Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

[RickBradford]

I can't take a scientist seriously who believes that life and the cosmos were created by an old man with a gray beard.

Well, Comrade, there goes Isaac Newton (gravity, mechanics, optics, calculus), James Clark Maxwell (electromagnetism, thermodynamics), Galileo (astronomy, physics), Linnaeus and Pasteur (biology), Pascal (mathematics), Planck (quantum physics), Descartes (plane geometry), Volta and Ampere (electricity) and virtually the entire scientific enlightenment.

All of these men held that scientific endeavour was part of their duty to God, and so they carried it out with an intellectual honesty which is absent from much of science today.

Put another way, these people didn't fiddle the figures.

[sirineou]

I googled Dr. Roy Spencer, and found this quote from a book he wrote:

"In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. ...Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

Perhaps he stared at that wonderful painting by Michaelangelo at the Vatican's Sistine Chapel too long, but I can't take a scientist seriously who believes that life and the cosmos were created by an old man with a gray beard.

Well you are consistent to the principles of your cause. Ignore the facts and focus on the ad hominem attacks. It's all you got.

Show me the models were right then.

ad ho·mi·nem

ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adverb & adjective

1. 1.

   (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

   I believe boomerangutang's argument is based on previous positions Spenser has maintained.as a predictor of present and future positions.

   as per definition certainly not an ad hominem attack

[canuckamuck]

He stated that he can't take a scientist, that believes in a God, seriously. That was quite clear. Spencer understood enough science to get a doctorate and a job at NASA though.

Also Dr. Spencer is not the only person who can look at the graphs and see that the predictions of the models are wrong.

A 10 year old could see the charts don't match up. Of course the 10 year old would need to be an atheist in order to be taken seriously.

[sirineou]

He stated that he can't take a scientist, that believes in a God, seriously. That was quite clear. Spencer understood enough science to get a doctorate and a job at NASA though.

Also Dr. Spencer is not the only person who can look at the graphs and see that the predictions of the models are wrong.

A 10 year old could see the charts don't match up. Of course the 10 year old would need to be an atheist in order to be taken seriously.

Sure a ten year old would think the charts are wrong,,

but some of us grow up

[canuckamuck]

When you grew up you learned that when something has a 95% failure rate that it still can be used for science? Did you also agree that because the fake bomb detectors were found to accurate at a rate equivalent to random chance, that they were still a useful tool for security?

[boomerangutang]

He stated that he can't take a scientist, that believes in a God, seriously. That was quite clear.

Not so. Please don't skew what I wrote. I wrote that someone who believes in a Divine hand / divine plan (or whatever they call it) engineering creation is not plausible from my view. Whomever believes in God or myths is welcome to do so. To take such a deist belief system and claim that a great being is responsible for creation and life, is too much a stretch. I believe in nature and science and the scientific process. Life coming forth via the interaction of molecules and sunlight is not so profound, that I need to add a God-factor. It's amazing enough, stemming from science, while still being fathomable. If a deist/creationist perspective explains it for you, then go for it.

[canuckamuck]

Same thing

[RickBradford]

Not so. Please don't skew what I wrote.

Pure sophistry. What sort of God is it who is not also the Creator of everything?

You dismiss Spencer's science on the basis of his religious beliefs.

You therefore also must dismiss the science of Sir John Houghton. He is an devout, evangelical Christian -- and a winner of the Nobel Prize and Albert Einstein World Award of Science.

In his role as lead editor of the IPCC's first three climate reports, he repeatedly invoked religion and the Bible to urge people that it was their God-given duty to combat climate change. Rather like the Pope did, last week.

Oddly enough, Sir John was also the founder of the Hadley Centre, the climate research unit that later on became famous for egregious data fiddling.

The idea that good science and strong religious belief are incompatible is a very shallow view.

Edited May 11, 2015 by RickBradford

[boomerangutang]

Pure sophistry. What sort of God is it who is not also the Creator of everything?

You dismiss Spencer's science on the basis of his religious beliefs.

. . . . .

The idea that good science and strong religious belief are incompatible is a very shallow view.

Not so. I assert that science and religion don't mix. You don't have to agree with me.

I mentioned in my follow-up that a person's belief in a belief system, whether theism or whatever, is that person's choice. Spencer is mixing religion in to science - specifically: there is a divine plan that designed the universe and a similar (or same?) divine being which created life on Earth (or brought it here from elsewhere?).

Science is science, and religion is religion. A person can be a good scientists and be a religious person, but I draw the line at mixing religion with hard science. Others can draw the line wherever they want.

[phycokiller]

predicting the future is nearly impossible.

nearly impossible? maybe you have no clue as to what science is, but you would make a great politician

Edited May 11, 2015 by phycokiller

[boomerangutang]

You therefore also must dismiss the science of Sir John Houghton. He is an devout, evangelical Christian -- and a winner of the Nobel Prize and Albert Einstein World Award of Science.

In his role as lead editor of the IPCC's first three climate reports, he repeatedly invoked religion and the Bible to urge people that it was their God-given duty to combat climate change. Rather like the Pope did, last week.

Oddly enough, Sir John was also the founder of the Hadley Centre, the climate research unit that later on became famous for egregious data fiddling.

I'm trying to follow your assertion, from the missive above. Are you saying; because Sir John Houghton was a devout evangelical Christian, that he fudged data? You don't have to answer that.

On a different tack, here's a commentary about a scientist who is the darling of the deniers; He gets big money from corporate interests who seek to deny climate change. However, "he is not an astrophysicist or a climate scientist. He holds a degree in aerospace engineering." source

The NY Times referred to him; "[Dr. Soon] has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers." source

I'm not trying to denigrate Dr. Soon, but instead mentioning how there are powerful vested interests (fossil fuel industry heavies, among others) who would like to discredit climate change assertions in every way they can - and they don't mind paying lots of money to further their biz interests.

[RickBradford]

I'm trying to follow your assertion, from the missive above. Are you saying; because Sir John Houghton was a devout evangelical Christian, that he fudged data?

No, you know that's not what I'm saying. Which is why I said "oddly enough". I'm saying it's tragically ironic that a centre, founded by a scientist devoted to both religion and science should, after his departure, have descended to be one of the most notorious climate data fiddling centres in the world.

I assert that science and religion don't mix. You don't have to agree with me.

I don't agree with you. Nor did Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Linnaeus, Descartes, virtually the whole scientific enlightenment -- and Sir John Houghton

I'm not trying to denigrate Dr. Soon,

Yes, you are. You are hinting that he might falsify his research because of the origin of his funding. Otherwise, why bring up the source of his funding? How is it relevant unless you are trying to make some connection between his funding and the integrity of his research? That the people who pay him are "paying lots of money to further their biz interests"?

Put up or shut up.

1) Do you believe that Dr Soon falsifies research because he gets money from the fossil-fuel industry?

2) Do you believe that the science of Dr Roy Spencer and Sir John Houghton is worthless because they believe in a divine creation of the universe?

[Throatwobbler]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

I don't enjoy it at all. Read the other thread on here contemporaneous with this one which spells out a need to change refrigerants at a massive cost to the public but a huge profit to corporations.

Most people can understand the words "corporate greed" but for some reason they miss "scientist greed." Scientists, at least until now, didn't dare go against "global warming" (a long debunked theory which had to be replaced with "climate change") because their research money came from governments and yes, corporations and they'd get cut off if they didn't go along. Their colleges would boo them out of the biz.

I'm always stunned that people would use charts going back 50 or even 200 years to show a trend when the earth is millions of years old and the fossil record shows that the climate has always been in flux. Tree growth rings show periods of low growth and high growth over periods back as far as they can try to date the fossils.

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

That comment shows that you have absolutely zero understanding about science and makes all the rest of your points worthless.

[Throatwobbler]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I'm trying to follow your assertion, from the missive above. Are you saying; because Sir John Houghton was a devout evangelical Christian, that he fudged data?

No, you know that's not what I'm saying. Which is why I said "oddly enough". I'm saying it's tragically ironic that a centre, founded by a scientist devoted to both religion and science should, after his departure, have descended to be one of the most notorious climate data fiddling centres in the world.

I assert that science and religion don't mix. You don't have to agree with me.

I don't agree with you. Nor did Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Linnaeus, Descartes, virtually the whole scientific enlightenment -- and Sir John Houghton

I'm not trying to denigrate Dr. Soon,

Yes, you are. You are hinting that he might falsify his research because of the origin of his funding. Otherwise, why bring up the source of his funding? How is it relevant unless you are trying to make some connection between his funding and the integrity of his research? That the people who pay him are "paying lots of money to further their biz interests"?

Put up or shut up.

1) Do you believe that Dr Soon falsifies research because he gets money from the fossil-fuel industry?

2) Do you believe that the science of Dr Roy Spencer and Sir John Houghton is worthless because they believe in a divine creation of the universe?

I will only answer number 2 for you.

You seem to believe that because a great scientist like Newton believed in god that anyone who is a scientist should be held in the same light. Newton also believed in alchemy. I am sure you don't believe in that. Science has moved on a lot since the days of Newton.

Hypothetical question for you, do you think Newton would still think the same if he could examine the scientific data now available?I think he would not.

Of the example you gave I do not think their scientific data is useless I do believe that serious questions have to be asked.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Throatwobbler

[Throatwobbler]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I'm trying to follow your assertion, from the missive above. Are you saying; because Sir John Houghton was a devout evangelical Christian, that he fudged data?

No, you know that's not what I'm saying. Which is why I said "oddly enough". I'm saying it's tragically ironic that a centre, founded by a scientist devoted to both religion and science should, after his departure, have descended to be one of the most notorious climate data fiddling centres in the world.

I assert that science and religion don't mix. You don't have to agree with me.

I don't agree with you. Nor did Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Linnaeus, Descartes, virtually the whole scientific enlightenment -- and Sir John Houghton

I'm not trying to denigrate Dr. Soon,

Yes, you are. You are hinting that he might falsify his research because of the origin of his funding. Otherwise, why bring up the source of his funding? How is it relevant unless you are trying to make some connection between his funding and the integrity of his research? That the people who pay him are "paying lots of money to further their biz interests"?

Put up or shut up.

1) Do you believe that Dr Soon falsifies research because he gets money from the fossil-fuel industry?

2) Do you believe that the science of Dr Roy Spencer and Sir John Houghton is worthless because they believe in a divine creation of the universe?

Ok now for point 1 that you made. People like yourself get upset when a scientist who questions climate change is accused of being in the pocket of fossil-fuel industry. However you are totally fine with accusing scientists who show evidence of climate change of being in the pocket of the lefts plan to tax you all.

Ask yourself a simple question, if you can. If it was all about the money don't you think that the billionaires who thrive of fossil fuel could find more than 2% of scientist to back them. After all according to you scientist are only after funding.

Think.

[chuckd]

The US government in fiscal year 2013 authorized the grand total of $22.195 Billion in grants and tax credits worldwide in support of climate change.

How many of that imaginary 98% were feeding at the trough for their fair share of the stipends?

Follow the money and it will lead you to the real answer nearly every time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

[boomerangutang]

Scientists of olde were often required to uphold the dominance of religion, much as modern-day Muslims residing in Islamist countries are required to uphold Islam 100% or N.Koreans are required to put the Kim troika on a heavenly pedestal or else face death. Thankfully, most modern-day westerners aren't required to pledge complete reliance on whatever religion is dominant in their locale - and are free to think as they choose.

Newton, as one example, often had to claim Christianity as his guiding over-riding principle, even though his life's work contrasted with it. Similarly for Galileo, and many other greats. There are times and places wherein residents have no choice but to declare undying allegiance to whatever belief-system prevails - or else face ridicule at the least, or dungeons and death.

[boomerangutang]

The US government in fiscal year 2013 authorized the grand total of $22.195 Billion in grants and tax credits worldwide in support of climate change.

How many of that imaginary 98% were feeding at the trough for their fair share of the stipends?

Follow the money and it will lead you to the real answer nearly every time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

US governments are notorious for wasting money. We could go out on that tangent, and spend weeks discussing the thousands of ways: PIK, SSI benefits for people who fake debilaties, fake veteran benefits, double dipping, Reagan's Star Wars (est. $1 trillion in 1980 dollars), defense spending, .....the list goes on. How does the 22.195 billion break down? Was some of it rebates for home solar panels? I'm ok with that. Was some of it to help fund research for start-ups focusing on tidal-power? Sounds ok to me.

I liked Jimmy Carter as prez, but two of his programs I didn't like were:

>>> billions to develop tar sands in Montana (nothing came of it)

and

>>> Billions in grants shoveled on to the laps of the Big 3 automakers - to develop new lighter, more efficient, less toxic batteries. What came of that? NOTHING.

....and the republican presidents who followed him were waaaaay worse - in wasting taxpayer money and taking out loans.

[boomerangutang]

adjustment: to my post #137, I meant 'Darwin', not 'Newton.'

[RickBradford]

Scientists of olde were often required to uphold the dominance of religion, much as modern-day Muslims residing in Islamist countries are required to uphold Islam 100% or N.Koreans are required to put the Kim troika on a heavenly pedestal or else face death.

Utterly irrelevant BS.

Newton and the other great scientists weren't religious because they were required to be, but because religion was a fundamental part of their lives. Their scientific endeavours only made sense to them in the context of a religious life.

Their view was that, in pursuing science, they were unravelling the mystery of God's universe, for the greater glorification of God.

In the modern era, Sir John Houghton, as well as being a Nobel Prize winner, is also a co-founder of the International Society for Science and Religion, which sees science and religion as complementing and strengthening one another.

My two questions to you still stand.

[canuckamuck]

Pure sophistry. What sort of God is it who is not also the Creator of everything?

You dismiss Spencer's science on the basis of his religious beliefs.

. . . . .

The idea that good science and strong religious belief are incompatible is a very shallow view.

Not so. I assert that science and religion don't mix. You don't have to agree with me.

I mentioned in my follow-up that a person's belief in a belief system, whether theism or whatever, is that person's choice. Spencer is mixing religion in to science - specifically: there is a divine plan that designed the universe and a similar (or same?) divine being which created life on Earth (or brought it here from elsewhere?).

Science is science, and religion is religion. A person can be a good scientists and be a religious person, but I draw the line at mixing religion with hard science. Others can draw the line wherever they want.

Boomer thinks it's ok to believe in God and be a scientist, as long as the scientist doesn't believe all of it. Monotheism requires the God figure to be the creator. To believe only part of it is to have a schizophrenic faith, or at the very least a poorly considered world view. Not a good characteristic for a scientist. I would respect someone much more if they are fully committed to their worldview, whatever that is, rather than believing only the convenient or feel good parts.

Of course liberals prefer people with a more plastic set of standards. So they can fit more easily into the shifting morals of the day.

I bet Boomer wouldn't have an issue with Dr.Spencer's credibility if he had found that he had an alter to Gaia at his home.

[sirineou]

Pure sophistry. What sort of God is it who is not also the Creator of everything?

You dismiss Spencer's science on the basis of his religious beliefs.

. . . . .

The idea that good science and strong religious belief are incompatible is a very shallow view.

Not so. I assert that science and religion don't mix. You don't have to agree with me.

I mentioned in my follow-up that a person's belief in a belief system, whether theism or whatever, is that person's choice. Spencer is mixing religion in to science - specifically: there is a divine plan that designed the universe and a similar (or same?) divine being which created life on Earth (or brought it here from elsewhere?).

Science is science, and religion is religion. A person can be a good scientists and be a religious person, but I draw the line at mixing religion with hard science. Others can draw the line wherever they want.

Boomer thinks it's ok to believe in God and be a scientist, as long as the scientist doesn't believe all of it. Monotheism requires the God figure to be the creator. To believe only part of it is to have a schizophrenic faith, or at the very least a poorly considered world view. Not a good characteristic for a scientist. I would respect someone much more if they are fully committed to their worldview, whatever that is, rather than believing only the convenient or feel good parts.

Of course liberals prefer people with a more plastic set of standards. So they can fit more easily into the shifting morals of the day.

I bet Boomer wouldn't have an issue with Dr.Spencer's credibility if he had found that he had an alter to Gaia at his home.

I am afraid with your reply you are making Boomer's point

Faith, and Science are two diametrical opposed concepts

I am in total agreement with you, to engage in both is a bit Schizo,

and you are not very good in either

Edited May 12, 2015 by sirineou

[Thaddeus]

Pure sophistry. What sort of God is it who is not also the Creator of everything?

You dismiss Spencer's science on the basis of his religious beliefs.

. . . . .

The idea that good science and strong religious belief are incompatible is a very shallow view.

Not so. I assert that science and religion don't mix. You don't have to agree with me.

I mentioned in my follow-up that a person's belief in a belief system, whether theism or whatever, is that person's choice. Spencer is mixing religion in to science - specifically: there is a divine plan that designed the universe and a similar (or same?) divine being which created life on Earth (or brought it here from elsewhere?).

Science is science, and religion is religion. A person can be a good scientists and be a religious person, but I draw the line at mixing religion with hard science. Others can draw the line wherever they want.

Boomer thinks it's ok to believe in God and be a scientist, as long as the scientist doesn't believe all of it. Monotheism requires the God figure to be the creator. To believe only part of it is to have a schizophrenic faith, or at the very least a poorly considered world view. Not a good characteristic for a scientist. I would respect someone much more if they are fully committed to their worldview, whatever that is, rather than believing only the convenient or feel good parts.

Of course liberals prefer people with a more plastic set of standards. So they can fit more easily into the shifting morals of the day.

I bet Boomer wouldn't have an issue with Dr.Spencer's credibility if he had found that he had an alter to Gaia at his home.

I am afraid with your reply you are making Boomer's point

Faith, and Science are two diametrical opposed concepts

I am in total agreement with you, to engage in both is a bit Schizo,

and you are not very good in either

So, as far as you are concerned, it is impossible to have a job and a hobby at the same time.

[boomerangutang]

from canuckamuck: "To believe only part of it is to have a schizophrenic faith, or at the very least a poorly considered world view. Not a good characteristic for a scientist."

I can't judge a person's level of faith for its veracity. That's up to each individual, and it's a private thing. As for people keeping some distance between how they act at church, and their day-jobs; there are endless examples of that every day. Look closely at any profession, from mafia to politicians, to corp bosses, to movie stars, and you'll see a difference between their claims of deism/religious, and how they manifest in the real world.

Back to a mention of Darwin: His fiercest attackers (re; his 'Origin of Species') were religionists. So Darwin, knowing the requirements of where he resided in those times, often asserted the highest authority of the Church. If he hadn't done that, he would have been even more rigorously vilified. How religious he was in truth, only he really knows.

It's interesting that the two 'forewords' in his novel, both paragraphs (by lauded scientific minds of the day) mentioned, in essence, how religion doesn't cancel out scientific revelations. Here's one:

"But with respect to the material world, we can at least go so far as this - we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by establishment of general laws." W.Warwell

[sirineou]

Not so. I assert that science and religion don't mix. You don't have to agree with me.

I mentioned in my follow-up that a person's belief in a belief system, whether theism or whatever, is that person's choice. Spencer is mixing religion in to science - specifically: there is a divine plan that designed the universe and a similar (or same?) divine being which created life on Earth (or brought it here from elsewhere?).

Science is science, and religion is religion. A person can be a good scientists and be a religious person, but I draw the line at mixing religion with hard science. Others can draw the line wherever they want.

Boomer thinks it's ok to believe in God and be a scientist, as long as the scientist doesn't believe all of it. Monotheism requires the God figure to be the creator. To believe only part of it is to have a schizophrenic faith, or at the very least a poorly considered world view. Not a good characteristic for a scientist. I would respect someone much more if they are fully committed to their worldview, whatever that is, rather than believing only the convenient or feel good parts.

Of course liberals prefer people with a more plastic set of standards. So they can fit more easily into the shifting morals of the day.

I bet Boomer wouldn't have an issue with Dr.Spencer's credibility if he had found that he had an alter to Gaia at his home.

I am afraid with your reply you are making Boomer's point

Faith, and Science are two diametrical opposed concepts

I am in total agreement with you, to engage in both is a bit Schizo,

and you are not very good in either

So, as far as you are concerned, it is impossible to have a job and a hobby at the same time.

sure I am

if your job is firefighter and your hobby is lighting fires

[boomerangutang]

I am afraid with your reply you are making Boomer's point

Faith, and Science are two diametrical opposed concepts

I am in total agreement with you, to engage in both is a bit Schizo,

and you are not very good in either

So, as far as you are concerned, it is impossible to have a job and a hobby at the same time.

If a man has a hobby of being a leather tanner, but has a day job as a kindergarten teacher, does that mean he will peel the skins off of his students and stretch them on the wall?

Actually Thaddeus, I don't get your point. Maybe it's too early in the A.M., or you weren't clear.

[canuckamuck]

from canuckamuck: "To believe only part of it is to have a schizophrenic faith, or at the very least a poorly considered world view. Not a good characteristic for a scientist."

I can't judge a person's level of faith for its veracity. That's up to each individual, and it's a private thing. As for people keeping some distance between how they act at church, and their day-jobs; there are endless examples of that every day. Look closely at any profession, from mafia to politicians, to corp bosses, to movie stars, and you'll see a difference between their claims of deism/religious, and how they manifest in the real world.

Back to a mention of Darwin: His fiercest attackers (re; his 'Origin of Species') were religionists. So Darwin, knowing the requirements of where he resided in those times, often asserted the highest authority of the Church. If he hadn't done that, he would have been even more rigorously vilified. How religious he was in truth, only he really knows.

It's interesting that the two 'forewords' in his novel, both paragraphs (by lauded scientific minds of the day) mentioned, in essence, how religion doesn't cancel out scientific revelations. Here's one:

"But with respect to the material world, we can at least go so far as this - we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by establishment of general laws." W.Warwell

So a man can believe in God and science. I agree.

[canuckamuck]

Pure sophistry. What sort of God is it who is not also the Creator of everything?

You dismiss Spencer's science on the basis of his religious beliefs.

. . . . .

The idea that good science and strong religious belief are incompatible is a very shallow view.

Not so. I assert that science and religion don't mix. You don't have to agree with me.

I mentioned in my follow-up that a person's belief in a belief system, whether theism or whatever, is that person's choice. Spencer is mixing religion in to science - specifically: there is a divine plan that designed the universe and a similar (or same?) divine being which created life on Earth (or brought it here from elsewhere?).

Science is science, and religion is religion. A person can be a good scientists and be a religious person, but I draw the line at mixing religion with hard science. Others can draw the line wherever they want.

Boomer thinks it's ok to believe in God and be a scientist, as long as the scientist doesn't believe all of it. Monotheism requires the God figure to be the creator. To believe only part of it is to have a schizophrenic faith, or at the very least a poorly considered world view. Not a good characteristic for a scientist. I would respect someone much more if they are fully committed to their worldview, whatever that is, rather than believing only the convenient or feel good parts.

Of course liberals prefer people with a more plastic set of standards. So they can fit more easily into the shifting morals of the day.

I bet Boomer wouldn't have an issue with Dr.Spencer's credibility if he had found that he had an alter to Gaia at his home.

I am afraid with your reply you are making Boomer's point

Faith, and Science are two diametrical opposed concepts

I am in total agreement with you, to engage in both is a bit Schizo,

and you are not very good in either

Theism is not incompatible with science.

Many excellent scientists disagree with other excellent scientists in many fields. That does not make either side incapable of science. Theistic scientists however are likely to be unsatisfied with many of the suggestions of those who specialize in evolution. Indeed, the science of evolution is also constantly in debate and adjustments are often made. Evolution is a very small facet of scientific study. Believing in it is not the acid test for scientific credentials. But I believe that theist or atheist scientists alike should be very discouraged if the results of their predictions have a 95% failure rate.

[Thaddeus]

So, as far as you are concerned, it is impossible to have a job and a hobby at the same time.

sure I am

if your job is firefighter and your hobby is lighting fires

You managed to find one example, there will be others.

And neither you or Boom got the point.

Which is not entirely surprising.

[sirineou]

So, as far as you are concerned, it is impossible to have a job and a hobby at the same time.

sure I am

if your job is firefighter and your hobby is lighting fires

You managed to find one example, there will be others.

And neither you or Boom got the point.

Which is not entirely surprising.

Ohh, why is not entirely surprising, please do tell.

anyway let me give you two other examples

Scientist whose hobby is religion

religious person whose hobby is science

one affects and compromises the other

sure you can be a good Scientist but imagine how much better you would have being with out the ball and shackle of religion slowing you down,

Sure you can be a religious person but imagine the crisis of faith that science would impose on you and the intellectual contortions you have to engage in, to accommodate both

as some one on your side of the argument said,

"Schizophrenic "