Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (72366)	6/15/2008 3:47:56 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542596

Do you believe in evolution? One doesn't "believe in" evolution, one acknowledges it. Belief is the operating mode of those who deny it. Is the evidence of melting glaciers less convincing than digging up a bone here and there? Melting glaciers mean that at the time of the melting and the location of the glaciers it is warmer than it was when they weren't melting. A found bone means that some creature died there a long time ago.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (72366)	6/16/2008 9:10:42 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542596

Creationism is about belief; evolution is about scientific evidence. And I never argue with people who hold religious beliefs. Actually I don;t argue much with anyone for very long. Global warming is occurring. I haven't seen anyone say it isn't. ANd I said that in my last post. What I was trying to say, and as so often happens on SI, one winds up somehow being placed in this weird position that one doesn't even hold, is that there are many different interpretations of global warming and its causes, one of which is that it is man-made. There are natural cycles that could account for it, according to my highly qualified prof friend, and many other scientists. It appears to me that you are insisting people accept your interpretation of the warming as being man-made and with a high potential for disaster, and a couple of others don't find convincing evidence of that yet. So the discussion stops without getting to the real issue of action. No one has said that you should stop discussing. And I wasn't starting an argument about it. I was just expressing my OWN opinion, which is that no one here can get much beyond a layman's reading and then maybe choosing a side on instinct more than extensive knowledge in how to judge that evidence. We all do a lot of that and there';s nothing wrong with it since we obviously can't be experts on everything. But being wedded to one view without acknowledging the possible validity of other views just seems the end of the learning process, rather than part of it.