Enlighten Me Free

Welcome.

Housekeeping: As is posted on the EMF Message Board page, this forum is for support, sharing opinions and experiences for those who have left RSE and have doubts and concerns about their tenure there. It is NOT a place for proselytizing for RSE, JZK Inc or Ramtha.  Play nicely or your post will be sent to cyberspace time-out for all eternity. The disclaimer for EMF is located on this page http://enlightenmefree.com/disclaimer.html and all posters agree to the terms of the disclaimer. Be sure you've read it before posting.

You may also want to visit a complementary forum at FACTNet http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/779.html

If you wish to use a Spell Checker, you may wish to use this free one: http://www.jacuba.com/

Want to contact the EMF moderators? Email messageboard@enlightenmefree.com
 

 

 

General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

Tyger- are you saying you don't believe in evolution? I'm not necessarily saying "Omigod he doesn't even believe in evolution!!!", In just wasn't exactly sure who you were making fun of.

The reason I ask is because if you don't beleive in evolution, then our views are so fundamentally different that I could'nt even try to debate you on global warming anymore. this probably sounds patronizing, but that's not how i mean it. I just can't have a scientific debate really with someone who doesn't beleive in evolution because we are coming from such fundamentally different views that there is really no point.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

The scientific method is based on the ability to measure and then to duplicate that measurement. From that you arrive at a probability that something may or may not be true. In that duplication of a probability is more likely if the same scientist re-does his study therefore you have other scientists try to duplicate his findings i.e. "peer review". To eliminate peer review seems to give license to anyone claiming a probability to proceed without question,witness jz. To claim "belief" in any aspect of science, herein Global Warming, implies "faith". Presently any theory on GW is precisely that, a theory with each theory having it's own probability. So far the only person claiming the ability to see into the future with certainty is ol blubber lips herself. I am supposing that none of you have done actual research or devised your own computer models on GW so in effect you are choosing the data you want to believe in. That is entirely acceptable. Keep in mind that whatever you choose to believe it is at best a "best guess". To claim certainty of a future truth raises other questions.

Re: DEBATE: Global Warming

Bud said, "Keep in mind that whatever you choose to believe it is at best a "best guess". To claim certainty of a future truth raises other questions."

Absolutely.

Remember there was even a time that people believed the Earth was flat ! People were murdered for speaking out that it wasn't flat. Goes to show the degree to which some people need to "believe" in certain viewpoints, too.