People who have a Utopian end in mind for us all must force themselves to reconcile the ongoing process of natural selection. They do so simply by denying that the theory applies to them. (Evolution applies to flora, fauna, and fungi, and even Republicans, but NOT US... we have CHOSEN to be more evolved, after all. Were done evolving, its just up to the rest of the world to catch up (or be forced to catch up)). But I have no need for Utopia (the literal meaning of utopia is nowhere), and thats where the liberals are dragging us. It is by definition stagnant; a world filled with gray, unimaginitive, useless, dimensionless, boring people, unable to think or do for themselves, or anyone else for that matter. Its a place for real nowhere men. Disclosure: I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but I DO NOT AGREE that the governments should be engaging in writing bills declaring any theories or doctrines set in stone, except of course those bill meant to set Constitutional amendment properly passed through the prescribed process. (Yes, I DO believe in God, and yet as a professional scientist, I understand evolutionary theory as a fairly accurate falsifiable theory, one whose genetic and other observable mechanisms can be better and better described over time. Creationism is doctrinal in nature, not a theory, nor is it falsifiable, but it was never meant to be subjected to the scientific method, a question of faith, or original inception, and so the concepts evolution and creationism dont just fail to overlap, but arent necessarily incompatible to me.) ~Samuel DArcangelis ------ Global warming, on the other hand, IS a falsifiable theory, and in fact, by its very record of a 0% rate of success as a predictive theory (and I DO MEAN ZERO). This is not to mention that even a political cudgel its only been partially effective (and thats because its utterly clashed with the real history, facts and science behind meteorology). Anthropogenic global warming (now rebranded as climate change) theory makes use of a weak hypothesis and spend huge amount of money and political wrangling to make the case through statistics, which, again, have not borne out the facts over any substantial period of time. I have never seen any equation, any isolated experiment that has yielded one measureable effect, one physically observable constant Sure, there have been plenty of correlations (the classic lie being temperature versus of CO2 levels and drawing a striaght line through a shotgun pattern), leading to all sorts of findings (in lieu of physical evidence), and resolutions and legislation. This is not evidence. This is data falsely associated and then falsely correlated, which invariably runs up against a hard, cold unforgiving real world. But not before bad people get the chance to use it to subjugate others. Going where the data takes you (coming to a useful conclusion with any old experiment) is a meaningless path to pseudoscience; it is intellectually extremely narrow, but is politically very convenient. For instance, I could throw a block of ice in the ocean, watch it melt, do it again and again all day, and come to the conclusion that the Earth is warming up. (After all, the ice warmed up, the ocean didnt rise in temperature, so I must have offset the heat from global warming). Then to make that concept stick I could simply threaten to destroy anyone or their ability to earn a living that disagrees with me, or worse still ridicule them, and make sure that society rejects them merely for dissenting (or producing evidence to the contrary), and pay off the people who help with an infinitely deep pool of public money. Tell me...how is that different from what Al Gore has done to receive a Nobel Prize? Such theories cant stand on their own. Think about it, a host physical experiments that informs us only about what we as a world so should do economically and politically, but no laws of thermodynamics have changed... ~Samuel DArcangelis
Posted on: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 03:11:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015