Praetoriani- thanks for the support.  I really don't know much about archeology. Only way I knew this was a fraud was because it was so easy to recognize the natural features presented.  Would love to hear a few things that struck you watching those clips.

Teala- I know where you're coming from.  I really think that it is the responsible thing to do when we expose this type of ignorance for what it is.  There are many people lacking basic science education that might not be ABLE to recognize fraud so easily.  As frustrating as it may be, I think trying to keep an open dialogue is important even when others abandon rational thinking.

I would think that EDUCATED Christians would be the first to attack this type of pseudoscience because it is SO bad that it severely damages the credibility of research that is done in good faith by trained people.  I don't for a minute think that the creationists are right, but I know several fundamentalist Christian scientists that still do REAL science and take the scientific method very seriously.

Reborn17, where are you? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.  You did request that I evaluate these claims, and now that I have you have disappeared.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Praetoriani- thanks for the support.  I really don't know much about archeology. Only way I knew this was a fraud was because it was so easy to recognize the natural features presented.  Would love to hear a few things that struck you watching those clips.

Teala- I know where you're coming from.  I really think that it is the responsible thing to do when we expose this type of ignorance for what it is.  There are many people lacking basic science education that might not be ABLE to recognize fraud so easily.  As frustrating as it may be, I think trying to keep an open dialogue is important even when others abandon rational thinking.

 

I would think that EDUCATED Christians would be the first to attack this type of pseudoscience because it is SO bad that it severely damages the credibility of research that is done in good faith by trained people.  I don't for a minute think that the creationists are right, but I know several fundamentalist Christian scientists that still do REAL science and take the scientific method very seriously.

Reborn17, where are you? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.  You did request that I evaluate these claims, and now that I have you have disappeared.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth any educated people commenting on -- much less educated Christians. But, since you called me out (as an educated Christian, and someone you know as an educated Christian, I assumed you meant me lol). I usually try to avoid really dumb threads :)

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time with studying the history of archeology and biblical archeology -- this is simply crap.

I don't however believe idiots doing idiot work undermine anyone else's credibility. I believe each individual stands on their own merits. Logic agrees with me as well on this.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Praetoriani- thanks for the support.  I really don't know much about archeology. Only way I knew this was a fraud was because it was so easy to recognize the natural features presented.  Would love to hear a few things that struck you watching those clips.

Teala- I know where you're coming from.  I really think that it is the responsible thing to do when we expose this type of ignorance for what it is.  There are many people lacking basic science education that might not be ABLE to recognize fraud so easily.  As frustrating as it may be, I think trying to keep an open dialogue is important even when others abandon rational thinking.

 

I would think that EDUCATED Christians would be the first to attack this type of pseudoscience because it is SO bad that it severely damages the credibility of research that is done in good faith by trained people.  I don't for a minute think that the creationists are right, but I know several fundamentalist Christian scientists that still do REAL science and take the scientific method very seriously.

Reborn17, where are you? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.  You did request that I evaluate these claims, and now that I have you have disappeared.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth any educated people commenting on -- much less educated Christians. But, since you called me out (as an educated Christian, and someone you know as an educated Christian, I assumed you meant me lol). I usually try to avoid really dumb threads :)

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time with studying the history of archeology and biblical archeology -- this is simply crap.

I don't however believe idiots doing idiot work undermine anyone else's credibility. I believe each individual stands on their own merits. Logic agrees with me as well on this.

Actually Fisher, I was thinking of educated Christians in general.  

People doing this type of pseudoscience can have a huge effect on the perception of science in popular culture.  I'm pretty sure someone connected with this Gomorrah theory actually made it on to 60 minutes at one point (don't have time to look up the link).

I'm already at the point where I have to STOP myself from assuming that any science done by an "openly Christian" person is automatically bad science.  I think cases like this collectively have a REALLY damaging effect on the relationship between faith and science.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Praetoriani- thanks for the support.  I really don't know much about archeology. Only way I knew this was a fraud was because it was so easy to recognize the natural features presented.  Would love to hear a few things that struck you watching those clips.

Teala- I know where you're coming from.  I really think that it is the responsible thing to do when we expose this type of ignorance for what it is.  There are many people lacking basic science education that might not be ABLE to recognize fraud so easily.  As frustrating as it may be, I think trying to keep an open dialogue is important even when others abandon rational thinking.

 

I would think that EDUCATED Christians would be the first to attack this type of pseudoscience because it is SO bad that it severely damages the credibility of research that is done in good faith by trained people.  I don't for a minute think that the creationists are right, but I know several fundamentalist Christian scientists that still do REAL science and take the scientific method very seriously.

Reborn17, where are you? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.  You did request that I evaluate these claims, and now that I have you have disappeared.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth any educated people commenting on -- much less educated Christians. But, since you called me out (as an educated Christian, and someone you know as an educated Christian, I assumed you meant me lol). I usually try to avoid really dumb threads :)

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time with studying the history of archeology and biblical archeology -- this is simply crap.

I don't however believe idiots doing idiot work undermine anyone else's credibility. I believe each individual stands on their own merits. Logic agrees with me as well on this.

Actually Fisher, I was thinking of educated Christians in general.  

People doing this type of pseudoscience can have a huge effect on the perception of science in popular culture.  I'm pretty sure someone connected with this Gomorrah theory actually made it on to 60 minutes at one point (don't have time to look up the link).

I'm already at the point where I have to STOP myself from assuming that any science done by an "openly Christian" person is automatically bad science.  I think cases like this collectively have a REALLY damaging effect on the relationship between faith and science.

Well one could say the same thing about political liberals and science when it comes to man-made global warming.

Everybody has an agenda. Honest people won't fake science to further that agenda, dishonest people will.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Actually Fisher, I was thinking of educated Christians in general.  

People doing this type of pseudoscience can have a huge effect on the perception of science in popular culture.  I'm pretty sure someone connected with this Gomorrah theory actually made it on to 60 minutes at one point (don't have time to look up the link).

I'm already at the point where I have to STOP myself from assuming that any science done by an "openly Christian" person is automatically bad science.  I think cases like this collectively have a REALLY damaging effect on the relationship between faith and science.

 Well one could say the same thing about political liberals and science when it comes to man-made global warming.

Everybody has an agenda. Honest people won't fake science to further that agenda, dishonest people will.

Hard to draw a parallel between the two.

The data supporting global warming due to greenhouse gasses is presented in peer reviewed journals in many disciplines of science.  As far as the researchers I've worked with, the only agenda is to find the truth.  Any scientist with integrity would abandon a theory once good evidence was found that contradicted the theory.  THIS is the real difference.. scientists did not START OUT believing in global warming and then try to make the data fit their wishes.  In fact, the real "holy grail" in the field of climatology would be good evidence CONTRADICTING the idea that greenhous gas emissions bring about measurable climate change.  Any lab that found such evidence would probably end up with a Nobel.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Actually Fisher, I was thinking of educated Christians in general.  

People doing this type of pseudoscience can have a huge effect on the perception of science in popular culture.  I'm pretty sure someone connected with this Gomorrah theory actually made it on to 60 minutes at one point (don't have time to look up the link).

I'm already at the point where I have to STOP myself from assuming that any science done by an "openly Christian" person is automatically bad science.  I think cases like this collectively have a REALLY damaging effect on the relationship between faith and science.

 Well one could say the same thing about political liberals and science when it comes to man-made global warming.

Everybody has an agenda. Honest people won't fake science to further that agenda, dishonest people will.

 

Hard to draw a parallel between the two.

The data supporting global warming due to greenhouse gasses is presented in peer reviewed journals in many disciplines of science.  As far as the researchers I've worked with, the only agenda is to find the truth.  Any scientist with integrity would abandon a theory once good evidence was found that contradicted the theory.  THIS is the real difference.. scientists did not START OUT believing in global warming and then try to make the data fit their wishes.  In fact, the real "holy grail" in the field of climatology would be good evidence CONTRADICTING the idea that greenhous gas emissions bring about measurable climate change.  Any lab that found such evidence would probably end up with a Nobel.

So you say. But, since I choose not to believe you, sorry, that doesn't work. The big government money is backing certain results being found, and those results are being found. All those peers are also getting government money.

When no government money is behind it, those folks are finding other results.

Sorry this is contested issue and those who believe in liberty are not finding the same thing as those who do not.

All available evidence shows that man is insignificant compared with what is really casing climate change -- the sun and the oceans in natural cycles.

If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't.

We have been through this before, I asked you to prove your case -- you didn't back then.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

So you say. But, since I choose not to believe you, sorry, that doesn't work. The big government money is backing certain results being found, and those results are being found. All those peers are also getting government money.

When no government money is behind it, those folks are finding other results.

Sorry this is contested issue and those who believe in liberty are not finding the same thing as those who do not.

All available evidence shows that man is insignificant compared with what is really casing climate change -- the sun and the oceans in natural cycles.

If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't.

We have been through this before, I asked you to prove your case -- you didn't back then.

Yes, this was the first debate I ever had with you on this board.  As was true back then, it will take me 4 hours driving and the better part of a weekend to compile reasonable evidence.  Back then I decided it would be a waste of time because you wouldn't change your mind regardless of what I showed you.

Now that I know you better I truly believe that you WOULD give any evidence a fair appraisal.  This still represents a hell of a lot  more work than discrediting the fake Gomorrah.  The biggest problem is that many of the articles are only available online if you pay for them.  I still may do this at some point- as much for the fun of it as anything else.  As is stands now, yes you have every right to tell me to "shove it" because frankly I don't have the time or the energy to devote to proving that consensus of the global scientific community is (strangely enough) based on real scientific research.

As for the following statement:  "If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't. "

I offer the following parable:

A research scientist discovers that Cigarette smoke induces demethylation of prometastatic oncogene synuclein-gamma in lung cancer cells by downregulation of DNMT3B. 

A family practitioner reads this paper and concludes that cigarette smoking increases the risk of cancer in his patients.

He tells his patient that continuing to smoke is putting him at MUCH greater risk for lung cancer.  The patient laughs and says, "you have no proof and I have the right to do whatever I want to my body."

One year later the patient sees his doctor again, and once again encourages him to quit smoking because he is increasing his risk of developing cancer.  This time he SHOWS him the research paper about oncogene synuclein-gamma.  The patient shrugs and says, "If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't."

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Fishermage 

So you say. But, since I choose not to believe you, sorry, that doesn't work. The big government money is backing certain results being found, and those results are being found. All those peers are also getting government money.

When no government money is behind it, those folks are finding other results.

Sorry this is contested issue and those who believe in liberty are not finding the same thing as those who do not.

All available evidence shows that man is insignificant compared with what is really casing climate change -- the sun and the oceans in natural cycles.

If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't.

We have been through this before, I asked you to prove your case -- you didn't back then.

 

Yes, this was the first debate I ever had with you on this board.  As was true back then, it will take me 4 hours driving and the better part of a weekend to compile reasonable evidence.  Back then I decided it would be a waste of time because you wouldn't change your mind regardless of what I showed you.

Now that I know you better I truly believe that you WOULD give any evidence a fair appraisal.  This still represents a hell of a lot  more work than discrediting the fake Gomorrah.  The biggest problem is that many of the articles are only available online if you pay for them.  I still may do this at some point- as much for the fun of it as anything else.  As is stands now, yes you have every right to tell me to "shove it" because frankly I don't have the time or the energy to devote to proving that consensus of the global scientific community is (strangely enough) based on real scientific research.

As for the following statement:  "If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't. "

I offer the following parable:

A research scientist discovers that Cigarette smoke induces demethylation of prometastatic oncogene synuclein-gamma in lung cancer cells by downregulation of DNMT3B. 

A family practitioner reads this paper and concludes that cigarette smoking increases the risk of cancer in his patients.

He tells his patient that continuing to smoke is putting him at MUCH greater risk for lung cancer.  The patient laughs and says, "you have no proof and I have the right to do whatever I want to my body."

One year later the patient sees his doctor again, and once again encourages him to quit smoking because he is increasing his risk of developing cancer.  This time he SHOWS him the research paper about oncogene synuclein-gamma.  The patient shrugs and says, "If you guys were RIGHT, your predictions would come true. Thus far, they haven't."

Your parable makes MY case not yours.

This is not about medicine, but  in medicine, the predictions come true. that is why we believe that smoking causes cancer -- the predictions come true :)

In climate studies, if you had a good model they would come true. The evidence is not there, the model is wrong, and thus the predictions are wrong.

I have been studying all the evidence I could find since this nonsense started, and the predictions have gotten further and further from the truth. The people on your side have admitted to falsifying and cherrypicking data, and the tide is turning in my favor.

The truth is there was global warming, now there is global cooling -- this has happened many times and it is mostly due to the sun and how the sun warms the oceans. Man is relatively insignificant.

However any time you want to prove it, please do. As always I have looked at the BEST evidence I can find against me, just as I do with political economy, and I find it wanting. Plus it always seems ALL the guys on your side will get MORE money if they believe in AGW.

You need to show me someone who LOSES money if he believes in AGW to make YOUR case. Bet you can't find ONE. I've tried.

Either way, good models are predictive, bad are not.

Just as we free market/austrian guys predicted this boom/bust in real estate (as a largely monetary phenomenon) and the Keynesians did not :)

Oh and it takes a hellovah lot more work because you don't have billions of government dollars behind this Sodom and G dude. If you did and you had state paid for peer review, and people calling the opposition deniers on television and equating people who didn't agree to holocaust deniers, you would have a hellovah time.

sadly the entire peer review aspect of science has been destroyed by government funding of the sciences. Now all science is political. It's a very sad state of affairs and if it continues will lead to the end of science. Already science serves the state and its ends, to a large degree.

The point of my parable was simply that not enough time has passed to see if predictions of global warming are valid or not.  In this particular study N = 1, and there is only one opportunity to assess the effects that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions have on the system.  In my analogy understanding activation of the oncogene was meant to represent understanding of a key part of oncogenesis, just as climate researchers understand components of of global warming mechanisms very clearly.  As with most complex natural systems, thermal equilibrium is not a simple system controlled by positive or negative feedback.  There are MANY interconnected systems reflecting sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Here is a totally made up scenario:

1) Greenhouse gas emissions cause a slight rise in average ambient arctic temperature.

2) Continental ice sheets begin melting, introducing a salinity, temperature, and density change in ocean currents.

3) Weather patterns change due to changes in ocean currents.  New weather patterns generate more cloudcover, which in turn increases albedo, which in turn causes an observed drop in in global temperatures more often than not over a 20 year period.

4) Critics of global warming say "SEE! the earth is cooling not warming!!!"

The mechanism by which greenhouse gases CAUSE warming is well understood.  Timescales and feedback mechanisms are not properly understood because we have a hard time modeling events that have never happened before on a PLANETARY scale.

By running the NUMBERS however, it IS possible to judge the relative size of each inflow and outflow of energy to give us an idea of the relative importance of things like greenhouse gasses as opposed to solar cycles.  Based on these numbers, global warming is a real threat.

Originally posted by Enkindu

The point of my parable was simply that not enough time has passed to see if predictions of global warming are valid or not.  In this particular study N = 1, and there is only one opportunity to assess the effects that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions have on the system.  In my analogy understanding activation of the oncogene was meant to represent understanding of a key part of oncogenesis, just as climate researchers understand components of of global warming mechanisms very clearly.  As with most complex natural systems, thermal equilibrium is not a simple system controlled by positive or negative feedback.  There are MANY interconnected systems reflecting sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Here is a totally made up scenario:

1) Greenhouse gas emissions cause a slight rise in average ambient arctic temperature.

2) Continental ice sheets begin melting, introducing a salinity, temperature, and density change in ocean currents.

3) Weather patterns change due to changes in ocean currents.  New weather patterns generate more cloudcover, which in turn increases albedo, which in turn causes an observed drop in in global temperatures more often than not over a 20 year period.

4) Critics of global warming say "SEE! the earth is cooling not warming!!!"

 

The mechanism by which greenhouse gases CAUSE warming is well understood.  Timescales and feedback mechanisms are not properly understood because we have a hard time modeling events that have never happened before on a PLANETARY scale.

By running the NUMBERS however, it IS possible to judge the relative size of each inflow and outflow of energy to give us an idea of the relative importance of things like greenhouse gasses as opposed to solar cycles.  Based on these numbers, global warming is a real threat.

 

I await your evidence. I still say if the model were true it would be predictive. You can make all the excuses you want, sounds like junk science to me -- just like our friend mentioned above. That guy has excuses too for why his theories don't pan out.

However I am always willing to see MORE evidence, even though I've looked at quite a bit, and I see more religion in this area than real science.

Once you have proved it, THEN we will discuss how much of a threat it is. That is hurdle NUMBER TWO. THEN we will discuss of the things people are suggesting we DO are actually worth doing. That is hurdle NUMBER THREE.

Fisher, admit it- you are being a little obtuse here for the sake of humor, yes?

You know as well as I do the only way to prove or disprove a theory on climate change would be to take a time machine into the future.  The only real tools we have to help us understand the issue are scientific integrity, empirical observation, and adherence to first principles.   As difficult as the task may be to develop a working understanding of the earth's climate, it is simply too important a task to ignore.

Also it's a little absurd to compare the work of thousands of legitimate, well-trained scientists to the ramblings of a single self proclaimed "biblical archeologist."

Originally posted by Enkindu

Fisher, admit it- you are being a little obtuse here for the sake of humor, yes?

You know as well as I do the only way to prove or disprove a theory on climate change would be to take a time machine into the future.  The only real tools we have to help us understand the issue are scientific integrity, empirical observation, and adherence to first principles.   As difficult as the task may be to develop a working understanding of the earth's climate, it is simply too important a task to ignore.

Also it's a little absurd to compare the work of thousands of legitimate, well-trained scientists to the ramblings of a single self proclaimed "biblical archeologist."

yes I am exaggerating, no doubt. But science itself has become so politicized I am disgusted by its state.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Fisher, admit it- you are being a little obtuse here for the sake of humor, yes?

You know as well as I do the only way to prove or disprove a theory on climate change would be to take a time machine into the future.  The only real tools we have to help us understand the issue are scientific integrity, empirical observation, and adherence to first principles.   As difficult as the task may be to develop a working understanding of the earth's climate, it is simply too important a task to ignore.

Also it's a little absurd to compare the work of thousands of legitimate, well-trained scientists to the ramblings of a single self proclaimed "biblical archeologist."

 

yes I am exaggerating, no doubt. But science itself has become so politicized I am disgusted by its state.

That I can certainly understand.