Global warming?....global cooling actually

[SAT]

Mainstream religions do not call themselves "creationists" and nobody is referring to them when they say "creationist".

Akrasia's statement was completely reasonable and used the accepted definition of the word creationist. You're trying to use the word in a novel manner to completely change the meaning of the statement. In any event if that's what Akrasia meant to say there would hardly be any disagreement over it now would there?

To be clear, you and Akrasia when you say creationist mean only those few people who believe the book of Genesis is literal? If so which biologists which believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old was he referring to? I doubt there is a single one in the world so if he meant creationist in this very limited sense why would he bother even making a comment about a null set?? And worse still try to defend it

[sharper]

This is a straw man.

The person presenting a strawman is SAT. He's pretending people are saying things they clearly aren't so he can knock them down.

Deal with the evidence, the data, the logic. I don't care if people believe in the flying spaghetti monster, they still might have a valid case to argue on some issue.

If a chef thought Pasta can be cooked by praying to the FSF I wouldn't eat at his restaurant.

[SAT]

The person presenting a strawman is SAT. He's pretending people are saying things they clearly aren't so he can knock them down.

Hardly. I'm just trying to get you and your fellow poster to give me a definition of creationist you will hold to for more than 5 minutes.

It seems once again somebody was remiss in reading their own source material before trying to use it to further their case. The article Akrasia cited which he claims had a

list of 'creationist scientists' which was specificilly talking about young earth creationism.

does no such thing. In fact young earth creationism isn't so much as mentioned in the piece. This was a total fabrication by the poster which it seems is par for the course.

The most controversial passage in the piece is this

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

which seems to me more a philosophical approach than a religious fundamentalist approach and in itself is hardly outlandish or deserving of a 'nutjob' label

[Akrasia]

To be clear, you and Akrasia when you say creationist mean only those few people who believe the book of Genesis is literal? If so which biologists which believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old was he referring to? I doubt there is a single one in the world so if he meant creationist in this very limited sense why would he bother even making a comment about a null set?? And worse still try to defend it

I posted a link you idiot, and i've referred to that link at least twice since, but here it is again.
(apologise to everyone else for the length of this quote, but SAT is ignoring the link and accusing me of dishonesty

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Now some of those people might dispute their inclusion on that list, but the point is that these are claimed by creationists as scientists against evolution, and by inference, in favour of creationism.

I posted this to refute the '30k scientists don't believe in AGW" arguement. You can find 'scientists' to support any argument. But this does not mean that they have a strong scientific argument.

[SAT]

(apologise to everyone else for the length of this quote, but SAT is ignoring the link and accusing me of dishonesty

Actually I am only ignoring you! and that is because you are very rude AND dishonest.

[Akrasia]

Hardly. I'm just trying to get you and your fellow poster to give me a definition of creationist you will hold to for more than 5 minutes.

It seems once again somebody was remiss in reading their own source material before trying to use it to further their case. The article Akrasia cited which he claims had a does no such thing. In fact young earth creationism isn't so much as mentioned in the piece. This was a total fabrication by the poster which it seems is par for the course.

The most controversial passage in the piece is this which seems to me more a philosophical approach than a religious fundamentalist approach and in itself is hardly outlandish or deserving of a 'nutjob' label

And if you look at the few lines just above that quote you will find a short biography of the person quoted

"One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design."

That person is certainly a creationist. The entire website is about creationists, it is about so called scientists who think Creationism is more convincing than Evolution.
The list of 'experts' who specialise in radio carbon dating are almost certainly young earth creationists who reject the age of the earth

You claim I don't read my sources, you don't read them either, except to scan them looking for something that appears like it contradicts what I say, and completely ignore the entire content and tone of the website. And you have the nerve to call me dishonest.

[Mouroux]

Oh for God's sake it is obvious to anyone with a brain that "global cooling/climate change" or whatever they are calling it now it primarily about short to medium term financial gain for the banking and corporate elite. The case can be a philosophic and therefore a foundational one: humanity is popularly understood as special, as having a destiny, or as moving towards some kind of undefined end-goad, i.e. a brighter future. Reality check anyone?! Looking back over human history we have not progressed -technological advancement involves both benefit and cost. Benefits have derived overwhelmingly from rapid consumption of fossil fuels -so where is the progress? If we alter the pattern of consumption, any notion of 'progress' necessarily comes to rest on popular conceptualisations of environmentalism (global sales pitch). Human selfishness once again rears its ugly head: the goal is to save the planet purely in terms of the envisaged optimum environment with respect to human subsistence. All other concerns secondary -quite inevitable. And the phrase 'human subsistence' must be qualified --a minority or elitist component of any population benefits and the (financial) cost is the burden of the masses (99.9% of 'humanity'). Therefore, in the financial context, it is not always necessary to refute the scientific basis of the global warming primary hypothesis, simply continue to argue against carbon tax on the patently obvious and historical patterns of financial inequality, period.

[SAT]

And if you look at the few lines just above that quote you will find a short biography of the person quoted

"One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design."

That person is certainly a creationist. The entire website is about creationists, it is about so called scientists who think Creationism is more convincing than Evolution.
The list of 'experts' who specialise in radio carbon dating are almost certainly young earth creationists who reject the age of the earth

You claim I don't read my sources, you don't read them either, except to scan them looking for something that appears like it contradicts what I say, and completely ignore the entire content and tone of the website. And you have the nerve to call me dishonest.

What the hell, I'll bite one last time

So when you posted this

list of 'creationist scientists' which was specificilly talking about young earth creationism.

You obviously didn't actually mean 'specifically talking about young earth creationism' as the article clearly doesn't so I presume you meant in your opinion might be referring to young earth creationists. Or do you have some peculiar definition of the word 'specifically' you would care to share with the rest of us?

And you expect folk to be able to follow this type of rambling, incoherent mutterings??

As in Alice in Wonderland (fittingly) 'Say what you mean and mean what you say'

Oh and here is an evolutionary tip for you, think with your brain and not with your fingers and your keypad

[Akrasia]

What the hell, I'll bite one last time

So when you posted this You obviously didn't actually mean 'specifically talking about young earth creationism' as the article clearly doesn't so I presume you meant in your opinion might be referring to young earth creationists. Or do you have some peculiar definition of the word 'specifically' you would care to share with the rest of us?

And you expect folk to be able to follow this type of rambling, incoherent mutterings??

As in Alice in Wonderland (fittingly) 'Say what you mean and mean what you say'

Oh and here is an evolutionary tip for you, think with your brain and not with your fingers and your keypad

You're once again, picking up on words and ignoring the point I am making. It's irrelevant if these guys are young earth creationists, it was irrelevant to my point how old they think the world is. the point was, they do not accept the theory of evolution which is as close to a scientific fact as anything out there. They think that 'intelligent design' or 'creationism' is a better explanation for the origin of species than evolution, and in that regard, they quallify as nutjobs. If you want to defend their position on this regard, be my guest. Just quit your sophistry and dishonest tactic of picking up on irrelevant words and ignoring the points that I am very obviously making.

This thread has gone totally off topic because you insist on attacking the wording of my arguments and not the argumets themselves.

[fiannafailure]

This thread is another waste of time to read.
science and religion are so incompatible that they can never interact in a meaningful way.

And yet there are theories to reconcile the two, however they will always be theories and can never be proved true or false until we master the art of coming back from the dead.