New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[Ragin4U]

Perhaps but a person of influence mixing two disparate topics generally has an impact. Some might say on purpose, or with goal in mind. It doesn't have to be a conversation, a seed was planted on a disparate topic.

I can see that but I still subscribe to the belief that I held years ago when Tipper Gore advocated for record labels. If anything Ozzy Osbourne says has more influence than your parents, your parents arent doing their job.
I felt the same way when my boys school wanted to take Harry Potter books off the shelf because "it might promote witchcraft and black magic". I asked if they believed in witchcraft and black magic. They said no and then retreated with a sheepish look. Same with Davinci Code. If a work of fiction can shake your faith, it wasnt that strong to begin with.
I dont look to HAwking or Dawkins as spiritual advisers so I am pretty uninterested in their take on religion. Just like I dont care about a preachers take on science.

[Ragin4U]

No...I didn't miss it. Matter of fact, I've noticed that since you could no longer effectively defend your position...and have no intention of curtailing your own use of petroleum, you were more than willing to go off on a tangent.

I think there was a mutual agreement that our sides with different. I understand j1m's side but disagree with most, I think he understands my side but disagrees with most. I posted that I hope he is correct. I am not sure anything else can be added to that particular discussion unless you have any more profound statements like "OIL".
The conversation organically moved to the beginnings of modern science in the Renaissance and thats how we have arrived here.
You, on the other hand, seem to have added little but slogans from bumper stickers.

[CajunRed]

I think there was a mutual agreement that our sides with different. I understand j1m's side but disagree with most, I think he understands my side but disagrees with most. I posted that I hope he is correct. I am not sure anything else can be added to that particular discussion unless you have any more profound statements like "OIL".
The conversation organically moved to the beginnings of modern science in the Renaissance and thats how we have arrived here.
You, on the other hand, seem to have added little but slogans from bumper stickers.

Ouch...large mind.

[Ragin4U]

Ouch...large mind.

Case in point.

[Turbine]

I can I dont look to HAwking or Dawkins as spiritual advisers so I am pretty uninterested in their take on religion. Just like I dont care about a preachers take on science.

I can appreciate that, which is why I raised the Einstein quote. I think it was both a shot across the bow and a personal reminder not to get to locked in, to a particular theory. Not that he always followed that interpretation.

Because of the broadness involved, the words Science, Religion, and Evolution are pretty much generic terms and I try not to dismiss any out of hand.

The relative fixed rotation of Earths orbit (some 3 million miles variance annually) over billions of years at an overall consistent distance from the Sun -to date- backs up the Bible's immovable claim.

On the other hand I'm thinking if it stayed at 91+ million miles from the Sun year round it could cause a measure of global warming.

[Ragin4U]

"The relative fixed rotation of Earths orbit (some 3 million miles variance annually) over billions of years at an overall consistent distance from the Sun -to date- backs up the Bible's immovable claim."
I never thought of that. Clever take.

[Turbine]

May not be a good thing though for his topic :-)

http://nypost.com/2016/04/06/newly-d...h-any-day-now/

My problem with "science" sometimes is how an original article might say "theoretical discovery" (as in not yet observed) link and a subsequent peer review article simply states "a new planet discovered" but fails to mention it has not yet been observed. link

[Ragin4U]

Those two articles are not at all the same. CalTech and The Sun?
It does illustrate the communication problem science has. One of these articles is a good example of scientific writing. The other is sensationalism posing as science writing.

[CajunNation]

Where I am coming from......

http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/gr...nmentalism.pdf

http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/gr...%20warming.pdf

[Ragin4U]

Interesting. Also important to keep in mind that he was a sci-fi writer who believed that clairvoyance and astral projection are real things.
I'll give a short take on some of his biggest points.
1. He uses weather patterns from single points to make a case against global climate change. Fundamentally unsound.
2. His use of very few selections from very few studies is misleading. The body of work, in its entirety must be studied, not just the parts that confirm your bias.
3. He apparently confuses sunspot cycles with changes in Total Solar Irradiance. Hard to tell because his info is wrong. He claims that sunspot activity was at a peak(2008) but in reality the peak was hit in the 1960's and has continued downward since.
4. He correctly states that the future is very hard to predict. I am unclear on his point however. Do you think he means that because it is hard we should stop trying or that we shouldn't take precautions just in case? If so, that's like saying "hurricanes are hard to predict so I'll live in a paper shack on a barrier island".

I do agree with him on the fact that causes(environmentalism, etc) can become religious in nature for some. What I disagree with is his idea that because you have extremist environmentalists that it colors the entire idea of environmentalism. Extremists in any arena are usually not a good thing. I also agree that science should be the foundation of any and all policies.
I've enjoyed his fiction for years so its no surprise that I enjoyed reading these fictional works as well.