It is anyones God given right to not believe in established science or the scientific method of discovery or discourse.
But those who do not believe it leads (sort of) to truth should probably not attempt to use scientific or logical arguments to win debates. They just won't be very good at it.
- Tom Bob Miller wrote:
In evaluating the credibility of someone I take into account such things as where they stand on other established science. Someone who doesn't believe in evolution has zero credibility IMO. But that is just me. If you believe in an almighty God there is no reason to argue for or against evolution. She could have created the world with all the evidence of a 15 billion year history while I was typing the last sentence and no one would be the wiser. In fact She would have to be recreating the world every nano-second just to maintain existence and would have the ability to change any parameter on the fly. She could change the laws of nature so that 8-VSB would work better. Bob Miller The Bob Miller who believes that no one really believes in God. Some try real hard to, some not so much and many say they do but don't think about it much. That is why it is called faith. Those that come the closest to really believing in God we tend to think of as crazy. At that level some tend to blow themselves up and fly airplanes into buildings. Personally I believe only that there is an ultimate truth about which our best science and all belief systems so far offer not a clue. Existence is awesome, knowledge of it total IMO. On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Mark A. Aitken <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:----------------------------------------------------------------------WORD has it...Not everyone believes in evolution... On 10/29/2008 12:54 AM, Bob Miller wrote: Now you are joking. The lead author of this garbage is Arthur B. Robinson who doesn't believe in Evolution. Nuff said. So I agree mostly with your one site, http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230007. Of course they are dedicated to correcting misleading information from the right how could I not agree. Bob Miller P. S. The Bob Miller who is hoping that this election so obliterates the current domination of the Republican Party by the right that someday a new Republican Party can emerge which I can vote for. On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Mark A. Aitken <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: My last post on this subject... http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html On 10/28/2008 3:42 PM, Bob Miller wrote: Here is a site that has good information on Global Warming. http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011 More inline below... Graig wrote We have been in a period of global cooling since 1998, with a rather dramatic drop in 2007. Your Global Cooling proposition is not supported by the facts as presented in the following NASA global mean temperature records. You simply cannot prove a predisposition by cherry picking data to support that position. The NASA records clearly show that 2007 was actually warmer than 1998. However, data for the first seven months of 2008 do show a relative cooling, though these cooler temperatures are still significantly warmer than the mean average temperature baseline. Rather than miss characterizing this as "Global cooling, it is best described by "the temperature rise in 2008 has slowed somewhat" http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt This data is for meterological stations, not NASA satellite surface temp data. The meterological station data is highly suspect due to violations of the rules for placements of these stations. There is considerable information about this on the web. But this is largely irrelevant, as much of the data upon which Gore and others based their finding was just plain wrong, or cherry picked for effect. I prefer to look at historic data overall, as Easterbrook did, and to project based on real world data, not computer models for the future. There is nothing in the data to suggest that increased CO2 levels and increased temperatures in recent decades have been caused by man. There is considerable evidence in his paper to suggest a 40 year cycle that is linked in part to solar activity. Easterbrook made mincemeat of the IPCC predictions, which have no basis in fact. I would rather look at the opinions/conclusions of the vast majority of scientist and not "cherry pick" one individual like Easterbrook who happens to agree with what I would like to be reality. Won't matter to me but I have kids and I don't want to be wrong for them so that I can live in a fantasy world of SUVs and McMansions which are kept air conditioned while not occupied so that the wine won't go bad. If you have the expertise and have looked at ALL the evidence dispassionately and still think that there is NO Global Warming and that humans are not at fault then your conscience may be clean. But what if, as I said previously, humans are not at fault and there is Global Warming? We still will have to deal with it. There are a number of ways. We can ignore it and just deal with its consequences while using the excuse that we didn't cause it I guess. Is there someone in charge of accepting such an excuse? We could try to do something about it and succeed, partially succeed or fail. In my opinion any of the three are better than doing nothing. But if you don't believe there is any Global Warming or Cooling for that matter, that there is a God in charge of a world thermostat and he is on your side like in football and he has that thermostat set to a setting made just for your comfort and that it will remain at that setting forever then no need to worry. IMO the world could change, most likely is changing, may be changing because of activities of man and we better be doing our best to understand how it is changing and what we can do about it no matter if man is at fault or not. If there is a God I suggest he gave us brains for doing something. Maybe we should have been more concerned about the impact of sub-prime mortgages and the abuse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "guarantee" these mortgages as they were proliferated as investment securities worldwide. But Chris Dodd and Barney Frank said there was nothing to worry about... Pretty hard to blame two people when most of Congress was on board with Fannie and Freddie and Fannie and Freddie were not at the heart of the current crisis. They were followers, trying to maintain market share, unsuccessfully I might add, by following the lead of the crazies on Wall Street. But they didn't originate subprime loans in the main, such loans just didn't meet their criteria. They did buy billions of $$ of the securities that were based on subprime loans originated by others for their own account however, dumb yes. Yes even very dumb but they were not the leaders or instigators and the mess we are in would most likely not even have happened if it were not for cabal of big investment banks and such as AIG that decided to sell naked insurance on securitized mortgages of subprime loand. The guarantees you are talking about were the Credit Default Swaps that were basically cheap insurance sold to back securitized mortgages the most toxic of which were subprime. And this "insurance" was not backed up by any ability to insure, no assets. But Freddie and Fannie did not sell such insurance. Lots of CDS's were sold on their securitized mortgages by others and that is where the problems are. Any sophisticated investor could buy insurance on Freddie and Fannie instruments even if they didn't own said instrument. Such insurance could also be bought an any number of different financial instruments having nothing to do with mortgages With Credit Default Swaps the buyer didn't have to own what he insured and the seller didn't have to have any assets to back up the insurance they sold. And now we are bailing out this INSANE casino. And the operators, the individuals in very many cases are walking with a lot of the loot. And many of the firms we are bailing out plan on paying hundreds of billions of dollars in bonuses this year. Go figure!! And some of them including Paulson are now in charge of fixing this. And why did such firms as AIG, Lehman and many many others offer such NAKED insurance? Because they could and there was no regulation saying they couldn't. And Paulson, then at Goldman Sachs and others were arguing for going ever further out on the risk curve to be "competitive". Now we have that fox, Paulson, trying to save the other foxes while all around the world we find dead chickens. Much the same in most of the Government agencies populated these last 8 years by Republicans. Hey I get to eat beef again if Obama is elected. Haven't had beef since Ann Veneman was put in charge of the Agricultural Department. Farmers and the cattle business represent the biggest and worst case of welfare voter fraud in history. Ever wonder why most of the Mississippi Valley is composed of red states? Bob Miller Looking at the current election cycle, I would have to characterize PRAVDA as a more believable source of information than the U.S. media... If you are watching Fox and listening to the radio yes I agree. Regards Craig Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. -- Regards, Mark A. Aitken Director, Advanced Technology =================================== "What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what kind of a person you are" <> ~ C. S. Lewis ~ <>< Things are only impossible until they're not. <> ~ J. L. Picard ~ <>< ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. -- Regards, Mark A. Aitken Director, Advanced Technology =================================== "What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what kind of a person you are"<> ~ C. S. Lewis ~ <><Things are only impossible until they're not.<> ~ J. L. Picard ~ <><You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.