New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Scientists are wrong all the time... and have been since the term "scientist" was coined.

Barbella

Senator
And you people are trying to tell me, in that other thread below, that GOD is an "unproven" entity? Thanks, but no thanks... I'll continue to trust in God, YOU continue to trust your beloved scientists.

I'm far from saying they're ALWAYS wrong... once in a while, they get it right. But to believe they're ALWAYS right because they're SCIENTISTS is just plain stupid....

I got my first lesson on the subject of climate change more than 10 years ago. My tutor was an internationally famous climate scientist at a major Ivy League university. Unlike most lectures I have heard from professors, this one was brief, to the point and extremely enlightening.

At the time I was a columnist for the New York Daily News, recently arrived in the United States after more than 30 years in Israel. I had heard about global warming, of course, but I hadn’t thought much about it. Israel has other, more pressing issues.

I may not know anything about science, but I have learned over a long career that when an expert hangs up in the middle of a question, it means that he doesn’t know the answer.
In May 2001, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its third report, which got a lot of media attention. I looked through it and realized immediately that I had no chance of understanding the science.

I was in good company – I doubt there are half a dozen journalists in captivity who can actually understand the mathematical and chemical formulas and computer projections. That’s what press releases are for.

One item got my attention. It said: “Projections based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st Century at a more rapid rate than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years.”

I called the professor, one of the authors of the report, for a clarification (he remains nameless because we were off the record). “If global warming is caused by man-made emissions,” I asked, “what accounts for the world warming to this same level 10,000 years ago?”

There was a long silence. Then the professor said, “Are you serious?”

I admitted that I was.

The professor loudly informed me that my question was stupid. The panel’s conclusion was indisputable science, arrived at after years of research by a conclave of the world’s leading climate scholars. Who was I to dispute it?

I told him I wasn’t disputing it, just trying to understand how, you know, the world could have been this hot before without the help of human agency. Maybe this is just a natural climate change like ice ages that once connected continents and warming periods that caused them to drift apart or …

At which point I heard a click. The professor hung up on me. At that exact moment I became a climate skeptic. I may not know anything about science, but I have learned over a long career that when an expert hangs up in the middle of a question, it means that he doesn’t know the answer.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/30/climate-change-moment-became-climate-skeptic/?intcmp=obnetwork
 

Hmmmm

Mayor
And you people are trying to tell me, in that other thread below, that GOD is an "unproven" entity? Thanks, but no thanks... I'll continue to trust in God, YOU continue to trust your beloved scientists.

I'm far from saying they're ALWAYS wrong... once in a while, they get it right. But to believe they're ALWAYS right because they're SCIENTISTS is just plain stupid....



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/30/climate-change-moment-became-climate-skeptic/?intcmp=obnetwork
You don't understand science do you?
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
Like I said in the other thread, the problem here is that neither side really NEEDS to prove the existence or non-existence of God, because neither side really CAN prove the existence or nonexistence of God. It's is totally, purely, completely a matter of 'belief/faith'. I happen to believe.
 

BobbyT

Governor
And you people are trying to tell me, in that other thread below, that GOD is an "unproven" entity? Thanks, but no thanks... I'll continue to trust in God, YOU continue to trust your beloved scientists.

I'm far from saying they're ALWAYS wrong... once in a while, they get it right. But to believe they're ALWAYS right because they're SCIENTISTS is just plain stupid....



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/30/climate-change-moment-became-climate-skeptic/?intcmpY=obnetwork
You are right, any one who says someone is ALWAYS right because they are a SCIENTIST is stupid. But then again, I've never heard anyone making such a ridiculous claim.

Scientists are wrong a lot. That's because knowledge is evolving (through scientific investigation). For something to be considered a Theory (e.g., the theory of evolution) it has to have gone through tons and years of scientific inquiry by scientists with lots of competing hypotheses. Science isn't a thing, it's a process. As new information is learned, the scientific process includes the new information to further refine what is known. Science will never be 'done.' But science has contributed a great deal to humanity and will continue making great contributions.
 

BobbyT

Governor
Like I said in the other thread, the problem here is that neither side really NEEDS to prove the existence or non-existence of God, because neither side really CAN prove the existence or nonexistence of God. It's is totally, purely, completely a matter of 'belief/faith'. I happen to believe.
One can never prove that something doesn't exist. One can only assert that no evidence of its existence exists. In the absence of evidence, one has no [scientific] reason to believe it exists. But it will never be proven. OTOH, things that exist leave some evidence of their existence, otherwise how would we know they exist? So the argument here isn't really whether one can prove God does or does not exist. It's only whether one believes, absent any evidence, that God exists. Some do. Some believe in reincarnation too, or that humans have souls separate from our physical body, or that morals have to be learned from a book and are not a by product of living in proximity to others. Some (like me) don't believe any of these things. It's all good.
 

write on

Senator
Like I said in the other thread, the problem here is that neither side really NEEDS to prove the existence or non-existence of God, because neither side really CAN prove the existence or nonexistence of God. It's is totally, purely, completely a matter of 'belief/faith'. I happen to believe.
Marcus, do you believe animals have souls?
 

Barbella

Senator
One can never prove that something doesn't exist. One can only assert that no evidence of its existence exists. In the absence of evidence, one has no [scientific] reason to believe it exists. But it will never be proven. OTOH, things that exist leave some evidence of their existence, otherwise how would we know they exist? So the argument here isn't really whether one can prove God does or does not exist. It's only whether one believes, absent any evidence, that God exists. Some do. Some believe in reincarnation too, or that humans have souls separate from our physical body, or that morals have to be learned from a book and are not a by product of living in proximity to others. Some (like me) don't believe any of these things. It's all good.
I don't adhere to any organized religion. I've never read the Bible, other than bits and pieces when I went to school as a kid (we still had "Religion" as a subject back then, in Germany). I believe the Bible was written by men, and I have no idea if what it says is actually God's will... or not. I figure I'll wait till I die, and then I'll find out the truth...

I DO believe in God. I believe in his goodness and love. I believe in a life after death... I have no idea what it will be like, but I believe it'll be wonderful. I believe in God's compassion for all living things, and I believe that animals are to be treated with respect, kindness, and care.

I don't believe in Hell. I don't believe in God's wrath, and I don't believe God is a vengeful God. I also don't believe that "my" faith is the only right faith.... it doesn't matter what you call God, as long as you believe in his love.

Yep, it's all good. :)
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
Marcus, do you believe animals have souls?
same answer applies...

Neither side really NEEDS to prove the existence or non-existence of the soul of an animal, because neither side really CAN prove the existence or nonexistence of the soul of an animal. Or a man for that matter.
 

write on

Senator
same answer applies...

Neither side really NEEDS to prove the existence or non-existence of the soul of an animal, because neither side really CAN prove the existence or nonexistence of the soul of an animal. Or a man for that matter.
Why can't you? You believe that you were created and have a soul. You believe that animals were created, so

Do you believe animals have souls?
 

Bo-4

Senator
High time you Republicans ditched the anti-science agenda pushed by polluters like the Koch boys. It makes you look like uneducated Goobers. ;)

 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
No, you didn't. It's a simple yes or no question and you won't give the answer.

Why?
For the same reason you refuse to give a simple yes or no answer to my question of 'Can you prove scientifically that God does not exist'.

You cannot prove it, nor can I prove He does exist.

You cannot prove an animal does not have a soul, any more than I can prove an animal does have a soul. I cannot prove an animal does not have a soul, any more than you can prove an animal does have a soul.

Same thing for man, btw.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
For the same reason you refuse to give a simple yes or no answer to my question of 'Can you prove scientifically that God does not exist'.

You cannot prove it, nor can I prove He does exist.

You cannot prove an animal does not have a soul, any more than I can prove an animal does have a soul. I cannot prove an animal does not have a soul, any more than you can prove an animal does have a soul.

Same thing for man, btw.

See if you spot the difference in these questions:

1. Do you believe animals have souls?

2.Can you prove scientifically that God does not exist?
 

write on

Senator
For the same reason you refuse to give a simple yes or no answer to my question of 'Can you prove scientifically that God does not exist'.

You cannot prove it, nor can I prove He does exist.

You cannot prove an animal does not have a soul, any more than I can prove an animal does have a soul. I cannot prove an animal does not have a soul, any more than you can prove an animal does have a soul.

Same thing for man, btw.
But you can tell me what you believe on whether an animal has a soul or not.

It's very telling that all of the sudden when the species is changed from a man to an animal, you won't even tell us what you believe about whether an animal has a soul but was willing to do so with the human species.
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
But you can tell me what you believe on whether an animal has a soul or not.

It's very telling that all of the sudden when the species is changed from a man to an animal, you won't even tell us what you believe about whether an animal has a soul but was willing to do so with the human species.
really? telling? What, pray tell, is it 'telling' you?
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
It tells me that you are afraid to give the answer you know you believe.

Once again and more precise. A simple yes or no answer...

Do you believe or have faith that an animal has a soul?
Funny, it tells me I know how to annoy the shit out of you, and how easy it is to piss you off. ROFLMFAO@you
 
Top