Expert prognosis for the planet

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I suppose you can use the word faith in that context, but that is not the context Dadhawk was using when you said you agree with his use of the word faith.

Like I said, I may have misunderstood how he meant it, what I stated was how I took it and I agreed with that. The protracted argument over my interpretation of it is mind numbing

[Irace86.2.0]

‘Monster Fracks’ Are Getting Far Bigger. And Far Thirstier

Giant new oil and gas wells that require astonishing volumes of water to fracture bedrock are threatening America’s fragile aquifers.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...lls-water.html

So part of the issue with conventional versus unconventional oil reserves is not just the price, but is the environmental impacts. A conventional reserve might have a fraction of the number of drill sites, where the oil site will keep delivering through the different methods of extracting the oil. Unconventional oil reserves like fracking shale requires multiple taps with short lives, long processes to seal off the drill tunnels, and they use a lot of fresh water. Apparently the water use is going up a lot.

[Irace86.2.0]

NASA Battery Tech to Deliver for the Grid

A battery built for satellites brings grid-scale storage down to Earth

https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale...ickel-hydrogen

“[It’s] the most durable battery ever invented,” says Jorg Heinemann. Nickel-hydrogen batteries, he says, can last for 30,000 charge cycles, are fireproof, and outperform lithium-ion batteries on a number of key metrics for energy storage at the large scale.

I'm a fan of the Rondo battery for grid storage and for an alternative to lithium-ion batteries for grid storage, but this is pretty cool too.

[Captain Snooze]

Captain Snooze's axiom: Everyone views the world through their own biases, values, upbringing. No one sees the world objectively (except for me).

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Like I said, I may have misunderstood how he meant it, what I stated was how I took it and I agreed with that. The protracted argument over my interpretation of it is mind numbing

I thought you understood it pretty much as I intended.

[Unplugem]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You use the word belief, but scientists don't use this word. They have ideas about things. The things they have ideas about are objective and subject to change based on new evidence. People with religious beliefs don't modify their beliefs or base their beliefs on things that are objective.

The type of faith you are describing can be attributed vaguely to anything where someone says they have a confidence of, idea of, probability of, etc, but while being related, it is a stark contrast to how religious people use the word. Religious people value the strength of someone's conviction in their beliefs--the strength of their faith. Many religious people will associate their salvation based on the strength of their faith. If a scientist claimed something was more true or was given more credibility or recognition for the strength of his convictions that his theory is true, despite a proportional probability and propriety of evidence, this not only wouldn't be celebrated, it would be ridiculed in the community.

You said science depends on faith, but it doesn't. Testing an idea is not testing someone's beliefs. Faith isn't the same as a theory. And scientists definitely don't have "complete trust in someone or something", which is a soft definition unrelated to religion. In fact, as a body (not individual exceptions), they have the opposite where they try to hold as much humility and impartiality and maintain an open mind. Big Theories, not hypothesis/theories, are well established with mountains of evidence. While it is possible things could get modified, as Newton's Theory gave way to Einstein's, building on Newton, big Theories don't require faith either.

The Big Bang Theory is observable. You can watch these two short videos and call this belief and faith, but what is going on here is far removed from what religious people do or how they would describe their beliefs and faith. What is disingenuous (often) about people who draw a comparison and say they are the same, "both require faith", is that these people are often suggesting that science requires a leap of faith, and given the choice, they will keep leaping in their faith like how they stick to their faith over other religions. Trying to put things on the same level, so people will ignore science like they also ignore other faiths and denominations.

Creationism is well defined, so I don't know why you are performing mental gymnastics to make it fit everything, as if that is necessary to be inclusive. It is the belief that the universe has a divine origin and not a natural origin. A young earth creationist, which is what I believe Unplugem to be, is someone who is a biblical literalist who believes the earth is 6k-10k years old. These people are often flat earthers because of the Bible's passages and because biblical apologists and historians have sequenced the events to coincide with a 6k-10k creation window of time. If he is not a young, earth creationist, I'll be shocked.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

You do realize you started out as a single cell, right? You were one cell that became many cells, but the idea that you evolved from single-celled organisms is just unfathomable?

Right, better to believe a god snapped its fingers.

Love this smack down. Why don't you go start your city and develop some applications based on your beliefs of young earth creationism, flat earth-ism, and so on. Outside of merchandizing t-shirts and bumper stickers, got any real applications?

[Unplugem]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You do realize you started out as a single cell, right? You were one cell that became many cells, but the idea that you evolved from single-celled organisms is just unfathomable?

Right, better to believe a god snapped its fingers.

Love this smack down. Why don't you go start your city and develop some applications based on your beliefs of young earth creationism, flat earth-ism, and so on. Outside of merchandizing t-shirts and bumper stickers, got any real applications?

The Big Bang lie was thought up by a Jesuit priest. It's not science at all; it's nonsense.



A single-celled organism cannot advance into a man, as it would defy the law of entropy. Things do not become more organized over time; instead, they become more chaotic. The BBT cannot explain how a human eye came into existence, as it is immensely complex and can process inputs in a manner that is impossible to accomplish without defying the law of entropy. "The goo, to the zoo, to me and you" theory is a joke, cooked up by a Jesuit, and it holds absolutely no scientific validity, whatsoever.

[Unplugem]

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

The Big Bang lie was thought up by a Jesuit priest. It's not science at all; it's nonsense.



A single-celled organism cannot advance into a man, as it would defy the law of entropy. Things do not become more organized over time; instead, they become more chaotic. The BBT cannot explain how a human eye came into existence, as it is immensely complex and can process inputs in a manner that is impossible to accomplish without defying the law of entropy. "The goo, to the zoo, to me and you" theory is a joke, cooked up by a Jesuit, and it holds absolutely no scientific validity, whatsoever.

The guy was a "Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain." I like him.

It wouldn't defy the law because earth is not a closed system. It is an open system receiving energy from the sun.

You started off as a single organism and became more organized, so do you defy the law of entropy?

The BBT cannot explain how a human eye came into existence because that theory explains the development of the universe. The Theory of Evolution explains how things evolve over time. The mechanism is reproduction, whether asexual or sexual reproduction, where genes are mixed and where mutations happen. Completely different theory.

We have living examples of eyes that reflect every intermediate between photosensitive skin to human/eagle eyes. It is actually one of the easiest things to demonstrate that is complex.

[Unplugem]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The guy was a "Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain." I like him.

It wouldn't defy the law because earth is not a closed system. It is an open system receiving energy from the sun.

You started off as a single organism and became more organized, so do you defy the law of entropy?

The BBT cannot explain how a human eye came into existence because that theory explains the development of the universe. The Theory of Evolution explains how things evolve over time. The mechanism is reproduction, whether asexual or sexual reproduction, where genes are mixed and where mutations happen. Completely different theory.

We have living examples of eyes that reflect every intermediate between photosensitive skin to human/eagle eyes. It is actually one of the easiest things to demonstrate that is complex.

Earth is a closed system; even Bill Nye the pseudoscience guy will tell you this.

Creation of a human does defy the "law" of entropy, as God is capable of doing anything; he made all living things, don't you know?

The golden ratio is everywhere in nature. It is clear evidence of an intelligent creator.

You keep proposing theories, that defy the law of entropy, without including a creator, which would be impossible.
Obviously, the law of entropy had to be broken at some point, because you and I exist, as well as the natural things around us. A creator had to create all of these things in order for any of it to exist at all. All things people have studied, post creation, are subject to the law of entropy. The only explanation for the existence of anything at all, given this perceived law of entropy, is that an intelligent designer created it all.
Life doesn't create itself; a creator had to start everything off.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Earth is a closed system; even Bill Nye the pseudoscience guy will tell you this.

Creation of a human does defy the "law" of entropy, as God is capable of doing anything; he made all living things, don't you know?

The golden ratio is everywhere in nature. It is clear evidence of an intelligent creator.

You keep proposing theories, that defy the law of entropy, without including a creator, which would be impossible.
Obviously, the law of entropy had to be broken at some point, because you and I exist, as well as the natural things around us. A creator had to create all of these things in order for any of it to exist at all. All things people have studied, post creation, are subject to the law of entropy. The only explanation for the existence of anything at all, given this perceived law of entropy, is that an intelligent designer created it all.
Life doesn't create itself; a creator had to start everything off.

Bill was referring to not having a habitable planet in the solar system except for earth. It is an open system by definition because we receive energy from the sun. Use your own brain and stop appealing to authority.

You are defying the law of entropy if you started out as a cell and are now a human. Building a car defies the law of entropy because it starts out as metal and oil and ends up as a car. Clearly, the law of entropy is wrong...unless, all of those things are examples of systems that are open, receiving external energy. Think about it. If your brain starts hurting, pause, nap, then think about it some more. It is pretty simple.

So a creator had to start everything off only? So that means you must believe in the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution and so on, but you just think the Big Bang was started by a deity. Since things around us are more complex then everything must be defying the law of entropy, or that law of entropy isn't a law (something we actually observe), or you don't understand what the law of entropy means because you can't differentiate between closed systems and open systems. So which is it?

There is nothing intelligent about intelligent design. If something appearing designed intelligently is evidence of a deity then could I show you evidence of poor design, and would that be evidence that there was no deity?

[ZDan]

You can believe in God and science at the same time. "God" created the universe? OK, *how*? The logical rational pursuit of that knowledge, with an *open mind* and without preconceived notions, that is science. OF course belief in "God" is not required to *science* but if you are doing it right it shouldn't make any difference.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You can believe in God and science at the same time. "God" created the universe? OK, *how*? The logical rational pursuit of that knowledge, with an *open mind* and without preconceived notions, that is science. OF course belief in "God" is not required to *science* but if you are doing it right it shouldn't make any difference.

This is correct. Someone can believe in anything magical and believe in things that are objective at the same time. Kids believe in Santa Claus and can understand that germs come from microbes at the same time, and adults can do the same thing with magical thinking.

The problem is when people like Unplugem have to reconcile being a fundamentalist/literalist, beholden to his holy book, with what we know through science. When he claims the world is flat, the earth is 6000-10000 years old, or whatever, he goes from being typically irrational to being atypically irrational, making giant leaps of mental gymnastics and conspiracy theories to maintain his irrational beliefs.