Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 83/22 Day: 24/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist = Anti-Environmentalist?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 111 (426298)
10-05-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
10-05-2007 6:24 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
Nobody at the time knew precisely how much reflection, and nobody knew how intense the "greenhouse effect" was, and so a few people in the media predicted an ice age, a few people in Hollywood predicted global warming (see "Soylent Green"), all from a couple of papers that essentially said "it could get warmer, it could get colder, we don't know for sure because we haven't developed any good models yet."
Crash, this whole debate has been going on a lot longer than Soylent Green. Sire Thomas Malthus predicted, much in the same way, that the earth's population would grow out of control, to the point where humans would use up every natural resource, and thus, we would exterminate ourselves. Of course, Malthus neglected to predict the enormous impact that the Industrial Revolution had on agrigulture. Obviously, his prediction never materialized. But what remains today is that same climate of fear.
Now, some 30 years later, we have more than 10 models that are consistent with more than 1600 years of inferred climate data as well as with each other, and every single one has successfully predicted the warming trend that we're in the middle of.
Can I see these ten models?
The reality of the history of global warming is nothing like you describe. There was maybe one article in Newsweek that "predicted an ice age." There was no consensus on the issue, then.
There were quite a few, which I have provided for you the last time we had this argument. If you'd like me to dig up the old thread, I will show you.
Sure. It's all just coincidence that the Earth is warming at the exact same time that human CO2 production exceeds multiple Mt. Pinatubo eruptions every single year, and at the exact same time that the sun is in a decade-long period of cooling.
Sure, since you would never be in shortage of reasons for why it would be. You are invoking reasons for the climate change without considering that this is what the climate does. I suppose you'd blame the last ice age on humans too if you could. What anthropogenic cause did that have? It happened. It was drastic. I'm sure it killed many, many species-- yet, it was entirely a natural phenomenon.
It's not to say that you couldn't find someone who was a "left-wing authoritarian" in the United States, but it's instructive to note that while Altemeyer based his research on interviews with hundreds of persons, many of whom were identified as right-wing authoritarians, a single example of a left-wing authoritarian has never, to my knowledge, been found.
What does an authoritarian have to do with it? Look at the kids drooling over MTV, Crash. That's their source of inspiration-- that drivel! And yet they call me the sheep?!?!? Look at those lemmings. Everything society tells them to do, they dutifully follow. Not an autonomous bone in their body. Yet they sneer at me? They have their Pied Piper.
Theoretically America's relationship with Israel is so relentlessly pro-Israel so that we can have a democratic ally in the Middle East.
We have a few in the Middle East. Israel just happens to be the closely modeled after America as any western nation.
What, exactly, do we stand to gain by that? We're already staging our operations out of Germany, not Israel. Israel supplied absolutely zero troops in any function as part of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not for lack of desire on their part, I'm sure. We plead with them not to get involved-- even as SCUD's rain down on their cities. We stay their hand because we all know what will happen if we don't. But we can't expect them to sit on their hands forever.
So it's not entirely clear what we gain by our support of Israel
A friend in a sea of enemies and fair-weather friends.
What cycle?
The natural cycle that has been a part of the earth's climatological history.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2007 6:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2007 11:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 64 by Nuggin, posted 10-06-2007 1:33 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 111 (426299)
10-05-2007 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2007 10:59 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
Crash, this whole debate has been going on a lot longer than Soylent Green.
I'm aware of that. I'm simply rebutting your assertion that the entire history of climate science has been a monolithic consensus of impending ice ages totally reversing itself to a monolithic consensus of global warming.
That's not what happened at all. Like most scientific issues, positions were staked out, early, across the spectrum of conjecture - "There'll be cooling." "There'll be warming." "Nothing will happen." "We don't know what will happen."
As time went on, and evidence was uncovered and models were developed, people abandoned some of those positions. Other positions were strengthened. As all but one position was disconfirmed by the evidence, a consensus developed.
In the 70's there was no climatological consensus. Some thought it would warm. Some, cool. Most people said that there wasn't enough evidence to decide.
Now, in 2007, the vast weight of evidence supports a single scientific consensus - human industry, specifically the burning of fossil fuels for energy, has drastically increased atmospheric greenhouse gases and caused a distinct warming trend.
Of course, Malthus neglected to predict the enormous impact that the Industrial Revolution had on agrigulture.
It had nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution - indeed, the vast majority of crop production around the world is still done with Neolithic methods like hand weeding, ditch irrigation, etc. - and everything to do with Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution. Were it not for Borlaug everything Malthus predicted would have come true. Was about to come true. Instead Borlaug saved, nearly single-handedly, more than 1.5 billion human lives.
Don't confuse dodging the bullet for firing blanks.
Can I see these ten models?
File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia
quote:
Reconstructions
The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. doi:10.1029/1999GL900070 (pre-print)
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (data available from NCDC : [2])
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941. doi:10.1029/2000JD900617
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046
11. (black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [3] was used.
Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in: P.D. Jones and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223. DOI:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)0162.0.CO;2
I suppose you'd blame the last ice age on humans too if you could.
Greenhouse gas emissions by human beings during the last ice age - nearly ten thousand years before the discovery and analysis of petroleum - were, I think it is safe to say, negligible. I'm not sure what on Earth you're talking about, here.
I'm sure it killed many, many species-- yet, it was entirely a natural phenomenon.
Yes, obviously. Additionally, we know that the cause of the last ice age, and the interglacial period we find ourselves in, was not human industry. Similarly, we know that human industry is the cause of the current warming trend we find ourselves in. That's the conclusion supported by the vast weight of data.
Look, NJ, if 24 billion tons of CO2 emitted by humans every single year isn't up there causing warming, what is it doing? Where does it go? Does it just disappear, by magic? And then where is all the warming coming from? The sun is in a cooling period, so the "warming sun" model can't explain it. That Russian guy's lunacy about cosmic rays doesn't hold up from the data.
What does an authoritarian have to do with it?
That's what you were talking about. Authoritarianism. Rigid, lockstep following. Did you read the link?
Look at the kids drooling over MTV, Crash.
I'll take Bob Altemeyer's decades of research into the phenomenon of authoritarian thinking over your anecdotal examples, thanks. Did you read the link?
Not for lack of desire on their part, I'm sure.
You're sure? Based on what?
We plead with them not to get involved-- even as SCUD's rain down on their cities.
So, you're admitting that we get nothing from all the help we give them. Leaving only the religious explanation. Which was what I was saying all along.
The natural cycle that has been a part of the earth's climatological history.
That doesn't answer my question. What cycle? How long is the period of this cycle? What is its amplitude? What causes the cycle?
There is cyclical warming and cooling of the Earth, to be sure. The CO2 concentrations that we're experiencing now is clearly above and beyond that normal cycle, as you can see here:
File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr-2.png - Wikipedia
Come the fuck on, NJ. The science is bulletproof on this.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2007 10:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-07-2007 1:01 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 111 (426309)
10-06-2007 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Nuggin
10-05-2007 7:35 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
These, incindentally, are the same people that are offering $10,000 to any climatologist who'll publish any paper disputing Global warming.
I assume you have evidence of said bribery?
Are you suggesting that the people in Red States don't have Walmarts? That the Conservatives don't have a "War policy" or aren't participating in "capitalism"?
What I am doing is debunking your sweeping allegations. You neglect to say some, and instead, say all.
What bias? I start a thread on Creationism/Anti-Enviormentalism and you try to dispute me by naming someone who is Anti-War & wealthy. Last time I checked, neither of those are on topic.
It appears that Petro has asked you several times to corroborate your claims that creationists are anti-environment. If you want to stay on topic, then I suggest you cough up some proof. We'll start with just one name. Give me one name in order to keep this thread going.
Firstly, you don't want this debate to be about propaganda. Have you seen the "news reports" shot and editted by the administration?
No. This might be your shining moment to substantiate your claim that creationists hate the environment.
Secondly, what propaganda are you alledging that Rage Against the Machine is spreading? Maybe I'm not on the mailing list, but I haven't heard anything about the Rage Against the Machine thinktank issuing bullet points which are then parrotted on Fox News verbatim.
Holy cow, man. Listen one song-- any song.
I'll give you a hint.
So is Canada, but we don't give them weapons and billions of dollars in aid.
Canada is a Democratic Socialist nation, which isn't entirely the same thing. And Canada does have our help. But more importantly, they don't require our help in the same way Israel does. And here is why:

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Nuggin, posted 10-05-2007 7:35 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 10-06-2007 1:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2007 2:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 64 of 111 (426310)
10-06-2007 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2007 10:59 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
What does an authoritarian have to do with it? Look at the kids drooling over MTV, Crash. That's their source of inspiration-- that drivel! And yet they call me the sheep?!?!? Look at those lemmings. Everything society tells them to do, they dutifully follow. Not an autonomous bone in their body. Yet they sneer at me? They have their Pied Piper.
I completely agree. Fundamentalists are mentally on par with "kids drooling over MTV". Neither one has yet achieved enough education and maturity to be able to make decisions for themself.
In the kids case, it's because they are 12.
What's the fundamentalists excuse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2007 10:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-08-2007 8:15 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 65 of 111 (426312)
10-06-2007 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Hyroglyphx
10-06-2007 1:24 AM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
I assume you have evidence of said bribery?
If I provide evidence of the bribery, will you admit that you are wrong, rather than just ignore the info?
What I am doing is debunking your sweeping allegations.
Let me explain how a "debunking" works. I linked Red States, Fundamentalism and Anti-Environmentalism. This is because Red States voted overwhelmingly for the Fundamentalist Anti-Environmental theocratic administration.
Your response was to link Blue States with Walmart and "war policies".
That's not a debunking. If anything, it's a "bunking"!
We'll start with just one name. Give me one name in order to keep this thread going.
Name one Creationist Fundamentalist who's denying human's role in global warming. Gee, I don't know, how about... YOU!
Holy cow, man. Listen one song-- any song.
Okay, Im not a "Rage" fan, so I goggled them - here's one of their songs, "Beautiful World"
It's a beautiful world we live in
A sweet romantic place
Beautiful people everywhere
The way they show they care makes me want to say
It's a beautiful world
Oh what a beautiful world
For you
It's a wonderful time to be here
It's nice to be alive
Wonderful people everywhere
The way they comb their hair makes me want to say
It's a wonderful place
Oh what a wonderful place
For you, for you, for you, for you, for you, for you, for you, not me
Canada is a Democratic Socialist nation, which isn't entirely the same thing. And Canada does have our help. But more importantly, they don't require our help in the same way Israel does. And here is why: ** Map of the Middle East showing small Israel **
What's your point here? That Israel is small? That Muslims are "evil"? Why is it America's duty to protect Israel? Why isn't it America's duty to protect any other small country in the world?
Is it because Israel happens to be the home of several sites that Fundamentalists have decided are important? The same site, by the way, that play a role in their plans for the rapture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-06-2007 1:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 111 (426318)
10-06-2007 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Hyroglyphx
10-06-2007 1:24 AM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
We'll start with just one name. Give me one name in order to keep this thread going.
Becky Fischer, director of Kids in Ministry International, as featured in the documentary Jesus Camp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-06-2007 1:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 10-06-2007 11:54 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 67 of 111 (426375)
10-06-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
10-06-2007 2:48 AM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
Becky Fischer, director of Kids in Ministry International, as featured in the documentary Jesus Camp
Hands down, one of the scariest movies EVER.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2007 2:48 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 111 (426376)
10-06-2007 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Chiroptera
10-05-2007 6:40 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
quote:
Yes, meteorologists and climatologists who actively work in that field were predicting this new ice age. Why? Because it was statistically colder than in previous decades/centuries.
Sure. And one time scholars thought the stars and planets revolved about the earth. Now they think that the earth and other planets orbit the sun.
The obvious conclusion is that no one really knows whatsoever how the planets move.
Why is it inconceivable that a similar ignorance will always exist? Why do you suppose that climatologists know it all know, just because they more than they did in the past?

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Chiroptera, posted 10-05-2007 6:40 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2007 1:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 73 by Chiroptera, posted 10-07-2007 2:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4182 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 69 of 111 (426381)
10-06-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2007 5:59 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
The government sides with Israel because its a flourishing Democracy
that's debatable.
also, why are we allies with saudi arabia, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2007 5:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 111 (426392)
10-06-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Hyroglyphx
10-06-2007 11:58 AM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
Why do you suppose that climatologists know it all know, just because they more than they did in the past?
It's not just more, it's many orders of magnitude more.
Certainly, there's more we could learn. But to say that we can't know anything until we know everything is to have a paralyzing obsession with certainty.
It's simply a double standard on your part. You're perfectly willing to support the policies you wish to be enacted on the basis of imperfect, or even nonexistent, evidence; but because you oppose the very idea of trying to get a handle on human carbon emissions, you demand absolutely perfect, infinite data - which you know is an impossibility.
You asked for the data, it's been presented. It's hard to imagine, NJ, any circumstance that could result in thousands of temperature measurements across the globe for decades being not only wrong, but all wrong in exactly the same way. Thermometer gnomes, is that it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-06-2007 11:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 111 (426548)
10-07-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
10-05-2007 11:20 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
the vast weight of evidence supports a single scientific consensus - human industry, specifically the burning of fossil fuels for energy, has drastically increased atmospheric greenhouse gases and caused a distinct warming trend.
I have just started a book, entitled, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years, which allegedly chronicles earth's climatology, compiling evidence from dendrochronology and ice core samples, etc. Additionally, they add to the mix the reasons why climatology has become a cottage industry with huge political ties. Thus far, I see that those who have ascribed to the notion of anthropogenic global warming will not like the material presented in this book. But I guess what matters is we are getting both sides of an issue.
I'll let you know when I'm done.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2007 11:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2007 1:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 111 (426552)
10-07-2007 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Hyroglyphx
10-07-2007 1:01 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
NJ, did you have a specific response to the data that I've presented?
Do you see how the sun can't be responsible for warming when its been in a decades-long period of general cooling?
I have just started a book, entitled, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years,
Ah, by Fred Singer, the guy who was paid handsomely by oil companies to conduct "research" against the scientific consensus, and then lied about it. I'm sure he's a source you can trust.
Additionally, they add to the mix the reasons why climatology has become a cottage industry with huge political ties.
Being one of the top-paid denialist guns-for-hire, he'd know, wouldn't he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-07-2007 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 111 (426561)
10-07-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Hyroglyphx
10-06-2007 11:58 AM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
Hi, Nem.
Why is it inconceivable that a similar ignorance will always exist? Why do you suppose that climatologists know it all know, just because they more than they did in the past?
I'm not saying that it is inconceivable that ignorance on a topic can exist forever. I'm speaking about your implied point that if the conclusions of the concensus of a field changes, then that is a sign that we cannot trust their conclusions.
You said:
Yes, meteorologists and climatologists who actively work in that field were predicting this new ice age. Why? Because it was statistically colder than in previous decades/centuries.
Here you are clearly implying that since the opinion of climatologists have changed, their current theories cannot be trusted. I am trying to explain that this isn't true when I say:
Sure. And one time scholars thought the stars and planets revolved about the earth. Now they think that the earth and other planets orbit the sun.
The obvious conclusion is that no one really knows whatsoever how the planets move.
The point I'm trying to make is that a change in the theory has no relevance to whether the current theory is correct. In fact, by itself it doesn't even raise suspicions that the theory might not be correct. In fact, we expect that details should change as scientists acquire more data and their understanding increases. A theory stands or falls on the evidence; just as the fact that scientists decided to change the theory of combustion by abandoning the concept of phlogiston doesn't imply that the current theory of chemical combination with oxygen is incorrect, so that increased understanding of the physics and chemistry in climatology led to a change from a prediction of an ice age doesn't imply that the current prediction of global warming is incorrect.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Removed gratuitious statement. If you saw it, Nem, then I apologize for it.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-06-2007 11:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 111 (426562)
10-07-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by petrophysics1
10-05-2007 7:27 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
Huh. Someone should make you a moderator; the current thinking among the admins is that fairness requires more moderators incapable of rational thought.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by petrophysics1, posted 10-05-2007 7:27 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Omnivorous, posted 10-08-2007 12:15 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 129 days)
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 75 of 111 (426616)
10-08-2007 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Chiroptera
10-07-2007 2:17 PM


Re: Creationists on the plunder
Chiroptera writes:
Huh. Someone should make you a moderator; the current thinking among the admins is that fairness requires more moderators incapable of rational thought.
I don't think fairness requires moderators incapable of rational thought, but I do think we need more moderator tolerance of nonrational thought. Most of the time most people operate in that mode, and there is much about intuitive, nonrational thought that is functional.
I have great confidence that refutation of the irrational can be supplied when needed. We have that resource in plenty.
Sometimes, when I listen to scientists talking to the religious, I hear American tourists shouting slow English because the locals don't understand an outside language.
You are one of the best explainers we have here. You would make an excellent moderator.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Chiroptera, posted 10-07-2007 2:17 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Chiroptera, posted 10-08-2007 5:06 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024