Re: [OT] Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers

In article <pan.2006.06.01.22.57.30.953000@xxxxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:22:19 -0400, ZnU wrote:

In article <p7ju72l6nep5nabuvpv7qh9bb4nu64n035@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:43:31 -0400, TheLetterK <non@xxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:36:07 -0400, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:48:02 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article
<gmgraves-B6581F.18375931052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <pan.2006.06.01.00.59.30.459406@xxxxxxxx>,
TheLetterK <non@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:21:39 -0400, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:


1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think
its
a
virtue.

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in
a
bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous
obstacle
to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions
if
they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of
factual
presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening
up
the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful
it
is that we are going to solve this crisis."
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site.
8)

This is only part of the reason. I have a college buddy who is a
researcher in another, unrelated field, but he works for a large
midwestern university and he tells me that most researchers will say
anything to obtain and/or keep a grant. Most of the people in the
earth-related sciences feel that the adage: "the squeeky wheel gets
the
grease" is a fruitful avenue to persue in getting grant providers'
attentions. In other words, make whatever it is you're working on,
whether it be global warming, global dimming, the earth's core
swapping
poles, ozone depletion, etc., into a potential disaster of biblical
proportions in order to scare the pocketbooks into funding your
research
further. Its all about the big spin and the media is always there to
take negative news and run with it.

You guys sound like the Creationists. It's all a big conspiracy of the
scientific establishment. Right.

You're going to seriously claim that scientists never fudge their
outcomes for grant money? Get real. Its happened too many times for
anyone to believe that.


This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics
are
a little whacky.

LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.

No, it doesn't. ID makes no sense in any context, or in any form.

It because of these disagreements and the lack of importance of
biological studies in most people's lives that I say we admit that
we're at loggerheads and simply disengage. We're wasting too many
resources on this fight and its getting nowhere.

There is no disagreement within the actual scientific
establishment,

Which might mean something if they were the only ones involved.

and while IDists and Creationists make a lot of noise, opposing
them doesn't really require a lot in the way of resources.

It takes quite ofbitof time and money awa from schools.

Please explain.

Most of the fight may be
done already, actually. The courts established a long time ago that
Creationism wasn't science. ID seemed to some like a clever way to get
around that restriction, but has met with little success so far. I
expect we'll see the whole thing die down again for a while until the
anti-science types come up with some new scam.

This fight has been going on since the 1830's with no sign of ending. The
funny thing is that its largely because of the way the Darwinist
Fundamentalists presented it. If they had simply presented it as a theory
it would have been accepted by now. Instead, from the very beginning, they
presented it as proof that there was no God and unneccessarily got
people's hackle's up.

Please provide support for this claim.

The best bet the Darwin Fundamentlists have for it gaining widespread
acceptance mongst the populace is to just let the issue drop for a
couple of generations and then reintroduce it without all the snotty
arrogance that is their current hallmark. But of course they won't do
that. That would require a touch of humility, something that they've
proven time after time that they lack.

Mayor, what the Creationists and ID types are trying to do with respect
to biology is almost precisely the equivalent of trying to sneak
geocentrism into science classrooms where astronomy is supposed to be
taught. Would you expect astronomers to show 'humility' in the face of
such an attempt?

See, this is what I think you miss. Evolution really is one of the basic
foundations of modern biology. While not everything is pinned down yet,
and there's still room for new ideas, the basics are completely taken
for granted by people who work in the field -- just the way
heliocentrism is taken for granted by astronomers.

Expecting biologists to show humility in the face of Creationist
nonsense is basically the equivalent of me expecting you to show
humility when I tell you what color your house is, despite the fact that
you probably picked the paint and I've never seen your house. Obviously,
you're unlikely to do that. You're going to tell me I'm wrong, and I
don't know what I'm talking about, and you'd be justified in doing so.

Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism
teach it and let those
that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
their kids in.

Biotechnology is going to be a major growth industry in the next 50
years. If the US wants to be competitive, it's not a good idea to have a
school system which doesn't teach students the basic underpinnings of
modern biology.

There's nothing in my proposal that would keep any school system from
teaching the Darwinist Faith. It would simply allow those that don't want
to a safe withdraal.
Let's assume that you're right and that the biotech industry goes on a
massive hiring spree. What are they going to hire? 0.001% of the
graduating class? 0.005%? Lets go nuts and say that they hire 10% of
graduates in a certain year. The only reason you should be concerned about
my proposal is if that you believe that less schools than it takes to
account for that percentage of graduates is going to sign on to teach the
Darwinist Faith.

There's already a worker shortage in biotech, Mayor.

See, for instance, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3072530/from/RL.3/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
³This is not a good time to be recruiting in biotech,² said Stephen
Israel, managing director of the biotechnology recruiting practice at
the Boston office of Los Angeles-based headhunter firm Korn/Ferry
International Inc. ³Because it is a strong market, there are too many
jobs and not enough people.²
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lewontin: "NS explains nothing because it explains everything".
    ... The problem is, Ray, that it's not conventional evolutionary theory ... Once the matter is created, somehow, somewhere it must get ... why Darwin said very late in life ... Creationists started and IDers perfected the tactic - which only works ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lewontin: "NS explains nothing because it explains everything".
    ... difference between evolution itself ... We know Darwin was an atheist as early as 1837. ... Creationists started and IDers perfected the tactic - which only works ... I will build on Dembski in "Intelligent Design". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lewontin: "NS explains nothing because it explains everything".
    ... difference between evolution itself ... Creationists tried and failed. ... An old earth version, as you said. ... Darwin is defended tooth and nail today. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • SV: Darwin and Punc-Eq
    ... >>> ever read such books? ... Just what literature DO creationists read? ... Evolution, science: ... Charles Darwin, Origins. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: honesty 101 for Darwinists
    ... nando forgets that the creationists had the playing field for 1000 ... it's older than darwin. ... it's not science. ... there are reasonably just as well points in the history of the universe ...
    (talk.origins)