BarryW55 wrote:

LynLlew wrote:There's a lot to be said about desperately wanting the events of a book to be true....

I'm still looking forward to running into the family from Tuck Everlasting.

You mean like Charles Darwins epic, "On the Origin of Species?" lol The bible of evolutionists and atheists.

If an intelligent discussion were a variation of rock-paper-scissors, Spitting vitriol would never win against biting sarcasm.

I am fairly certain that by making a nasty jab at a book that is historically important to the scientific community, you fully intended to cause as much extreme personal pain toward me as you obviously feel when someone points literally anything out that doesn't agree ten-thousand percent with your group's personal interpretation of the bible...another historically important document.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't really get butthurt by jabs at the scientific community. The scientific community can handle a little ignorance and schoolyard taunting, since it's the only way that the "other side" has been able to communicate its disagreement.....ever. And I think I speak for a few geeks out there when I say that our eyes are pretty much accustomed to the sand-kicking, thanks.

I disagree with some of the things that people say in defense of science....and I agree with some of the things that people say in defense of faith. But here's the thing...at the end of the day, I remain an individual with a complex mind and varying ideas and opinions on many subjects....and while I may find lots of things very interesting and intriguing....and while I may agree with the points that someone may make...I will neither follow blindly behind one ideal or group, nor will I debase and insult another individual.

I will, however, judge people for their lazy ignorance and pity people who are more comfortable as puppets and automatons than living, breathing, amazingly diverse and complicated chunks of awesome.

Oh, and I read Darwin's book. It is a very dryly written and fascinating study on scientific thought and observation. I didn't cry.....or raise my hands and praise Darwin...or sway while holding hands with other scientifically minded people...or base all of my life's decisions on how Darwin felt about grains of wheat. I read it....and then I read lots of other things. And as I read more and more.....I began to think more and more....and the more I thought, the more I lived.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a book lovers forum. Don't be afraid to expand your horizons to a few different subjects. You may catch yourself becoming empathetic or even thinking about things.

Best of luck..and DFTBA

BarryW55 wrote:

ant wrote:Here's what I can't understand:

Despite my personal acknowledgement of a warming planet
Despite my acknowledgement and support of the need to take action
Despite my complete and utter disdain for pollution and raping of our natural landscape (what's left of it)...,

I am still referred to as a "bigot" and "denier" because I will not point the finger at human beings as being strictly and completely responsible for climate change.


It's like a weird cult for people like Robert. It's so Orwellian.

Anyone who thinks humans are not responsible for climate change is deluded. The worst "Orwellian Weird Cult" in relation to climate change is the science denial movement. See http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change- ... 96371.html for a good summary of current science, although the article has not articulated any constructive approach to the Trump Presidency.

Barry contradicts himself in the above quoted post by endorsing acknowledgement of a warming planet. And ant flatly continues his flat earth contradiction between alleged acceptance of science and denial that human emissions are the main cause of climate change.

"Orwellian" means the slogans 'ignorance is strength, war is peace, freedom is slavery'. Those well summarise the dystopia of young earth creationism.

Interbane wrote:

You are so arrogant that you didn't even use my link. That is what is so pathetic about you "higher educated" folks. You think you know everything.

I've read through all your links Barry.

The thing is, none of us knows the smallest fraction of the knowledge available to us, let alone everything. You're the arrogant one, thinking you're correct without putting in any effort to actually learn what that entails. Thinking you're correct and the tens of thousands of educated scientists worldwide are collectively wrong. Not just on one subject, but on multiple subjects that branch out into hundreds of fields of science. Thinking that you don't need to do any of the studying they had to go through, and you still know better than them. That's arrogance Barry, and it stinks.

Also, I've never been to college.

Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc

You can't understand some terms by their dictionary definition. Science isn't another word for knowledge, as you claim. There are types of knowledge that can be acquired which aren't scientific, even as there is scientific knowledge. If you want the conceptual definition rather than the dictionary definition, try here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

You've read through my links and they go against what YOU think, plain and simple. So of course, you don't like them. lol I'm not arrogant, I'm just not stupid. To think we evolved from some lower life form is ridiculous. LOL Ten's of thousands of educated scientists? In WHAT? MYTH? lol Frog-man to modern man? I think it stinks that you dismiss out of hand the millions, if not BILLIONS of people that believe God created man from the dust of the ground. But of course, your tens of thousands of scientists, that will say ANYTHING to keep their jobs and grant money, are right.

I've never been to college either.

geo wrote:

BarryW55 wrote: Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol

Barry, welcome to BookTalk!

Thank you!

LanDroid wrote:

BarryW55 wrote:Again, mankind CANNOT destroy himself environmentally speaking ...

Why would you make such a strange statement? One difference between the atomic bomb and a thermonuclear bomb is there is no upper limit on the explosive power of the latter. Humans could construct a thermonuclear bomb powerful enough to turn the planet Earth into microscopic space dust; for all we know doomsday weapons like this may already exist. Or we could unleash global warfare involving biological agents, poisons, and radioactive weapons that render the planet inhospitable to human life. You appear to claim it is Absolutely Impossible for man to "destroy himself environmentally speaking", but obviously that's not true given considerations such as these.

Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.

Are you unaware of anaerobic bacteria that thrive in atmospheres devoid of oxygen, such as those rich in CO2? You might want to read the current non-fiction book we're discussing, which at one point describes how cyanobacteria provided oxygen to the ancient atmosphere on earth.

Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc

Surely you realize you linked to a dictionary of etymology, which studies the origins of words? The definition of science provided there is from the 14th century! To find a current definition, please go back to the link Chris O'Connor provided.

Uh, I said ENVIRONMENTALLY speaking that man couldn't destroy himself. You are throwing weapons into the mix.

So, the ORIGIN of the word "science" was coined in the 14th century. What was the word used for it before then? Knowledge maybe?

science (n.) Look up science at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, to split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate;" see schizo-).

From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill, handicraft; a trade." From late 14c. as "collective human knowledge" (especially "that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning). Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. Sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s.
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]
In science you must not talk before you know. In art you must not talk before you do. In literature you must not talk before you think. [John Ruskin, "The Eagle's Nest," 1872]
The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. To blind (someone) with science "confuse by the use of big words or complex explanations" is attested from 1937, originally noted as a phrase from Australia and New Zealand.

LynLlew wrote:

BarryW55 wrote:

LynLlew wrote:There's a lot to be said about desperately wanting the events of a book to be true....

I'm still looking forward to running into the family from Tuck Everlasting.

You mean like Charles Darwins epic, "On the Origin of Species?" lol The bible of evolutionists and atheists.

If an intelligent discussion were a variation of rock-paper-scissors, Spitting vitriol would never win against biting sarcasm.

I am fairly certain that by making a nasty jab at a book that is historically important to the scientific community, you fully intended to cause as much extreme personal pain toward me as you obviously feel when someone points literally anything out that doesn't agree ten-thousand percent with your group's personal interpretation of the bible...another historically important document.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't really get butthurt by jabs at the scientific community. The scientific community can handle a little ignorance and schoolyard taunting, since it's the only way that the "other side" has been able to communicate its disagreement.....ever. And I think I speak for a few geeks out there when I say that our eyes are pretty much accustomed to the sand-kicking, thanks.

I disagree with some of the things that people say in defense of science....and I agree with some of the things that people say in defense of faith. But here's the thing...at the end of the day, I remain an individual with a complex mind and varying ideas and opinions on many subjects....and while I may find lots of things very interesting and intriguing....and while I may agree with the points that someone may make...I will neither follow blindly behind one ideal or group, nor will I debase and insult another individual.

I will, however, judge people for their lazy ignorance and pity people who are more comfortable as puppets and automatons than living, breathing, amazingly diverse and complicated chunks of awesome.

Oh, and I read Darwin's book. It is a very dryly written and fascinating study on scientific thought and observation. I didn't cry.....or raise my hands and praise Darwin...or sway while holding hands with other scientifically minded people...or base all of my life's decisions on how Darwin felt about grains of wheat. I read it....and then I read lots of other things. And as I read more and more.....I began to think more and more....and the more I thought, the more I lived.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a book lovers forum. Don't be afraid to expand your horizons to a few different subjects. You may catch yourself becoming empathetic or even thinking about things.

Best of luck..and DFTBA

No, you are not mistaken. I suppose it IS a book lovers forum. But, you have no problem dissing the book called the Bible while deifying the book written by a man that was disgusted with God and a little bit mental. The very book YOU are making fun of, and yes, that is EXACTLY what you are doing, has saved countless billions of souls by the Living Words it contains. Darwin's book on bird beaks is just that. A book on bird beaks. lol And, I mean no personal pain toward you, I don't even know you. I am sure you are a loving but misguided individual.

I will, however, judge people for their lazy ignorance and pity people who are more comfortable as puppets and automatons than living, breathing, amazingly diverse and complicated chunks of awesome.

Really? What about YOUR lazy ignorance of the Bible? Making fun of it and the people who actually STUDY it? You think nothing of studying a book that has been debunked by its own inherents over the years but have you actually STUDIED the Bible? And if you say yes then you have come away not learning anything if you still believe man was once a frog-mman, like Haeckle hoaxed.

Robert Tulip wrote:

BarryW55 wrote:

ant wrote:Here's what I can't understand:

Despite my personal acknowledgement of a warming planet
Despite my acknowledgement and support of the need to take action
Despite my complete and utter disdain for pollution and raping of our natural landscape (what's left of it)...,

I am still referred to as a "bigot" and "denier" because I will not point the finger at human beings as being strictly and completely responsible for climate change.


It's like a weird cult for people like Robert. It's so Orwellian.

Anyone who thinks humans are not responsible for climate change is deluded. The worst "Orwellian Weird Cult" in relation to climate change is the science denial movement. See http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change- ... 96371.html for a good summary of current science, although the article has not articulated any constructive approach to the Trump Presidency.

Barry contradicts himself in the above quoted post by endorsing acknowledgement of a warming planet. And ant flatly continues his flat earth contradiction between alleged acceptance of science and denial that human emissions are the main cause of climate change.

"Orwellian" means the slogans 'ignorance is strength, war is peace, freedom is slavery'. Those well summarise the dystopia of young earth creationism.

Anyone who thinks man is responsible for climate change is deluded. Imagine if you will, a vast, unending prairie. Somewhere on the distant horizon is a little plume of smoke. THAT is man's contribution to "climate change."

Barry, it seems to me rather silly for you and I to place more trust in your prairie analogy than in the educated opinions of qualified climate scientists who overwhelmingly say we are indeed a primary source of climate change. I don't know about your personal academic credentials but I know I'm not qualified to reject the findings of people who have dedicated their lives to studying this subject matter.

BarryW55 wrote:Uh, I said ENVIRONMENTALLY speaking that man couldn't destroy himself. You are throwing weapons into the mix.

It's the same mix: Man unleashes weapons that destroy the environment, which in turn destroys man. We have the capability to destroy ourselves directly through killing, indirectly by destroying the environment by weaponry or technology, and by other means as well. Your claim that man cannot destroy the environment is ridiculous.

So, the ORIGIN of the word "science" was coined in the 14th century. What was the word used for it before then? Knowledge maybe?

Sheesh, the point is for you to look up a modern definition of science and learn from that instead of repeating an obsolete definition.

LanDroid wrote:

BarryW55 wrote:Uh, I said ENVIRONMENTALLY speaking that man couldn't destroy himself. You are throwing weapons into the mix.

It's the same mix: Man unleashes weapons that destroy the environment, which in turn destroys man. We have the capability to destroy ourselves directly through killing, indirectly by destroying the environment by weaponry or technology, and by other means as well. Your claim that man cannot destroy the environment is ridiculous.

So, the ORIGIN of the word "science" was coined in the 14th century. What was the word used for it before then? Knowledge maybe?

Sheesh, the point is for you to look up a modern definition of science and learn from that instead of repeating an obsolete definition.

lol Obsolete definition? lol Sheeesh. It STILL means knowledge. What about that can't you understand?