It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

page: 5
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Stephen hawkings who recently said he is aetheist. Thinks everything can be explained with science.

Does science explain everything

Theres a few example i think of science can explain it all.


Again, what is an aetheist?

Also your website is a Christian apologist website that takes peoples' quotes out of context. I want an ACTUAL scientist quoted saying, "Science explains everything". Not "Science may be able to explain everything". Please don't post Christian apologist websites. They are going to push the same stupid strawmen that you are trying to push now (surprise surprise...)

Edit: Damn. I started actually reading that source. The logic and rationale it uses to make its points are so logically BAD that it is hilarious. Heck, I'm going to post an excerpt below as a FINE example of what the OP is talking about:

Needless to say, there are a number of difficulties with such views, some of which are described in other articles in this collection. To begin with, these authors insist that religion be treated as a scientific hypothesis, to be tested by empirical methods and rejected if found wanting. But the overwhelming majority of science-religion philosophers disagree with this premise. As Catholic philosopher John Haught observes, "thinking of God as a hypothesis reduces the infinite divine mystery to a finite scientific cause, and to worship anything finite is idolatrous" [Haught2008, pg. 43]. Anglican philosopher Keith Ward notes that "the question of God is certainly a factual one, but certainly not a scientific one." Instead, "t lies at the very deep level of ultimate metaphysical options" [Ward2008, pg. 30].

edit on 13-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

Yes science does try to predict the future using past events, but science also knows that it may not be aware of all the variables that should go into the prediction. So naturally unexpected things happen. The weather is a good example. Though keep in mind, like I told the other poster, the weather is guessed correctly more times than not. We just remember the wrong guesses more than the correct ones.

Stop pretending that science's models are perfect. They aren't and science doesn't claim they are. That's why they want to continue researching, so they can further refine the models and make more accurate predictions.


Since the models are not perfect we should not toss all our eggs in one basket then right? 97 percent of scientist claim th emodels good enough for them and its settled. they already reached their conclusion so they dont need anymore government funding. If they want more funding go corporate not take money from me and my familys taxes.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Stephen hawkings who recently said he is aetheist. Thinks everything can be explained with science.

Does science explain everything

Theres a few example i think of science can explain it all.


Again, what is an aetheist?

Also your website is a Christian apologist website that takes peoples' quotes out of context. I want an ACTUAL scientist quoted saying, "Science explains everything". Not "Science may be able to explain everything". Please don't post Christian apologist websites. They are going to push the same stupid strawmen that you are trying to push now (surprise surprise...)

Edit: Damn. I started actually reading that source. The logic and rationale it uses to make its points are so logically BAD that it is hilarious. Heck, I'm going to post an excerpt below as a FINE example of what the OP is talking about:

Needless to say, there are a number of difficulties with such views, some of which are described in other articles in this collection. To begin with, these authors insist that religion be treated as a scientific hypothesis, to be tested by empirical methods and rejected if found wanting. But the overwhelming majority of science-religion philosophers disagree with this premise. As Catholic philosopher John Haught observes, "thinking of God as a hypothesis reduces the infinite divine mystery to a finite scientific cause, and to worship anything finite is idolatrous" [Haught2008, pg. 43]. Anglican philosopher Keith Ward notes that "the question of God is certainly a factual one, but certainly not a scientific one." Instead, "t lies at the very deep level of ultimate metaphysical options" [Ward2008, pg. 30].


You know good and well that EXACT phrase dont exist but there are other statements that can be read as that. Here is a link to WHere i got the steven hawkings thoughts i summarized.

c net(scientific enough for you?) stephen hawkings
edit on 15upppm by yuppa because: link screwed up



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Since the models are not perfect we should not toss all our eggs in one basket then right? 97 percent of scientist claim th emodels good enough for them and its settled. they already reached their conclusion so they dont need anymore government funding. If they want more funding go corporate not take money from me and my familys taxes.


The only people putting all their eggs in one basket are the denialists who want to continue down our path of destruction willy-nilly without stopping to consider that maybe they may be causing irreparable damage to the planet's ecosystem. THAT is putting all your eggs in one basket.

Also, 97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is real not that the models are good enough and the science is settled.

Ugh... How did I get duped into discussing climate change anyways? This thread wasn't about climate change. It was about idiotic people denying science for no reason.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Was going to do the whole quote thing, but then I did something wrong and screwed it up..



Honestly, at this point, I'm only hoping that the climate research we are doing improves our forecasting abilities. Whether it proves out AGW or not, I would simply consider a bonus. While I realize the numbers sound huge and ominous, they really seem to be (to my understanding, and with the research I've done at least) simply insignificant compared to the system as a whole. I know you feel I'm wrong, but I feel the earth would be basically doing the exact same thing wrt carbon whether we were here or not. That's the only conclusion I keep coming to!

I feel I should point out that we've already funded the research to a level higher than the GDP of some countries (not necessarily annually, but I hope you understand what I mean). Not that we should stop, but the funding levels are already there and I think possibly too high wrt other issues we face on the planet.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Stephen hawkings who recently said he is aetheist. Thinks everything can be explained with science.

Does science explain everything

Theres a few example i think of science can explain it all.


Again, what is an aetheist?

Also your website is a Christian apologist website that takes peoples' quotes out of context. I want an ACTUAL scientist quoted saying, "Science explains everything". Not "Science may be able to explain everything". Please don't post Christian apologist websites. They are going to push the same stupid strawmen that you are trying to push now (surprise surprise...)

Edit: Damn. I started actually reading that source. The logic and rationale it uses to make its points are so logically BAD that it is hilarious. Heck, I'm going to post an excerpt below as a FINE example of what the OP is talking about:

Needless to say, there are a number of difficulties with such views, some of which are described in other articles in this collection. To begin with, these authors insist that religion be treated as a scientific hypothesis, to be tested by empirical methods and rejected if found wanting. But the overwhelming majority of science-religion philosophers disagree with this premise. As Catholic philosopher John Haught observes, "thinking of God as a hypothesis reduces the infinite divine mystery to a finite scientific cause, and to worship anything finite is idolatrous" [Haught2008, pg. 43]. Anglican philosopher Keith Ward notes that "the question of God is certainly a factual one, but certainly not a scientific one." Instead, "t lies at the very deep level of ultimate metaphysical options" [Ward2008, pg. 30].


You know good and well that EXACT phrase dont exist but there are other statements that can be read as that. Here is a link to WHere i got the steven hawkings thoughts i summarized.

c net(scientific enough for you?) stephen hawkings


Damn right I know that, because it was a ridiculous assertion you made originally. Stephen Hawking is saying what I'm saying that science may be able to explain everything eventually. He isn't saying that it currently does though.
edit on 13-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Look i WANT cleaner techs to come about. id love and I mean name my first child after the first person to bring out the fusion reactor in dev at Locheed. I just dont trust the people in charge period.

A true scientist would do it for the betterment of mankind not a paycheck.MAke scientist liek preachers and give them support to do their work and not be driven by money.

Krazy but he says it eventually will THAT is the arrogance im talking about. (added sentence bout hawkings)
edit on 15000000pppm by yuppa because: added instead of new post



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: gspat

I will say that I agree that climate science DOES get a bit more attention than other environment impacting sciences and I'd like to see a bit more research done into how other things that we are doing are effecting the environment, because man-made climate change isn't the only problem we are causing with the ecosystem.

To me though, climate change isn't about doom. Humans are going to survive through whatever we end up doing to the environment. That's not the issue. What IS the issue is this.


There is evidence that abrupt climate change has especially played an enormous role in the extinction of larger mammals



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Look i WANT cleaner techs to come about. id love and I mean name my first child after the first person to bring out the fusion reactor in dev at Locheed. I just dont trust the people in charge period.


Then support things like legalizing hemp manufacturing.


A true scientist would do it for the betterment of mankind not a paycheck.MAke scientist liek preachers and give them support to do their work and not be driven by money.


Why? Scientists need to eat too. They deserve compensation for their work. Last I checked, there are preachers living WAY better lives thanks to tithes from parishioners than scientists making a paycheck for researching climate change.


Krazy but he says it eventually will THAT is the arrogance im talking about. (added sentence bout hawkings)


So what? Are scientists not allowed to be arrogant or something?



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Look i WANT cleaner techs to come about. id love and I mean name my first child after the first person to bring out the fusion reactor in dev at Locheed. I just dont trust the people in charge period.


Then support things like legalizing hemp manufacturing.


A true scientist would do it for the betterment of mankind not a paycheck.MAke scientist liek preachers and give them support to do their work and not be driven by money.


Why? Scientists need to eat too. They deserve compensation for their work. Last I checked, there are preachers living WAY better lives thanks to tithes from parishioners than scientists making a paycheck for researching climate change.


Krazy but he says it eventually will THAT is the arrogance im talking about. (added sentence bout hawkings)


So what? Are scientists not allowed to be arrogant or something?


Krazy i fully support legalization of hemp and all herb products. i also support legalizing all the drugs people want to do as long as it is regulated.(loosely)

Yeah scientist deserve compensation but not government given from our taxes. fund them with tax on corporations not the normal americans. At least give them room and board and a small entertainment budget as long as they are researching so they dont really have to worry about anything but their work.

Scientist can be arrogant...up until it makes them commit a serious mistake. A scientist who is too arrogant will bring disaster onto himself or others eventually.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa


A true scientist would do it for the betterment of mankind not a paycheck.MAke scientist liek preachers and give them support to do their work and not be driven by money.



How much do you think scientist's working in a University setting make? What do you do for a living? Perhaps you should take your own advise.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: yuppa


A true scientist would do it for the betterment of mankind not a paycheck.MAke scientist liek preachers and give them support to do their work and not be driven by money.



How much do you think scientist's working in a University setting make? What do you do for a living? Perhaps you should take your own advise.


LOL!! i make less than a scientist at university. I dont make a living. im applying for disability. remember what ASSuming makes me and you both right?



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Krazy i fully support legalization of hemp and all herb products. i also support legalizing all the drugs people want to do as long as it is regulated.(loosely)


Good, because hemp oil could be used in place of crude oil and it is WAY more environmentally friendly (it's production even goes towards REDUCING carbon in the atmosphere instead of adding to it).


Yeah scientist deserve compensation but not government given from our taxes. fund them with tax on corporations not the normal americans. At least give them room and board and a small entertainment budget as long as they are researching so they dont really have to worry about anything but their work.


Why not? You don't agree with what NASA is doing? You know there is more government funded science than just climate science right?


Scientist can be arrogant...up until it makes them commit a serious mistake. A scientist who is too arrogant will bring disaster onto himself or others eventually.


That is what the peer review process is for. No scientist claims to be perfect, and if one does he's an narcissistic idiot.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -Neil DeGrasse Tyson


No.

The process we use to learn about the universe around us is science. That process is one that is often flawed because we don't understand all of what goes on around us in the universe, and we make mistakes. We are only human. The universe doesn't care. It does what it does regardless of our attempts to understand it.

Tyson's quote is an attempt to put himself on a pedestal he simply does not deserve to be on.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: yuppa

There are two different B 2s which one of them do you believe applies?

Number 3 is ": something that is believed especially with strong conviction".


I think you know which one,but its B2(2)

And 3 apparently 97 percent of scientist(if this was a voting poll id say it is a lie btw) strongly believe in the theory and say its settled.


Strong belief by itself isn't a definition of faith.



Anytime science claims something is settled it is suspicious because they declare it fact by not trying to disprove it even if they dont say specifically its a fact.


If they didn't try to disprove it then you would be correct however, every scientific theory must be falsifiable, in other words they have to try and disprove it for it to become a theory.



On to your chosen deffinitions. Hopefully, I am getting this correct.

You are saying that these are your chosen definitions of faith.



(2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
— on faith
: without question


If you have complete trust that those definitions are correct and apply I will show why you are wrong.

You wrote:


just the FAITH arrogant scientist have in it having all answers.


No scientist that I know of has ever stated they have all the answers to anything. One of your definitions is " complete trust". If someone has complete trust they have no reason to question yet all sciences are questioned all scientific theories have to be falsifiable and tested so that would exclude the definition of "complete trust".

It is true that there is strong conviction for many scientific theories however, the qualifier for that definition to apply includes "without question". I challenge you to name a science or scientific theory that is without question.

Any aspect of science that is tested is being questioned and would be evidence of doubt, therefore neither of your chosen definitions of faith can apply.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
not denying scence just the FAITH arrogant scientist have in it having all answers. humans are falliable. dont scientist go off on religious people for a book written by a man? so its hypocritical to not do so at theories written by other men. you have faith in the results right? why they could be ultimately wrong.


Who are these faith arrogant scientists you refer to? I've never heard a scientist claim they (or science) have all the answers. Humans are fallible yes, including the ones that wrote the bible and the ones that attack science. Science is based on experiments and results, not just a bunch of guys writing a story and proclaiming it as truth. It doesn't come close to being faith based. This is the lie that creationists constantly put forth. It holds no merit. Science is testable, verifiable and falsifiable. You don't need to have faith to see the results of an experiment and agree that it's true after being tested.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: theMediator
- Who payed for the research
- What was the hypothesis
- Who gains from the results at hand
- What answers did the other researches in the same field come to
- As the scientist been proven a liar and by who


Too bad the scientific method has nothing to do with any of that and neither do the experiments that anybody with the means can duplicate.


I see constant attacks from the media to bash critical thinkers claiming they are anti-science and anti-progress but I will not fall for it.


You think denial of science is critical thinking??? LMAO! Anybody can deny or dismiss anything. That doesn't make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean you are thinking critically. Now if those said folks would actually READ the science, look through the research papers, or actually explain what the problem is with the evidence and why it is so, then you could say they might be thinking critically. Blindly going against the grain is not critical thinking, it's the opposite.


I have my own mind, my own opinions and since I know that the world runs on money, profit, deceit, wars and power I have every rights to not believe whatever "fact" they shove down our throats.


That's why you read the scientific research papers. You should never blindly believe anything just because somebody says so. You should do your due diligence and research what you are trying to attack. The problem is that the attackers are almost always creationists that believe out of pure faith, so they naturally project that mentality onto other things they don't understand like science and how research is done.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx


here is what I believe based on the science
1...burning fossil fuel needs oxygen, and emits carbon dioxide
2...plantlife have a limited carbon dioxide intake, (they can only use so much)
3...defoliation through desertification and man-made destruction, is limiting carbon-dioxide consumption by plantlife
4...humans need oxygen, and emit carbon dioxide
5...humans need to cut back on burning fossil fuels and defoliation

if this is wrong, I have not seen it disputed by a reliable source.


This sums up a lot of the climate change debate. There are always those who will say CO2 is plant food(and found in nature) therefore more CO2 is a good thing. Those who preach this little jingle also seem to ignore #3 on your list.

It is interesting how the human induced climate change deniers instantly jump on this thread and 'hate' on the article. I suppose the satirical article hit a little close to home to some.

I have also noted how the ones who disregard scientific research(or claim the results of research is dependent on the highest bidder) have what appears to be little if any understanding how the scientific process works.
edit on 13-5-2015 by jrod because: b



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: LeatherNLace

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -Neil DeGrasse Tyson


No.

The process we use to learn about the universe around us is science. That process is one that is often flawed because we don't understand all of what goes on around us in the universe, and we make mistakes. We are only human. The universe doesn't care. It does what it does regardless of our attempts to understand it.

Tyson's quote is an attempt to put himself on a pedestal he simply does not deserve to be on.


The process is not flawed, just because we don't know everything. Science gets us closer to those answers than anything else. Sure, we don't know everything there is to know, but one day we might. Nobody's suggesting it is perfect, just that the scientific method is sound and isn't just made up willy nilly based on faith. Tyson's quote is a fact. Science works, whether folks believe it or not. No faith required. It's a results based field of study.
edit on 13-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
@grim,Barqs. read my exchange with Krazy. i answert those questions in th e series of replies to him.

@krazy They can also make tobacco into diesel too now. we have so many alternatives now its not even funny.

I think i see your point about funding being necessary,but ti be nice if they let us opt out of paying for it under certain conditions.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join