ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:Aaron wrote:at least you get properly banned for not being gullible enough to swallow the standard dogma....
Now that's funny.
Thank you for not disputing the accuracy of the statement.
I will dispute it.
See my pm.
MQ
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:Aaron wrote:at least you get properly banned for not being gullible enough to swallow the standard dogma....
Now that's funny.
Thank you for not disputing the accuracy of the statement.
MonteQuest wrote:ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:Aaron wrote:at least you get properly banned for not being gullible enough to swallow the standard dogma....
Now that's funny.
Thank you for not disputing the accuracy of the statement.
I will dispute it.
See my pm.
MQ
bubmachine wrote:jbrovont wrote:Uh oh - a decoy.
Stop worrying. As I have said, I believe oil will peak. Just not sure when, and I do think we can do things about it, and I do think the powers that be are actually doing something about it, but not in a way that is being discussed.
If the US (and the UK) refuse to accept oil from Venezuela, and that Iraqi oil has been continually disturbed, then it suggests that there is some element of management. If they were really just concenred about getting cheap oil, why have a war in Iraq, and refuse cheap oil from Chavez?
Perhaps they are thinking "don't let the whole world pump oil at will, otherwise we will have a huge crash. So lets manage it".jbrovont wrote:Is there really global warming? Is the climate really changing? Is the pope Catholic?
That is not the way science works. Science is not politics, or decided by votes.
It is decided by theory and evidence.
Hmm, evolution is random mutations filtered by natural selection. Doesn't seem like there is much else to it. It's pretty simple, really. you are either an evolutionist, for which there is lots of evidence, or a creationist, for which there is none. Are there other options?threadbear wrote:I too question Darwinism. There could be many different forces contributing to evolution, Darwinism included, but it isn't the whole story. Evolutionists give you two choices, either you're a creationist or a Darwinist. It's a kind of fundamentalism more appropriately called scientism than science.
TonyPrep wrote: Hmm, evolution is random mutations filtered by natural selection. Doesn't seem like there is much else to it. It's pretty simple, really. you are either an evolutionist, for which there is lots of evidence, or a creationist, for which there is none. Are there other options?
TonyPrep wrote:Hmm, evolution is random mutations filtered by natural selection. Doesn't seem like there is much else to it. It's pretty simple, really. you are either an evolutionist, for which there is lots of evidence, or a creationist, for which there is none. Are there other options?threadbear wrote:I too question Darwinism. There could be many different forces contributing to evolution, Darwinism included, but it isn't the whole story. Evolutionists give you two choices, either you're a creationist or a Darwinist. It's a kind of fundamentalism more appropriately called scientism than science.
Of course there are subtleties but the basic theory is incredibly simple. The thread starter expressed doubts about evolution, as a scientific theory, as a way to show his sceptical credentials. Evolution, however has stood up to scientific scrutiny so far and is an incredibly simple idea that is hard to gainsay. Just as peak oil is an incredibly simple idea that is difficult to gainsay, even if you have the fringe belief that some oil is being produced via an abiotic process, as we speak. Both evolution and peak oil are as close to certainties as you can get, given our level of knowledge. The only question about the latter is the date of peak. Unfortunately (because it is a constant topic of debate) the question of the date is irrelevant, since we cannot possibly discover it with precision, until well after the event.threadbear wrote:I'm afraid I've hijacked this thread, unintentionally. I do think that this subject, illustrates the base of assumptions that many contentious issues rest on, and a stubborn resistance to concede to the subtleties and complexities of the reality of the natural world, be it fossil fuels or other distantly related topics.
TonyPrep wrote:Of course there are subtleties but the basic theory is incredibly simple. The thread starter expressed doubts about evolution, as a scientific theory, as a way to show his sceptical credentials. Evolution, however has stood up to scientific scrutiny so far and is an incredibly simple idea that is hard to gainsay. Just as peak oil is an incredibly simple idea that is difficult to gainsay, even if you have the fringe belief that some oil is being produced via an abiotic process, as we speak. Both evolution and peak oil are as close to certainties as you can get, given our level of knowledge. The only question about the latter is the date of peak. Unfortunately (because it is a constant topic of debate) the question of the date is irrelevant, since we cannot possibly discover it with precision, until well after the event.threadbear wrote:I'm afraid I've hijacked this thread, unintentionally. I do think that this subject, illustrates the base of assumptions that many contentious issues rest on, and a stubborn resistance to concede to the subtleties and complexities of the reality of the natural world, be it fossil fuels or other distantly related topics.
Peak oil will occur; the only question then is how are we going to deal with it?
Tony
threadbear wrote:Peak date is very relevant. Running out tomorrow is far different than running out in a decade or two.
threadbear wrote:Also, the poster expressed scepticism about Darwinism. I've provided very solid information that the skepticism is deserved.
threadbear wrote:Science is a dynamic evolving process itself, and it's contemproary theories often turn out to be no more than handy working hypotheses. Darwinism is limited by those who think that it stands alone in explaining how and why animals change.
threadbear wrote:I'm more convinced than ever that the forums are providing a home for fundamentalist thinkers, who can't see shades of grey and simply don't understand the philosophy of, or spirit of scientific inquiry.
threadbear wrote:The best evidence for peak oil is actually intuitive and anecdotal. We can use reason to discern that if oil has run out in the US, it is a finite resource and will run out elsewhere.
There is nothing wrong with arriving at this conclusion, even if it isn't supported, at this point, by iron clad scientific evidence.
threadbear wrote:It IS wrong to slime people who question your "scientific"conclusions.
Ad hominems are a very poor form of argument. Yes, I did link to the article. It doesn't alter anything I wrote; Darwinian evolutionary theory may be incomplete but I don't see how anyone claiming to require sound science can be skeptical of what it does say about how the life we see around us got here. As far as I recall, the original poster didn't offer any reasons for such skepticism (though I haven't read all posts).threadbear wrote:You don't get the Darwinian evolution thing, do you? Do you think I dismiss it? I'm simply saying it makes up a few chapters in the book of evolution. It's not the whole story. It's incomplete. If you didn't bother to read the article in Wikkipedia, I linked to, don't bother me. You don't know how to think--don't make me suffer for it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests