RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register


Question: Fact to fact, face to face supporting science :: Total Votes:83
Poll choices Votes Statistics
I never discuss science v. creationism in public 11  [13.25%]
I occasionally discuss science v. creationism in public 60  [72.29%]
I seem to always discuss science v. creationism in public 12  [14.46%]
Guests cannot vote
Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 >   
  Topic: Fact to fact, face to face supporting science, in daily life. Creationists do not reply< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2008,17:28   

Cheers.
This is a topic I've been reading and following for a while.  I keep meaning to get more into ecology, but the evolution wars drag me back for entertainment.

The two things are related, insofar as both are science communication issues, and both have some implications.  The implications of Evolution are more religious than practical, to my mind.  But the implications of climate change are, well, huge, and directly important to everyone no matter what their religion.  

And the worst thing is, that if we screw it up, lots of people will get hurt.  And there is a possibility thatthings won't get quite as bad as they have been predicted.  BUt the technology exists right now to make major changes in our lives to reduce CO2 output, and the foreseeable technological changes in the next decade will really make it much easier.  
(I'm not making any predictions beyond the next decade)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2008,17:41   

Quote (guthrie @ April 13 2008,23:28)
Cheers.
This is a topic I've been reading and following for a while.  I keep meaning to get more into ecology, but the evolution wars drag me back for entertainment.

The two things are related, insofar as both are science communication issues, and both have some implications.  The implications of Evolution are more religious than practical, to my mind.  But the implications of climate change are, well, huge, and directly important to everyone no matter what their religion.  

And the worst thing is, that if we screw it up, lots of people will get hurt.  And there is a possibility thatthings won't get quite as bad as they have been predicted.  BUt the technology exists right now to make major changes in our lives to reduce CO2 output, and the foreseeable technological changes in the next decade will really make it much easier.  
(I'm not making any predictions beyond the next decade)

LOL Yeah: "evolution wars" for show, "climate change" for a pro!

Sorry, drinking on a school night. Tsk tsk, I'm off to bed!

Denialists, whatever they are denyng, are strikingly similar the world over. Although I think the evolution issue is a pretty important one, for reasons nothing to do with religion. Epidemiology (think MRSA etc) is just one reason. There are of course others that a good deal of 23 year old rum has temporarily caused to slip my erm, ummm, you know, grey thingy, between the ears.

Oh well!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2008,22:18   

Quote
And the worst thing is, that if we screw it up, lots of people will get hurt.

I don't see how it can be any other way.  This is the malthusian imperative.

i resist the temptation to proclaim what is good for humanity or good for all etc.  bollocks, that is.  i am not interested in solutions that work for all people, for those solutions have led to the predicament we are in.

and that is why we say Eat The Rich.  Post S.H.F. I intend to dine very well thank you.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2008,23:22   

Erasmus, you've been on a roll lately.

Duck, cover, gorge.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,03:11   

Quote (guthrie @ April 13 2008,17:28)
Cheers.
This is a topic I've been reading and following for a while.  I keep meaning to get more into ecology, but the evolution wars drag me back for entertainment.

The two things are related, insofar as both are science communication issues, and both have some implications.  The implications of Evolution are more religious than practical, to my mind.  But the implications of climate change are, well, huge, and directly important to everyone no matter what their religion.  

And the worst thing is, that if we screw it up, lots of people will get hurt.  And there is a possibility thatthings won't get quite as bad as they have been predicted.  BUt the technology exists right now to make major changes in our lives to reduce CO2 output, and the foreseeable technological changes in the next decade will really make it much easier.  
(I'm not making any predictions beyond the next decade)

I consider the evolution "debate" to be far more important than just religious implications. I reckon it is quite important in medical practice/research for one.

Anywho. Global warming/climate change. Wether human activity is affecting climate or not (and I think it is) aint the whole point. We are living on a planet with finite resources and growing a population damn near exponentially. At some point we (humans [and no doubt lots of other species{ in fact other species have already paid the price}]) are in for a world of hurt and I doubt that science/technology will be able to prevent this.

  
George



Posts: 315
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,07:53   

Quote (skeptic @ April 13 2008,13:30)
If that's not the biggest load of "political" crap I've ever heard then I don't know what is.  There's one simple fact that is lost on almost everyone spewing this end-of-the-world rhetoric and is that sixty millions years ago the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 3 times what it is now and, surprisingly enough the world did not end.  Life was not exterminated and there was no "global warming tipping point."  The sooner we get past the finger-pointing and fear-mongering (oh yeah, I said it) then the sooner we can start applying real solutions to energy and environmental concerns jointly.

For skeptic and others who might doubt the existence of tipping points and other climate thresholds, consider the hurricane.  Hurricanes need water temperatures of greater than 26.5 deg to form.  Imagine we lived in a cooler world than we currently do, but climate change then increased ocean temperatures beyond this point.  All of a sudden, we would be experiencing these monster storms that no one had ever experienced and no one anticipated (or at least took seriously).

Makes me wonder if there are similar surprises around the climatic corner.

  
George



Posts: 315
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,07:56   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 12 2008,11:07)
I've been suspicious of bandwagon movements for longer than i have been following this particular movement.

The 'Stop Global Warming' movement is in my view a successful industry re-spinning of a much more pressing issue.

Stop building houses in my ramp patches.

Stop putting roads into my speckled trout creeks.  

If we don't get the mexicans out of the woods then there will be no galax nor ginseng left around here.

Those are issues worth getting all het up over.

Stop Global Warming is stupid.

I'm familiar with 'sang poaching, but I hadn't heard there was a problem with Galax.  Is it a big problem?  What's it used for?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,11:41   

Since I have a moment let's look at a few of the points you made and let others decide what is science and what is politics.

- in 10-20 years we will see the results but for some it will be too late

- wars need to be replaced by diplomacy concerning limited resources

- money spent in Iraq could end global poverty (My personal favorite)

- money spent in Iraq should be used to build nuclear power plants (funny, money has never been an issue there)

- finally, some of this is opinion but the rest is undeniable...huh?

So, again, what is the problem?  What is being denied and what needs to be addresses?

Is it CO2, ozone depletion, deforestation and extinction or poverty, war or nuclear power?

Seems like a political discussion to me and not one about the science of climate change.

George, I think the actual contribution of short term temperature change and long term climate effects is largely in dispute.  Just over the last two years we've seen multiple opinions as to what impact GW has had in hurricane formation.  Funny thing is those discussions came in the wake of Katrina which screams of opportunism and not science.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,12:14   

Quote (skeptic @ April 14 2008,17:41)
Since I have a moment let's look at a few of the points you made and let others decide what is science and what is politics.

- in 10-20 years we will see the results but for some it will be too late

- wars need to be replaced by diplomacy concerning limited resources

- money spent in Iraq could end global poverty (My personal favorite)

- money spent in Iraq should be used to build nuclear power plants (funny, money has never been an issue there)

- finally, some of this is opinion but the rest is undeniable...huh?

So, again, what is the problem?  What is being denied and what needs to be addresses?

Is it CO2, ozone depletion, deforestation and extinction or poverty, war or nuclear power?

Seems like a political discussion to me and not one about the science of climate change.

George, I think the actual contribution of short term temperature change and long term climate effects is largely in dispute.  Just over the last two years we've seen multiple opinions as to what impact GW has had in hurricane formation.  Funny thing is those discussions came in the wake of Katrina which screams of opportunism and not science.

I think you need to first look at your original, extremely ignorant, strawman version of what I wrote. I equally don't remember saying any of that post was science. It is, statedly merely a fairly woolly response to Assassinator's fairly wooly questions. Try reading for basic comprehension.

What I offered you was a debate on the science of climate change. See how that is a seperate topic from my post and your misrepresentation of it as "end of the world is nigh" hysteria? Forgive me if I doubt you are capable of making so basic a distinction.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,12:47   

george are you also Serious George at WOW?  just wondering.

I've got a great pic that I cannot get to at the moment but will be adding shortly of a galax poaching story from a few years ago.  galax has long been harvested by poor old mountain folk for christmas decorations but now that that kind of bullshit has caught on in fancier circles then it has become a problem.  and illegals don't always have a lot of options and they will go poach things because they don't know or don't care about the laws (often a lot of the first and some of the second).  and being transient it doesn't make a damn to them.

i could go on and on about that. i might let someone else do it and i'll let you know.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
George



Posts: 315
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,15:35   

Quote (skeptic @ April 14 2008,11:41)
George, I think the actual contribution of short term temperature change and long term climate effects is largely in dispute.  Just over the last two years we've seen multiple opinions as to what impact GW has had in hurricane formation.  Funny thing is those discussions came in the wake of Katrina which screams of opportunism and not science.

You're missing my point.  My point is that climate change can result in thresholds being crossed that can have sudden, extreme effects.  You scoffed earlier at "tipping points".  Hurricane formation is an example of one of those thresholds.  I'm not saying there's a long-term trend of increasing hurricanes.  There may be - we don't have the data yet.  But when we do have all of the data, will it be too late.

That's where the politics comes in.  I prefer to apply the precautionary priniciple.  If a lot of experts think it's likely we could be seriously fucked in the future, but maybe not, then I reckon we should try to avert the long term fucking and take the short term pain.

I heard the hurricane increase discussions at least a couple of years before Katrina.  Maybe you just weren't paying attention?

Erasmus:  I'm definitely not Serious George.  Maybe Querelous George.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,15:46   

But is hurricane formation actually an example of one of those tipping points or just a coincidental incident?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,15:52   

Quote (Louis @ April 13 2008,13:40)
Quote (skeptic @ April 13 2008,19:30)
 
Quote (Louis @ April 13 2008,03:39)
   
Quote (Assassinator @ April 12 2008,19:55)
The whole idea of "Stop Global Warming/Climate Change" is retarted already, not just stupid. Isn't it just arrogant to think we can or should stop those things?
By the way, since when does ginseng grow in the US ^^ But yea, you're right, problem is people don't care about what you like. They only care about the money they earn with it, the New World's new god.

It's bad to think we can or should try to stop climate change?

This from someone in Holland a country with significant areas currently under sea level? Hundreds of thousands/millions of people in poorer countries around the world will disagree with you on this quite strongly I think. I think something else must be going on with this conversation, you must be joking! What have I missed?

Climate change: it's happening, undeniably, and there is a significant (but not exclusive) anthropogenic element to it. The science on that is unambiguous. The effects of human activities on the ozone layer, or on the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere or on deforestation or on extinction of species on an almost unprecedented scale or on a myriad of other environmental isses that lead to rapid change in global climate are based on very sound science.

That said, OF COURSE there's a huge crock of crap talked about the subject by a significant sector of the environmental lobby. The "ain't nature lovely" Bambi-ists are the least amongst them. Some have seized the rhetoric of the environmental movement for political use that it isn't suited for. The wantonly disproportionate and unequally applied tax burdens and the ever increasing authoritarian tricks of the UK government are good cases in point. Sadly, funding for the relevant technologies to solve a huge number of these problems is only now just kicking in in a big way. It's 10 to 20 years before we will even see the results and for some places and people that will be too late. Whether we've "gone over the global knife edge" or not, is perhaps open to more debate.

My personal opinion we need to find a lot of technical solutions NOW to some key problems. We need to take this threat to humans (because it IS to humans, life on earth will continue merrily sans H. sapiens) very seriously indeed. That means convenient wars to grasp the last barrells of a windling petrochemical resource costing billions should be replaced by diplomatic and technical effort (in a sensible way, not overnight!), to name one example. The only obvious counter point to that I can think of is if we are really in the shit a lot deeper than we realise and the chaps making war are doing so as a matter of survival (which would actually end up making my point for me). From the little I know, that's not the case, but I can see how it could be. I forget, just how many times could the money spent on the Iraq war (to name one example) have ended global poverty? Just how many scientists are screaming for grants? Just how many nuclear power stations could be built with that cash? I think we've got our priorities arse about face, but then that is merely my opinion. The rest is pretty undeniable. When disagreeing about what we should do when faced with a specific problem, denying the problem exists is a very bad idea.

Louis

If that's not the biggest load of "political" crap I've ever heard then I don't know what is.  There's one simple fact that is lost on almost everyone spewing this end-of-the-world rhetoric and is that sixty millions years ago the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 3 times what it is now and, surprisingly enough the world did not end.  Life was not exterminated and there was no "global warming tipping point."  The sooner we get past the finger-pointing and fear-mongering (oh yeah, I said it) then the sooner we can start applying real solutions to energy and environmental concerns jointly.

Please feel free to point by point, with references and referral to the available evidence, refute any and all things I've said there.

Perhaps you have read something into what I've written that isn't there. I don't believe I mentioned anything about the end of the world or the end of life etc, to name but two examples. No finger pointing, no political rhetoric, nothing as exciting as that. Please point out where I foretold the "end of the world" or "the end of life".

Or are you, as usual making evidence free assertions and rendering what someone says, even something as woolly and innocuous as the above (for it was hardly intended to be a rigourous description of my position, or even the scientific consensus, on climate change) as the little "straw liberal" in your head again?

My guess, Obliviot, is that as usual you are trolling for kicks. Sorry chum, no dice. Tell you what, let's debate the science, the proper science using the available literature and evidence. That way when you win because you are so obviously correct (cough splutter) you can take down a big high and mighty PhD and expunge just one tiny portion of that chip on your shoulder. Or are we to be treated, yet again, to your usual diatribe of "waaaaaaaah other people have different opinions" and "waaaaaaah you're mean". What an odious substance free fucknuckle you are Skeptic.

Louis

P.S. I done did an editation, the original wasn't abusive enough.

and again in plainer English, as the first attempt wasn't basic enough for you, just what are you asserting?

CO2, deforestation, ozone depletion and extinction - OR - poverty, war and nuclear power as a function of global warming?

It's difficult to see where your "science" ends and political tirades begin.  Maybe you could clarify that for me?  Oh and please continue to do Marx proud in the process with your have and have-nots "science"; such arguments are critical to the science of climate change.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5409
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,18:23   

We're beginning to stray far from home here.

Perhaps there's a global warming thread in the archives where this side conversation can be continued?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,21:05   

Actually, I was thinking how the use of language in the global warming issue can in some ways hamper communication with the lay public in two ways.  One by turning them off with the dire implications and also the sometimes unscientific extrapolations that confuse or mislead activists who then perpetuate them.  This came to mind in light of a recent poll that asked Americans to name some current scientists and the two leading vote getters were Al Gore and Bill Gates.  

This is somewhat on target, isn't it?

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5409
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,21:26   

I'll buy that.

Rage on, y'all.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2157
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2008,22:43   

My interest was how often the proscience folks on the intertubes actually are willing to ingage in face-to-face interactions pro-science and contra-creationism.  F2F is the most effective, the most influential form of human communication.  

Any other discussion has not been relevant.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2008,03:09   

Quote (skeptic @ April 14 2008,21:52)
and again in plainer English, as the first attempt wasn't basic enough for you, just what are you asserting?

CO2, deforestation, ozone depletion and extinction - OR - poverty, war and nuclear power as a function of global warming?

It's difficult to see where your "science" ends and political tirades begin.  Maybe you could clarify that for me?  Oh and please continue to do Marx proud in the process with your have and have-nots "science"; such arguments are critical to the science of climate change.

I understood it Skeptic, it's still obvious you don't.

Which of those things you list are science and which are more geopolitics? Surely even one so dull as you can make that distinction.

Marx? Reading in your own prejudices again? As usual.

I'll clarify it for you further:

1) The post you whined about is not an exposition of purest science. As stated. It is a woolly response to woolly questions/issues.

2) There ARE scientific issues pertinent to the "climate change debate", as opposed to the politics of the "climate change debate", some of which you appear (although this is by no means clear, you never actually state a position just whine about other's positions) to deny (climate tipping points/the effects of atmospheric CO2 pp might be two of them). Clarify your position on the SCIENCE.

3) Pick some relevant scientific topic, for example the effects of atmospheric CO2 pp on climate if you deny its effects or some specific effect, and we'll discuss the relevant science. This requires you to clarify what YOU think about climate change. This is a very different thing from whining about what other people think.

4) As a seperate, but related issue, you owe me an apology for LYING about what I wrote and my position on climate change. Nowhere did I mention (or even insinuate) "end of life" etc or other such cataclysmic pronouncements. You deliberately distorted my comments based on your own prejudices. Justify this or retract it please.

Understand yet?

Louis

ETA P.S. Dr GH, Lou: Skeptic is a pernicious liar and coward. You might not like my blunt exposition of this fact but it is undeiable. Evidence can and will be provided on request. He continually snipes at the comments of others without advancing anything of his own with even basic support. He is the very definition of a message board troll and offers nothing of substance. He lacks the education and the intellect to do so. I'm more than happy to take any debate to another thread, but Skeptic has sniped HERE so HERE I respond. Let him advance and defend a position on a scientific issue that has cropped up (not at my instigation) in this thread. WHERE he advances and defends his position is irrelevant, it makes no difference to the simple issue that he owes everyone a defense of his position as opposed to pathetic sniping at those with the merest basic intellectual courage to stand by their own positions.

--------------
Bye.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2008,03:20   

@Louis regarding his reactions to my posts:
Well, can't say much else then that I agree with you ;) Tha faulty portret the media paints of science may be one of the reasons I want to get a bachelor in Journalism.
Quote (skeptic @ Posted on April 14 2008,21:05)
Actually, I was thinking how the use of language in the global warming issue can in some ways hamper communication with the lay public in two ways.  One by turning them off with the dire implications and also the sometimes unscientific extrapolations that confuse or mislead activists who then perpetuate them.  This came to mind in light of a recent poll that asked Americans to name some current scientists and the two leading vote getters were Al Gore and Bill Gates.  

This is somewhat on target, isn't it?

O yes indeed, as Louis sad earlier, the main source from people's knowledge about science is the mainstream media. And the media is portrating science and scientific knowledge, data and theories very, VERY bad. And it's not just with global warming, ID may find it's foundation in these matters.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,03:49   

Louis, I'm going to move on from here because it's obvious that you're confused.  It's ok, it happens to the best of us.  If you're so inclined go back and read your post and then my observation of your post.  I think you'll see what you're missing but in any event that is somewhat off topic unless you want to explore the broader issue of how politicization of science impedes not only communication but action as well.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,12:40   

Quote (skeptic @ April 16 2008,09:49)
Louis, I'm going to move on from here because it's obvious that you're confused.  It's ok, it happens to the best of us.  If you're so inclined go back and read your post and then my observation of your post.  I think you'll see what you're missing but in any event that is somewhat off topic unless you want to explore the broader issue of how politicization of science impedes not only communication but action as well.

So your claims about what I say are more accurate than my understanding and clarification of it? I've heard about arrogance but you are exhibiting a decidedly unhealthy quantity of it, perhaps some kind of professional help for you might be in order. I suggest a good vet and a KCl injection.

You're trolling for kicks again aren't you. (note lack of question mark) A troll, an unintellectual kook AND a coward, Skeptic. Well done, you are demonstrating a positive trifecta of odiousness.

Now, are you going to keep piling on the excuses as to why you can't state your viewpoint and defend it or are you going to put your obviously rather limited money where your obviously vastly too large mouth is?

Dare I quote GoP by saying "put up or shut up"?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
George



Posts: 315
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,13:31   

Politicisation of science is inevitable where the topic under scientific research affects a large number of people, economically, religiously or otherwise.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing - otherwise, how can science influence public policy?  When science is discussed by non-specialists in the media, in committees and in the pub, it's inevitable that things will be misunderstood.  Or purposely twisted by those with agendas.  It's up to the scientists and scientifically literate to engage with the process, provide accurate information and provide rational recommendations to policy makers.  

Which perhaps brings us back to the topic of how best to do this.  I'm a professional ecologist and I work in a big office surrounded by engineers.  They don't give a rat's arse, really, about ecology.  So when I try to explain why it's not a good idea to build a road over that wetland or that we need to stump up more money for a snail survey, the best argument is the law.  It's a habitat or protected species at the European level, so it's illegal to drive your diggers there.  Where this doesn't apply, or for the rare engineer who's genuinely curious (or indignant) and wants more info, I've found the ecosystem function argument is best.  I explain what species and ecosystems do for us: water purification, flood control, pest control, tourism revenue, whatever.

In the evocreo arena, the best positive argument may be what evolutionary theory does for us.  Spinoffs for medical research, agricultural innovations, that sort of thing.  Better and more fun to point out where the creos are lying, but that's a negative argument against creationism, and sometimes positive support for evolutionary science is what's needed in a given situation.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2008,19:11   

George, I'm not that it is up to the scientists to advance these positions.  I tend to lean to the side that scientists should do science and policy makers should do policy.  One of the dangers when scientists attempt policy then their science can fall under bias.  To be sure, it is impossible to completely minimize or eliminate this bias but methods of reducing could be observed.  Obviously, policy makers can not be expected to accurately interpret science without the help of scientists but I would support a level of abstraction between the ones doing the actual research and those advising those making policy.  Ultimately, George you may be right and politicization is inevitable but then again maybe not.

P.S. Louis, I already did, you just continue to miss it.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,00:19   

skeptic how is this
Quote
you may be right and politicization is inevitable but then again maybe not.


not empirically equivalent to this
Quote
sdghsdkbh:DSbhvDSXj bDSbg EO;FU238TYEW98GHAWEG


just wondering.  zen dumbassedness is a strange tactic. not that it is wrong of course of course.  maybe it is but on the other hand maybe it is not.  i don't know you tell me?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,03:45   

Skeptic,

It's not me who's confused. If you go back and read my original reply to Assassinator, for all its woolliness (as previosuly mentioned) the distiction between the scientific matters and the political ones is made very clearly. They are even in different paragraphs and identified as such. (phrases like: "merely my opinion" for example appear throughout the non-science segments)

This once again comes down to two very simple issues: 1) you cannot read for comprehension, 2) you are so amazingly prejudiced/stupid/dishonest/all of the above (I prefer the latter combination option) that you cannot parse a simple comment for basic content and are compelled by your gross lack of intellectual gifts and honesty to misrepresent the detail and tone of what someone says.

Try again.

We've been through this umpteen times before Skeptic. There simply is no point discussing anything with you, or anyone bothering to respond to you as anything other than the troll you regularly demonstrate you are, unless you can work out one tiny thing: perhaps, just perhaps you've fucked up, again. Go back and READ WHAT I WROTE. It's not the same thing as what you think it is. I am a) far from the only person to point out your regular misunderstandings out and b) far from the only person who's posts seem to confuse you beyond all reason and c) far from the only person who has noticed both of these things. Like I said, try again, pick a SCIENTFIC topic you wish to discuss and we'll discuss it, as per my original offer. I even made it very clear (using examples) what sort of topic you might want to pick. This requires you to go back and READ FOR COMPREHENSION.

I know, I know, it's an impossibility. But when people start mocking you for your incomprehensibility and logically fallcious drivel, take it as a warning sign that it isn't anyone else who's fucked up.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5409
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,03:48   

Now that Skeptic's nonsense has its own thread, allow me to get the thread moving back in the right direction.

I originally answered the poll with "sometimes", on the basis of the fact that I just don't get out and interact with the general public much anymore, as a consequence of circumstance.

However, I have been informed that I am mistaken.

Apparently, I bring up creationism and education frequently, the entire universe knows where I stand, and I'm rather "in-your-face" about it.  "Confrontational" was used more than once, although it was noted that it was uncharacteristic of me in general.

I'm apparently also capable of turning several lovely shades of purple.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,07:59   

Eramus, it's a statement of conflicting optimism and pessimism.  I would hope that things could change but ultimately I'm afraid that they never really will...there's an obvious zinger here but I'm going to let it pass.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5409
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2008,08:19   



Quote
PRETTY, by Leo Reynolds


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,05:16   

I'd have preferred more options -- I don't *always* discuss creationism,  but it's more than "occasionally"  

At any rate, I opted for "occasionally," but frequently seems more appropriate

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
k.e..



Posts: 4517
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,10:32   

Shouldn't Creationism et al be just called a conservative reactionary political anti-fact identity movement.

Sort of a turd on the doorstep of reason.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
  123 replies since April 07 2008,22:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]