Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:U.S. is established on religion, so (Score -1) 900

by iUseMyBrain (#38507670) Attached to: America's Turn From Science, a Danger For Democracy
I guess you missed the point of what I was trying to say. One of my points was that religion and science are one and the same and both are biased. Take for example, a scientist who is a biblical Christian. He/she is going to look at the at a piece of data with the mindset that everything was created by God. An evolutionist is going to look at that same piece of data with the mindset that there is no God and that everything is the result of random chance. Both are observing the data with their own personal biased views. I'm am not saying that science is useless and can tell you nothing. I'm merely putting it into perspective. Science can't tell you everything, and it can't explain everything. It can only observe the here and now and draw conclusions.

Science is making useful, falsifiable predictions about the likely outcome of future experiments and observations using some kind of formalized universal theory.

Note the word "likely".

A geologist can gin up some weird model of geological plate tectonics or the temperature of the earth vs depth of crust. Then you run the math, meanwhile a dude digs a hole and drops a thermometer in, and the math and the thermometer seem to match up...

Biblical Christianity does not break the laws of the universe. Evolution is a clear violation of many laws. Statistically speaking, evolution isn't even possible.

It doesn't really matter in an abstract sense if "evolution is true" or not. All that matters is every time you apply the magic box of the theory of evolution in the future, it seems that each time, observations and experiments seem to result in experiment matching the magic boxes prediction.

Crap in, crap out. The funny thing about the "theory of evolution" is that it has failed to prove anything. Think about carbon dating. How the heck does that work? They determine the age of a fossil by what layer of whatever its called they find it in. But how do they determine the age of the layer, by the type of fossil the find in it. Crap in, crap out. You apply the "magic box" of evolution and it fails. You apply the "magic box" of biblical Christianity and it makes sense.

Well I guess I could dare your god to strike me down with lightning

Funny joke. Never heard that one before. The thing about MY God is He's not out to kill everyone who disagrees with Him.

in fact I'm kind of a distant fan of Christianity, at least in theory although not so much how its practiced by sinful people

Hurray.. I would agree. There is much bogus Christianity out there. It's crap that steers people away from the truth. The Bible, understood correctly, is not bogus, and is truth.

Comment: Re:U.S. is established on religion, so (Score -1) 900

by iUseMyBrain (#38506788) Attached to: America's Turn From Science, a Danger For Democracy
That begs the question, where did physical law come from. Lots of people love to deny an all powerful God because then they don't have anyone to be accountable to but themselves, and we all know how self-delusional people can be. Side note about scientists: A lot of people tend to think that scientists are somehow unbiased unlike the rest of the world. Side note: it's impossible to not be biased, think about it. Scientist are just people like the rest of us, with all our faults and imperfections. When it comes to science, people seem to think that science can explain everything. Let's think for a minute about what science can and cannot do. Science can only observe the here and now, draw conclusions from the evidence that we have here and now, and draw conclusions from that. Science cannot tell you what happened in the past. Can science explain how the world began? No. Why not? Because the scientist wasn't there, he/she did not see it for themselves. Instead, we have the all ready created world, and we draw conclusions from what we see. When it comes to Creationism vs Evolution, it's really a battle of religions, because Evolution is a religion. Both beliefs require faith. On one hand you have Creationism (and I'm coming at this from a Biblical aspect of the view) Biblical Creation is based off a divinely inspired Book that was written by men being directed by God. In this Book you therefore have God, claiming to be God, claiming to be there when the world was created, claiming to have witnessed it all. In Evolution, you have man, who was not there, claiming to know how it all began. You can either trust in a God, or trust what a man has to say. But lets look at some facts: Evolution says that everything evolved, therefore to be true, you would think that we would see evidence for things evolving in science, like fossils. However, evolution fails to produce evidence in this field. In Biblical Creation: the Bible says that everything was created according to its kind and that there was a large flood that covered the earth which killed many animals. Therefore you think you would find animals, each reproducing within its kind, and that we would find many fossils of animals, buried in layers of earth that could only have been laid down in a very short amount of time, covering the earth. Therefore, using the observation of science, the most evidence would point towards Creationism, not Evolution. (Yes, my example were brief, I'm not writing out an essay here despite what you might be thinking.) Last thoughts: According to Evolution, you are a product of chance. If you are a product of chance, your brain is also a product of chance. Therefore, the thought patterns that determine your logic are also products of chance. If your logic is the result of chance processes, you can't be sure you evolved properly. Therefore, you can't trust your own logic.

Comment: Global Warming - Yes Please (Score 1) 760

by iUseMyBrain (#37991902) Attached to: World Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Outpace Worst-Case Scenario
The earth's temperature changes a bit, no argument there. But, there's a reason that Greenland, which is covered in ice right now, was called "green-land" hundreds of years ago. I, for one, am all for global warming, I live in MN and it gets freakin cold up here, I wouldn't mind it warming up a few degrees again.

Comment: Re:Phew... (Score 1) 760

by iUseMyBrain (#37991750) Attached to: World Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Outpace Worst-Case Scenario
Just a couple things: - The government is actually pouring money into "alternative energy". Wind for example, but ask anyone in the business and they'll tell you that its not a viable option at all, but they'll still take the gov's money cause hey, its free $$. (this is personal knowledge, not just some made up bs) - There is enough oil in the Dakota's alone to last the US over 2,000 years using oil at the rate we do right now, that's pretty long term if you ask me.

Comment: Re:Amazing - doh (Score 1) 396

by iUseMyBrain (#37291958) Attached to: Journal Editor Resigns Over Flawed Global Warming Paper

Major ice sheets are evaporating, and there's someone in the wild that says, "hay, this is normal, don't worry." And then another person says, "Hay, this is great publishing!" It's like being in a theater and someone yells, "Fire!" and then a chorus of voices blocking the Exits screams, "There is no Fire!"

Ever wonder why Greenland is named "Greenland"? Maybe the Earth's climate goes through cycles... nah, that's too crazy of an idea..

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb

Working...