creationist scientists

I watched the first 20 seconds and the guy disqualified his entire video by exposing his bias.  When you call people "crackpot scientists" and then try to objectively show why you've already proven you can't.

As for the science of human origins, there are so many unknowns that even the best theories of today are weakly supported in many cases.   The scientific consensus is nothing more than the best we can come up with until it's either disproven or some other theory replaces it.  It doesn't mean they're true or not true, it just means we don't know that much about it.

With the Big Bang for instance, to greatly oversimplify things, there was nothing and then it all became everything and our universe has continued to spread out and evolve from there.  However, there's never been any observable instance of something appearing out of nothing and there are some pretty crazy multi dimensional quantum physics type theories on how it could happen.
So to believe that everything appeared out of nothing for no reason isn't really any more of a stretch than to say something was created by some intelligent entity.  Neither proves or disproves the other, but they're both equally as valid (and unbelievable) IMHO.

When people try to say that science proves God isn't real you need to understand that there's no way to prove that.  It's also equally the same that science cannot in any way prove that God is real.  They both require faith because you're making an educated decision to believe one thing or the other based on the evidence presented before you.
I've followed origin science for many years and the more I learn about it the more I learn how little we really know.  That in and of itself is another reason why I find it hard to believe in the existence of a random universe without purpose.

if you watch the whole thing he doesn't say science disproves god, he just shows how the scientists that creationists cite are shite scientists.

I don't know one theory from another all that well......but I know this REALLY well:

We are not living in special times.  The theories we have today will be disproved, re-written, re-evaluated, and on and on.  I'm always amused by Mankind's arrogance toward our very small speck of time on Earth.  Everything is "the biggest in history", or "the greatest ever", etc.  What a crock of crap that is.

The Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old by the latest estimates......please DO tell me about what we have discovered we "know" in the last 50. LMAOOOO

In time, everything will likely be answered.......but we won't be here.

As I mentioned I didn't watch the whole video, but I completely agree there are many creation "scientists" that say some whacky stuff to try and prove their point.  In reality it does nothing but prove the other side when they use unsupportable pseudo science to try and prove a point.

So may I ask, when you say that the book is open on global warming   (or in other cases, maybe not you specifically, conservatives talk about the earth being young, and red shift, and things like this)  why do you point to these scientists who are not well respected in their fields, and often work at low level universities, and their papers aren't cited by anyone else?

Any scientists who says the book isn't open on anything isn't a scientist, and I don't care what the topic is.  I in no way shape or form think the earth is young in the sense of the "young earth theory" and I'd say there's a very small minority of christians or "conservatives' as you call them that feel the same.

The thing about global warming is that anyone who puts forth any science of any kind that doesn't support the dogma of Global Warming is immediately considered "not well respected" because they dare challenge the almighty consensus.

On the topic of global warming there is so much political and financial pollution in the science that it's extremely difficult for anyone to find unbiased information.  If you are a climate scientist who derives 95% of your budget from federal grants to combat global warming you are inherently going to be biased towards anything supporting global warming, because anything else would be financial suicide.  Everyone likes to say that any study that opposes the CO2 impact on AGW is funded by big oil so it has to be discarded, yet in the same breath they say we have to believe with certainty every study funded by "big climate".  Umm, no

I don't discount that CO2 has an impact on the climate, but based on the levels of impact forecast by the IPCC and others it is very obvious that they were wrong. The earths climate is infinitely complex and the science is still very young in trying to understand it.  When we think we understand one component of it we discover that there's another component that counteracts that part which we then adjust into our models.

Not sure if I'm answering your question or not, but the simple fact is scientific information is scientific information and it doesn't matter what the source is.  If it's a bogus study, then somebody needs to prove it wrong on the merits versus attack the source.  If a person is belittling the scientist or university where they're employed then it's because they can't refute the science and have to resort to other methods of stifling dissent.

what about the guy you quoted in the other thread, who was using different data than everyone else and saying that global warming isn't real.  why do you decide to quote that guy instead of 100 other scientists who disagree with him?

ok, which one are you talking about?  I don't recall posting anything about anyone saying global warming isn't real and I'm curious where you get the 100 scientists who disagree because I would be interesting in their opinions as well.

this one.   the data he uses is different that all those other lines, and he is kinda a joke in the scientific world...  he is a meteorologist not a climate scientist first of all

an analysis of how he made his graph http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/01/13/andrew-bolt-knowledge-weight-and-flagship-media/

X

When Pythagoras first wrote that the earth was round, most of scientists of his day thought he was a joke.  It took another 300 years to be accepted.

irrelevant

I tend to view all of the scientists with the "answers" , with regard to our planet, as irrelevant.  The Earth is perfectly capable of taking care of itself.....and it surely will.  We're just visitors.  Nothing we do during our time here will make a hill of beans in the multi-billion year history of this place....we just don't have that kind of power.

That was just a quick google graph to show the empirical temperatures falling short of the projections by the IPCC models.  I think you slightly oversold your statement earlier because I don't see any mention of him saying global warming isn't real.  

So what I'm gathering is that you believe the model predictions are accurate, that we have been warming at the same rate as projected in the models?

One of the most interesting graphs I've found difficult for the AGW crowd to explain is this one: (hopefully the Met Office is credible enough for you)

CO2 emissions didn't really kick in until the industrial revolution of the 50's, yet the rate of warming from 1900 - 1950 was very similar to the rate and level of warming rom the 1950's to 2000, yet the pre 1950 warming was without CO2 and the post warming was almost entirely due to CO2 according to the doomsayers.  Our earth was obviously a lot colder going back thousands and millions of years (ice age) and it's been a lot warmer (dinosaur times).  The AGW crowd seem to treat the earth as though it's this constant temperature that never changed until CO2 started being emitted, and we are all going to die in the next 100 years if we don't pay a lot more taxes and give the government more control.
I learned long ago that typically when the government uses fear in order to take more of your money it's wrong no matter what the topic.

Thanks and agree

I don't even know if we are effing it up or not.  For all I know, in a million years or so (let that sink in) when mankind is probably long gone, maybe all we've done while we were here ends up being good for the planet or some other species that inhabits it.  I just fall off the page when I hear any person talking about how important we are to the earth and how bad we can screw it up, and on and on.  No, not likely.....the Earth will check us up long before that happens.  The Earth is important to us......it doesn't work the other way around.  We are not important, or needed, for life to exist here.

I agree that it's best to live in a non-polluted environment, at least for the simple joy of being alive.  And I agree that I'd like a few generations of my offspring to enjoy this life like I do.......but past that....I laugh at anyone who thinks they have the answers. 

Careful you're falling prey to the "fear mongering" of the Global Warming crowd.  Even the most fear mongering of projections have us increasing our temperature this century by 1 degree C.  BTW, we're 15% through this century and have yet to increase at all, but that doesn't matter to the fear mongers.
Also, another inconvenient truth is that our temperature would have to increase at a rate far greater than ever recorded in the history of our planet for the next 85 years to hit that number as well...  But anyways, assuming it actually does happen then these esteemed fear mongers are predicting mass extinction of human life as we know it... oh the humanity...

Now for the irony; If you look at the graph I posted above, we had a temperature increase of how much from 1910 until today?  Oh wait, it increased by 1 degree C....  OMG, we should all be under water now, I better send more tax dollars to Washington to offset the total world devastation and extinction that we're experiencing from the last 105 years of "global warming"

blub blub blub (sorry, I'm under water and can't type anymore)

edit... btw, I know you're talking about clean water/air/etc and not warming, but our planet is cleaner today than it has been in a long time and we're making huge strides in sustainability.  We will never run out of oil because it will get more and more expensive as it becomes more sparse and alternative energies will become far more viable economically.
Our planet is greener than it's been in a long time thanks in large part to the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.

I read a study a while back and I'll have to find it, but it was in regards to the planet being cleaner today and getting cleaner.  

say that to the giant trash islands in the pacific, and the contaminated groundwater in the fracking areas of Pennsylvania and west virginia

I'm honestly not a big fan of fracking, but when we're talking about global scale things its a regional thing.  It's a whole other debate, that's increasingly getting more and more political so the "real facts" are harder to get to.

As for the trash island, I don't think it's quite as big or bad as you think it is.  Here's a page for you to read:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/how-big-great-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html

I'm all for cleaning it up, but I'm not sure how this effects my children or grandchildren.  As a Navy Veteran I can also say that logistically it's near impossible to store garbage for any period of time over a week or two without installing an incinerator or something like that that which would cause the CO2 fear mongers to get all worked up.

There is quite a bit of propaganda with regard to the "trash islands".......I like the one's that claim there is one that is twice the size of Texas.

Allow me to answer that with one word..............BULLCHIT!!!

but if it saves one child...

In searching for information about these trash islands (and trying to see if there was one worth buying and moving to in the south pacific) I just read another piece that cited the trash island twice as big as Texas..........lets think about this for a minute, huh?....

Hawaii is roughly 2400 miles from California.

Texas is roughly 650 X 800 miles in length by width.

Two Texas' next to each other would be 2/3 of the way to Hawaii, and cover nearly the length of California for that distance.

2/3 OF THE ENTIRE DISTANCE FROM CALIFORNIA TO HAWAII, AND JUST AS LONG AS CALFORNIA, WOULD BE A TRASH ISLAND!!!!

No......just no.  People who write that stuff are stupid, brainless idiots.

Still......I agree........if it saves just one child....