"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

"John Mazor" wrote in message
news:T8Bgj.172040$TO.53294@trnddc01...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific hypotheses
are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific method?

Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics would come to
understand that.

Which "fanatics" are you referring to? The millions of scientists and experts
worldwide who understand the limits of the scientific method but still accept evolution
as the best explanation, and are concerned about the mounting evidence of global
warming?

What evidence of globa;l warming?

How about:

- Melting icecaps
- Melting glaciers
- Documented changes due to warming in other local climates

Or do you dismiss that as irrelevant? If so, please see below.

Or the fanatics who are in denial about the solid foundations for evolution and the
growing evidence of global warning?

Or those in denial about the fraudulent evidence for global warming.

Please demonstrate and fully explicate the perpetration of fraud in the scientific data.

You can start by specifically refuting in detail, and demonstrating the fraud in the
following:

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ming_evidence/

which are simple enough even for the layman to follow.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:

Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of (they call it
faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is scientists who accepts things they
aren't 100% sure of it is somehow different?

That's precisely the difference between science and faith. The scientist says "I think,
based on empirical evidence (which might be wrong) that..." whereas fundamentalist
Christians make such a leap of faith that they insist that "I take it as a matter of faith
that this is the gospel truth direct from the mouth of God so it can't possibly be wrong
no matter what evidence to the contrary, and you will burn in hell if you deny it."

And I'm sure that if you cornered any of those scientists and asked "We understand the
concerns you have expressed, but keeping in mind the limits of the scientific method,
are you prepared to give us a 100% guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility
that your findings might be mistaken?" the vast majority would not say yes.

A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the
lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global
warming, that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be
contributing to this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining
all the observed data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often
scientists are guilty of not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume
that everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their announcements. But
even when they do provide the full context, it seldom is included in the media
accounts because it's not as sexy as some version of "Scientistists predict the end
is near!"
I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in statements such
as:

“the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
anything to do with human activity on this planet.”

“There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human
activity…The warming of the climate system is now unequivocal,”

See previous.

Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?

See previous. And since it is a brief news account, we don't know that the appropriate
caveats weren't given at the news conference or in the report.

Nice rationalizations. Keep trying, these are pretty weak.

Yeah, right. "None so blind as those who will not see."

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
(they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
different?

Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100% certain,
Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over

And still you won't get it.

Now that's a sig worth considering.

"Jay Honeck" wrote

I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions, united by
one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching) principles of our
constitution were laid out by Christian men, but the participants are far
from monolithically Christian, and the principles are not exclusively
Christian.

I don't see how you can go with that view. Perhaps you do not know what the
numbers are.

Taken directly from the Federal 2001 census, of the adult population, 77% of
the respondents claim a Christian affiliation.

That sounds like it is a good strong majority of the US claim to be
Christians, and that HAS to be a MAJOR influence in our culture, today. Add
to that, the fact that in the past, even a higher percentage were
Christians, and that is the reason I believe our culture is the way it is,
today.

This is why it so important that we protect and nurture our unique (in the
history of the world) culture, and is why real conservatives (not the
new-fangled religious ones) fight so hard to preserve and protect it.
IMHO it's a delicate thing that could be easily destroyed in a generation
or two if we don't play our cards right.


I don't disagree with the basic premise of your last paragraph. We do need
to fight for our culture, to keep it true to our standards, and not let any
one group run away with it. The radical right is dangerous, and needs to be
kept from gaining too much power.

All I am saying, is that our culture is formed in the largest part, by
moderate Christian philosophy.

IMHO, that is what helps to make us a great, giving, and caring country.
Even to the extent of some of our young men giving their lives to bring
freedom from oppression to the masses in other countries. Whether every
thing is micro managed to make this happen in the exact best way possible is
another debate.
--
Jim in NC

But Jay....the really big question: Did you sell any rooms during the
media frenzy?

Nope. At least not directly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:YxDgj.26131$Ux2.5231
@attbi_s22:

But Jay....the really big question: Did you sell any rooms during the
media frenzy?

Nope. At least not directly.



Awwwww.

maybe you should have been spamming some other froups.


Bertie

Taken directly from the Federal 2001 census, of the adult population, 77%
of the respondents claim a Christian affiliation.

I wonder what that means? A "Christian affiliation" can mean many things.
For example, depending on how it's asked, I could answer that I have a
"Christian affiliation", even though I haven't been a member of any church
for 3 decades.

I don't want to minimize the impact of Christianity on America's past. But
I don't think we should overstate it -- and I also think that the culture
has absorbed the base teachings (I.E.: fairness; law and order; justice)
while moving beyond any specific religion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:jMDgj.290328$Fc.220277@attbi_s21:

Taken directly from the Federal 2001 census, of the adult population,
77% of the respondents claim a Christian affiliation.

I wonder what that means? A "Christian affiliation" can mean many
things. For example, depending on how it's asked, I could answer that
I have a "Christian affiliation", even though I haven't been a member
of any church for 3 decades.

I don't want to minimize the impact of Christianity on America's past.
But I don't think we should overstate it -- and I also think that the
culture has absorbed the base teachings (I.E.: fairness; law and
order; justice) while moving beyond any specific religion.

Nope

Bertie

"John Mazor" wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:
What evidence of globa;l warming?

How about:

- Melting icecaps
- Melting glaciers
- Documented changes due to warming in other local climates

We're in an interglacial period - warming is to be expected during this
period. Glacial rebound is still underway from the last ice age.

What do you think caused the last ice age to end? Why should that factor
now be inoperative?

You can start by specifically refuting in detail, and demonstrating
the fraud in the following:

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The graphs on those two sites come from the same place - repetition doesn't
make it any more true. Besides, the author of the EcoBridge site managed to
mislabel the graph claiming "This graph below shows the record of global
average temperatures...." The author couldn't be bothered to actually read
the graph labels - indicating the usual problem of using secondary sources
as references.

There is also something important missing from that graph - can you guess
what it is?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ional_panel_su
pports_98_global_warming_evidence/

which are simple enough even for the layman to follow.

I'm a lazy man myself, and although I think the preponderance of evidence
(and basic considerations of physics) suggests human activities have been a
factor in changing the climate, the article is hardly a ringing endorsement
that paleoclimatologists have a firm handle on past climate trends.

As to being a layman, I'll have to check with my wife.

Matt Whiting wrote:
Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
(they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
different?

I thought Christians were, by definition, 100% sure their belief in god is
correct?

Anyway, scientists are never 100% sure (by definition).

There are even a couple (low quality) videos on YouTube of physicist
Richard Feynman explaining the scientific process that stresses the
fundamental provisional nature of scientific "laws":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozF5Cwbt6RY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ZtRN-iGdQ

And if you don't like the fact that physics' description of the way the
universe works is difficult to understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs