Isnt Runner "living" proof that evolution doesnt exist?

Anyone who points to the laughable "answers" in genesis website for "proof" of anything is still "living" in the 1800's and/or in childish Sunday school fantasy world, surrounded by the Parental Diety.

And besides which to point to the "evidence" (or lack of) in natural processes, either in human cells or geological processes, as "proof" of God's existence, is ALREADY to have accepted the reductionist mortal meat-body paradigm.

It is to be infinitely GODLESS.

There are also quite literally hundreds of "creation" stories from every known culture, past and present. In a time of global inter-connectedness (especially via the internet) they are ALL our common inheritance.

And to thus insist that only one story is binding on everyone (which both Runner and Boaz do) is just an exercise in dim-witted "religious" and cultural provincialism.

The evolutionists who dismiss all religion are just as "guilty" of the same dim-witted provincialism.

It is also interesting to note that many (but not all) of those on the "right" who are "skeptics" re human activity caused climate change, are also either anti-evolution and/or advocates of dim-witted reductionist religiosity.

They tend to prattle on about the "green religion" having replaced the "religion" based on the "crucifix". Such arguments are just exercises in intellectual sloppiness and ignorance.

Such people can be found at the IPA. They even sponsor university chairs to promote the "skeptical" cause.

Dim-witted polemics.

Meanwhile this essay provide a completely different and very sophisticated understanding of the nature and purpose of "creation" stories.

1. http://www.dabase.org/creamyth.htm

Why is it assumed that 'spin' comes only from the AGW-doubting camp? I see a good deal of spin in the pro-IPCC camp, in particular the indifference to perfectly good scientific papers which appear to cast doubt on the AGW thesis. I accept that there are spinners among the sceptics, too, but I think that we are seeing is a furious debate over who has 'authority'. The key issues in AGW are quite straightforward, but some within the IPCC camp seem to feel that only scientists should be listened to. Alas, there are many scientists who don't agree, and they are consequently labelled as 'sceptics', 'contrarians', 'deniers' and the like.

If the science were absolutely clearcut, we wouldn't be having these unending debates, and governments would already have acted. But the science seems to me to be full of uncertainty, and governments seem to be aware of this. An end to this tedious labelling and an acceptance that there is uncertainty would be a great start to a real debate.

Minister Ms Nicola Roxon advocates more than just spin, by taking the time to listen to good practical-Science in her governments new HEALTH REFORMS.

I hear a renewal on "CIVIC WELLBEING" . A government helping us to uplift our nations pathway, toward better community health.

I hear Alma Ata (Health for ALL) through Preventive Health underlying these new Health reform strategies.

Cooperation between Health staff (breaking down dead-locks-and-silo cultures) through the community inclusive policies, that will assist ALL scientific to knowledge share.

I hear Community finally is to be included in the reforms.

Today's suggestion that in Health Provisions, and "social inclusive" issues of wider "community engagement" are going to be realised by the Federal Government while Hospitals care general structures are to be delivered between the States, will go a long way to help administrations problem solve. This will help further to integrate other federal policies that at present are misunderstood between various departments.

Yahoo - What a "break-through". Something real to work with. A great first start.

Ms Anna Bligh's agreement is a total relief to hear.

Politics is part of every-day life, and while I understand and feel frustrated when good evidence or researched information is suppressed or denied, I wish to remind us everywhere that (good) politics is important in discussing and emancipating the things we need to see, hear, understand and action in our everyday life.

What is good in the recent Health debate is that there is some well earned acceptance of a the need for a cross-over between science and the practical economic sustainable issues. Engaging individuals within community through policies that are inclusive of the social-economic-cultural environment will integrate long-term saving that are more sustainable, contributing to better health.

One only needs to think more about the impact of youth homelessness, Aging... Disabilities and Mental Health to understand Roxon's intent.

Australian got to speak loudly last night on Australia Talks (link below)

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/stories/2008/2235668.htm

It is rewarding to hear the common sense can work with science and that an attempt for balance addressed.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

I've said this elsewhere as a follow-up to this opinion piece, but it is worth repeating here for completeness.

The issue I have with many "sceptics" is not at all that they are sceptical (that is a healthy part of science). It is that they use their qualifications or position, or cherry-picked information, as the primary or sole justification for refuting evidence. The most notorious choose to take what I have seen colourfully referred to as the "la la la la, we can't hear you" approach to serious scientific rebuttals. To argue [as a previous poster, Don Aitken, did recently] that the atmosphere is simply too large a domain for us to ever understand, is tantamount to anti-intellectualism (though in a quite different vein to the deliberate spreading of disinformation or incomplete explanations), because it flippantly ignores over a century of scientific progress, hard-won accumulation of empirical evidence, and model-based evaluation on this very issue. This includes predictions of warming made decades before it happened (that is, validation), and multiple strands of constantly updated theory and data that point clearly in the direction of global warming and the mechanisms for it. In some senses, the standard contrarian approach strikes me as an attempt to use Platonic inductive logic to trump evidence-based science and scientific hypothesis testing (sensu lato).

continued next post...

In my Opinion Piece printed above, I deliberately didn't mention consensus or "settled science" in my opinion article because it is certainly not the point. Consensus is simply an emergent property of strong, consistent evidence and lack of credible or verifiable contradictory evidence or theory. It cannot be shattered, but neither is it immobile. It shifts its bulk as the evidence accumulates. I acknowledge that it is slow to change. New ideas, sometimes radical ideas, that are backed up by new evidence are actually the grist of good science, and are readily debated in all fields of scientific endeavour (I would refer you to Fred Pearce's "With Speed and Violence" book for an excellent overview of many of these, especially with respect to paleo evidence for abrupt climate change due, in all likelihood, to very strong positive feedbacks). Uncertainty about processes, mechanisms and deterministic versus stochastic and chaotic influences are a constant source of debate (that is the debate going on every day in scientific journals and conferences).

As such, I do not consider many 'sceptical' scientists who argue over relative values of radiative forcing of solar, clouds, and long lived greenhouses gases, or strengths of feedbacks, as deniers or anti-intellectual. People such as John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Christopher Landsea, Henrik Svensmark, Bjorn Lomborg, etc. unduly (in my view) play down the importance of climate change or the importance of long-lived greenhouse gas forcing and amplifying feedbacks, but at least they publish on climatology or related disciplines and are willing to engage on academic terms, which was exactly my point - this is what they should be doing - subjecting their ideas to rigorous scrutiny and scientific debate. There are many in the field of conservation biology who consider climate change impacts to be a distraction given other pressing threats to biodiversity. Again, I choose to differ strongly in my interpretation of the threats, but that is a matter of scientific interpretation. Not spin.

continued in another post when the forum next allows...

Attention all denialists and alarmists. Please read the following quote.

"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."

What is the source; a rabid climate alarmist blogger? No, a US Weather Bureau report written in 1922! What goes around comes around.

Remember, when we are all paying more for our energy and food, and once again widespread famines are common as more and more food crops are turned into biofuels (much more profitable for the agricorps), is it possible that the alarmists might just concede an inch that perhaps they should have taken a more objective look at the incomplete climate models and those who proffer them. Then we might be able to deal with our environmental problems by considering how to reduce our ecological footprint.