scary proposition when teaching impressionable kids. Like Liberal academia professors.[/QUOTE]
uh boy.. You "challenged" him with irrelevant data? No wonder he didn't have an answer.
Sounds like you wouldn't have believe anything he said anyway...."man it's all BS"...
fight the power dude
uh boy.. You "challenged" him with irrelevant data? No wonder he didn't have an answer.
Sounds like you wouldn't have believe anything he said anyway...."man it's all BS"...
fight the power dude
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']"It's snowing outside, therefore global warming isn't real" isn't a challenge, friend.[/QUOTE]
What I said was completely different than that reasoning.
[quote name='usickenme']uh boy.. You "challenged" him with irrelevant data? No wonder he didn't have an answer.
Sounds like you wouldn't have believe anything he said anyway...."man it's all BS"...
fight the power dude[/QUOTE]
Even equipped with "irrelevant" data at the time, it was still actual data, he brought nothing and he was the teacher. I couldn't take that stuff seriously if he was just gonna impart to us what he heard from other teachers or the news. I always have an open mind.
What I said was completely different than that reasoning.
[quote name='usickenme']uh boy.. You "challenged" him with irrelevant data? No wonder he didn't have an answer.
Sounds like you wouldn't have believe anything he said anyway...."man it's all BS"...
fight the power dude[/QUOTE]
Even equipped with "irrelevant" data at the time, it was still actual data, he brought nothing and he was the teacher. I couldn't take that stuff seriously if he was just gonna impart to us what he heard from other teachers or the news. I always have an open mind.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
availability heuristic FTMFW, dude.
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
No it wasn't. That was your exact argument, which is the Fox News argument that it being cold outside means that there is no global warming. You didn't bring up anything about it being man made. The summation of your argument was what it was like during the last Winter.
Had you said something questioning whether it was man made and documented instances where the planet has had periods of cooling and heating in the past, that might have passed as a better argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Had you said something questioning whether it was man made and documented instances where the planet has had periods of cooling and heating in the past, that might have passed as a better argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
All I was doing was observing weather patterns over a period of time and qestioning my teacher about it. I'm not even claiming my initial argument was bulletproof by anymeans, I was more concerned that he was passing it off as fact whilst having as little knowledge as I did and was unable to debate. A flaw in the education system perhaps.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='cfootball1']
Even equipped with "irrelevant" data at the time, it was still actual data, he brought nothing and he was the teacher. I couldn't take that stuff seriously if he was just gonna impart to us what he heard from other teachers or the news. I always have an open mind.[/QUOTE]
I was being kind. It was crap. But honestly, is there an answer he could've given you that would've satisfied you? I doubt it.
Did you challenge your math teachers on 2+2=4 ?
Your mind shouldn't be so open that everything falls out.
Even equipped with "irrelevant" data at the time, it was still actual data, he brought nothing and he was the teacher. I couldn't take that stuff seriously if he was just gonna impart to us what he heard from other teachers or the news. I always have an open mind.[/QUOTE]
I was being kind. It was crap. But honestly, is there an answer he could've given you that would've satisfied you? I doubt it.
Did you challenge your math teachers on 2+2=4 ?
Your mind shouldn't be so open that everything falls out.
Dude, aren't you only 18? When was 12th grade? Like a year ago? Cause I have a counterpoint. Winters have been getting more warmer over the past 20 years and that year that you had the coldest winter is probably they year that I had days in November that were in the 60's and days in December in the 50's...in the Northeast mind you.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']Dude, aren't you only 18? When was 12th grade? Like a year ago? Cause I have a counterpoint. Winters have been getting more warmer over the past 20 years and that year that you had the coldest winter is probably they year that I had days in November that were in the 60's and days in December in the 50's...in the Northeast mind you.[/QUOTE]
I would have accepted a counterpoint like that, and coming from a man of science that was the response I was expecting. Instead I got BS. In turn I would have countered with what's 20 years on a billions of years old planet supposed to tell us.
I would have accepted a counterpoint like that, and coming from a man of science that was the response I was expecting. Instead I got BS. In turn I would have countered with what's 20 years on a billions of years old planet supposed to tell us.
[quote name='cfootball1']I would have accepted a counterpoint like that, and coming from a man of science that was the response I was expecting. Instead I got BS. In turn I would have countered with what's 20 years on a billions of years old planet supposed to tell us.[/QUOTE]
At that rate, you just disproved your own assertion that climate change, global warming, or whatever the
you want to call it, doesn't exist when it happens in they way a vast majority of the scientists say it will when certain gases reach a certain concentration in the atmosphere. Most of the greenhouse gases(like carbon dioxide and a few others) are trapped in ice and scrubbed by trees. Massive levels of deforestation and man-made introduction of greenhouse gases disrupts that stability.
But let's dispense with the bullshit because it's obvious that any explanation involving human influence is not something that you're going to accept. You have a point to make, so just make it so we can save everyone time and effort. Here, I'll even help you get started:
"Man-made climate change is a hoax because ____________(fill in the blank)"
At that rate, you just disproved your own assertion that climate change, global warming, or whatever the
you want to call it, doesn't exist when it happens in they way a vast majority of the scientists say it will when certain gases reach a certain concentration in the atmosphere. Most of the greenhouse gases(like carbon dioxide and a few others) are trapped in ice and scrubbed by trees. Massive levels of deforestation and man-made introduction of greenhouse gases disrupts that stability. But let's dispense with the bullshit because it's obvious that any explanation involving human influence is not something that you're going to accept. You have a point to make, so just make it so we can save everyone time and effort. Here, I'll even help you get started:
"Man-made climate change is a hoax because ____________(fill in the blank)"
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']"Global Warming" is soooo last week. All the cool cats are calling it "Climate Change" now. Get with the times.[/QUOTE]
Hey, blame thising asshole.
that guy.
Hey, blame this
ing asshole. that guy.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']At that rate, you just disproved your own assertion that climate change, global warming, or whatever the you want to call it, doesn't exist when it happens in they way a vast majority of the scientists say it will when certain gases reach a certain concentration in the atmosphere. Most of the greenhouse gases(like carbon dioxide and a few others) are trapped in ice and scrubbed by trees. Massive levels of deforestation and man-made introduction of greenhouse gases disrupts that stability.
But let's dispense with the bullshit because it's obvious that any explanation involving human influence is not something that you're going to accept. You have a point to make, so just make it so we can save everyone time and effort. Here, I'll even help you get started:
"Man-made climate change is a hoax because ____________(fill in the blank)"[/QUOTE]
If the intention is to disprove someones argument, then of course i'm going to throw your logic right back at you. Then suddenly were back to where we came from, which is no real concrete evidence for man made climate change whatsoever because we have no documentation of weather patterns over the past billions of years. And if you're a believer in evolution, and that everything came from nothing. Then the notion of mere fluctuation in weather doesn't sound as outlandish in comparison. Wrap your head around a billion years for a moment. And tell me we have the power for such destruction of our planet in a small small negligible fraction of the time.
you want to call it, doesn't exist when it happens in they way a vast majority of the scientists say it will when certain gases reach a certain concentration in the atmosphere. Most of the greenhouse gases(like carbon dioxide and a few others) are trapped in ice and scrubbed by trees. Massive levels of deforestation and man-made introduction of greenhouse gases disrupts that stability. But let's dispense with the bullshit because it's obvious that any explanation involving human influence is not something that you're going to accept. You have a point to make, so just make it so we can save everyone time and effort. Here, I'll even help you get started:
"Man-made climate change is a hoax because ____________(fill in the blank)"[/QUOTE]
If the intention is to disprove someones argument, then of course i'm going to throw your logic right back at you. Then suddenly were back to where we came from, which is no real concrete evidence for man made climate change whatsoever because we have no documentation of weather patterns over the past billions of years. And if you're a believer in evolution, and that everything came from nothing. Then the notion of mere fluctuation in weather doesn't sound as outlandish in comparison. Wrap your head around a billion years for a moment. And tell me we have the power for such destruction of our planet in a small small negligible fraction of the time.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='cfootball1']If the intention is to disprove someones argument, then of course i'm going to throw your logic right back at you. Then suddenly were back to where we came from, which is no real concrete evidence for man made climate change whatsoever because we have no documentation of weather patterns over the past billions of years. And if you're a believer in evolution, and that everything came from nothing. Then the notion of mere fluctuation in weather doesn't sound as outlandish in comparison. Wrap your head around a billion years for a moment. And tell me we have the power for such destruction of our planet in a small small negligible fraction of the time.[/QUOTE]
Just stop pretending you are some bastion of open-mindedness. Choosing to remain ignorant isn't brave.
Refusing to accept real evidence because you don't like it.. isn't the same "there is no evidence!".
Just stop pretending you are some bastion of open-mindedness. Choosing to remain ignorant isn't brave.
Refusing to accept real evidence because you don't like it.. isn't the same "there is no evidence!".
[quote name='cfootball1']If the intention is to disprove someones argument, then of course i'm going to throw your logic right back at you. Then suddenly were back to where we came from, which is no real concrete evidence for man made climate change whatsoever because we have no documentation of weather patterns over the past billions of years. And if you're a believer in evolution, and that everything came from nothing. Then the notion of mere fluctuation in weather doesn't sound as outlandish in comparison. Wrap your head around a billion years for a moment. And tell me we have the power for such destruction of our planet in a small small negligible fraction of the time.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty roundabout way of saying "God did it." At least be upfront about it if you're going to ignore the entirety of Earth Sciences. Hell, you might as well ignore astronomy too.
Can't even answer a straighting question.
That's a pretty roundabout way of saying "God did it." At least be upfront about it if you're going to ignore the entirety of Earth Sciences. Hell, you might as well ignore astronomy too.
Can't even answer a straight
ing question.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
[quote name='usickenme']and?[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing that there's an extended clip where they discussed global warming while talking about the snow storm from the other week, hence the global warming joke. But, you know...it's easier to post a an out-of-context video clip than to actually make your own argument. It's a "libertarian" thing.
I'm guessing that there's an extended clip where they discussed global warming while talking about the snow storm from the other week, hence the global warming joke. But, you know...it's easier to post a an out-of-context video clip than to actually make your own argument. It's a "libertarian" thing.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
Just maybe we should stop grasping for an explanation of things. An evolutionist would tell you we came form a series of changes under many different condition's over billions of years. The weather is no different.
bread's done