A Thought About "Science"

[LBR]

There's gobs of scientists who are on the "global warming/global climate change" bandwagon. There are reports from at least as far back as the 1920's from "scientists" warning how life on earth as we know it is about to come to a halt if something isn't done immeditately, if it's not already too late.

It's junk at best. Some have been exposed (without a doubt) as having alterior motives, and my guess they all do whether it can be proven or not. Yet we still have people who say they are Christians who put more faith in "science" than in the Bible?

I've given up on getting an explanation or trying to understand it. It was just a thought I felt like sharing after reading another "global warming" thread on the pollitical board.

Chad

[Lemaitre]

What does the Bible say about the matter of anthropogenic climate change and global warming? If it does say something specific, that would indeed have startling implications. It would mean that the Bible anticipated the Industrial Revolution 1800 years before it took place and the controversies over its possible consequences for the global environment.

[LBR]

The Bible says that God will destroy the earth, when the time comes. That is why I knew algore's crying wolf was a farce from the beginning, and now "science" seems to be catching up.

I don't expect any of you, especially the "educated" ones, and certainly not someone who doesn't have any ties to Christianity, to change your mind. The simple irony of the matter just gets to me at times.

I've been told, in so many words, that I'm just not as smart as some members here....but somehow I manage to ask questions that some who claim to be so much more intelligent than I just avoid like the plague. Go figure.

[Kosherboy]

Originally Posted by Lemaitre

What does the Bible say about the matter of anthropogenic climate change and global warming? If it does say something specific, that would indeed have startling implications. It would mean that the Bible anticipated the Industrial Revolution 1800 years before it took place and the controversies over its possible consequences for the global environment.

So what Industrial Revolution cause the last Ice age and then Global warming again , according to science 10,000 years ago, how many cars were producing gases or industries then ??
The Bible has a lot to say about Global warming and fires cause by it , destroying most trees and grass and then the elements falling from the heavens and burning all constructions made by man, and the earth melting from inside out and a new heaven and a new earth, but that won't take place until Yeshu has reign physically on earth for at least a 1000 years.
Is he here yet ?

[sachiko]

Originally Posted by LBR

I've been told, in so many words, that I'm just not as smart as some members here....but somehow I manage to ask questions that some who claim to be so much more intelligent than I just avoid like the plague. Go figure.

Flattery will get you nowwhere.

I've mentioned before the need to be cautious about science driven by an agenda. The two current examples that come to mind are the global warming/climate change movement and the drive to prove one is "born gay." It's hard to be objective when you are politically or emotionally involved in your research.



Hey, another thread about science started by someone who thinks science is wrong My sisters and I are keeping track

[LBR]

Flattery will get you nowwhere.

Lol--I never said it was true, I just noted that the statement had been made. Like I said before, you can call a frog a stallion, but that won't make it gallop. The facts speak for themselves.

I've mentioned before the need to be cautious about science driven by an agenda.

Do you really think the TOE isn't agenda-driven?

Thanks for another great example--the "science" of being born gay.

You must feel like an alien on this planet--being so smart that you know what parts of the Bible are true and what parts are fable, which sciences you can put more faith in than the Bible...... (just in case someone doesn't get it, the above is dripping with sarcasm)

Hey, another thread about science started by someone who thinks science is wrong

That's not at all what I think. I have no problem with proven facts. I do have a problem when someone tries to pass off opinions, theories, hypothesis, etc. as "fact". Hey, you just said you have warned us about the agenda driven "sciences"--so you must think science is wrong, correct? Or is it like the Bible to you--just the parts you disagree with are wrong?

ROCK dlg HARD PLACE

[Kosherboy]

1- Science is a man made method of proving what they think is correct according to the parameters they set for testing.
2- First law of Science, "There is no cause without action, there is no Action without a cause", That alone proves science to be on shaky ground as evolution depends on random events without a cause.

[LBR]

Another thought I just had (two in one week--must be a record!).

I've shot in a lot of archery competitions, and sooner or later you meet all types there. One thing I've found that is the really good shots, the ones that really know what they are doing, don't go around announcing how good they are. They don't have to--their actions speak for themselves.

On the flip side, sometimes there's one or two running around telling anyone that will listen how great and wonderful and fantastic they are.......they have to, else nobody would ever know it, especially based on their shooting. After you see them shoot, they have all kinds of excuses as to why they aren't able to perform, or they just dissapear alltogether--until the next tournament, where the process is repeated.

What does this have to do with this thread? I'm sure some will figure it out. If you don't, don't worry about it--it's not really important.

[Lemaitre]

Originally Posted by LBR

That's not at all what I think. I have no problem with proven facts. I do have a problem when someone tries to pass off opinions, theories, hypothesis, etc. as "fact".

Science is not a mere compendium of facts, it is a methodology for gaining understanding as to how the natural world works. Theories are the most important parts of science and the status as a "theory" is the highest level of acceptance attainable in science. Hence, along with the Theory of Evolution we also have Electromagnetic Theory, Quantum Theory, Atomic Theory that make up science. To a scientist, a theory is not merely a hunch, it is a broad explanation of natural phenomenon that is supported by a large body of evidence, laws, evidence, observations and experimental results. No scientist would talk about the "fact" of Quantum Mechanics, it is a theory that is tentatively accepted as a true explanation for certain phenomenon that are observed because all observations and experimental results support it and non contradict it. However, to be accepted as a theory it must be falsifiable, meaning that if a certain observation were made that contradicted the theory it would have to be modified or abandoned. Lack of falsifiability is one reason why "scientific creationism" has failed to gain acceptance as a scientific theory.

[LBR]

Let me clarify. If someone posts about the theory of evolution, but rather than call it what it is, they constantly refer to it as "fact", I find that offensive and it makes me question that person's intelligence, honesty, and integrety.

I understand scientists work with theory. I also know that some theories are much more solid than others--repeatable, quantifiable, observable. Others, like the TOE, are a joke, and survive only due to vast stretches of the imagination and lots of funding. My bet is if similar ridiculous statements were applied to other theories, the "scientists" would be laughed out of the profession--like "reconstructing" a giant chicken dinosaur from a shard of bone. That's my opinion anyway.