Science

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Damn! All that ozone repair is going to heat up the Antartic!!

http://sciencenews.org/search/seek?f...e&go_submit=go

See what happens when you reduce human environmental impact!!! You get unintended consequences!!! So saving the ozone layer is heating the Antartic separate from the whole CO2 / greenhouse gas debacle!

My, my, my! You'd think Gaia would be grateful and better behaved, huh?

Better behaved, no way. The planet is getting ready to give humanity a big old slap upside the head.

<edit beings>

Woah, hey, I should have known you were trying to fool me, but that's what I get for not reading the article you linked. The article, if you meant this one here, is about injecting sulphuric acid into the atmosphere. The problem is not that they're trying to deal with climate change, the problem is that this is a really stupid idea. The answer to climate change is not more pollution. Sheesh.
<edit ends>

As for Creationism, there's nothing wrong at all about teaching this worldview in schools. Of course, it would be extremely out of place in a science class, but Humanities/Social Studies is a great place to discuss different world views.

[GrayMouser]

Yes, it's sad but true that the wave of ignorance is growing so high that teachers have to take valuable classroom time to counter it

From the article:

A spokesman for the organisation, which counts 21 Nobel Prize winners among its Fellows, confirmed yesterday that Professor Reiss’s views did represent that of its president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the society.
He said: “Teachers need to be in a position to be able to discuss science theories and explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism isn’t.”

Which is a good idea, if a significant number of your pupils have been indoctrinated with false ideas- same as if you had to take the time to explain meteorology to pupils who believe lightning is the Wrath of Zeus.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

10 percent? That's a grossly exaggerated figure!

Probably not in Britain, if you add up the anti-science numbers of both Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists.

And of course we must teach in geology classes the idea that the shoals and reefs connecting India to Sri Lanka were built by the Monkey Army under the command of Hanuman the Monkey God, to help Lord Rama rescue Sita.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1572638.ece

I'm sure Sarah Palin and other advocates of "teach the controversy" would agree on that, yes?

[GrayMouser]

And speaking of senators who claim credit for creating new technology, John McCain claims he invented the Blackberry:

Asked what work John McCain did as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.

"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce Committee. So you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."

Al Gore, call your office.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin

And, BTW, Blackberry was invented by a Canadian company.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And, BTW, Blackberry was invented by a Canadian company.

Yeah. Well, a lot of ignorant folk 'round here see Canada as 'our farm team.'

[GrayMouser]

Good for them!:

Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/0804713.htm
The new pope seemed a bit shaky on this after JPII.

[inked]

Oh, not so unusual or demanding......

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre


Pretty original stuff!

[inked]

Across the Pond, per USA TODAY -

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/...-fai.html#more

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Across the Pond, per USA TODAY -

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/...-fai.html#more

Whether or not a scientist has religious beliefs is about as important as whether or not he knows how to yodel.

Good science makes the scientist, nothing more and nothing less.

[inked]

Same for the religious fervor about "global warming" nee "climate change", BJ?

I keep saying it's the science and not the belief system about that, too.

Nasty old ice core data and similar stuff!

Nasssty old sun cycle data, Maunder minimum, fluctuating radiation levels, carbon sequestration data, et cetera!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Same for the religious fervor about "global warming" nee "climate change", BJ?

I keep saying it's the science and not the belief system about that, too.

Nasty old ice core data and similar stuff!

Nasssty old sun cycle data, Maunder minimum, fluctuating radiation levels, carbon sequestration data, et cetera!

Sounds like you are the one "religiously" taking those claims as fact.

A good scientist knows that it is all theory.

Religious fervor is a fault of mankind, not a fault of science.

[inked]

Is that determined or chosen, BJ?

[inked]

How in the world did I miss this?

Oh, well, better late than never............

The ICE is BACK

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/glo.../19/73798.html

and

[Jonathan]

Too bad 90% of the world's glaciers are still shrinking, many at an alarming rate.

The ice may be back, but only in some places. To quote the same news website:
http://www.newsmax.com/us/growing_gl...08/110961.html

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Is that determined or chosen, BJ?

Determined.

Choice is an illusion, though a persistant one.

[inked]

Jonathan, I get the message that your link has expired. Want to re-post?

BJ,
Ask the aborted fetus if choice is an illusion.

[brownjenkins]

Humans have never been very good judges of reality, so I would not ask them.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Inked, probably you can't explain this to me, but I might get lucky.

Both the old and new testaments have signficant attention paid to sacrifice. Christ himself is supposed to be the perfect sacrifice, the gift that absolves Man of Sin. And he dies as the result of the death penalty, as it happens. I mean, it isn't enough, somehow for him to just cut his foot on a fishing float and die of a fever, although theoretically he could rise 3 days later, either way. He dies as an expression of Man's error, and in service to God's will.

And I know Universalists are kinda thin on the ground here, so I won't attempt THAT question, today.

But what makes people so sure, that if they could "ask an aborted fetus" something, that the fetus wouldn't say, "Naw, man, I'm cool with it. I volunteered for this incarnation, knowing I'd only be in utero 12 weeks, because the experience of deciding whether to keep me or not was an essential part of MaryAnn's salvation, and I wanted to help with that."

It seems to me that sometimes people are very sure of answers when they know they'll never have a chance to test the hypothesis.

(See, Earniel, it is a science post. )

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The ice may be back, but only in some places. To quote the same news website:
http://www.newsmax.com/us/growing_gl...08/110961.html

It seems the article has been removed, I can't find it on Newsmax. Google's cached snapshot of it still remains, have a look before it too disappears.

On another note Inked, I think you should be more sceptic of how Newsmax presents its facts. The articles on global warming seem very slanted.

For instance, the article "Global Warming's Kaput; 2008 Coolest in 5 years" fails to mention that the 6 previous years are amongst the 7 hottest years on record. Also, 2008 will have a stronger El Niño (with its famous cooling effect) than the previous years. Still this year is likely to qualify for the top ten list of the hottest years. Pretty important information that's been left out, if the reader is supposed to assess whether the world is getting cooler or hotter.
The article also quotes a guy who says the IPCC haven't included e.g. solar activity in their estimates. That statement can easily be rebuked by just a quick glance at the IPCC's assessment reports.

[inked]

SACA, I could answer you at length on the Theology thread, if you like. You cannot of course ask an aborted fetus anything because you have killed it for whatever reason you chose. (This is not thou/thee but the impersonal you plural, understood?) That is the point of the statement. You have irrevocably killed and cannot get a "what if". Now as to whether in the life to come such may be rendered whole and complete.......the theology thread, if you wish.

Jonathan, of course the article specified by me didn't give the other prior articles! I didn't give the subsequent ones, either. The data seem to flow alternatively between poles (pardon the pun).