Bush/Faith vs. Science

[piratemonkey]

Anyone who doubts the damage that faith-based thinking inflicts upons society, read this:
In February, House Science Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., and other congressional leaders asked NASA to guarantee scientific openness. They complained that a public affairs officer changed or filtered information on global warming and the Big Bang.

A report last month in the scientific journal Nature claimed administrators at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration blocked the release of a report that linked hurricane strength and frequency to global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_go_co/global_warming
There are hundreds of examples of this.
High-ranking political appointees within the Department of the Interior have rewritten numerous scientific documents to prevent the protection of several highly imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/systematic-interference-with.html

Republican Politicians think they know more about science than scientists.

This is the essence of faith-based thinking... "I'm right and no amount of facts can convince me otherwise."

[BoogyMan]

Wedging the idea of global warming into your anti faith-based thinking argument is disingenuos Pirate. I will grant you that faith-based thinkers will debate the "big-bang" idea all day long, but to drag faith into the debate over global warming is a huge stretch and one that is not substantiated by the material provided.

[piratemonkey]

Wedging the idea of global warming into your anti faith-based thinking argument is disingenuos Pirate.Â*Â*I will grant you that faith-based thinkers will debate the "big-bang" idea all day long, but to drag faith into the debate over global warming is a huge stretch and one that is not substantiated by the material provided.


This is off-topic and not the point of this thread.Â*Â*If you want to debate global warming, there is a thread already covering that subject.

The point of this thread is discuss the fact that political appointees are changing results produced by scientists.

Please stay on topic.

[BoogyMan]

Wedging the idea of global warming into your anti faith-based thinking argument is disingenuos Pirate.Â*Â*I will grant you that faith-based thinkers will debate the "big-bang" idea all day long, but to drag faith into the debate over global warming is a huge stretch and one that is not substantiated by the material provided.


This is off-topic and not the point of this thread.Â*Â*If you want to debate global warming, there is a thread already covering that subject.

The point of this thread is discuss the fact that political appointees are changing results produced by scientists.

Please stay on topic.


My comments were ENTIRELY germain to the topic, I am sorry that you seem to wish to be so pedantic as to try and silence any dissenting opinion.

[piratemonkey]

My comments were ENTIRELY germain to the topic, I am sorry that you seem to wish to be so pedantic as to try and silence any dissenting opinion.


And you post a content-less sentence to make your point, further side-tracking this thread.

Please.

Stop.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Republican Politicians think they know more about science than scientists.


More than enviromentalist scientists, who tend to disregard real science.

[Labrocca]

Seems entirely on-topic to me. You are asserting that because some reports MIGHT have been stuffed it was because of faith-based initiatives? I don't see anywhere other than your opinion that these are connected. Maybe you are of the mindset that all Republicans do things only because of their religious faith. That's preposterous to say the least.

[BoogyMan]

My comments were ENTIRELY germain to the topic, I am sorry that you seem to wish to be so pedantic as to try and silence any dissenting opinion.


And you post a content-less sentence to make your point, further side-tracking this thread.

Please.

Stop.


I am posting on topic and completely within site rules. Your assertion in the initial post is flawed and I simply pointed that out. The thread is being debated which, if my memory serves me, is the purpose of this forum, open debate.

You cannot tie faith based thinking to global warming from your initial postings, they just don't support it. The only support provided is your assertion.

[piratemonkey]

Seems entirely on-topic to me.Â*Â*You are asserting that because some reports MIGHT have been stuffed it was because of faith-based initiatives? I don't see anywhere other than your opinion that these are connected.Â*Â*Maybe you are of the mindset that all Republicans do things only because of their religious faith. That's preposterous to say the least.


To answer his concern, we need to engage in a detailed debate about the merits of global warming science.

There's already a thread for that and that wasn't my intent in creating this thread.Â*Â*I was hoping to debate the fact that politicians are censoring the work of scientists.

The fact that you think this thread has anything at all to do with "faith-based initiatives" means either you don't understand the topic of this thread, or I wasn't clear enough in expaining it.Â*Â*Likely the latter.

You know what?Â*Â*Go ahead and use this thread for whatever you want.Â*Â*I'll give it to you and start another on this exact same topic without mentioning global warming.

That's an absurd thing to have to do, but it seems that I have to.
Notice that I don't start threads too often. You see why, now.

[BoogyMan]

Pirate, YOU were the one who equated faith based thinking with global warming and it was done very clearly in YOUR initial thread posting. If you didn't want that point to be a subject for rebuttal you should not have put it into your posting.

[piratemonkey]

That wasn't my intent.Â*Â*I clearly stated the subject.... and mentioned that there are 100's of examples of this.Â*Â*I didn't expect someone to latch onto one of many potential examples and not want to discuss the actual topic of the thread.Â*Â*That's the definition of side-tracking a thread.

I will start a thread on the same topic without even mentioning Global Warming.

The fact that I can do that shows that it isn't germane to my topic.

[BoogyMan]

That wasn't my intent.Â*Â*I clearly stated the subject.... and mentioned that there are 100's of examples of this.Â*Â*I didn't expect someone to latch onto one of many potential examples and not want to discuss the actual topic of the thread.Â*Â*That's the definition of side-tracking a thread.

I will start a thread on the same topic without even mentioning Global Warming.

The fact that I can do that shows that it isn't germane to my topic.


LOL, This is the essence of humanist thinking... "I'm right and no amount of facts can convince me otherwise."

[piratemonkey]

LOL, This is the essence of humanist thinking... "I'm right and no amount of facts can convince me otherwise."


That might be the most ironic thing you've ever said, Mr. Creationist.

[piratemonkey]

Let's see if we can discuss censorship of scientists and the distortion of science without duplicating other threads.

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

20 Nobel laureates say that Bush has distorted scientific facts.

Need examples?
For example, the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on lead poisoning was recently planning to strengthen the lead poisoning regulations, in response to science showing that smaller amounts than previously understood could cause brain damage in children, Knobloch said.

Before the panel could act, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson rejected the recommendation and replaced two members of the panel with individuals tied to the lead industry, Knobloch said.

The researchers also took issue with a White House Office of Management and Budget bulletin regarding peer review, a process fundamental to science by which researchers check each other's work for accuracy and balance before it's published. The bulletin (PDF), drafted in August 2003, would allow the government to hand-pick scientists to second-guess scientific research, opponents say.
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html

In addition, staff complaints that their scientific findings were frequently overruled or disparaged at the behest of landowners or industry have led the agency's inspector general to look into the role of Julie MacDonald - who has been deputy assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks since 2004 - in decisions on protecting species.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/15890650.htm

I seriously could go on all day with these examples.Â*Â*

One more? Sure.
Of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service scientists who replied to the survey, 71% said the agency cannot be trusted to save endangered species.

• 44% reported they have been ordered for "non-scientific" reasons to refrain from recommending protections for endangered species.

• 56% said businesses used political influence to have science findings reversed or withdrawn. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-02-09-fish-game_x.htm

44 % ordered to changed scientific findings for "non-scientific" reasons.

That's astounding.

So why should politicians ever be allowed to "change" scientific facts?

[BoogyMan]

I hate to tell you this, but the term creationist is not a pejorative term! LOL

[Labrocca]

WTF...you already started a similar topic. Just because you are losing an argument doesn't mean you start a new thread.

I am merging them.


btw...you are the one that added the word "FAITH" into your subject.

[Technocrat]

Bush and the Republicans have, for quite some time, been deeply-involved in the War on Science. They show a strongly theocratic agenda and are anti-science, anti-progress, and anti-rationalism.

Faith-based is the best word to describe their vision of society in which science is the Great Satan. Evolution is a tool of the Devil, obviously.

[cs0564]

Science is not the Great Satan. Science actually proves Christian faith in many different ways. As a person who greatly enjoys responsible science I will say that I appreciate those scientist who practice their trade without listening to those who are skeptical of the results.

[Technocrat]

One major problem with saying that Science promotes or supports religion is that Science cannot verify or falsify a God itself. It's impossible, since God himself is not falsifiable. Since he isn't, Science could never be used to support him.

Another problem is that Science deals with objective empirical data dealing with the natural world. It uses natural explainations for natural phenomena. God is not natural, but a metaphysical supernatural entity. Science has no way of observing "actual" magic, most likely because it doesn't exist. There's no observation you can make that provides any real evidence of GOd, because the nature of God is set up such that you can never find him anywhere. All the evidence is "assumed" by people. They go about the Scientific Method backwards; tha tis, they start with the answer and work to find evidence they think supports the conclusion.

For example, people say God exists
Trees are too complex to come about naturally
Therefore, God exists.

The problem is that any "natural" evidence doesn't imply God had anything to do with it. All natural entities, such as trees, rocks, dirt, bugs, humans can and have come about without any observable outside engineering. Indeed, had we all been engineered, we would be considerably different, as would the whole universe have been.

Nature is not designed logically, nor efficiently. It's a patchwork and rube-goldberg job in terms of environments and creatures. You have animals who live in the water, but cannot breath in water, and thus frequently drown themselves in their own habitat. You have humans who are designed so poorly that their very own bipedialism harms them in the long run.

The problem is that people assume the truth of the Faith and then interpose God on the evidence where none logically exists. This is why people can look out their window and see God in everything. Using that form of argument, anyone can prove anything. I can say I see Barny's Hand just by the growth of tree patterns. It's subjective interpretation, not quantification.

Another problem is that many of the stories in Christianity are easily falsified using logic or actual empircal information. We know that many of the mircales are not possible, unless you suspend reason and evidence--that makes the "result" unscientific, and thus it can't be said that science supports them. Mircales are metaphysical constructs. Humans cannot walk on water, blood won't turn to wine or visa versa, you cannot separate the seas with waving of the hands, and people cannot be resurected after days in the ground.

Virgin births in the Bronze Age are not possible knowing human pysiology. It requires actual magic, which doesn't exist. Any theory which poses that magic does something is by default not scientific. Noah' story? Impossible. YEC? Impossible.

[cs0564]

Get real! That is what's wrong with LIB's. They always want to be ABSOLUTE! All science is not absolute! Religion can live with science. Sounds like your science has a hard time living with my religion.

Just one item that dispels a little of your science. The moon moves a inch away from the earth every year. It has been watched by astronomers for over 100 years. If the moon did just the opposite the world would have been be destroyed 4,000 or 5,000 years ago. If that is the case than how can items be millions of years old?

[Technocrat]

I am not a Liberal, so please don't lump me in with them.

I also never said science was absolute.

The problem with your example is that it takes facts out of context. It assumes that the rate of separation has been the same for thousands or millions of years due to static rate. That's not true at all.

Do you want me to direct you to a source on "bad astronomy" that deals with the moon issue?


Also, can you give me a citation from the source you got "the moon moves an inch each year?" I would like to review it so I can better analyse and critique it. To come up with a competent explaination, I need to consult some actual astronomy sources.

[Technocrat]

Edit: This argument about the Earth's spin and the moon receding is easy to answer. THe primary problem with the argument is that it taciticly assumes an incorrect rate of damage that would accrue. Your time-scales are wrong.

The Earth has been decreasing in it's spin speed. The moon has been receding for quite some time, but not nearly at the rate it is now. Both Earth and the Moon pull on each other via Newton's Gravitational Laws. The Earth pull has an effect on the moon, and the moon's pull on the Earth.

When the Earth pulls on the moon gravitationally, it speeds up the orbital velocity. When that increases, the moon moves out of orbit slightly due to radius increase. The Moon has been slowly increasing in distance over billions of years, but only incrementally. It hasn't been moving one inch per year all the time, since the gravitational pull on the Moon has required time to build up enough spin on the moon via gravitational pull, to build up an radius increase for the moon's orbit to modern levels.

As the moon pulls away due to the build-up of Earth's gravitational force, the Earth itself slows down, since the moon helps to stabilize the Earth's own rotation on the axis. The effect is a slow degradation of the Earth's situation. Eventually, enough spin will build up to shove the move very far away, which will slow down the Earth far more than it is now--again, over time. The time of day will change, and the Earth's climate will shift. This will not become a real poblem for over a billion years, though. 1.6 to be exact.

The earth's day-light time increases 1 second about every 50,000 years.


Earth's spin on the axis was much, much faster than it is now. Remember that. ALso remember that Humans have only been around, on this planet, for roughly 40,000 years. This is out of 4 billion years. When Earth was very fast spinning, no Humans lived. Humans only came about when Earth was relatively slow already in its spin and the moon was already inching toward that one inch mark. Again, however, refer to SETI.org, I will link to if you want. It would take a billion years to hit a point at which the movement of the moon (factoring in the increase of spin and pull away) for any major problems to occure.

Remember that the Earth was once spinning much quicker and the Moon was much closer. I believe this has an impact on the rate of shift of the moon. I don't believe the rate of shift of the moon has been static for billions of years. I would have to do some more research on that, though, since I am not an astronomist. I would hypothezise no, though, since the earth is slowing down partly due to the moon moving away, which changes the tides, which dumps energy and causes friction, which causes a slow down in the Earth's rotation on the axis. The closer the moon ways, the less this would have been apparent, so I doubt the slow down of the Earth was static either.

[piratemonkey]

A detailed examination of specific scientific argument is exactly what I was trying to avoid.

Labrocca, There's a difference between talking about "faith-based initiatives" and "faith-based thinking." Those are two entirely different things. I can't understand why you don't see that. Nowhere, anywhere did anyone talk about faith-based initiatives in this thread, except you. To me, that shows you aren't following the topic. So making judgments about whether something is on-topic or not when it's apparent that you don't get what the topic is...

And that's beside the point. I started a thread on a topic. Someone took a small aspect of a quote and tried to make the whole thread about that piece. You, for some reason, thought that was ok.

So I started another thread on this topic without that small aspect in it. That was for two reasons.
1) To show you that it wasn't on topic.
2) To actually advance the subject I was trying to talk about.

Since you've twice vetoed this for reasons that are seemingly wrong, I will discontinue.