controversial new Bible translation
-
Therefore, we can draw a few conclusions:
A. mmgw is not a valid collection of all data that is pertinent. Some of it has been ignored in the
race to say we have to act dramatically on a "crisis".
B. Liberals love to refer, bassackwardsly, to mmgw as a "law". But as we keep saying, it
is a THEORY - a hypothesis that has facts to back it up. However, there is concern
that there are facts that also do NOT back it up. There you have controvsery, even within
the scientific community.
C. mmgw is no absolute truth. Liberals WANT it to be, and DEMAND that it be accepted as such,
but the truth is, when you use mmgw as an abolute truth.."law", then you have to change that
when you see that CO2 levels have been rising over ten years that the temp has not been climbing.
D. So, liberals change definitions of words to try to justify their emotional nonsense. They use "theory"
as "hypothesis",,,,, and then they use mmgw as a "law". But it has been proven to not be always true.
So, just once, the Chrises and and woodpeckerheads can drop the act. It is only a theory, which means
it is NOT A FREAKING LAW, as in "ABSOLUTE TRUTH".
-
E. So, clearly, when something is a theory in the scientific method, it
is clearly NOT a FACT, or "LAW". And, it is NOT the end of the scientific method.
It has facts to justify it, but the question is, what about the evidence that
it is not true?
What about the "enough evidence" part? There has been concocted evidence, mistaken
evidence, and ignored evidence.
That is the scientific method Chris and woodypeckerhead want to go with? really?
And we are suppose to dramatically give liberals the power to tax and fee and rule because of it?
Not buyin it at all.
-
E. So, clearly, when something is a theory in the scientific method, it
is clearly NOT a FACT, or "LAW". And, it is NOT the end of the scientific method.
It has facts to justify it, but the question is, what about the evidence that
it is not true?
What about the "enough evidence" part? There has been concocted evidence, mistaken
evidence, and ignored evidence.
That is the scientific method Chris and woodypeckerhead want to go with? really?
And we are suppose to dramatically give liberals the power to tax and fee and rule because of it?
Not buyin it at all.
E. So, clearly, when something is a theory in the scientific method, it
is clearly NOT a FACT, or "LAW". And, it is NOT the end of the scientific method.
It has facts to justify it, but the question is, what about the evidence that
it is not true?
What about the "enough evidence" part? There has been concocted evidence, mistaken
evidence, and ignored evidence.
That is the scientific method Chris and woodypeckerhead want to go with? really?
And we are suppose to dramatically give liberals the power to tax and fee and rule because of it?
Not buyin it at all.
Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method?
-
Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method Sad
**********************************************************
Never said I had any alternative to the scientific method. I'm saying that the
scientific method does not end with the observation about selected facts, as is
the case with mmgw.
So, how can the observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is directly causing mmgw?
When CO2 has been climbing, and the global temp hasn't for over ten years?
Where is the justification for dramatic ACTION, sacrifices, and UN admitted global redistribution of wealth...
when all it is ...is a freakin THEORY? Sure, not a hypothesis, but NOT a law.
Chris and woody and others, and those in the political arena, and the UN, keep demanding
that it be acceptance as being a LAW, which it most certainly is not.
The mmgw theory hasn't been proven to be a law, and there is conflicting evidence to prove
that the mmgw observation has serious flaws.
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
-
Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method Sad
**********************************************************
Never said I had any alternative to the scientific method. I'm saying that the
scientific method does not end with the observation about selected facts, as is
the case with mmgw.
So, how can the observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is directly causing mmgw?
When CO2 has been climbing, and the global temp hasn't for over ten years?
Where is the justification for dramatic ACTION, sacrifices, and UN admitted global redistribution of wealth...
when all it is ...is a freakin THEORY? Sure, not a hypothesis, but NOT a law.
Chris and woody and others, and those in the political arena, and the UN, keep demanding
that it be acceptance as being a LAW, which it most certainly is not.
The mmgw theory hasn't been proven to be a law, and there is conflicting evidence to prove
that the mmgw observation has serious flaws.
Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method Sad
**********************************************************
Never said I had any alternative to the scientific method. I'm saying that the
scientific method does not end with the observation about selected facts, as is
the case with mmgw.
So, how can the observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is directly causing mmgw?
When CO2 has been climbing, and the global temp hasn't for over ten years?
Wait what? The Global Temps are currently the highest in history and we have not had a below average year in decades......You or a scientist could argue the level of effect that one aspect has on the the rise in temperatures(such as man made vs natural) but temps are on the raise.
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Who decides which creationism myth should be taught?
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
So you are saying there is equal evidence for creationism as there is for evolution?
-
Why am I even asking? You believe that a guy lived a whale.
-
Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method Sad
**********************************************************
Never said I had any alternative to the scientific method. I'm saying that the
scientific method does not end with the observation about selected facts, as is
the case with mmgw.
So, how can the observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is directly causing mmgw?
When CO2 has been climbing, and the global temp hasn't for over ten years?
Wait what? The Global Temps are currently the highest in history and we have not had a below average year in decades......You or a scientist could argue the level of effect that one aspect has on the the rise in temperatures(such as man made vs natural) but temps are on the raise.
Wait what? The Global Temps are currently the highest in history and we have not had a below average year in decades......You or a scientist could argue the level of effect that one aspect has on the the rise in temperatures(such as man made vs natural) but temps are on the raise.
Prepare for Cal to argue in circles, quoting clearly biased websites as a source for his argument.
-
Obama's climate change hypocrisy highlights lack of faith
"Heading down to DC to catch an #EarthDay flight on Air Force One tomorrow with the President," popular scientist Bill Nye tweeted out ahead of yesterday's Earth Day celebration. "We're going to #ActOnClimate."
Indeed, Nye and President Obama "acted on" the climate on their 1,836-mile round-trip flight to the Everglades. They emitted five times as much carbon in one day as the average American emits over the course of a year.
No, Nye's and Obama's climate hypocrisy does not falsify any scientific theory about global climate change. But it does highlight a lack of faith among those who would demand sacrifices from their fellow man to avert the supposed disaster they predict. That same lack of faith is evident in anyone connected to the electrical grid and using a computer to read these very words.
Most Americans agree that human activity has contributed to an increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and that this has caused some increase in global temperatures. This is the reality to which the oft-cited scientific consensus applies. There is far less consensus as to what and how bad the effects of this warming will be.
Hence the failure of every climate model to track the rise in temperatures and their current pause. Hence the almost-daily crackpot amateur theories about every weather event being caused by global warming — including snow, cold, and the recent record-high levels of Antarctic sea ice.
In the meantime, Americans are told to fear for the world's future, even as every manner of airhead celebrity gallivants across the country in a carbon-guzzling private jet to decry the dangers of global warming. Even so, no one is proposing or indeed can propose a carbon-reduction policy that avoids environmental catastrophe without causing a far greater greater economic catastrophe.
To take the extreme example, the United States could simply eliminate all carbon-generating sources of energy overnight — in the process leaving hundreds of millions of souls without any means to feed themselves. Yet even if this drastic policy were adopted today, carbon emission increases in the developing world would still fully replace this nation's annual carbon output by roughly 2020. And the United States possesses neither the moral authority nor willingness to make demands of the world's poor — Obama, supposedly a "green" politician, just made a non-binding climate agreement allowing China to increase its carbon emissions without limit until 2030.
There is thus no policy of reduced energy use that holds forth any hope for humanity, if the doom-sayers are to be believed. The only remaining future, therefore, aside from an uninhabitable planet, is technological innovation. And only society with access to immense amounts of energy will ever possess the economic vitality needed to bring it about.
Radical environmentalists have laid out before Americans a game so hopeless that it cannot be won with any play they advocate. The Hail Mary pass is all that is left. It could come in the form of safer nuclear power, or perhaps a profitable agricultural or manufactured product that traps large quantities of atmospheric carbon, or all of the above — or something no one has yet conceived of.
Or who knows, maybe the warming won't actually be so bad after all. Obama and Nye must tacitly understand this. Otherwise, they would have made other travel arrangements.
-
Wait what? The Global Temps are currently the highest in history and we have not had a below average year in decades......You or a scientist could argue the level of effect that one aspect has on the the rise in temperatures(such as man made vs natural) but temps are on the raise.
Prepare for Cal to argue in circles, quoting clearly biased websites as a source for his argument.
Prepare for Cal to argue in circles, quoting clearly biased websites as a source for his argument.
Yeah... I full expect a response of 3 links from a google search incoming.
-
Why am I even asking? You believe that a guy lived a whale.
Why am I even asking? You believe that a guy lived a whale.
So did Jesus so I am in good company.
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Since when can't evolution be proved?
-
meh too convoluted. Some of it's based on gut spiritual instincts of mine that I've had since I was a little kid. Would be hard to follow is what i'm saying.
Give it a shot. Right now you're in OBF territory.
We also didn't evolve from modern day monkeys. Modern day monkeys and us evolved from a common ancestor.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Since when can't evolution be proved?
Since when can't evolution be proved?
Since when can it be proved. The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. The Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.
-
Wait what? The Global Temps are currently the highest in history and we have not had a below average year in decades......You or a scientist could argue the level of effect that one aspect has on the the rise in temperatures(such as man made vs natural) but temps are on the raise.
Prepare for Cal to argue in circles, quoting clearly biased websites as a source for his argument.
Prepare for Cal to argue in circles, quoting clearly biased websites as a source for his argument.
Never. Cal doesn't do that.
There is a giant, raging debate within the scientific community regarding "mmgw". He knows it! Websites tell him that!
And if there isn't, that's because those liberal scientists are censoring data! Across the globe!
-
meh too convoluted. Some of it's based on gut spiritual instincts of mine that I've had since I was a little kid. Would be hard to follow is what i'm saying.
Give it a shot. Right now you're in OBF territory.
We also didn't evolve from modern day monkeys. Modern day monkeys and us evolved from a common ancestor.
Give it a shot. Right now you're in OBF territory.
We also didn't evolve from modern day monkeys. Modern day monkeys and us evolved from a common ancestor.
Woody does not believe in anything spiritual. He is like a fish in a pond believing nothing exists outside the pond. I don't get upset with him as would I get upset with a blind man trying to judge art? Spiritually blind.
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
well, it's a "science" class right? Creationism, at this point in time...is not science. Maybe one day it can be in part who knows .But right now it isn't. Creationism is for religion class.
-
Since when can't evolution be proved?
Since when can it be proved. The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. The Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.
Since when can it be proved. The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. The Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.
Please explain what these "many challenges" are?
I imagine you'll say "we weren't there! We've never seen a fish start walking! Or a monkey be a man! We never saw it!"
Which will be especially hilarious when you base your life around fictional stories from the past, passed down secondhand for generations...
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login