You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?

The controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas does not pose a high risk for triggering earthquakes large enough to feel, but other types of energy-related drilling can make the ground noticeably shake, a major government science report concludes.

Even those man-made tremors large enough to be an issue are very rare, says a special report by the National Research Council. In more than 90 years of monitoring, human activity has been shown to trigger only 154 quakes, most of them moderate or small, and only 60 of them in the United States. That's compared to a global average of about 14,450 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater every year, said the report, released Friday.

On 2012-06-15 20:31, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-15 19:26, mastermindreader wrote:
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.

I have been in agreement with the evolution theory for a long time now.

On 2012-06-15 21:30, The great Gumbini wrote:
The problem with the Big Bang Theory (while very amusing) is the "Where did that come from" questions. With the Big Bang you must start with "I don't know" and then you go from there. So the starting point is the only problem. We want to know. With God we do.


Good magic to all,


Eric

On 2012-06-16 11:53, kambiz wrote:
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam

On 2012-06-16 17:09, R.S. wrote:
Its the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. You do know the difference between "theory" in common usage and a "scientific theory", don't you?

The fact that science takes a "I don't know" stance on certain questions is a point FOR the scientific method - not against it.

On 2012-06-16 17:19, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-16 11:53, kambiz wrote:
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam

The Earth experienced extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. long before humans ever had a presence on the planet. No "turning away from the Divine guidance" was required for those weather events to occur.

And I'm sorry Kam, but I'm still confused as to your position. Are you a Deist, Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?

Ron

On 2012-06-17 00:32, Slide wrote:
"If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. "

If there was proof, it would stop being a theory. It would be a proof. But theory's don't require faith. A theory is the most plausible explanation of a series of observances and a new theory based on new evidence is not shunned (as in religion) it is embraced. Faith, for the most part, closes you off from the truth. Any thing that challenges your faith is to be ignored, shut out, or shunned. In science, things that challenge your understanding are what scientists live for.

On 2012-06-17 00:32, Slide wrote:
"If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. "

If there was proof, it would stop being a theory. It would be a proof. But theory's don't require faith. A theory is the most plausible explanation of a series of observances and a new theory based on new evidence is not shunned (as in religion) it is embraced. Faith, for the most part, closes you off from the truth. Any thing that challenges your faith is to be ignored, shut out, or shunned. In science, things that challenge your understanding are what scientists live for.

On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
Fact of the matter is no one knows how the universe came into existance. It is all conjecture. In other words guesses. You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...HE HAS NO PROOF OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. End of story.

A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]

On 2012-06-16 20:23, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-16 17:09, R.S. wrote:
Its the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. You do know the difference between "theory" in common usage and a "scientific theory", don't you?

The fact that science takes a "I don't know" stance on certain questions is a point FOR the scientific method - not against it.

If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. If, as you said in that thread, that in the absence of proof what you need is more evidence, not faith, then I imagine you'll have to reserve judgment on the Big Bang...almost certainly for the rest of your life.