Three years ago, he received a heating bill for the winter totalling £6,000. His age means he has to have the heating on full in his poorly insulted home and, with his disabled son, Tom, living in a house next door, his outgoings on fuel rocketed. Damp winters on the edge of Dartmoor were taking their toll, so in recent years he has overwintered in St Louis, his wife's hometown in Missouri. The experience altered his attitude to the politics and economics of energy. Having already upset many environmentalists – for whom he is something of a guru – with his long-time support for nuclear power and his hatred of wind power (he has a picture of a wind turbine on the wall of his study to remind him how "ugly and useless they are"), he is now coming out in favour of "fracking", the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal: "Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way. Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it."

On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
... You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...

On 2012-06-16 20:11, The great Gumbini wrote:
Ron,

It is very simple. If you take the Big Bang Theory back as far as you can you MUST admit the point just prior to that is "I don't know". That then is your starting point. Argue as you may this is simply a fact. It is very hard to admit that because it seems almost as if proponents of the theory are making up a story. I mean lets face it this is how the account would have to go since something comes from something with the exception belonging to God Who always was and always will be. So from I don't know what came the right mixture of events that caused a Big Bang (I would imagine it should be call a REALLY REALLY Big Bang) that tossed into motion the perfect set of events that caused the earth and all life form to exist. However, on the other hand we have "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Was there a Big Bang? Maybe maybe not. But you see the believer starts with God. You mention my understanding of the word "theory" as used in science. Yes I'm fully aware it is not just a simple idea. I would also like to take this opportunity to explain to you that the words "faith" and "belief" used in the Bible are not merely fancy hopeful words as well. The both are in fact very "action" oriented. We see and THEN we believe. We have faith in Whom we KNOW. These words are predicated on a knowledge.

Why stop at God as the ultimate explanation? Simple once you found the answer what else would you look for? If I loose my cell found I will look for it. But once I find it I look no further. Now let me ask you this. The Bible has been around for a long time. What is it about "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that you find so hard to believe? Let's say if you do not believe God exists today is it possible God existed long enough to create the heavens and the earth? Ron I would be most interested to hear your answer to this question.


Good magic to all,


Eric

On 2012-06-16 21:36, kambiz wrote:

Quote:

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

My position in all this Ron is this, and it's very simple:

I follow the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, no matter where it manifests itself. The evidence is clear in all the INDEPENDENT global religious Scriptures. The Spirit manifests itself from age to age within different human embodiments. All of these embodiments of the Spirit share a Message tailored for a specific time. All these Manifestations claim that a God exists, so I believe in an Unknowable Essence, but my relationship with Him only develops form through my relationship with the Spirit of Truth, Who's most recent Manifestation is Baha'u'llah, that's all I know, and that's my position after years of independent investigation

Kam

On 2012-06-17 09:30, Woland wrote:
Getting back to earthquakes for a moment, I was interested to see James Lovelock's interview in the Guardian.

Quote:

..."fracking", the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal...

[M]ore than 1,000 other cases of contamination have been documented by courts and state and local governments in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In one case, a house exploded after hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and methane seeped into the residential water supply. In other cases, the contamination occurred not from actual drilling below ground, but on the surface, where accidental spills and leaky tanks, trucks and waste pits allowed benzene and other chemicals to leach into streams, springs and water wells

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of each contamination, or measure its spread across the environment accurately, because the precise nature and concentrations of the chemicals used by industry are considered trade secrets. Not even the EPA knows exactly what's in the drilling fluids. And that, EPA scientists say, makes it impossible to vouch for the safety of the drilling process or precisely track its effects.

"I am looking more and more at water quality issues…because of a growing concern," said Joyel Dhieux, a drilling field inspector who handles environmental review at the EPA’s regional offices in Denver. “But if you don't know what's in it I don't think it’s possible." http://www.propublica.org/article/buried......ies-1113

On 2012-06-17 09:32, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
... You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...

As it happens that is not the case. The story of n-rays is a pretty good example of just how much that is not the case.

The only thing that keeps "guesses" as "scientific" is that those guesses have been used to calculate and predict measurable things which would not be found unless those specific guesses were relevant to the shared world we live in ... and that those measurable things have then been experimentally verified. Science = best model of observable/measurable existence available at this time.

You are welcome to call any statement you want your belief and to have faith in anything you imagine and your feelings will be valid and true for you.

On 2012-06-17 01:31, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

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.

You still don't really seem to have an understanding of what is meant by a scientific theory. Pay particular attention to the last sentence in the following quote:

Quote:

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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

And for the umpteenth time, the Catholic Church has no problem with the Big Bang theory. Why do you?

On 2012-06-17 10:38, acesover wrote:...

I agree with yor last statement if when you say you...you mean all inclusive including yourself. Then I agree. However if your you means only those who disagree with your way of thinking then I do not agree.

On 2012-06-17 10:12, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-16 21:36, kambiz wrote:

Quote:

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

My position in all this Ron is this, and it's very simple:

I follow the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, no matter where it manifests itself. The evidence is clear in all the INDEPENDENT global religious Scriptures. The Spirit manifests itself from age to age within different human embodiments. All of these embodiments of the Spirit share a Message tailored for a specific time. All these Manifestations claim that a God exists, so I believe in an Unknowable Essence, but my relationship with Him only develops form through my relationship with the Spirit of Truth, Who's most recent Manifestation is Baha'u'llah, that's all I know, and that's my position after years of independent investigation

Kam

Kam my friend,

This is nothing but a word salad. I was looking for a one word answer. Deist?

Just curious, that's all.

Ron

On 2012-06-17 11:02, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-17 10:38, acesover wrote:...

I agree with yor last statement if when you say you...you mean all inclusive including yourself. Then I agree. However if your you means only those who disagree with your way of thinking then I do not agree.

a* - look at how far you are willing to go in order to distract yourself and others.

You (anyone) get to believe as you please. What you ask others to believe about what you claim to believe is...

So, how are you doing the the distinctions between statements about the inner world of how you feel and the outer world of what can be measured?

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]

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. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

On 2012-06-17 11:14, kambiz wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-17 10:12, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-16 21:36, kambiz wrote:

Quote:

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

My position in all this Ron is this, and it's very simple:

I follow the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, no matter where it manifests itself. The evidence is clear in all the INDEPENDENT global religious Scriptures. The Spirit manifests itself from age to age within different human embodiments. All of these embodiments of the Spirit share a Message tailored for a specific time. All these Manifestations claim that a God exists, so I believe in an Unknowable Essence, but my relationship with Him only develops form through my relationship with the Spirit of Truth, Who's most recent Manifestation is Baha'u'llah, that's all I know, and that's my position after years of independent investigation

Kam

Kam my friend,

This is nothing but a word salad. I was looking for a one word answer. Deist?

Just curious, that's all.

Ron

Word salad because you didn't understand a component? If so, what parts can I clarify for you.

Let there be no doubt, the relationship a Bahai has with the mysteries of the world and it's Unknowable Essence is unheard of in the history of the world. If I could put it into a modern-day recognized word, I would, but I genuinely cannot categorically fathom a description for a God. I struggle to fathom a description for Baha'u'llah but at least He presented me with a limited form, by which my petty, useless and limited mind could find some comfort, because really, for me, talking about anything unlimited and an Essence of the Essence of Essences is really fruitless......

Kam

On 2012-06-17 03:33, Bill Hilly wrote:
Anybody here subscribe to the Big Crunch possibility?