Skull Valley lawmaker wants both side...

Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

There are 1632 comments on the Verde Independent story from Feb 5, 2013, titled Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students. In it, Verde Independent reports that:

Saying students are getting only one side of the debate, a state senator wants to free teachers to tell students why they believe there is no such thing human-caused "global warming.' The proposal by Sen.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Verde Independent.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#486 Mar 6, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny that, I have just searched for that “quote” and the ONLY occurrence of it in google is your everthingimportant godbot site. So not really a quote at all but something cobbled together by a seventh day adventist with an axe of denial to grind and there is no right of peer review. No wonder you did not cite the quoter.
Consider the context. I was arguing with woodstick about what I actually said and believe.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#487 Mar 6, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
No, quantum theory/mechanics does not have any such “obvious” supernatural interpretation except to godbots who need a supernatural interpretation.... try asking someone who knows, a particle physicist or quantum physicist what they understand about quantum theory.
So Freeman Dyson is a godbot and isn't qualified to refute your willful ignorance on quantum mechanics?
everythingimportant.org/naturalism/

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#488 Mar 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Consider the context. I was arguing with woodstick about what I actually said and believe.
You said – and I quote you –“I stand behind this quote:”
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So Freeman Dyson is a godbot and isn't qualified to refute your willful ignorance on quantum mechanics?
everythingimportant.org/naturalism/
WTF are you talking about? Freeman Dyson is retired, he is coming up on 90, he did his best work between 20 and 60 years ago yet you repeatedly quote him as though he is producing leading edge, world beating goddidt proclamations every day.

He DID NOT provide that quote, your goddidt site owner did that

What he did say was - Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God's gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.

So are you saying he was not a godbot

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#489 Mar 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So Freeman Dyson is a godbot and isn't qualified to refute your willful ignorance on quantum mechanics?
everythingimportant.org/naturalism/
Maybe it's just Dyson's nature to be supernatural?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#490 Mar 6, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
No, quantum theory/mechanics does not have any such “obvious” supernatural interpretation except to godbots who need a supernatural interpretation. Just because as a godbot you don’t understand quantum mechanics does not make it god magic. Never mind what your preacher and your built on ignorance godbot site says, try asking someone who knows, a particle physicist or quantum physicist what they understand about quantum theory.
Here's what Freeman Dyson said about the supernaturalism of quantum physics in 1985:

My personal theology is described in the Gifford lectures that I gave at Aberdeen in Scotland in 1985, published under the title, Infinite In All Directions. Here is a brief summary of my thinking. The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is the universe as a whole. Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the experiments of modern physics. I don't say that this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyson_progres...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#491 Mar 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Quantum theory is the physics of things that happen for no reason whatsoever. How is that not supernatural?
Ah, good old argument from incredulity, god of the gaps fallacy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#492 Mar 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You obviously don't know the first thing about statistical mechanics and quantum theory.
Maybe not, but neither do you. Well okay, you may know something about statistical mechanics due to your math background, but that can be dismissed due to your butchering it as justification for religious apologetics, i.e.: the chances of billions upon billions of independant species spontaneously poofing themselves into existence via multiple quantum abiogenesis may be extremely low, but possible.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#493 Mar 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
I stand behind this quote
Of course you do. Because ultimately it's all you have. That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing supernatural about quantum physics. And there's nothing about it that justifies Biblical apologetics. Sorry.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#494 Mar 6, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Why is it that idiots like you are too bone idle (or ignorant) to bother educating themselves?
Why is it that idiots like you are too bone idle (or ignorant) to bother clicking a link?
^^^Ad hom.

.
ChristineM wrote:
What is so scary about clicking a link, what is so scary about educating yourself, is it that such action will show you to be a deliberately ignorant moron and so you choose to ignore it in the hope that it will go away.
Not all links are safe. Use reliable sources and trusted certificates, not random links found on bulletin boards.

.
ChristineM wrote:
There are THOUSANDS of such experiments listed under that link, each and every one will prove you are a lying moron because you have not got the balls to contradict all of them with lies.
Not one single experiment showing climate change mitigation is feasible, not one experiment on climate change mitigation in the atmosphere. Not one trial of climate change mitigation that shows how it would help or how much it would cost.

Climate change mitigation is a hoax.

.
ChristineM wrote:
You can wait as long as you like, I am not here to teach you, that is your job but if you want to remain ignorant all your life that’s your prerogative. However don’t go trying to shift the blame for your deliberate ignorance onto me. Just be a man for once in your life.
Catastrophic man made climate change alarmism is pseudoscience.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#495 Mar 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
there is nothing supernatural about quantum physics.
I stand with Freeman Dyson on that. Shall I quote him again?

"Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom."
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#496 Mar 6, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I stand with Freeman Dyson on that. Shall I quote him again?
No need. As I said, appeal to authority is all you have. And since the man himself is not here to speak on his own behalf it is still disingenuous of you to claim his writings support creationism. You are also not considering the possibility that he is using "mind" as a metaphor. And nor are you providing a scientific mechanism for the mind you propose (God).

The only thing of note really is that you are making the argument that randomness indicates intelligence, whereas the vast majority of creationists argue the precise opposite. I find that mildly amusing.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#497 Mar 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No need. As I said, appeal to authority is all you have.
Too late. Freeman Dyson has already spoken. And as you should know if you were not so self-deceived, appeal to stupidity is all you have.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#498 Mar 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
And since the man himself is not here to speak on his own behalf it is still disingenuous of you to claim his writings support creationism.
You are quite an accomplished liar. I never suggested that Dyson supports creationism. However, it's clear that Dyson supports the supernaturalism behind quantum physics.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#499 Mar 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
The only thing of note really is that you are making the argument that randomness indicates intelligence, whereas the vast majority of creationists argue the precise opposite. I find that mildly amusing.
It's not surprising to me that the darkness of your mind doesn't allow even a single particle of light.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#500 Mar 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Here's what Freeman Dyson said about the supernaturalism of quantum physics in 1985:
My personal theology is described in the Gifford lectures that I gave at Aberdeen in Scotland in 1985, published under the title, Infinite In All Directions. Here is a brief summary of my thinking. The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is the universe as a whole. Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the experiments of modern physics. I don't say that this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyson_progres...
Not even going to bother reading a 1985 text that begins “My personal theology “

Say what?

This is not personal theology from more than 20 years ago, this is cutting edge science of NOW.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#501 Mar 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Ad hom.
.
<quoted text>Not all links are safe. Use reliable sources and trusted certificates, not random links found on bulletin boards.
.
<quoted text>Not one single experiment showing climate change mitigation is feasible, not one experiment on climate change mitigation in the atmosphere. Not one trial of climate change mitigation that shows how it would help or how much it would cost.
Climate change mitigation is a hoax.
.
<quoted text>Catastrophic man made climate change alarmism is pseudoscience.
Nope, fact based on the documented evidence of your posts. But of course you may be a wind up merchant out for a giggle however we have no way of knowing that so we can only go on the content and psychology of what you write.

Links to education documentation tend to be safe and of course if you had any sense whatsoever you would use a virus checker, so stop blaming your deliberate ignorance on science and blame it on your deliberate ignorance

You view is noted and ignored, your deliberate narrowing of the subject is ignored. However you contradict your self by claiming there are no experiment and then claiming that the experiments you claim don’t exist are not feasible and then claiming that not one of those experiments that you claim don’t exist shows how it would help or how much it would cost. Honeybitch, you are a hypocrite

Wrong, climate change is real and the accepted consensus of climate change science as I and several other posters have shown you and you have conveniently ignored.
PHD

Overton, TX

#502 Mar 7, 2013
No, its more scientific science fiction.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#503 Mar 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Too late. Freeman Dyson has already spoken. And as you should know if you were not so self-deceived, appeal to stupidity is all you have
You have not been able to demonstrate my alleged self-deception and stupidity and I maintain that you are again engaged in the art of projection.
Shubee wrote:
You are quite an accomplished liar. I never suggested that Dyson supports creationism. However, it's clear that Dyson supports the supernaturalism behind quantum physics.

Shoob, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying? Dyson's philosophical arguments are irrelevant and can be dismissed as incredulity unless he can provide a scientific mechanism for the "decisions" behind quantum events. But again, he could still have been using a metaphor. Therefore the burden is upon you to provide those mechanisms, which you have never been able to do. But the fact is you are the one being disingenuous here. You ARE a creationist. You ARE referencing Dyson to support your particular brand of creationism, even though it's quite possible he would hit you on the head with a mallet for using him to support your views. Unfortunately as it happens what you posted doesn't actually support you with anything other than rhetoric.
Shubee wrote:
It's not surprising to me that the darkness of your mind doesn't allow even a single particle of light.
I could say the same about you. Except the difference between us is that if I make a scientific claim I can provide scientific sources to back it up. You can't.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#504 Mar 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Dyson's philosophical arguments are irrelevant and can be dismissed as incredulity unless he can provide a scientific mechanism for the "decisions" behind quantum events.
John von Neumann was the first to "prove mathematically" that no "natural mechanism" could possibly exist that is consistent with the equations of quantum theory. If natural mechanisms are to be excluded, then only the "supernatural" ones remain.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#505 Mar 7, 2013
shu fly wrote:
It's not surprising to me that the darkness of your mind doesn't allow even a single particle of light.
Its not surprising to me that your dark decisions not to have science & mathematics degrees & no science & mathematics in your poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, has failed to ignite your knowledge of the Universe & even the Earth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min par five 5,969
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 47 min Regolith Based Li... 186,772
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 1 hr ChristineM 14,380
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr DanFromSmithville 148,318
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 hr Eagle 12 27,265
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 21 hr One way or another 179,245
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Fri Critical Eye 1,735
More from around the web