GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-08-2012, 07:44   #51
Fed Five Oh
NRA Member
 
Fed Five Oh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MO
Posts: 3,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
All that you've done here is to boast that you don't understand how the word theory is used among scientists.]
Would this be the same scientists that espouse man made global warming?

Sorry, but I know the difference between a theory and a law. Spin it any way you want. You believe in a theory.

In other words, you believe in an assumption. You believe in conjecture.

Tell me again how you are so much more intelligent than Christians of Jews?
Fed Five Oh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 07:56   #52
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,478
Blog Entries: 4
Niether the left nor right has a monopoly on congress people I find undesirable and that say things that I beleive display an astounding ignorance. However, when politicians like Broun and Akin say stuff that is so far afield from logic, it ends up being the brush that libs (and the MSM) paint all conservatives and gun owners with. That is not a good thing.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 09:21   #53
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,545
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fed Five Oh View Post
Sorry, but I know the difference between a theory and a law. Spin it any way you want. You believe in a theory.

In other words, you believe in an assumption. You believe in conjecture.
Nope, it's still clear that you don't understand the words as used in the field of science. When used in science, the term "theory" has nothing to do with conjecture. Do you also have objections to germ theory, cell theory, quantum theory, or the theory of gravity?

Even when supported by a metric arse load of evidence, theories are always open to falsification. Even laws remain open to falsification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fed Five Oh View Post
Tell me again how you are so much more intelligent than Christians of Jews?
Tell you again? Show me anywhere that I've ever done that, or save your time and admit that you're just putting inflammatory words in my mouth.

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 09:37   #54
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fed Five Oh View Post
Would this be the same scientists that espouse man made global warming?

Sorry, but I know the difference between a theory and a law. Spin it any way you want. You believe in a theory.

In other words, you believe in an assumption. You believe in conjecture.

Tell me again how you are so much more intelligent than Christians of Jews?
Remember back when an atom was the smallest unit of matter until someone split one open and all this crap started flying out?

Yeah, so forgive me too if I don't take what scientists say as, er...."gospel."
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 10:17   #55
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,545
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
Remember back when an atom was the smallest unit of matter until someone split one open and all this crap started flying out?
Sure, and continents were "fixed" before plate tectonics, and Newtonian Gravity explained everything about gravity before General Relativity, and ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
Yeah, so forgive me too if I don't take what scientists say as, er...."gospel."
However, science being self-correcting is one of its great strengths, not a weakness.

Scientists are pretty quick to agree that we don't know everything. I don't think you'll find many matching the arrogance of Lord Kelvin when over 100 years ago he said, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

Last edited by ArtificialGrape; 10-08-2012 at 10:35..
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 10:37   #56
Zombie Surgeon
MODELATOR
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Maggy View Post
How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.

You certainly seem to be a lot more comfortable with Obama's Islamic faith.
Zombie Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 10:45   #57
Zombie Surgeon
MODELATOR
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Here is a a pretty good summary of some of the evidence supporting the big bang theory (complete with pretty pictures) for anybody actually interested.

-ArtificialGrape
And here is the person who first postulated the Big Bang theory:

Political Issues
Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory.

Wait, what??? A Catholic priest who believed in Jesus fairy tales gave us what it became the most accepted theory of the Universe creation?
So science and religion are not mutually exclusive and people of faith are not simple-minded gullible idiots?

I can hear atheists head explode.


I can hear

Last edited by Zombie Surgeon; 10-08-2012 at 10:46..
Zombie Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 10:54   #58
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Maggy View Post
How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.
A better question. How did someone with absolutely zero qualifications get elected as President of the United States?

Arguably, the most important job in the world. And, nothing. Nada. Zip. No experience, nothing.

Just reads a good speech. But, enough people out there thought it sounded like a good idea.

So we know how you feel.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 11:24   #59
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,545
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Surgeon View Post
And here is the person who first postulated the Big Bang theory:

Political Issues
Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory.

Wait, what??? A Catholic priest who believed in Jesus fairy tales gave us what it became the most accepted theory of the Universe creation?
So science and religion are not mutually exclusive and people of faith are not simple-minded gullible idiots?

I can hear atheists head explode.


I can hear
I'm well aware of Lemaitre, so no exploding head here. I don't argue that science and religion are mutually exclusive (see my earlier post on the Clergy Letter Project), and I've never suggested that theists are idiots.

The critical distinction with Lemaitre is that his beliefs did not require him to close a blind eye, or otherwise abuse or reject science in order to maintain his faith. The problem comes when people allow religious dogma to cause them to reject and abuse science that they perceive as a threat to their faith.

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 13:09   #60
The Maggy
Senior Member
 
The Maggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 3,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Just thought I'd mention that the OP posted this yesterday and hasn't returned. Kind of a hit and run trolling if you ask me.

And

It would seem that the issue has become a topic for another forum. I mean the political implications that the OP threw out on the water are of academic interest at least, the details of an individuals personal beliefs, not so much.
Its the weekend, I shouldn't have to apologize for going out and living a little life. We can't all put up 30 or 40 posts a day.

and

It's a very political issue because this man sits on a committee that makes the policy for agencies like NASA, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. Again, I don't care that he is a christian; but young earth creationism requires it's believers to completely ignore the scientific method. Do you not think that this could have some sort of negative impact over the scientific agencies that our government maintains?
__________________

The Maggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 13:22   #61
The Maggy
Senior Member
 
The Maggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 3,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Surgeon View Post
You certainly seem to be a lot more comfortable with Obama's Islamic faith.
The topic is not exactly about the man's faith; the thread and my point is about someone on the very extremes of religion, being in a policy making position over our own scientific organizations.

Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew... none of it really matters to me; it does matter to me when:

A.) You are in a position to make policy

B.) Your beliefs are so far fanatical that you fore-go the scientific method and ignore most of the basic principles of science, in the name of religion.

If you have never talked with a young earth creationist, you should attempt to have a talk with them about the physical world. They ignore the understood principles or everything from meteorology to geology to biology to physics.

To answer your question, yes; I am more comfortable with what ever Obama's beliefs are (Is he a Muslim or is a Christian... I thought we are supposed to be mad about Rev. Wright ) because he is far less on the fringe than young earth creationists
__________________

The Maggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 13:45   #62
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Maggy View Post
Its the weekend, I shouldn't have to apologize for going out and living a little life. We can't all put up 30 or 40 posts a day.

No, we should all be like you. Just throw something up there and walk away for two days. You started with a ridiculous comment and couldn't even defend it yourself.

Your late in life defense of your position includes the concept that we shouldn't allow a potentially dissenting opinion to be heard in a decision making body of out Government. Who knows, he might slow up funding for a Government Agency.


Not to mention you want to exclude those who don't agree with your view from representation. I find that to be a typical liberal attitude.

Last edited by countrygun; 10-08-2012 at 13:46..
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:00   #63
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,545
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
...your position includes the concept that we shouldn't allow a potentially dissenting opinion to be heard in a decision making body of out Government.
Given that we're talking about the science committee, if that dissent is based on scientific evidence, no problem. If that dissent is based on religious dogma and requires someone to reject core tenets of physics/cosmology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, geology and botany, then that person really doesn't belong in role overseeing the field of science.

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:07   #64
Chronos
Senior Member
 
Chronos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
A lot of those proclaiming knowledge, don't really know. Most have not done the research themselves and are blindly trusting what they have been told, and while science has concluded the universe is expanding, and it has postulated that it is expanding at different speeds, doesn't mean a bang caused the expansion. I'd describe the discussion as a few people willing to point out missing pieces of the puzzle and the limits of human knowledge, and those that don't know enough to know what they don't know.

Just because one explanaition fits, doesn't make it so. We, as a species, continue to learn. We've got a long way to go to come close to saying we've got it all figured out. I guess the old saying is true about the more you know, the more you realize what you still have to learn.
What I find really amazing is that you seem to count yourself and the religious posters in the category of "having learned so much about cosmology that you now fully understand how much still has to be learned before basic claims should be regarded as credible."
__________________
If you've already accepted that "violence against the innocent" is a morally legitimate means of funding the government, who are you to complain when the majority apprporiates your legacy and sells your children into a lifetime of debt slavery?
Chronos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:08   #65
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Given that we're talking about the science committee, if that dissent is based on scientific evidence, no problem. If that dissent is based on religious dogma and requires someone to reject core tenets of physics/cosmology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, geology and botany, then that person really doesn't belong in role overseeing the field of science.

-ArtificialGrape

I am surprised that you don't feel a bit uncomfortable about throwing around the phrase "overseeing the field of science" when we are talking about the Government, It makes me nervous.

Even so, since we are talking about the distributiion of tax money, don't the voters that elected him have a right to be represented? Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that they elected him specifically because of his beliefs that they share (this is hypothetical you understand) don't they have a right to be represented? I think you will find he was appointed to those comittees so why not go after the system that put him there and demand that they have someone like yourself, un elected, who should decide who gets representation where.

Last edited by countrygun; 10-08-2012 at 14:17..
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:15   #66
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Scientists are pretty quick to agree that we don't know everything. I don't think you'll find many matching the arrogance of Lord Kelvin when over 100 years ago he said, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
Well, they are except when they aren't. If you were to poll other physicists in that same time period I think you'd find more arrogance than not. I think that holds true even today. Question some basic tenet of science and you're more apt to initially meet with ridicule and dismissal than thoughtful debate.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:23   #67
Chronos
Senior Member
 
Chronos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Surgeon View Post
And here is the person who first postulated the Big Bang theory:


Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory.

Wait, what??? A Catholic priest who believed in Jesus fairy tales gave us what it became the most accepted theory of the Universe creation?
So science and religion are not mutually exclusive and people of faith are not simple-minded gullible idiots?

I can hear atheists head explode.


I can hear
Lemaitre gets an immediate pass -- Lemaitre had a command of modern physics that was objectively superior to that of his own pet dog, and didn't use those fairy tales you speak of to vigorously defend a position of ignorance.
__________________
If you've already accepted that "violence against the innocent" is a morally legitimate means of funding the government, who are you to complain when the majority apprporiates your legacy and sells your children into a lifetime of debt slavery?
Chronos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:25   #68
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Given that we're talking about the science committee, if that dissent is based on scientific evidence, no problem. If that dissent is based on religious dogma and requires someone to reject core tenets of physics/cosmology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, geology and botany, then that person really doesn't belong in role overseeing the field of science.

-ArtificialGrape
Well as long as we are clear that there are some types of dissent that liberals absolutely won't tolerate, then we have found one thing we agree on.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:25   #69
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
What I find really amazing is that you seem to count yourself and the religious posters in the category of "having learned so much about cosmology that you now fully understand how much still has to be learned before basic claims should be regarded as credible."
I'm saying that there are holes in the theory. Not everything fits together yet.

I certainly don't count myself among the "religious posters", and as we have discussed at length, I include atheists as religious posters.

I'm just saying that with all that we have learned as a species, with our very limited travels, and our very limited time spent paying attention when considered the age of the universe, to have a few arrogant self centered egomaniacs pretend that they have solved all of the mysteries of the universe, even events that have not been witnessed, is laughable. The faith exhibited by the atheists in their arguments against the theists is notable.

Some people have a hard time admitting they don't have all the answers, and their insecurity should not prevent us from continuing to ask the right questions.

The only thing that is certain is that what is, is. How it came to be is still unanswered. Some find solace in religion, including the atheists, to console themselves that they are sentient.

There is no problem admitting that we have a lot to learn. Most honest people can do that.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:28   #70
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
. I don't think you'll find many matching the arrogance of Lord Kelvin when over 100 years ago he said, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape
That's a joke right?

I've never met anyone more arrogant than scientific researchers (and, it was my distinct displeasure to have to investigate a group for falsifying data, and committing fraud, and running up against as big a stone wall of silence as any criminal gang ever put up).

I finally asked one researcher, who was slightly cooperative, why I was getting the silent treatment from everyone and she told me I was exposing the dirty secret of scientific research everywhere- the fact that much of it was faked, and changed to fit pre-conceived notions of researchers.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.

Last edited by series1811; 10-08-2012 at 14:30..
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:34   #71
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,545
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I am surprised that you don't feel a bit uncomfortable about throwing around the phrase "overseeing the field of science" when we are talking about the Government, It makes me nervous.
Funny that you call that out, because I will admit that I wasn't that happy with the wording, but nothing better came to me at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Even so, since we are talking about the distributiion of tax money, don't the voters that elected him have a right to be represented? Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that they elected him specifically because of his beliefs that they share (this is hypothetical you understand) don't they have a right to be represented? I think you will find he was appointed to those comittees so why not go after the system that put him there and demand that they have someone like yourself, un elected, who should decide who gets representation where.
Just having a majority doesn't make a non-scientific proposition become scientific. To have a demonstrably anti-science member on the committee responsible for advancing science is wrong, regardless of popularity.

Now if Rep. Broun has some scientific evidence that he would like to present demonstrating that our current understandings of physics/cosmology, chemistry, biology, botany, geology, paleontology and anthropology are all wrong, and that the earth actually is roughly 9000 years old, then I'm sure many people would love to see it.

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:43   #72
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Funny that you call that out, because I will admit that I wasn't that happy with the wording, but nothing better came to me at the time.


Just having a majority doesn't make a non-scientific proposition become scientific. To have a demonstrably anti-science member on the committee responsible for advancing science is wrong, regardless of popularity.

Now if Rep. Broun has some scientific evidence that he would like to present demonstrating that our current understandings of physics/cosmology, chemistry, biology, botany, geology, paleontology and anthropology are all wrong, and that the earth actually is roughly 9000 years old, then I'm sure many people would love to see it.

-ArtificialGrape
Representation on a Government comittee shouldn't depend on agreement with the principles, perhaps quite the opposite is needed. By your measure all members of the associated comittees should be believers in Global Warming. No Dissention from popular thought should be allowed. In the name of "freedom" we should all tow the line.

Now, there is some merit in your position of "If you don't belive in it, you shouldn't be part of it". We could start with requiring anyone participating in the political system say the Pledge of Allegiance, then we can move to do something about those on finance related comittees who aren't capitalists. Any religon related issues shold not have aatheists invlved and so on.

sound good?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 15:22   #73
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,545
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Representation on a Government comittee shouldn't depend on agreement with the principles, perhaps quite the opposite is needed. By your measure all members of the associated comittees should be believers in Global Warming. No Dissention from popular thought should be allowed. In the name of "freedom" we should all tow the line.

Now, there is some merit in your position of "If you don't belive in it, you shouldn't be part of it". We could start with requiring anyone participating in the political system say the Pledge of Allegiance, then we can move to do something about those on finance related comittees who aren't capitalists. Any religon related issues shold not have aatheists invlved and so on.

sound good?
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. We're not discussing something like finance or foreign policy. We're discussing a hard science where evidence rules. While Broun is calling evolution and the Big Bang theory lies, do you think there is any chance of him presenting falsifying scientific evidence? Care to speculate upon what he has based his conclusions? Anything that you would care to present on his behalf?

Simple question: do you think that somebody adhering to a young earth outlook is doing so because of the scientific evidence supporting it, or despite all the evidence to the contrary?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 15:35   #74
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. We're not discussing something like finance or foreign policy. We're discussing a hard science where evidence rules. While Broun is calling evolution and the Big Bang theory lies, do you think there is any chance of him presenting falsifying scientific evidence? Care to speculate upon what he has based his conclusions? Anything that you would care to present on his behalf?

Simple question: do you think that somebody adhering to a young earth outlook is doing so because of the scientific evidence supporting it, or despite all the evidence to the contrary?

-ArtificialGrape

I'll answer you question first and pose some counter questions

I would say that they reject what you call evidence, for right or wrong, and have chosen their faith as an alternative to what is (to them) called science. They simply reject what they feel is incorrect science.


Now

Who is responsible for this person's appointment to the comittees?

Again, would you like to explain how and who gets to decide which comittees can't have non-believers on them?


Do all members of environmental comiittes have to believe in "Global Warming" since that is commonly accepted "science"?

Is there no room to question something if it is called "science"?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 16:14   #75
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,545
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I'll answer you question first and pose some counter questions

I would say that they reject what you call evidence, for right or wrong, and have chosen their faith as an alternative to what is (to them) called science. They simply reject what they feel is incorrect science.
I appreciate the answer, and I don't disagree, but the problem I have is that they're rejecting conclusions strongly supported by evidence because of what "they feel". The equivalent of covering their ears while singing "la la la". There is no evidence that could be called scientific upon which they are basing their rejection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Who is responsible for this person's appointment to the comittees?

Again, would you like to explain how and who gets to decide which comittees can't have non-believers on them?
Despite how I may be coming across, I'm not trying to censor what anybody has to say, but I contend that somebody committed to the willful ignorance required to maintain a young earth worldview has no business making decisions that impact NASA and numerous other scientific endeavors. That's not to say they should be prohibited, but they're clearly not acting in the best interests of our future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Do all members of environmental comiittes have to believe in "Global Warming" since that is commonly accepted "science"?

Is there no room to question something if it is called "science"?
No, there is plenty of room for questioning our current understanding of the world and universe that we live in. I would only hope that objections were based on science rather than feelings or interpretation of scripture.

Since the beginning of the 20th century there have been paradigm shifts from relativity, quantum physics, and plate tectonics. New understandings is how our knowledge grows. I would only pray that discussions of science be based on science.

<shutting down for a flight -- back later>

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -6. The time now is 00:27.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 837
250 Members
587 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42