Climate change

[RHRanch]

Simply because they are practices and beliefs based on faith or an interpretation of Scripture,and not defending is tantamount to being a heretic....The same way the the scientific community defended, as a whole,{few exceptions} the fraudulent work of East Anglica, NOAA and others.

Your comparison still doesn't make sense to me.... First, I don't think all catholics or baptists are required to "defend" any of thier beliefs, in fact, I know they are not. They are under no such obligation. In fact a case may be made that those secure in thier beleifs should not feel a need to defend thier beliefs, beliefs are just that, beleifs and they are based on faith. Science does not rely on faith, and a hypothesis or theory should be reproducable with the same results. For example, if my hypothesis is that water at a certain elevation always boils at 100 degreees C at sea level, it should be possible for anyone to reproduce that result. It's not a beleif, its a fact - water boils at that temp at sea level. See how there is a difference?

 

[GardenerGal]

I agree with you on this..Science, in and of itself, must be placed separate of scientists...Especially in today's world where political agendas, big money and end results, regardless of method,are tied intrinsically together......The days of the basement inventor, doing it all on his own, until he finds the truth, are over.

It's no different with big pharma....Drugs are pushed out of the lab, onto the market way too fast...Touted as the newest, best cure all, and 5 yrs. later, there's a billion dollar class action lawsuit....What they turned out was a chemical poison.not a panacea.

I absolutely agree with you about big pharma. But big pharma is about corporate profits, which is about what will sell to the masses, which is not about pure science. Big Pharma is not about objective scientific approach, it's about "What can we convince people they need, so they'll buy it."

But Louis Pasteur, Edward Jenner, Dr.s Salk and Sabin, Copernicus, Galileo, Marie and Pierre Curie, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are/were not Big Pharma.

 

[GardenerGal]

Science does not rely on faith, and a hypothesis or theory should be reproducable with the same results. For example, if my hypothesis is that water at a certain elevation always boils at 100 degreees C at sea level, it should be possible for anyone to reproduce that result. It's not a beleif, its a fact - water boils at that temp at sea level. See how there is a difference?

Excellent illustration. A little more complicated when it comes to extrapolating the causes of global climate change, but even those are, ultimately, testable and reproducible, albeit unrealistically so on the large scale.

 

[Matthew3590]

Fun fact. At sea level it does not boil at exactly 100C. Some boil above some boil lower. It is a rounded number.
Mostly caused by human error.

 

[ChickensAreSweet]

From what I have read on internet news, we are headed for global cooling - theory is due to sunspot activity.

This is just a cycle between cold and hot. IMO the sun drives everything, it is so powerful.

 

[RHRanch]

Fun fact. At sea level it does not boil at exactly 100C. Some boil above some boil lower. It is a rounded number.
Mostly caused by human error.

You are correct, that is in part due to variations in the content of the water (sodium, etc.,) and the accuracy of measurement equip and human error. If all variables are in fact identical, you would get identical results. However, usually all variables are not 100% identical, especially for classroom demonstrations, etc.

 

[Royd]

Your comparison still doesn't make sense to me.... First, I don't think all catholics or baptists are required to "defend" any of thier beliefs, in fact, I know they are not. They are under no such obligation. In fact a case may be made that those secure in thier beleifs should not feel a need to defend thier beliefs, beliefs are just that, beleifs and they are based on faith. Science does not rely on faith, and a hypothesis or theory should be reproducable with the same results. For example, if my hypothesis is that water at a certain elevation always boils at 100 degreees C at sea level, it should be possible for anyone to reproduce that result. It's not a beleif, its a fact - water boils at that temp at sea level. See how there is a difference?

Did you pay attention to the uncovering of the East Anglica fraud? Good grief, for almost two years after the revelation, I've never seen such verbosity on internet message boards, than from those highminded people who thought that they were going to usher in a manmade Utopia, by taxing everything from cowfarts to black shingled roofs.

And yes, just tell a Catholic that there's no proof of Purgatory in the Bible, and you are likely to have a religious war on your hands.

 

[RHRanch]

Did you pay attention to the uncovering of the East Anglica fraud? Good grief, for almost two years after the revelation, I've never seen such verbosity on internet message boards, than from those highminded people who thought that they were going to usher in a manmade Utopia, by taxing everything from cowfarts to black shingled roofs.

And yes, just tell a Catholic that there's no proof of Purgatory in the Bible, and you are likely to have a religious war on your hands.

I am a Catholic, and you are quite mistaken. I am under no obligation to debate purgatory and have no reason to argue about it with anyone. My beliefs are my own. We also don't "worship" saints, but the layperson has difficulty understanding their use in our religious context, and I find it not worth my time to explain it unless someone is truly curious to learn why we believe that way - if a person expects me to defend it, they are barking up the wrong tree... Why would I "defend" a belief? It's just not necessary. So please, feel free to tell me there is no evidence of purgatory in the bible and the most you will get out of me is to inform you that not all bibles contain the same interpretations, but you are welcome to believe what you want about what is in there or not in there.

 

[Royd]

I am a Catholic, and you are quite mistaken. I am under no obligation to debate purgatory and have no reason to argue about it with anyone. My beliefs are my own. We also don't "worship" saints, but the layperson has difficulty understanding their use in our religious context, and I find it not worth my time to explain it unless someone is truly curious to learn why we believe that way - if a person expects me to defend it, they are barking up the wrong tree... Why would I "defend" a belief? It's just not necessary. So please, feel free to tell me there is no evidence of purgatory in the bible and the most you will get out of me is to inform you that not all bibles contain the same interpretations, but you are welcome to believe what you want about what is in there or not in there.

I, too, was raised Catholic, so I know, whereof I speak. Purgatory is a vital doctrine of redemption in the Catholic Church...Baptists forego all that with one swift move. And yes, praying to dead people, regardless of what they did, is considered idolatry by the evangelical Protestant denominations.

 

[RHRanch]

I, too, was raised Catholic, so I know, whereof I speak. Purgatory is a vital doctrine of redemption in the Catholic Church...Baptists forego all that with one swift move. And yes, praying to dead people, regardless of what they did, is considered idolatry by the evangelical Protestant denominations.

Yes, but being Catholic in no way means that you have to defend your beliefs to others - and anyone with faith knows that they do not have to "prove" anything to anyone else, what matters is your own faith and belief. Some people love to tell other people how to live or like to try to degrade other people's belief's, but you don't have to respond to the bait, especially if you are confident in your own faith. I really don't see how other religions believe or not believe in something is relevant to my own belief system. For example, if another faith thinks praying to saints is idolatry, how is it my job to refute them? Or even my business? They can interpret it any way they want, doesn't bother me.