GeniusIsDisruptive

Ah "reputation points." Color me impressed. Leftists patting Leftists on the back for their co-brilliance. Fallacy of the Argument From Authority, or as one of your co-Leftists said, "bulshit" (sic). I purposely followed your name to the nearest thread dealing with science to "learn" from your great and exceeding wisdom. What a great disappointment. Let me help you out, and explain some elementary points of debate and discourse. NOWHERE did I say "you shouldn't accept argument from authority." The point IS that YOU presume arguments from authorities are infallible. That clearly does not follow. YOUR SIDE claims that the 97% could not POSSIBLY be wrong. Absurd. Ivar Giaever provides one reason after another after another as to why he personally rejects the climate change hoax, as characterized by no less than an insider at the UN Climate Change Panel. There was also a letter signed by 49 former NASA officials expressing their disapproval of the climate change hoax as promulgated by NASA at a cost of countless billions of tax dollars. As to my argument being "double invalid," the "heaps of scientists" you cite are afraid of being blacklisted by their colleagues, as you people are so anxious to do to me here. Dissenters are ostracized, prevented from getting tenure, denied promotions, and often fired. This isn't "science." It is greed and avarice and pride and politics, pure and simple. Pretending that *scientists* are sanctimonious and above pettiness is laughable. Ultimately each individual, each THINKING individual, should decide which argument he finds more persuasive, large numbers claiming anthropogenic global warming, or smaller numbers, presenting very compelling evidence that fractions of a degree, on a narrow graph, should move Americans to spend trillions more just in case. Fractions of an inch in sea level change are insignificant compared to the 7 to 40 foot tidal differences. 1.36 ppmv annual atmospheric carbon dioxide increase, compared to ~15,500 ppmv total of just TWO greenhouse gases is even more insignificant. I have no axe to grind, no fear of being ostracized from a university faculty or this pre-eminent forum of "reputable" Leftist/atheists. One of your "reputable" friends here queried why I did not add oxygen and nitrogen to the Keeling Curve which I modified earlier on this thread. Let me explain yet again, because obviously you people are desperately in need of a science lesson. Oxygen and nitrogen are NOT greenhouse gases. Water vapor, on the other hand, IS. Reputable PhD's excused. https://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf

zapatos has this at the bottom of every single post he makes: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it. -MP "As a good christian, I'm always going to disagree with any proof you try to give me." -Peter BE cimp THAT, DrP, is "who starts being an arsehole first." AND THEN, on top of that, even AFTER I point out that he CONCLUDED his post with the quote that I repeatedly cited, not ONE of you has the courage to admit that he truly was wrong. Instead you attack me. As to your ignorant remark about "fear and loathing bred by the right wing propaganda machine," why don't you address that in a separate thread. I will accomodate you with facts and analysis to which you are unaccustomed. It is NOT the "right wing" that has repeatedly rioted, and set fires, and attacked Trump supporters, it is YOUR side. It is NOT the "right wing" that shot up congressmen on a baseball field in Virginia. It was YOUR side. It is NOT the "right wing" that had three correspondents resign in disgrace for publishing "bulshit (sic)." It was CNN, YOUR side. It is NOT "right wing" professors who have been in the news for radical, insane, hateful actions. It was exclusively YOUR SIDE. I direct you to the scholarly paper cited earlier, "A Crisis of Competence". It describes you and your PhD Leftist friends here perfectly. Here is the link. https://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf

Ah yes, nobody "really cares" so much that there have been 154 hits in just over a day. Compare that frequency with others in the thread. Nor did I claim that I thought it up myself. You are desperately searching for something - anything to impugn me because you and your pals could not solve this simple puzzle. And in your collective embarrassment, you smear me in the pettiest ways imaginable, claiming that I come from a "dark place." As to who has a "rigid agenda," look in the mirror. At least I can talk about atheism without screaming and ranting "ban him, ban him!" I communicated at length with Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and Isaac Asimov to name but a few. So don't try impressing me with your PHD "bulshit" (sic). This is NOT a science topic, in case you had not noticed. But if you wish to discuss science, then by all means, start your own thread and teach to your heart's content. Give me a link and I'll happily join in... if you Leftists can tolerate a shred of reasoned counterpoint. So far, you're incapable of doing that. Incidentally, your pretend to be in a "light place," far removed from the "dark place" you have foisted upon me in your all too imitable style. How kind and thoughtful and intellectual of you. Really.

Zapatos CONCLUDED with this error: "Hence, the blind guy doesn't know with certainty the color of his hat." The blind guy DOES know with certainty the color of his hat. It is black. "Valid criticism does you a favor." - Carl Sagan Now why don't YOU try writing something coherently and try to learn, if you can. "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman

I have the answer. Not long because you folks are tragically intolerant. You are, in the words of Harvard scholar, Ruth Wisse, "A Herd of Independent Minds." A simple puzzle has your panties twisted into knots, and your "Moderators" are hustling to close any thread I might originate. There is a telling article by the National Association of Scholars, titled "A Crisis of Confidence - The Corrupting Effect of (Leftist) Political Activism at the University of California." It describes this forum's members perfectly. Perfectly. And this explains the disastrous state of public education throughout America. "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman Now, why don't all of you call up some more of your friends. The more crap you throw up on the wall, the more you believe will stick. I cited zapatos' glaring mistake, and he sniveled and withdrew. Then comes Manticore to suggest I am wrong, but how, he cannot and will not say. Now the whining koti wants me banned and quickly, because all of you together can't stand to be taught even simple lessons. You are blinded by your pride. And it's ugly. It's destructive. It makes you very uncomfortable to the extent that you demand I go away, such is your inability to deal with truth. One chance in 7 is "quite small"? When death is on the line? That's "fairly safe"? Talk is cheap.

"Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane." - Richard Dawkins Dawkins may be intelligent. He is of course learned. But unfortunately he is blindingly ignorant and has not wisdom, or else I would not be able to expose his lack of it. For a man of such fame, or to many minds, infamy, as well as fame, Dawkins maintains a singularly bad set of teeth. One might think that with the millions he has earned from the sale of his books, he would get his teeth fixed, to be more presentable on the rare occasions when he smiles, but no, Dawkins clearly doesn't want to look normal or healthy. Now for many of us, selecting a mate is the biggest decision we make in our lives, as it has a powerful bearing on our future and our happiness. Richard Dawkins is a divorcee. He is so intellectual and so smart that he could not make perhaps the biggest decision of his life correctly. Richard Dawkins has publicly claimed that evolutionary success is determined by one and only one factor: the amount of offspring produced. By his own reckoning, atheists are abject failures, falling by the wayside as Muslims outbreed all other humans on earth. Osama bin Laden produced more children than Dawkins, Carl Sagan (also a divorcee and an agnostic), Christopher Hitchens, Isaac Asimov, and several other atheists combined. Now we proceed to Dawkins' writings. From Climbing Mount Improbable Page 101 -“(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard. If he’d said ‘chance’ instead of ‘natural selection’ he’d have been right.” (Dr. Dawkins did NOT quote Sir Hoyle. What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. ) Page 287 - “An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells, and each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.” (There you have it. An elephant is simply one big infection. So says the "intelligent" atheist, blinded by pride.) Now from The Blind Watchmaker Page 37- “Our modern hypothesis (evolution) . . .” (Ah yes, that “modern” hypothesis - evolution. 1859.) P. 41: “Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability. Indeed it is a method that we shall use in this book several times. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT.” (Mark well Dawkins' words, "You have to do it right." A scant 5 pages later, Dawkins repeats this nonsense we have all heard and may even have accepted.) P. 46 - “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.” (No it couldn’t. Not ever, ever. Dawkins provides his own proof, contradicting himself yet again: From P. 315: “Dover’s alleged rival to natural selection could never work, not just never in a million years, but never in a million times longer than the universe has existed, never in a million universes each lasting a million times as long again.” The reference is one chance in 10 to the 301 power. Our Shakespeare typing monkey far exceeds such impossible odds in trying to type merely the first 301 letters of the FIRST PAGE of the FIRST BOOK of Shakespeare, or one chance in 26 letters to the 301 power. Actually there are over 60 keys on even a typewriter, counting numbers, figures, and case, so 60 to the 301 power represents the impossibility of monkeys "bashing away" even a short paragraph, much less "all the works of Shakespeare.") I could go on, to quote Dawkins, "multiplying up examples" of his errors of ignorance, but to what end? His followers will only make up any excuses necessary to pardon Dawkins. However it is illustrative to provide readers with a quote from an e-mail Dawkins sent to me on February 25, 2000, in response to my critiques of his written ignorance. Sad, but illustrative. I am reminded of a lovely sentence of P B Medawar: "Just as compulsory primary education created a market catered for by cheap dailies and weeklies, so the spread of secondary and latterly of tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought." Dawkins thinks it "lovely" that "a large population of people... have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought." 1. It is not "lovely" and, 2. Dawkins is one of them. His ultimate "gotcha" argument is, "If God made everything, then WHO made God!" Dawkins obviously never considered the prospect that if someone else made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He. We don't know everything there is to know here on earth. Surely we can never know everything there is to know everywhere.

1. You do not so much as make even a feeble attempt to demonstrate how I am "wrong." Very unscholarly and rude of you. 2. I am not the subject. The subject is "The Overcrowded Prison" and your collective failure to solve the puzzle. Obviously this angers you greatly to the extent that you must call ME "egotistical."

"Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan (Cosmos, page 338) (Voyager 2 showed that) “Mars was a place.” (Ibid, page 121) Deep, is it not? Mars was a place... Sex was invented... And many, many other silly remarks by the late Carl, in this and other books he wrote.

"Hence, the blind guy doesn't know with certainty the color of his hat." - Zapatos, in the post in question Prisoner #3's hat was black. You were wrong, but can't admit it. Genius is disruptive. "There are only two kinds of people, decent and indecent." - Elie Wiesel Your footnotes clearly show which kind you are.

Pseudoscience is not so easily spotted. Haeckel's drawings, for example, have been reproduced and claimed to validate the pseudoscience of"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" up until the year 2000, despite the fact that one enterprising scientist challenged their authenticity the year they were first presented by Ernst Haeckel. It is the same with evolution, of course. Hundreds of books, papers, and challenges to Darwinism have not dampened the enthusiasm of evolutionary biologists who seem intent on demanding some replacement before Darwin's speculations can be discarded. Science does not require any explanation, however, but only requires us to discard explanations or theories which fail, and the daunting and insuperable statistics of polypepide synthesis render Darwinian evolution hopelessly inadequate. There are over 10 to the 1,000th possible variations just for human hemoglobin, a number so unimaginably large that it dwarfs definitions of "impossible" by such notables as Richard Dawkins, who states that he defines "impossible" as 1 chance in 10^40th power. Assembling 574 amino acids in a precise sequence, out of a possible choice of 20 different amino acids, precisely folded no less, includes the requirement that this particular polypeptide had some "selective advantage" over some previous form or compound. What was that previous form, exactly? And this process must be carried out for the thousands of proteins in the human body, many of which are considerably large than hemoglobin.

Science of the Bible As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge. In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not. Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal. So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else. Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals. Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air; The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest. Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated. Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks. Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you..... John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see. In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is. I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself. “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure. Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand? With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude useverywhere one looks ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see. Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire. The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.” Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided. Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we. Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described." Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.” http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it? Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips. Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view. Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer. The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents. Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors. Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from. In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, say reversed, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have. Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding. The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it. Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven; “To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science. Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again. The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed. Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness. Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of naturalism. Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none. Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level. How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as secularists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God is utterly beyond the purview of science - which itself is another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.) Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us. Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently. Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.

You are confusing art with artifice. The latter requires no skill to create, as shown by your examples above. Definition of "art": " n. - something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings" Definition of "artifice": ar·ti·fice - ˈärdəfəs - noun - clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others. outright fakery synonyms - trickery, deceit, deception, duplicity, guile, chicanery

"Hence, the blind guy doesn't know with certainty the color of his hat." - Zapatos, in the post in question Yes, that IS what you said. It is wrong. He DOES know with certainty the color of his hat. First you said he does, then you countered yourself and concluded with "he doesn't know." I repeat, 89 viewers and not one of you could get it right in this totally brilliant science forum. And speaking of rudeness, I find your childish attacks on The Lord to be extremely rude and offensive. I'm your huckleberry.

The purpose of the study and the thread is to cast aspersions on people of faith. It seems to me that making defenses on behalf of people of faith, particularly Christian Americans who, for example, founded Ivy League colleges, powerfully offsets this "intellectual" study. But yes, I will open a thread about atheism. The question is, will you enforce that subject as assiduously as you do this one?

"Republican abdication of environmental responsibility"... for an agency "they believe robs them of profit." "Profit" is a gross misuse of the word. Governments do not MAKE "a profit." They sometimes have revenues in excess of expenditures, but "profit" is a term reserved for the private sector. Now as to what is "environmentally responsible," the pretense that ever more restrictions on every aspect of life is somehow GOOD for the "environment, no matter what the cost neglects cost benefit analysis and basic economics. The Law of Variable Proportions is always ignored by the Democratic abdication of financial responsibility and limited government. WHAT IF trillions of dollars of government spending for decades accomplishes nothing worthwhile, except to deprive billions of people worldwide of some semblance of decent living? WHAT IF? Nobody on the Left dares to contemplate such a thought. They cannot possibly countenance that they might be wrong. The hubris of the Left is devastating, and deadly.

This puzzle has been viewed 89 times and nobody in this august crowd has been able to figure out the solution. There is an important lesson here. Given the same set of facts, many if not most people are unable to reach what is a clearly valid conclusion. Even AFTER zapatos acknowledged that the blind prisoner "knows for certain" that he is "not wearing" a red hat, he still claims "the blind guy doesn't know with certainty." Amusing, no? Solution: Prisoner #1 does NOT see 2 red hats. Prisoner #2 does NOT see 2 red hats on #1 and #3, BUT IN ADDITION, he does NOT see a red hat on #3, for IF HE DID, he would know his own hat was black. Prisoner #3, who is blind, recognizes the value of information gleaned from prisoner's #1 and #2 and says, "My hat is black. Buh bye." All the blather and bluster here about intellectualism and rationalism seem rather misplaced.

[iN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T MIND THAT LEFTISTS CO-OPT AND ABUSE "DENIERS" BUT WHEN THOSE YOU HATE SO VERY MUCH DO LIKEWISE, WELL, THAT'S SIMPLY UNFAIR. I THINK IT'S HIGH TIME THE RIGHT BEGAN FOLLOWING BARACK OBAMA'S HERO, AND AUTHOR OF RULES FOR RADICALS, SAUL ALINSKY: "RIDICULE IS MAN'S MOST POTENT WEAPON." MOREOVER, BARACK OBAMA SAID, "I WANT YOU TO ARGUE WITH THEM, GET IN THEIR FACE." AND SO I DO.] There are more recent graphs that show CO2 exceeding 400 ppm. You just picked one that's 8 years old. http://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/mlo_full_record-copy_trimmed1500.png [AND YOU PRETEND THAT ADDING 1O OR 20 MORE PARTS PER million WILL MAKE SOME KIND OF DIFFERENCE? IN THE CONTEXT OF 15,500 PARTS PER MILLION FOR WATER VAPOR PLUS CARBON DIOXIDE? GO AHEAD, MAKE YOUR OWN GRAPH AND GIN UP THE CO2 TO SCALE. THE GRAPH WILL NOT CHANGE.] Since water vapor is already at several tens of percent of its maximum value, there's not a whole lot of room for it to grow. i.e. RH is capped at 100%. Also, water is very short-lived in the atmosphere (it rains). Over the course of a century, it is not going to double. It has not doubled relative to a century or so in the past. [YOU ERR GRIEVOUSLY AND REPEATEDLY, AS IF "NEW" WATER VAPOR BEHAVES SOMEHOW DIFFERENTLY FROM "OLD WATER VAPOR." HERE IS SCIENCE: THEY DON'T. WATER IS WATER. 1.5% DOESN'T need TO INCREASE. THE 15,500 PPM VALUE FOR TWO GREENHOUSE GASES SHOWS HOW TRIVIAL 1.36 PPM ANNUAL INCREASE REALLY IS.] It is impoirtant, because if the temperature goes up a degree, then the absolute amount of water the atmosphere can hold will increase. That's the effect to focus on. If you care about the science. [YOU REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE. THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT "HOLD" WATER. TSK, TSK. DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT SCIENCE?] How about you present supporting evidence yourself. I care more about the science behind the claim and the context of the statement. [THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS MY PRESENTATION OF THE SCARY GRAPH, A COMPLETE FRAUD, 8 YEARS OLD OR 8 MINUTES OLD. I CREATED THE GRAPH ADDING ONLY WATER VAPOR. REVISE IT TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT, BUT BE ACCURATE. I WAS.] Who is "we"? You may not know enough, but you have an opportunity to learn. [AND YOU DO NOT "HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN" AFTER CLAIMING ERRONEOUSLY THAT THE ATMOSPHERE "HOLDS" WATER? AFTER CLAIMING ERRONEOUSLY THAT "NEW" WATER BEHAVES DIFFERENTLY THAN "OLD" WATER? MORE OF YOUR ERRONEOUS CLAIMS EXPOSED BELOW.] Yes, let's follow the money. The people doing the climate change denial studies are largely backed by the fossil fuel industry. [PLEASE, STOP IT. IVAR GIAEVER GETS NOT A DIME FROM THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. PHYSICS NOBEL LAUREATE. I ALREADY PROVIDED THE LINK TO HIS SPEECH. MOREOVER, GOVERNMENT GRANTS ARE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN EXCESS OF PALTRY FOSSIL FUEL COMPANY FUNDING. NOT TO MENTION "CARBON TAXES" AND GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO FAILED "GREEN" INDUSTRIES SUCH AS SOLYNDRA, WHICH GAVE BARACK THE CROOK OBAMA $50,000 OR MORE FOR HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN. WHAT CORRUPTION.] Funny thing is, there was a recent effort, funded by a Koch brothers' foundation, to debunk climate change. They looked at the science, and concluded that it's real. http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7 So even the denialist money says it's real. [TELL IT TO IVAR GIAEVER AND JOHN KERRY. THEY VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE THAT AMERICANS CAN CHANGE ANYTHING.] "Follow the money" doesn't lead you where you thought it would. [ John Kerry says we can do nothing. You stop using gasoline. Stop going on vacations. Sell your car and never take a plane or bus or taxi again. I have no problem with that. Meanwhile eco-hypocrites like Barack Obama, and Al Gore, and Richard Branson are more than compensating for your feeble conservation.] Obviously you are so much smarter than Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics. So smart, in fact, that you didn't even bother to listen to his speech. You already know it all.

HB of CJ, on 08 Jul 2017 - 5:47 PM, said: beecee: Where to begin in such a target rich environment. "Far more better (sic) " "more logical then (sic)" "politically inspired, hysterical agenda" The "hysterical agenda" is completely that of the climate change sharia, which demands that everyone cut their carbon dioxide emissions 80%, even as the population grows inexorably. Moreover, the climate change sharia insists on continuing the flow of "research" billions of tax dollars, which of course always produce the predictable results of more hysteria, more fear, more demands, more hypocrisy. Here Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever smashes the global warming hoax, pointing out that miniscule increases in temperature or sea level are trivial compared with seasonal changes of 50 to 100 degrees F, and tidal changes from 7 to 45 feet. Secretary of State John Kerry points out that if all Americans stopped using all fossil fuels, it would make NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever. So keep preaching the wasteful expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars. Keep preaching environmental hysteria, arising from the political agenda of global warming, as admitted by this high level United Nations functionary: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/ _______________ Finally, the "97% consensus" claim is also fraudulent, based on a paper by a graduate student that loaded the questions and selected the "97%" from a very small subset of scientists questioned. Additional details available for those too lazy to locate them personally.

How interesting that you said not a word to Airbrush for his comparison of President Trump to Hitler, with no mention of "impeachment." Here is Airbrush's "rediculous" (sic) tirade in its entirety: What Trump and Hitler have in common is a genius at pulling people into their own delusion. They can be totally wacked on a subject, but they have such conviction in their delusion that others join in with zeal. He can say the most rediculous (sic) things and his 35% following give him a pass because Trump is a brilliant con artist telling them what they want to hear. ---------------end of "rediculous" (sic) hate tirade.------------------ The divisiveness of Americans stood at 46% when Obama was sworn in, 2009. When he left office after his disastrous, incompetent eight years, divisiveness had increased to 86%, thanks to his race warfare and class warfare. Never before in history has there been such insanity displayed by a political party as the Democrats now undertake. The Democratic Party should be prosecuted under the RICO Act.

Your condescension is profoundly anti-scientific and unintelligent. There are tens of thousands of people who DO "understand the basics of evidence" and are well versed in "how science really works." And yes, climate science IS "about opinion," which is the point of the climate change sharia endlessly repeating "97%, 97%, 97% consensus!" Isn't it interesting that the climate change sharia has taken over the term "denier," which had previously and virtually exclusively been used in context with denying the Holocaust, and applied it to climate change. Ptolemy was one of the earliest "deniers" of scientific consensus when he posited a heliocentric solar system, contrary to what had been accepted for over 1,000 years. The "conservative" approach would be to stop throwing billions of dollars at global warming research, and government subsidies of "green energy" and other nonsensical attempts to correct a non-existent problem. Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever has a 29-minute video expressing his contempt for climate change hysteria. Dr. Giaever says the history of earth's average temperature is "remarkably constant over a period of hundreds of years." The only way climate change advocates can maintain the fear is to continue creating exaggerated claims, and displaying fraudulently misleading graphs showing fractions of a degree or a few parts per million. The Keeling Curve shows a substantial upward slope for two contrived reasons: 1. It does not have a zero base, but rather begins at 310 ppmv, and terminates at ~390 ppmv, and 2. It omits THE dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which constitutes ~15,000 parts per million. Simply adding water vapor to the Keeling Curve puts carbon dioxide as a flat line at the bottom. Finally, former Secretary of State, John Kerry, states that if Americans stopped using all fossil fuels completely, it would not change anything whatsoever. Look it up on YouTube.com

Yes, it's all so simple from the atheist perspective. Atheists are smart, good, moral, scientific, rational, etc, and Christians are none of those things. This brilliantly explains why: 1. The Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters, having been founded by Christians for the advancement of science and knowledge. 2. No atheist college exists with an express charter so designating it. 3. Atheism is so *rational* that only 30% of children raised as atheists remain so as adults. This is far below the proportion of Christians, which is 60 to 70%, based on specific religion. 4. "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of communism." - Vladimir Lenin

I shudder to think about people who voted for a woman who laughed as she bragged about "getting Alfred Tayler off with only 10 months in jail" for raping a 12-year-old girl. Hillary Clinton, serial felon and pathological liar, told the judge that the child "teased" her client and asked for it. She wanted it. This is all anyone needs to know about a vile and despicable woman who was unable to name a single accomplishment of her own as either senator or secretary of state. Moreover, Bill Clinton gave a state of the union address in which he advocated the same protections from illegal immigrants coming through Mexico, and strongly restricting Muslim immigration, as Donald Trump did. The joint session of congress gave Clinton repeated standing ovations for his comments, which garnered Donald Trump only cries of "racism." This is the awful hypocrisy of the Democratic Party.

A prison was overcrowded - not simply crowded, you understand, overcrowded. So the warden decided to offer freedom to a prisoner to help relieve the overcrowdedness. But he premised freedom on a test. Three prisoners were brought into a room and each was ordered to put on a blindfold and reach into a duffel bag and take a hat and put it on his head. In the duffel bag were two red hats and three black hats. After removing the hats and putting one on his own head, the first prisoner was ordered to take off his blindfold, permitting him to see the other two prisoners' hats, but not his own. If he could tell the color of the hat on his own head, he would be pardoned immediately. If he guessed, and was incorrect, he would be shot immediately. So nobody guesses. After removing blindfolds, First prisoner: "I don't know." Second prisoner: "I don't know." Third prisoner, who is blind: "I know." Does he? Explain.