|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Global warming one big hoax?

Default Global warming one big hoax?

July 23rd, 2007, 04:20
I am appalled at the idea that big industry and big government will solve anything, you don't go to the place that created the problem to find the best solutions. There are more than enough solutions that are available, however, it is more of a game going on — can I grab a piece of the solution, before we implement it, conservative (in the sense of old and powerful not necessarily political affiliations) institutions in big government and big business want the pieces of the pie the solution before they implement it. New things create change. Standard Biodiesel, or General Nanobattery, are probably not going to be run by the same people as Standard Oil, or General Electric.
Last edited by mytgroo; July 23rd, 2007 at 04:28.
mytgroo is offline

mytgroo

Watcher

#41

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 64

Default 

July 23rd, 2007, 22:36
Originally Posted by mytgroo View Post
you don't go to the place that created the problem to find the best solutions.
Begging your pardon, but it would seem to me that the experts in the field are, strangely enough, in the field. You ask for chaos when you give decision making to people that don't know which end of a hammer is which. Better yet, those same rubes then expect some poor bastard (aka engineer) to implement their ridiculous solutions for free.

While I'm speaking universal truths, I think it's applicable to energy companies just fine.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,340

Default 

July 24th, 2007, 02:01
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
What is most intriguing for me in this article, is that I could say exactly the same sort of thing about the THEORY of evolution as he is saying about climate change or global warming. There is NO proof for that either, but if you challenge it, you're told 'intelligent design' (for example) is not science, while evolution has to be!! It's not good logic either!!!!
The theory of evolution is not a yes/no question, it's a workfield that several scientific fields have used as basis for the past 150 years.
And yes, Intelligent Design is not science but an obscured attack on crucial sciences including modern medicine and crimefighting.

Archaeology have found that the alternative "Genesis" is in fact stolen from earlier Canaan myth such as the Ugarit myth of Elohim, the babylonian Gilgamesh epos, as well as several local tales in mesopotamia and sumeria. Given that the Exodus is impossible for several reasons and there are still no evidence to support the existence of the patriarchs (but plenty of evidence against them) I say that there really are no case to take the "alternative" seriously in the academic world as well as in the rest of the world where knowledge is power.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#43

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 24th, 2007, 03:04
Really, how about if the "experts" regularly kill the ways out in the name of profit. How come there are no workable electric cars, how come America does not have a workable train system, how come there are a very limited number of trolleys in major American cities, how come we have giant SUVs with low gas mileage.

There is too much invested in being the "expert" source of what we should do, which comes down to invest in corn ethanol, a giant dead end, invest in coal, more pollution, prepare for more nuclear power plants in the future— suck up all our water resources for nuclear power plants, go for more pie in the sky.

The more expensive the solution, the more the pundits talk about it. You don't see government saying look we have a cheap way to do this, cheaper than gasoline, or we could do the following to make energy cheaper, carbon less impactful.

You never hear our energy plan say, refurbish our hydroelectric plants so they are more efficient, build more landfill gasification plants, expand waste to energy systems to reduce pollution and provide clean energy, you never hear anyone say geothermal is cheap non-intermittent and probably a more reliable source of energy than solar, expand wind energy it is the fastest growing alternative energy source, invest in wave turbines — they have the potential to provide a permanent offshore non-intermittent source of power.

You hear pie in the sky nonsense— hydrogen energy sometime in our far future will have cars that are perfect. The experts are pushing nonsense so they can make the dollar roll along. Where is the push for biodiesel made from waste feeds, old frier oil, and vegetable oil. Biodiesel is a far more reliable source of energy than ethanol. Instead you watch milk prices go through the roof and corn prices become expensive because ADM and General Mills are making profits on an unreliable source of energy.

The experts don't want to invest in alternatives. Exxon has stated they are an oil company nothing else. The same goes for most of the big energy companies. This year a renewable portfolio standard of 20% renewable energy by 2020 was killed in congress because it was too expensive for southern state power companies in the United States. They flatly stated they did not want to invest in alternative because it was too expensive.

Pay more attention to your experts…

Here is a nice little bitty piece on carbon emissions, you might not like the source, but industry doesn't want carbon caps until at least 2015

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007044.html
Last edited by mytgroo; July 24th, 2007 at 04:32.
mytgroo is offline

mytgroo

Watcher

#44

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 64

Default 

July 24th, 2007, 03:09
Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology. The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example. There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis, while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it. Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution? Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#45

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,553
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

July 24th, 2007, 03:28
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology. The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example. There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis, while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it. Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution? Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!
While the science of evolution might be disputable in the context of pro-con biblical references, the fact that evolution as basic genetic science exists is as clearly true as things like quantum mechanics and crystal lattice structures and the like - things that have been able to be seen in laboratory settings for many years that were simply theory before.

So I guess I am saying that you can argue logically about whether the entire basis of our planet is based on evolution, but calling the science of evolution based on genetics a theory is like calling calculus a theory.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#46

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,468

Default 

July 24th, 2007, 07:59
The problem I see with the Theory of Evolution is the fossil record. The idea was that we'd all start digging, find a bunch of fossils, and those would substantiate the theory, right?

But for some reason a lot of the fossils we were expecting to find are missing. Where's all the good in-between stuff? Where's the all the fish with the half-legs, the pigs with the half-wings, etc., stuff that would clearly indicate the process of animals evolving? Some have been found here and there, but shouldn't we have found a lot more by now?

Maybe it's me, but I get a little nervous whenever anybody starts insisting that their claims are facts. I remember when they started putting people in jail based on DNA evidence. Back then it was supposed to have been incredibly accurrate. So if DNA evidence said someone was guilty, you had to be pretty stupid not to believe they were guilty.

But today a lot of those people are being released from prison as a result of better science. The original DNA facts were depicted as virtually certain. The new ones are being depicted that same way again now.

I suppose judges are accepting the new facts, and that's not surprising. We're all supposed to accept new facts if we don't want to be considered stupid. On the other hand, it turns out that the folks who doubted the old new facts weren't so stupid after all. When it comes to science, sometimes you just have to get lucky with new facts, apparently.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Last edited by Squeek; July 24th, 2007 at 08:11.
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#47

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

July 24th, 2007, 17:04
Originally Posted by mytgroo View Post
Really, how about if the "experts" regularly kill the ways out in the name of profit. How come there are no workable electric cars, how come America does not have a workable train system, how come there are a very limited number of trolleys in major American cities, how come we have giant SUVs with low gas mileage.

There is too much invested in being the "expert" source of what we should do, which comes down to invest in corn ethanol, a giant dead end, invest in coal, more pollution, prepare for more nuclear power plants in the future— suck up all our water resources for nuclear power plants, go for more pie in the sky.

The more expensive the solution, the more the pundits talk about it. You don't see government saying look we have a cheap way to do this, cheaper than gasoline, or we could do the following to make energy cheaper, carbon less impactful.

You never hear our energy plan say, refurbish our hydroelectric plants so they are more efficient, build more landfill gasification plants, expand waste to energy systems to reduce pollution and provide clean energy, you never hear anyone say geothermal is cheap non-intermittent and probably a more reliable source of energy than solar, expand wind energy it is the fastest growing alternative energy source, invest in wave turbines — they have the potential to provide a permanent offshore non-intermittent source of power.

You hear pie in the sky nonsense— hydrogen energy sometime in our far future will have cars that are perfect. The experts are pushing nonsense so they can make the dollar roll along. Where is the push for biodiesel made from waste feeds, old frier oil, and vegetable oil. Biodiesel is a far more reliable source of energy than ethanol. Instead you watch milk prices go through the roof and corn prices become expensive because ADM and General Mills are making profits on an unreliable source of energy.

The experts don't want to invest in alternatives. Exxon has stated they are an oil company nothing else. The same goes for most of the big energy companies. This year a renewable portfolio standard of 20% renewable energy by 2020 was killed in congress because it was too expensive for southern state power companies in the United States. They flatly stated they did not want to invest in alternative because it was too expensive.

Pay more attention to your experts…

Here is a nice little bitty piece on carbon emissions, you might not like the source, but industry doesn't want carbon caps until at least 2015

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007044.html
Oh, this will be fun. I'll try and work my way thru each question.
#1- Mass transit generally fails in the US due to it being unreliable and inconvenient. Routes and stations are generally determined by pencil neck politicians who have no interest in the needs of the consumer.
#2- You have huge SUVs because people buy them. Lots of them.
#3- You don't hear about buying/upgrading existing technology because it's not cost effective to do so. For example, gas prices could be significantly reduced by the addition of a new refinery (existing US refineries are running 104% rated capacity IIRC), but environmental laws have made it prohibitively expensive to construct a new one. Protecting the environment is good. The cost? $3.00 a gallon. Nothing is free, folks.
#4, 5, and 6- Alternative sourcing is also a nice idea, but again it comes down to dollars and cents. Do you spend a billion dollars developing and constructing new sources when you have viable and functional sources already online? At some point, the cost analysis says yes, but apparently we ain't there yet. And let us not forget that someone is going to pay for that billion dollars up front. Did I hear you sign up to double your electric bill for the next few years to fund a new, green nuclear power plant, which by the way, we'll be building just down the street from your house since you're so supportive of the idea? At some point, enough people will be willing to agree to that deal that it will happen. Until then, it will seem like some evil corporation is putting a lid on a magical fix to all our energy problems.

Not aiming at you personally, but it all comes down to this: "Open your wallet or shut your mouth". I sympathize with the whole green movement, but somehow they always seem to forget their checkbook.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#48

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,340

Default 

July 24th, 2007, 18:50
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology.
There's currently not a single evidence for old testament prior to about 800-600bc. The Bible is very detailed in it's history, events, places etc, and it would have been a piece of cake to favor the bible, but when compared to the actual world it does not start to fit in until after it is believed to be written (around 650bc).

The bible is very important to many people. Not only because they want an afterlife, but also because the idea of a "promised land" which is very important politically. Because of this, for 200 years scientists have spent time down in the desert, examining every page of the bible for things that can be proven. 200 years later, there's zip.
The earliest version of the old testament were written around 650bc and only when you look on the events by the knowledge that it was written 650bc things start to make sense. Most of the villages, places etc that are mentioned within the bible corresponds to that year, not 1-2000 years sooner like in the biblical timeline. This is also true to the supposed scientific level, tools they used, how cities work etc, all corresponds to around 650bc not sooner.

There's plenty of evidence to make the events in the old testament unproven, unlikely and impossible. There are several cathegories of such evidence. The first is the evidence of lack of evidence. The old testament is very detailed in it's supposed history making it very easy to prove. The evidence which you could basicly just go over there and get did not exist. Examples are the drowned army of egyptians. There would be truckload of remains, there are none. Another is remains of 600,000 people in the desert for 40 years. There are none. Egyptians who were actually a huge civilization at the time of Exodus, kept great documentation of everything that was going on. They left no records of a such escape, which they would if supposed 2 million slaves left (which would be a huge blow to the egyptian economy). Some great cities described in the bible left no trace and never existed.

The second evidence is the inconsistency of the timeline of mentioned events and places. For example, the conquest of Aj became a village first several hundred years after the bible claim it was a great city that was conquered. What was previously believed to be Jericho turned out to be remains that was several thousand years older than when it was supposed to be conquered. In fact, at the time it was supposed to be conquered, the place had been abandoned for a long time. Actually the majority of the supposed cities that was conquered was not inhabitated in the time of their supposed conquest. They were in 650bc ofcourse.
The well in Beer Sheva that were supposed to solve an argument with the philistines are according to the bible built 1000 years before the philistines are known to have entered Canaan. Gerar have the same problem, the city is much yonger than when it appears in the bible. Even the great kingdoms described in the bible were just villages at the time they were supposed to be large and great. The ruins that we actually have down there of stuff which is actually mentioned in the bible, were built much later.

Then there are the evidence that makes parts of the bible impossible. The desert that Moses and friends were supposed to walk through was at the time occupied by egyptian forces making a such walk impossible. We have extensive records from them. The area were littered by garrisons and lookout points and they sent letters in which they recorded everyone passing through their area. Even a small group of people would have been mentioned. There are none.
Even worse, throughout the entire time of Exodus, Canaan was an egyptian province that have left a wealth of historical evidence. In fact, in the search for old testament evidence, archaologists have dug up plenty of egyptian ruins. They were the master of the country. Moses had no reason to escape to Canaan to escape the egyptians, because Canaan was egyptian!

Then there are the evidence of Israels real history that speaks a whole different story. The migration from the north (Abraham etc) is widely discarded as well as the Exodus. The people of the area are known to be of a local stock, not from elsewhere. All summoned historical evidence we have today points to a very different story regarding the history of Israel than what you find in the old testament. The earliest Israelites up north were not immigrants, they were nomads who started to build settlements and started to build up an economy through making olive oil. The small settlements eventually grew into a kingdom. Then there are the Jews down south who live up in the high mountains, an area that was very poor. All remains shows that they were polyteistic, worshipping many mountain gods. One very interesting part regarding the southern settlements was that there were no pigbones anywhere. They did have pigs in the highland so there was no reason for this. Juda did not grow into a significant state until around 800bc and with that they became literate. The archaeological and historical evidence start to match the bible around 650bc. This was also the era in which the pagan god Jehova grew into the "one" god.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example.
All four canaan civilizations, far older than Juda, have their own mythology that involves the flood (Ugarit, Babylonia, Sumeria and Mesopotamia). This is not surprising since the area around Canaan often floods. Compare this with the the northern tale about Ragnarok that begins with three years of winter. Pagan myths were always about weather.

Talking about which. The Ugarit flood god was called JV. Ring a bell? What if I spell it in hebrew, JHVH? Pure english… Jehova.
The Ugarit flood god was the son of Elohim, and the son of the snake godess who in pure english was called Eve. She was the keeper of the tree of life. Ugarits reason for the flood was that JV fought the evil Ugarit god of Baal.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis
Both geology, biology and archaeology disproved genesis ages ago. In several of our key sciences like chemistry and astronomy it's impossible to use genesis as a base hypothesis anymore.

Instead Genesis have been mapped out to be traditional myth.
Two key discoveries, the discovery of the Gilgamesh Epos 1872 and the stone tablets in Ras Shamra (Ugarit) 1928, have given historians a good insight in the pagan myths that inspired Genesis. Other tales like the babylonian genesis Enma Elish, and the book that covers almost the entire first part of the old testament; the canaan epos "Atrahasis", have helped to complete the picture. The book of Genesis was simply taken from pagan myths around the area. The earliest known version of the tale that inspired Adam and Eve is the sumerian legend of Adapa that is over 5000 years old.

Two fun sidenotes: 1. The egyptian book of the dead that contains the egyptian version of the ten commandments are dated to several thousand years older than the earliest known old testament.
2. Some evidence, including some passages from the old testament itself, suggests that the Juda version of Jehova was a volcano. It's quite hillarious that christians chant protectionspells by summoning an ancient Israelan pagan volcanogod/floodgod.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it.
What archaeological evidence would be able to prove Genesis? Genesis is a creation myth that attempts to explain a few things such as the first family and the creation of earth. It's incompatible with geology, archaeology, history, medicine and some other scientific disciplines. The very first bit, the seven days, was inspired by Enuma Elish, a babylonian tale (pagan myth) that is at least 1000 year older than Genesis.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution?
Back in the first years the science of evolution tracked fossils, species and flies. 150 years later evolution have grown into tracking DNA code which is currently used to track families, criminals, parents. We also use evolution to track genes, gentic mutations, flaws, some neurological damages and other stuff.
A child of two parents with brown eyes have brown eyes. A child with two parents with blue eyes have blue eyes. A child with two parents with different eyecolor might end up somewhere inbetween or either color. Same with hair and looks. The human species and our differences like nords having problems with sun, asians cant handle alcohol, africans are resistant to heat etc, it's all genetic and evolution. Evolution is vital to modern medicine, both to eridicate side effects of drugs, to find new cures, to fight harmful bacteria and viruses.

The basics of evolution is what you read in school because when you get into an university there are plenty of sciences in which evolution is the core of that science. Imagine working within electronics without believing in electricity, that's what evolution is to modern science.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!
I actually think you have locked your mind and see the whole thing backwards. Evolution is not a door that needs to be unlocked. Instead it have proven to be the only key that fits the lock. Now 150 years later it opens many doors that previously been locked to us, doors that opened up to discoveries that we take for granted in our everyday lives such as medicine or why not genetic breeding to get new food etc. Evolution were never something that needed to be proven since it's a tool that simply always worked and still does.
Last edited by JemyM; July 25th, 2007 at 09:53.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 24th, 2007, 21:08
Originally Posted by Cleric View Post
But if we wait for another 100 years of solar data and Gore's right, many of our coastal cities will be under water, millions of people will have died or been driven from their homes and it will be too late to do anything about it..
Now this is is a fable and can simply be proven: put some ice cubes in a glass of water and see it it gets to a higher level after they melted.

What is true is that it's a good thing that people care about the environment now. Although the global warming thing is not caused by men alone and I don't give us even a big impact on it, we do have an impact.

About the evolution thing: Not so long ago it has been discovered that 'c' (speed of light) is not the constant we always presumed it was. The speed of light would have been higher at the Big Bang and has got smaller since then. With this aspect in mind, our theory of the correct date of the big bang might be much closer to our existence then we presumed so far. Btw, don't forget that it was the catholic church that pushed the idea of the Big Bang.

Evolution doesn't work so simple as one thinks now. Otherwise the marriage of a smart man with a smart woman would lead to the birth of a smart child. Survival of the fittest is an oversimplification which is today not widely accepted anymore. There are many more roads in evolution, the the theories we knew of till some decades ago.

so very, very tired (Star Trek XI quote according to the Simpsons)
Bartacus is offline

Bartacus

Bartacus's Avatar
BartWatch

#50

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium - Flanders - Antwerp
Posts: 1,539

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 01:31
Originally Posted by Bartacus View Post
Now this is is a fable and can simply be proven: put some ice cubes in a glass of water and see it it gets to a higher level after they melted.
Errr… Antarctica is a continent, Bart . It's not an "ice cube" floating in water. Ice that is melting down there (at least the continental ice) is adding to the volume of the oceans. That's not a fable but a fact.
Another fact is that -while the Arctic is indeed basically a huge "ice cube"- if the water melted, it would still also cause a rise of the ocean levels because of the effects of Earth's gravity. Unless you're totally old school and still believe in the pre-Gallilei theory that Earth is a disc, you'd have to acknowledge that the Earth is not perfectly flat. The water from the Arctic will not distribute equally across the ocean surface as would happen with a flat surface in a glass of water. It will "migrate" towards the equator region and cause quite a bit of havoc (flooding of coastal areas) on its way if the models that have been calculated so far are true.
Moriendor is offline

Moriendor

Moriendor's Avatar
Spielkind

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Schland
Posts: 1,929

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 02:33
Sorry, I'll state my opinion tomorrow, but I have to give this link for the debate of Evolution versus Creationism. Anyone who needs more information or wants to talk or read about it… Only 250 pages worth… I stopped reading and speaking after page 150 or so I think as I got busy, but here it is.
Evolution versus Creationism debate thread on Taleworlds forums.
Pladio is online now

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#52

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,242
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 05:11
I do open my wallet regularly, I invest in alternative energy. There are a lot of things which look both good and viable. The way things are going we will be importing our solar cells from Germany, Japan, and China, our wind turbines from the Dutch, our ethanol from Brazil, and our hydrogen technology from Canada and it will happen a lot sooner than you might think. A new peak oil estimate is out which says 4 years from now is the oil decline. This may be why there is such a crazy rush into alternative energy, global warming is the tip of a much deeper iceberg.

It has nothing to do with being evil, it has everything to do with being shortsighted and feeling a need to have what you want now… no matter what the consequences. The price of oil is becoming a lot more than just dollars, the western worlds enemies hold a large portion of the supply…

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_te…cle2656034.ece
mytgroo is offline

mytgroo

Watcher

#53

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 64

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 06:31
I think Global warming is closely related to overpopulation/pollution, some of the same products will lead to both of these occurring. While we might be able to adapt to a hotter planet would we really want to if the whole place is covered in refuse and you have to live in a tiny cubicle. That is the way the world is going if something isn't done to stop it.

It would be nice if we could make a fresh start on a new planet with our current technology available but that is looking less and less likely it is likely we would have to settle for a crappy planet that isn't half as good as earth. (Think an Arid planet in Master of Orion vs a Gaia planet, which would you want to live on?)

Favourite RPGs of all time: Wizardry 6, Ultima 7/7.2, Fallout2, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 2+TOB, Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenloft: The stone prophet, Gothic 2, Realms of Arkania:Blade of destiny (not the HD version!!) and Secret of the Silver Blades.
bjon045 is offline

bjon045

bjon045's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#54

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 958

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 07:15
Originally Posted by mytgroo View Post
You hear pie in the sky nonsense— hydrogen energy sometime in our far future will have cars that are perfect. The experts are pushing nonsense so they can make the dollar roll along.
I have always thought stuff like that as religion. People put their faith on science that it will som miracelous way always save them, no matter how bad they screw up things. Its a perfectly good excuse to do anything (like been ignorant) just like belief to god was in dark ages.
zakhal is offline

zakhal

zakhal's Avatar
VideoGamingWaste

#55

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europa Universalis
Posts: 3,008

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 10:24
Originally Posted by zakhal View Post
I have always thought stuff like that as religion. People put their faith on science that it will som miracelous way always save them, no matter how bad they screw up things. Its a perfectly good excuse to do anything (like been ignorant) just like belief to god was in dark ages.
The structure and philosophy behind religion and science is completely different.

Our education system is founded on whats verifiable. As an aspiring student you are forced to go through old results and try them for yourself to verify their validity to see that it's likely true. You do this to learn that you should never trust something which is not verified multiple times.
There are no such thing as Japanese Science or Swedish Science, it's all the same. All the large universities in the western world are founded on the same discoveries. When a new discovery is made, highly educated people from all over the world will look into the claim and verify if it holds solid or not. As a scientist you do not make a claim unless you have tried it enough times to eliminate every possible angle of it. You will then be torched and torn inside out by highly intelligent and supremely educated people from all around the globe.
If your claim is proven false by someone else, if you have been sloppy or if you have made a lie, you risk your entire career, therefore you never make a claim you havnt tested and that you cannot back up with more evidence than is required.

In religion you are expected to have faith. You are also told that knowledge is bad and not listen to anybody else because they are the devil. Looking into or questioning faith is unethic and in many places around the globe punished by death.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#56

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 11:59
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
There are no such thing as Japanese Science or Swedish Science, it's all the same.
What about different theories? One scientist believes his whole life that ball is flat. Another one believes its round. Neither has real proof. Both of them spend their lifes to find answers that would prove right what they believe.

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
In religion you are expected to have faith.
Faith comes before religion. Person who does not have faith is not a believer of the religion. Noone is expecting you to believe. If you dont have faith then in reality you just arent a believer. Its simple as that.

If you believe into somthing unknown (flying hydrogen cars from mars will save you if you destroy the planet) then that is faith too and certainly does sound like a religion. In the least you are a believer.

Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
You are also told that knowledge is bad and not listen to anybody else because they are the devil. Looking into or questioning faith is unethic and in many places around the globe punished by death.
Depends on the religion. Punishment by death is hardly a common trademark atleast in modern times. Science can be bad too like racial sciences of the early last centry around there world. Genetically inferior people were killed or "stopped from reproducing" so that that the blood of the race would stay cleaner.
Last edited by zakhal; July 25th, 2007 at 12:12.
zakhal is offline

zakhal

zakhal's Avatar
VideoGamingWaste

#57

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europa Universalis
Posts: 3,008

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 12:49
I believe some pepole believe in science like some other pepole believe in religion. If you say something, and has a "scientist" vertify it, you can make "normal" pepole believe anything (potatoes cause cancer! CO2 cause global warming!). "Normal" pepole doesn't have enought energy to keep up on universitylevel, so they don't know which theories are true, and which are false. Yet they believe in science.

So that claiming that zakhal is all wrong just because science on the top level is pretty accurate (most of the time) isn't looking at the whole picture. Because science isn't only practised on universitylevel.

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#58

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 15:19
I agree with Zakhal and Uberiel. Both science and religion are man's attempts to deal with the unknown and answer the questions of existence. The end result for the uninformed or uninvolved is exactly the same—they have answers which to a large extent they accept without truly understanding. I.E., is there any significant difference in how "the man in the street" sees the transmutation of blood to wine, or how he sees sub-atomic theory? Could he explain either one to himself or anyone else? No, they are both accepted without personal proof, on hearsay and faith.

Science is the modern god, and the answers it provides are at least founded on a rational process. I personally prefer those answers, but those who live a faith based life might find the emotional and spiritual explanations of religion more satisfying. I think human beings have a desparate need for control ("Knowledge is power")to place themselves in the universe and give life significance.

Religion has been behind a lot of bloodshed(and still is) but the hands of Science are not completely clean either. I think an objective view would have to state that they can both be tools for good or for destruction.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch

#59

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

July 25th, 2007, 15:31
Originally Posted by magerette View Post
I think an objective view would have to state that they can both be tools for good or for destruction.
And I also think that using either one blindly to make decisions for you or to justify decisions you've made is a mistake. Religion and science both encourage skepticism - I know that might sound shocking based on so many of the 'religious right' who advocate blind faith, but think of the many parables that encourage soul-searching and discovery of self.

As a scientist myself I cringe at the way science is misused … part of my job is as a statistician, which is one of the most abused areas of science. But true scientists are looking to discover the truth, whether it is theirs or others. Sure we all start with our own idea (null hypothesis) but then apply rigorous testing to disprove it - if we are good scientists. Anyone doing testing to prove something true is misguided at best, for that can never be conclusively done. All we can do is gather evidence to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. prove ourselves wrong).

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#60

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,468
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Global warming one big hoax?
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:24.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch