Sexuality According To The World Of God

ThaG · Oct 13, 2008

where's the disagreement within the scientific community here?

see above

that was before science existed, Francis Bacon lived exactly around that time

when you have conflicting evidence, you do more experiments and eventually the mystery gets solved, that's the essence of science, and I don't see why you list it

HERESY · Oct 13, 2008

Peter H. Duesberg. That's just one of many scientists and you should know who he is.

http://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2.html

http://www.petitionproject.org/

(those who spearheaded that petition may be found here http://www.oism.org/)

It doesn't matter. The fact is things were borrowed or interpreted as people saw fit due to many reasons ranging from political climate to hostilities.

Wrong. There are trillions of things about this world we still don't know about and never will know about. We've had over 150 years to solve Bodes Law, yet there has been no true explanation.

Again, many aspects of science are open to interpretation. Isn't this how hypothesis are formed and tested?

ThaG · Oct 13, 2008

HERESY said:

how many times does it have to be repeated what is understood by "scientific consensus" and why the consensus is the default position until the evidence against it becomes OVERWHELMING

never heard of this institution

The consensus opinion is the opinion of IPCC. And, as the recent data shows, it is actually extremely conservative and absolutely false, but false in the sense of being too optimistic.

BTW:

I laughed when I saw this, whoever didn't has no place in any discussion about science

So they got 31,072 signatures of "scientists", and they felt it was necessary to say how many of them are PhDs??? Give me a break. I wonder how many of the 9,021 have anything to do with atmospheric science. Because you can do a PhD in math, or engineering and these do not even classify as science...

It does matter because you can't blame science for something that was not done by people practicing science and not only that, it was done before science existed. And if anything, it was the people who we would call scientists today versus the people who we wouldn't, and in fact, that's one of the episodes that helped define science and its method

Lack of explanation does not mean the non-existence of such

Hypothesis are formulated and tested, that's the key thing. Compare this to interpretations that are preached as dogma

m.w.merlino · Oct 14, 2008

HERESY said:

The big difference is that the bible, in many parts, contains a heavily figurative language that is some times poetic.

Scientists don't always agree on things but the language they use to pose ideas is exact and concrete. And the disagreements in the scientific community challenge science in a constructive way where in religion, disagreements divide people and do not lead to new or better understood information. The christian religion alone has over 3000 different sects for this reason.

You're proposing that scientists are in disagreement as to what things are but that is not true. Scientists are in complete agreement as to what the virus known as HIV/AIDS is and are in agreement as to its affect on humans but their disagreement is in where it came from. Where it came from is up to interpretation. The same could be said about Global Warming -- that its existence and affect are known but its origins and implications are up to interpretation.

You say that "many aspects of science" have different interpretations but that is not true because the body of evidence in science is measurable and the end result of data is written in a way that disallows misinterpretation.

The bible is supposed to be the "word of God" and postures itself as law. It's body of evidence--the experience and knowledge of its authors--cannot be measured and what is left is a large body of words written in flowery and some times vague language.

HERESY · Oct 14, 2008

@Kryptic I'll answer you when I get back home.

@ThaG

We are not talking about the consensus here. You asked where was the disagreement and I provided you with a disagreement and cited a source that disagrees. When it comes to many things, scientist are not unanimous, but let us go back to the word consensus for a bit since your premise tends to hang on this word.

Does the "christian consensus" hold the same position as the writer of the article? A yes or no will suffice. I don't need a long drawn out explanation, I don't need any insults, I don't need anything from you except for a yes or no.

So? Does the fact that you haven't heard of it detract from the fact that they exist and don't agree with the what some scientist say about global warming?

No need to use fallacies here.

Their names are listed on the site. Qualifications for signing are found here:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

Since you mentioned Atmospheric science here you go,

Again, things were borrowed, interpreted and built upon. Who would be called scientist or not is of no concern to me.

And someone can use that very argument to say God does exist or that supernatural events occur.

The thing is a lot of hypothesis have been preached as dogma until they were proven wrong. Again, many aspects of science are open to interpretation.

HERESY · Oct 14, 2008

No denying this. In addition, parts that are purely literal have often been interpreted as figurative.

The scientific method, when followed precisely, is a concrete system that will yield specific results. However, these results are still open to interpretation depending on what agenda a person has or if someone has contradictory results.

We aren't talking about moral obligations here. What we're simply talking about is the fact that the scientific community is often in disagreement within itself, just like christianity, islam, or any other religion on the planet. And the same way religion has divided people, different aspects of science and specific scientists have done the same thing. This is why you have proponents of eugenics. The same way people have killed in the name of religion, science has done with experiments like the Tuskegee Syphlis Experiment.

No, this is not true. Scientists are not in "complete agreement as to what the virus known as HIV/AIDS is". Please, go back and read the CONCLUSION in the first link I provided. In addition, there is also a disagreement concerning treatment and if some medicines/treatments are more effective than others.

No, some scientists believe global warming doesn't even exist. And no I'm not claiming this is the general consensus. However, thanks for telling me the origins and implications are up for interpretation as you've helped me prove my position. Thanks.

Incorrect. Factor in human error and/or human agenda and any number/stat or result/conclusion can be skewed and left for debate. Why is it that science builds on the works of others who previously got it WRONG?

And many things in science can't be measured yet they are passed off as fact. The fact remains that just like the bible, many aspects of science are open for debate and left open for debate due to fallible humans.

ThaG · Oct 14, 2008

HERESY said:

No, we are talking about the consensus because what some radical opinions unsupported by evidence and shared by few people, often with little credentials to their name, do not classify as "disagreement within the scientific community", as many people outside of it would wish

Of course, the "Christian consensus" is different. The problem with the "Christian consensus" is that it is a dogma, totally unsupported by anything.

It means a lot, because whether I have heard of it or not reflects the degree to which this institution has contributed to the advancement of science, which is typically equivalent to the degree to which it can be trusted. There is a big difference between people at MIT or NASA and people in Oklahoma State (no disrespect to Oklahoma State, but it is the usual subject of such jokes within the scientific community at more prestigious places; even it is more respectable than what you showed me though)

As I already said, the qualifications are not only insufficient, they are laughable. If you think people in math, EECS, or medicine have anything relevant to say about atmospheric science, I suggest that we arrange a meeting and I will give you a brain surgery. How about that? With my qualifications as a molecular biologist who also happens to have studied fair amount of human anatomy, I have a lot more expertise on brain surgeries than most of the people on this list have on climate studies.

578/31,072 = 1.8%

And these are non-PhDs + PhDs

And what do Astronomy and Astrophysics have to do with Atmospheric science???

The only "relevant" people on this list are the climatologists and they are only 40, and I am ready to bet that most if not all of them just happen to have some degree (maybe even PhD) from No-Name University X rather than actual credentials

Is it so hard to understand that when all there was were theologians versus natural philosophers, the latter still heavily under Aristotle's poisonous influence, there was no real science and you can't use what happened back then as an argument against science???????

ThaG · Oct 14, 2008

Just so people can laugh some more at your list I will quote this:

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

HERESY · Oct 14, 2008

No, we aren't talking about consensus that's something you threw in afterwards. What you're doing is utilizing the appeal to belief, biased sample, genetic, bad company, hasty, and well poisoning fallacies.

So if the consensus is different what is the purpose of this thread? To inform the board that people interpret the bible anyway they want? Good job, you've done something that myself and others have said thousands of times, only you posted something sexual.

When did you become the spokesman for science institutions across the world? If we were to apply your logic, people here can say I've never worked on a record because I NEVER put my name in the linear notes. However, does that mean I don't get paid from the records, don't go in and offer tech supports to studios and don't involve myself with music? Of course not.

So, what creditentials do you have to suggest that because you may or may not have heard of them, that they are faulty? The links are posted, if you want to research them you have their names. I couldn't care less as my sole reason for providing it was to show you that not all scientists agree with it. I take NO RESPONSIBILITY for the information contained in those links, and have verified nothing except that they claim they are scientist, that they have a petition and that they don't endorse global warming. Anything others than that should be conducted by yourself or anyone who doesn't agree with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Have a field day with that. Now, what I want you to do is give us some information to show that all scientists agree with global warming, the causes of it, how the data is interpreted, etc.

ThaG, can you post your qualifications so the members of the board can verify your school? Can you link us to any writings you may have had published? Thanks in advance for doing it.

In regards to math, yes it is needed for atmospheric science. Even a basic astronomy class will teach you this and have you calculating light frequency Newtons 3rd law, distances and diameters atmospheric content percentages and a host of other things that are math related. Again, this is shit in a BASIC astronomy class, so if you believe climate studies don't involve mathmatics (and no I'm not talking 2 + 2) you need the brain surgery. Concerning the EECS of course you would need them. Who else would make the equipment used to test what is actually going on with the planet? Zombies? My praying mantis? Who is going to control the satellites or can tell when they aren't functioning properly? You? Let's not forget that EECS courses are actually prereqs for some of the atmospheric science courses not to mention that math is required for damn near 99% of them. Concerning medicine, do you know who looked into the shit when the ozone layer had major holes in it and people and animals were treated for cancer?

What I need you to do is show the board how that branch of science survives and functions without the studies you listed.

This doesn't matter. I never made the claim that most scientist disagree. My claim is that there is a disagreement, no matter how miniscule you might think it is, amongst the scientific community and that the same thing you said about the bible can be applied to science. Nothing more nothing less. As long as ONE person of the scientific community disagrees, you have a disagreement. You can spin it to "general consensus" but the numbers are of no concern to me because there is no "general consesnus" number you or anyone else has provided.

What does astronomy and astrophysics have to to with atmospheric science? You wouldn't even have atmospheric science if it weren't for astronomy. Do you not realize that some say global warming is caused by the tilt of our axis? You do know this is astronomy right? You do know that some scientist believe global warming is solar induced right?

Concerning astrophysics here you go:

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360

And since prestige is your thing heres a guy from Cambridge.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/ (and no I'm NOT saying he agrees or disagrees with global warming. What I'm saying is that his expertise in his field IS being considered and relevant to the problem.)

I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about the present.

Why would you laugh at that? Global warming has an impact on all the studies you quoted. Please, can you show us how each of them have no importance when it comes to global warming and why atmospheric scientists should be the only ones to study it?

ThaG · Oct 14, 2008

Sigh.

A deep breath.

An answer:

This applies to all the categories: very few of these even have a PhD, most of those who have it, aren't professors. If you were at least a little bit familiar with how science is done, you would know why only the opinion of people who have published a lot and who have successfully lead an independent research program of their own truly matters.

On topic: It should be fairly obvious why somebody who works on the structure of the Earth's core isn't qualified to talk about AGW, despite the fact that he works "works on the same thing". Still, I will try to explain:

Science is a large unified body of concepts that are ultimately all connected to each other. In the same time, though, it is extremely fragmented and everybody works on something very special, within a larger, yet still very specialized area, within yet another subarea, and so on, and so on. This is necessary because the volume of information has become so huge, that it is impossible to handle all the knowledge even in any given subarea. Even worse, a lot of people come into science with very little breadth in their knowledge and they end up working on something very specialized and not knowing shit about anything outside of it.

For example, I am a biologist, and I claim that I understand a lot more about biology in general, with all its branches than many other people who study biology, because I have consciously made the effort not fall in the specialization trap. Yet, I am a molecular biologist and not an organismic or evolutionary one, who works in the emerging subarea of cellular and molecular biology called regulatory biology, who in the same time focuses on transcription and transcription factors, but I don't work on all the thousands of transcription factors in the body. Rather I work on only some of them.

If a biologist who has never worked on transcription comes to me, I will be the expert and he will trust what I tell him. In the same time, if I meet somebody who works on problems in transcription that I do not work on, he will know a lot more than me about them. That's how it works.

In the same time, I use a lot of tools to do my work, which in these days is increasingly computationally intensive. I use a lot of sophisticated statistics, programming and powerful computation tools. Does this make me an expert on math (or even statistics) or informatics? Not at all, and I could never be the person telling the experts in these areas what and how they should do, because I am using their tools, but they know a lot more about them than I do. Similarly they will never be able to understand what I do, because despite the fact that I use their tools, they have no clue about the nature of the problems I am studying using these tools. They would have to actually spend years studying the background of the problems in order to understand them.

I hope this makes it clear.

That's why it is total nonsense to cite the opinion of computer scientists and mathematicians who know absolutely nothing about the climate as credible, just because climatologists use sophisticated software programs that model the climate using differential equations. And it's an even bigger nonsense to cite the opinion of biologists and doctors (most of latter aren't even scientists but let's not open the can of worms).

HERESY · Oct 15, 2008

So where does that leave your opinion?

It isn't fairly obvious and they are qualified to talk about it.

So if they are ultimately all connected to each other why are you saying one area of expertise should be disregarded?

No one here can verify your claims of being a scientist. No published works, no links to your school, no transcripts, no pictures of your degree's--nothing. Yes, I understand that within one area of study there may be smaller, more extensive or specific areas, but you've simply disregarded all of that by generalizing and making statements that diminish entire areas of science. Not to mention, these areas of science all contribute to the knowledge of gw that we have so far.

This is filler and has nothing to do with what is being typed by myself. What I'm ultimately saying is all those areas of science work together as a cohesive unit to research, document and explain global warming. You're ultimately saying no one has a say so except for those in atmospheric science. This is false and you know it.

Again, I'm ultimately saying all those areas of science work together as a cohesive unit to research, document and explain global warming. You're ultimately saying no one has a say so except for those in atmospheric science. You asked about those in astrophysics and what they have to do with science and I provided the info. If you don't agree with the guy from Cambridge or the woman from Harvard (both who hold PhD's in astrophysics and contribute to the research of global warming) take it up with them, or go to the next big global warming conference and explain your findings and how these people have no place in saying anything about global warming because they are astrophysics.

No, what you're saying is total nonsense. At first you were saying, "what do Astronomy and Astrophysics have to do with Atmospheric science???", but when provided with info from credible people in those fields who actually PUBLISHED works and speak at conferences you say nothing. Now I can provide the same type of information from those in each fields you listed, but what will it prove? You'll still think that science is reserved for the elite or that one field should only address issues related to that field.

In closing, I'll repeat the same question I've asked before: Please, can you show us how each of them have no importance when it comes to global warming and why atmospheric scientists should be the only ones to study it?

Thanks in advance ThaG.

ThaG · Oct 15, 2008

I already showed you and that you don't understand it speaks a lot about your ability /willingness to read and understand what is being said to you

HERESY · Oct 15, 2008

ThaG said:

I'm sorry, but you haven't shown anything. Yes, I understand that within one area of study there may be smaller, more extensive or specific areas, but you've simply disregarded all of that by generalizing and making statements that diminish entire areas of science. Not to mention, these areas of science all contribute to the knowledge of gw that we have so far.

I have a couple of links to mathmaticians, doctors (from the medical field) and computer scientists from prestigious schools. I already posted the links to the astrophysicists and dropped a bit of info about how astronomy is relevant.

Now if I decide to post this info what will you do with it? Dance around it like you did the last two links?

Yeah, it seems we've come to a halt. Thanks for the exchange. I'm done.

ThaG · Oct 15, 2008

Damn, is it so hard to understand that unless you have studied the chemistry and physics of the processes, you have looked at the data from ice cores and meteorological stations all over the world, and you have actually constructed and run the models, and done many other things that I probably don't even know about, you are not qualified to speak about AGW????

The fact that you have expertise on physics, chemistry, math or CS does not mean that you have done any of the above mentioned.

It is a simple concept that a 4-year old should be able to understand

HERESY · Oct 15, 2008

Yeah, it seems we've come to a halt. Thanks for the exchange. I'm done.

m.w.merlino · Oct 15, 2008

@Heresy -- Thanks for the response. I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say. I agree with you that some things in Science are left up to debate. But when done correctly, with an irrefutable body of evidence, the scientific process yields a sturdy and concrete argument. Of course things in Science (or any field) will have room for re-interpretation. Except that with biblical texts and religions, a different interpretation will only weaken what information is put forth where re-interpretation in Science begs for a more cohesive and provable model.

This is why you have scientists from different fields adding to the information we have for GW--because whether the different scientists agree or disagree about somethings existence it only brings the reality of what they are all trying to prove to the surface for the truth to be shown.

rekomstop · Oct 16, 2008

i'm glad my fiance can perform cunnilingus on me, and its ok according to the big G up there, lol.

Tha Sinner · Sep 14, 2009

this shit is hilarious, IMO.

Fucky McFuckerson · Sep 16, 2009

I go to school for psychology and therefore, am the spokesman for all psychologists. I thought you knew. BTW, i dont need no published works, foo...

2-0-Sixx · Sep 16, 2009

I'm happy to hear god is ok with "the other pussy"

Sexuality According To The World Of God

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG