Cam - thanks =)
My interest in science has always been in the theory, not the application, for me that is kind of boring in comparison thus i end up dealing with allot more theroy than most. Secondly these kind of arguements always bring up the 'science is a faith too' misconception.
Juju - While there is no doubt that the earth's temperature has fluctuated significantly in over the past thousands of years and gone far higher than it is today there is one key difference. It's never gone up anywhere near this fast. The changes have been far, far slower. To argue that pumping the amount of shit we do into the atmosphere is going to have little or no effect to me at least seems very much like burying your head in the sand. This evidence comes from the same source as the longer term temperature information we have - ice cores. Thus while the temperature does fluctuate, there I extremely strong evidence to support the claim that we are having a significant and detrimental effect on the heath of our environment. I guess in the long term the argument is that as the environment changes, so will it's inhabitants (Darwin in action). But the pace of change we are inflicting on the environment is far shorter than the timeframes evolution tends to work over, thus even in a larger timescale it is hard to claim what we are doing is either good for the environment or part of a natural cycle which therefore has no detrimental effect.
To apply what i was talking about before - the best evidence i am aware of points to what i've stated above, but it is still science and thus must be taught as theory not fact.
Quote:
|
America is not a Christian nation and never was.
|
Ohh, another fallacy. Oh boy, i agree with Radar, shoot me now.
What is actually happening here is what lots of chrsitians do - the arguement that ebcause a moral or teaching is part of the christian faith, whereever it pops up it is a christian moral and cannot just be the product of an entirely non-christian thought process. The christian attempt at a monopoly on morality in effect. It's an arguement i take particular distaste to because the corollary usually implied is that you cannot have 'chrsitian' moral without being christian.