Liberal science is a fiction of their primitive imaginations

Divinity of Man2

Ignorance is bliss, but only to a liberal for whom it is the foundation of their ideology.  A little knowledge for a liberal is a dangerous thing.  Liberals believe science must deny God and that those who believe in God deny science.  Yet liberals believe more in science fantasy than science fact.

Take Skepticalscience.com whose author purports to “disprove” the beliefs of “science deniers” of climate change.  I didn’t have to go past the first item on his list to know he is preying on the ignorance of his audience to push home his agenda (the huge CO2 increase in the geological record occurs after Ice Ages began when vegetation was frozen out and it took algae blooms in the ocean years to replace them, not before to cause them – and mankind’s cars were certainly not around then).  I have written extensively about the liberal socialist climate change agenda to propagandize ignorant fools, promoting Chicken Little predictions of how man is going to end the world if we allow Americans to continue to use fossil fuels, the very energy that has made America, along with her Constitution, the most prosperous nation in the world.

I have better things on which to waste my time than taking his extensive and ridiculous arguments apart.  You’ll just have to do some research for yourself.  This video is a good starting point.

The Great Global Warming Scam

Liberals claim to have debunked it, but their debunking, like their political assassinations, is about attacking the character of the producers, and refuting the facts with “modern” facts that are all skewed by scientific organizations that serve liberal administrations.  What facts they refute, like Skepticalscience.com, relies on people’s ignorance of science and their ignorance that scientists have been exposed as political animals.  It does not explain that NOAA, like NASA, has become Obama’s outreach to both Muslims and socialists, and that government muscle can force honest scientists to deny they proved that global warming science is a scam.

The Great Global Warming Scam Debunked

What the debunkers won’t admit is that there has been no warming for the last fifteen plus years proving their hockey stick CO2 graph to be completely false.  Despite their claims that July 2015 was the warmest month on record (by a hundredth of a degree), the falsification of data from government funded scientists exposed by hacking their emails renders such data worthless.  Ask why is the North Pole ice increasing instead of disappearing as they claimed it would?

This answer is in knowing that liberal’s solution to climate change, be it warming, cooling, storms, or CO2, is always the same – American must adopt socialism:

  • government leaders must steal all the wealth to dole it out to their friends
  • people must be forced to stop using fossil fuels for their cars
  • they must stop using their air conditioners and heaters to save electricity
  • they must stop using coal generated electricity (hence no a/c or heat)
  • they must stop nuclear power (it’s so dangerous)
  • they must stop using jet-powered air travel

Meanwhile, China and India, which are now producing more CO2 than America and Europe ever did, are freed by treaty with the US and EU to increase their pollution and use more coal and oil than America and Europe possibly could.  The liberal agenda is sheer insanity that will weaken America and expand the power of the worst regimes on the planet.  Socialists; Communists, Nazis, and Fascist regimes are expanding, including the ultimate Socialist-Nazi ideology of Islam.  What young liberals are being taught will make the world a better place and save the planet from “the virus of mankind” is nothing more than the Left’s agenda to destroy Christian America and make the worst people in the world powerful.

Liberals are like vegans who refuse to eat catfish because they’re “bottom feeders,” (i.e. they eat sh*t).  These ignorant people obviously don’t know what farmers use to fertilize their vegetables.  Liberals believe science has proven that God doesn’t exist, that evolution is a fact, and that the Universe is random chaos out of which mankind accidentally formed.

Liberalism vs. conservatism is a contest over science, faith, and existence.  They believe they are the side of right in a battle between science and science fiction or fantasy, when they are actually on the side of the Left (i.e. the wrong side).  Imagination is a good thing.  It gives us creativity and inventiveness.  It causes us to experiment to find the truth.  But liberalism is not about finding the truth, it’s about affirming their own immature beliefs.

There are many oxymorons in liberalism; the noble savage, liberal wisdom, and man as God.  A quickie look at what liberal’s believe about science and religion can enlighten some.  Let’s examine this in the simplest of layman’s terms;

Darwin is credited by liberals with proving evolution when, in fact, he only proved survival of the fittest.  The Theory of Evolution was developed by other scientists but it remains a theory because there are so many large, gaping holes in the proofs.  Yet liberals believe the Universe, life, and mankind all formed by random chance.

Quantum physics led to the discovery of the atom, quarks, and eventually to String Theory, which is essentially a theory that energy strands resonate throughout the universe forming all matter.  This could as easily be rendered as God Theory.  (No doubt some liberal scientist will come here and tell me that I’m all wrong, but let’s keep it simple, stupid.)  It’s a theory because it cannot be proven through science.

How much else does science not know?  The fact is, science has only blossomed in the last few hundred years, and has mushroomed in the amazing 20th century along with everything else.  Like those who believe they can predict global climate in one hundred years based on the last century’s weather patterns, believing we know the answers is the pinnacle of human hubris.

Take Quantum Mechanics which is the study of the Universe.  Until a couple hundred years ago we knew about stars, six planets, the Sun and the Moon, and the Milky Way.  Until mathematicians figured out that the Sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth, mankind was the center of the Universe.

With Hubble we can see we are in a galaxy in a cluster of galaxies and that there are millions of clusters billions of light years away.  A couple of decades ago we discovered the Universe was a couple billion lights years in diameter.  Then it became ten billion, now it’s twenty-eight billion, and the funny thing is, we are still at the center of that mass.

The point is that science is not all-knowing, it’s experimental and still in the learning stage.  But our own imaginations let us run wild at times.  Take our entertainment industry;

Star Trek characters use teleportation to speed up activity between the ship and the planets, yet scientists tell us that the human body would have to be heated to a billion degrees to accomplish the separation of molecules.  How about X-Men wherein the next step in “evolution” is for human beings to develop fantastical powers?  Very entertaining, but purely fantasy.

The move, Lucy, is a great example of science meets science fiction and how man can become God.  The movie is based on scientist’s understanding that humans only use 10% of their brains.  Now I ask you, which is more likely; we don’t use 90% of our enormous brains that have developed in nature (or by God’s design) or that scientists have not yet figured out what how it is being used?  Remember how big the Universe has gotten in the last few decades?  The fact is that if Dolphins, that use 20% of their brains as scientists understand it, could do what Lucy could do when she hit 20% then they would rule the planet.

God may be fiction to liberals who want to believe in their own magnificence, but the science in which they believe is equally fictitious.  Ask a liberal why all organic life must consume organic life to survive and perpetuate?  Ask him how the Universe began?  Scientists can prove it was the Big Bang, but what caused it?

Likewise, scientists have a theory but no proof of how life began, about what caused the creation of organic matter that would combine into the amazing complex creatures we know as homo sapiens.  For that matter, they don’t know why mankind developed so far in advance of all other living creatures.  The only answers are; God created the Universe, God created Life, and God separated Man from the animals.

There will always be those things in the Universe that mankind cannot explain.  It can’t even be known if there is a God in this material universe, yet who says God exists within this universe or within one that we would believe to be a spiritual realm?  It is said that Satan deceived Eve to eat of the Apple, but liberals don’t even understand that story.

Liberals get lost when taught “old knowledge.”  It takes many years to understand how the world works, and while ignorance may be bliss, what you don’t know can kill you.  Understanding the difference between old adages and liberal interpretations is key to understanding life.  For instance;

“Money is the root of all Evil,” is a liberal axiom, which is why they damn all rich people as evil.  The actual saying from the Bible, “The love of money is the root of all evil,” refers to greed, something in which liberalism abounds.  In rejecting the Bible, liberals leave themselves in ignorance of a great many things.

The apple of which Adam and Eve partook was not from “The Tree of Knowledge,” but from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Satan gave it to them telling them that eating this would “make them as God.”  The ultimate deception said to have been done today is that Satan convinced the world that he does not exist.

That, and liberal belief that Original Sin is sex, convinces those who believe they are divinely created by God that those who believe they are descended from monkeys make a good point.  If you don’t believe men have souls, and you’re thinking is so confined that you don’t understand that women are part of mankind in that statement, it is easy to see why it is so important to prove your desire that you have the power of God.  The fact is, if all a person has is this existence on Earth in this material universe, and not a spiritual life that comes after, what hope is there of a greater existence to keep one from behaving like an animal?

If science does not walk hand-in-hand with faith, where can it possibly hope to lead us except to our own extinguishment?  A God who loves us, but who wishes us to be loving beings, would not banish us to an eternal torture chamber, as those who don’t understand that the torture of Hell is not having pain inflicted for eternity, but being eternally separated from God.  God sends no one to Hell, but leaves the choice to them to either love only themselves as greedy animals, or to love God and others above themselves.  God does not allow bad things to happen on Earth, but gives us the freedom to choose, and as the Internet parable about light, and heat, and God demonstrates, those who choose to live without God cannot anymore be expected to act godly than they can be expected to understand anything beyond their ken.

An old adage, as one of those “obsolete old things” conservatives believe, tells us; “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink,” which means, you can tell a liberal the truth, but you can’t make him think.

If you’re so concerned about global warming then turn on your air conditioner and open the windows to help cool the planet.  Alternatively, you can do your part to stop producing CO2 and quit breathing.  One way or another maybe you’ll get a clue.

Pope Francis’ global warming anti-capitalism: the False Prophet

Al Gore furious that 98% of scientists do not believe in man-made climate change

Author’s note:

As was pointed out to me in comments, I used incorrect terminology referring to the science of the macro-verse and micro-verse.  I was taught back in college that Hawking’s “Theory of Everything” was his endeavor to reconcile the science of the universe and atoms because the two do not follow all the same physical laws.  This instructor taught me that the universe was referred to as Quantum Mechanics and the micro-verse was Quantum Physics.  The correct terms would be Cosmology and Physics, but even that is more simplified than Hawking’s theory.

However, liberals are never happy when their politics are exposed and, as they have no defense against the science that proves liberal’s claim that global warming being caused by man, that the climate can be controlled by CO2 pollution limitations, they always resort to the standard Liar’s Plan B: When you are exposed as a liar accuse the other person of being a liar.

When the facts are not on the side of a liberal then they will denounce those speaking the truth as not knowing the truth, glomming onto any error they make and declaring that if they make one mistake then everything they say is wrong.  That’s the kind of dogma that makes the advocacy of climate change alarmism a religion rather than science.  They always go for character assassination rather than factual proof to discredit the facts by association.

Being wrong is like being a sinner.  No matter how good anyone believes themselves to be, everybody sins, and everybody makes mistakes.  I was mistaken in scientific terminology regarding the macro-verse and micro-verse, but one error in terminology does not nullify the science that proves climate change to be a natural occurrence over which mankind has little to no influence and even less control.  When the “scientific” solution to climate change is that only the United States reduce its energy use and change the government to a socialist totalitarian abomination, it becomes obvious that this movement has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics and religion.

Related articles;

Do you believe in climate change?  Asking stupid questions; science or religion

Refuting global warming science is elementary

You don’t need science to prove global warming is a scam

Other articles;

Morality in humanity

America is in severe decline under Democrat policies to deconstruct the nation.

Black Lives Matter – an analysis of America’s newest hate group

Christians crushed the Inquisition, Moslems endorse the Jihad

(Please like and share this with your friends.  Let them know the truth.  To subscribe click on “follow” and respond to the email WordPress sends you.)

(Debate: Honest people wishing to debate will post their remarks in the comments of the article.  Dishonest people wishing to dissuade people from reading the truth will post in the comments of a link.)

About dustyk103

This site is my opinion only and is unpaid. I am a retired Paramedic/Firefighter with 25 years of service in the City of Dallas Fire Dept. I have a B.A. degree in Journalism, and A.A. degrees in Military Science and History. I have spent my life studying military history, world history, American history, science, current events, and politics making me a qualified PhD, Senior Fellow of the Limbaugh Institute, and tenured Professor for Advanced Conservative Studies. 😄 It is my hope that readers can gain some knowledge and wisdom from my articles.
This entry was posted in Climate Change, Fundamentals, Religion, Right vs. Left and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Liberal science is a fiction of their primitive imaginations

  1. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    The revelations of science are far more meaningful than anything in the Bible.

    The theory of evolution is not only supported by the fossil record, it is also the foundation for the study of genetics. If you do not believe in evolution, I would like to know: how do you explain genetics? Why do chimpanzees and humans have almost the same number of chromosomes, and why do we share so much of our DNA with the other primates? Scripture may say man was separated from the animals, but that is only because the sacred texts were written so long before the invention of the microscope.

    Any holes in the evidence for evolution are every day being filled through the work of paleontologists: the recent discovery of Homo naledi is one of the latest examples.

    Unlike the theory of evolution, and the theory of global warming, the theory of God has no real evidence at all. People have faith in it because they wish it was true, not because there are good reasons to think it actually is true.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Arthur, you must have missed my “String Theory is God Theory” remark. 😀

      Theory is just that – theory. It means someone came up with an idea based on something they observed that made them believe this was possible. Most scientific theory is based on mathematics, some on observation, and some is just someone’s idea. If genetics proved evolution then it would no longer be theory. Paleontologists admit there are so many gaps in the fossil record that they cannot begin to link everything together. A scientist who does not admit that he is vastly ignorant is a narcissistic, pathological liar.

      I choose to believe in God, not because there is scientific proof of His Existence in the physical universe, but because the universe, our world, and our bodies exist within it. How does anyone who thinks intelligently believe that such an amazing construct just happens by accident? If mankind is so brilliant, why can’t we figure it out?

      Why has it taken until the last century to only begin to understand? And why do we think that beginning to understand means we know it all? That’s no different than a teenager who thinks they have it all figured out before he graduates junior high. Believing we have done so is the pinnacle of hubris.

      Believing we came from a random accident is the same as believing this was created by a random wave on the beach;
      http://www.lovethispic.com/image/21677/sand-castle

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        Yes but still, when we study the chromosomes and genetics of chimpanzees, we see so much in common with our species, it suggests an evolutionary link, does it not?

        Like

  2. dustyk103 says:

    And I say, so what? If you were God and you were designing all life and designing man, would you not use the same building blocks, and then use a template?

    Like

  3. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    Either that, or perhaps it is more likely that humans and chimps arose from a common ancestor and therefore share genetic material. Why always assume that God is secretly responsible? The same thing could happen without any God.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      That is exactly the point I just made that you missed. Could it? Could life have come into being and evolved without an intelligent creator?

      Of all that has come to be in the physical, material universe that created stars and planets, all made from combining atoms to form bigger elements, and combining elements to form molecules, what makes you believe that all of these things, that are essentially rocks, would somehow combine to create organic matter that would evolve into living organisms that can only subsist by consuming organic matter?

      Life makes no sense in the material universe. Scientists do not have the first clue how or why life began. There is only a theory, a guess. If you claim otherwise, you are only fooling yourself.

      Like

  4. dustyk103 says:

    “astronomers have identified a few common molecules that are precursors to life-enabling molecules, including water, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, methanol, dimethyl ether, hydrogen cyanide, sulfur oxide and sulfur dioxide.”

    Your argument just fell flat on its face. As I said, science’s understanding of gravity, electro-magnetism, and strong and weak nuclear forces can explain the physical universe, but they cannot explain life. The existence of molecules that are found in organic matter does not mean that they will become organic matter and evolve into intelligent life. That’s like saying finding the existence of rocks means they will combine and evolve into the Empire State Building.

    Like

    • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

      You are moving your goal posts now. Before you said organic matter: I show you an example of organic matter and you shift your goal back: next you want a living cell.

      Even if we cannot YET fully explain the origin of the microbe from non-living sources (a point that I thought I had already conceded), that does not mean that we should abandon the scientific method and simply believe that God did it. It means we should continue to study the problem scientifically until we find the answer.

      It is also worth mentioning that bacteria are not even mentioned in the Bible, so I don’t even know where you are getting the idea that God made all the bacteria and that it is impossible for them to arise out of the non-living organic compounds that we know occur naturally. Even if that baseless assumption were true, it still would not prove that anything in the Bible were true.

      We can see in the fossil record that anaerobic bacteria did arise very early in our own Earth’s prehistory, and then there were only very simple fossils for the entire Pre-Cambrian, and then finally the development of land vertebrates and woody plants, and very very recently at the end of the Mesozoic some branches of those groups split into flowering and cone-bearing plants, and the birds and the mammals. The record of the rocks is completely unlike the account of Genesis, which says God made everything in only 6 days and that the first woman was made from a rib. Try to find any real evidence that any woman was made from a rib, best of luck.

      Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        I didn’t move the goal posts. Organic matter does not consist of the elements and molecules that make up living organisms. I certainly never said scientists should stop trying to find answers, but I encourage them. Perhaps they will find proof of other dimensions, including one we would consider to be a spiritual one.

        Using the argument that bacteria were not mentioned in the Bible and that we cannot know if anything in the Bible is true is a senseless diversion. You weren’t there when the first amoeba began, so how do you KNOW that it occurred “naturally?” Pointing out that mankind is entirely ignorant of life and creation, then citing the fossil record that is spotty at best as proof of knowledge, is a contradiction as vast as the gulf between organic and inorganic matter.

        Like

  5. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    ” Organic matter does not consist of the elements and molecules that make up living organisms.”

    Yes it does, look it up. You never studied organic chemistry, did you?

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Ok, poorly worded on my part. What I should have said is that living organisms are not just the components of molecular compounds. Like my rock-Empire State Bldg quip, just because there are molecules that exist in living organisms does not mean that the extremely complex beings that we are will form.

      Scientists always say how amazing it is that life began on Earth and how it required so many incredible variables like; the size of our planet, our distance from the Sun, the Moon, the development of water and the abundance of carbon. Just because we are a carbon based bag of water doesn’t mean that all life must be so. But then, if such life were discovered, evolution would fly out the window.

      Like

  6. George Hillier Sr says:

    You are wasting your time, Arthur. Trying to explain science to a person who claims to have studied science, yet has no concept of the meaning of theory in the scientific sense, is probably a futile exercise.

    “Take Quantum Mechanics which is the study of the Universe. Until a couple hundred years ago we knew about stars, six planets, the Sun and the Moon, and the Milky Way. Until mathematicians figured out that the Sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth, mankind was the center of the Universe.”

    Quantum mechanics is not the study of the universe; that is called physical cosmology. Quantum mechanics is the science of the very small: the body of scientific principles that explains the behavior of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.

    If you don’t know the definition of the basic terms you’re using, how can anything else you say be trusted? Where did you attend school, Wossamotta U?

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Just because I pull up an incorrect term does not negate the fact that global warming is a political scam.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

      Ok, so apparently I had a poor high school science teacher who was not so well versed in science, and what he taught me – that Quantum Mechanics regards macro space and Quantum Physics is regarding micro space and that the two do not correlate – is not correct terminology. Or it’s just been so long since I learned this and I’ve gotten so old and forgetful that I don’t remember how the Theory of Everything works. Now I read that they are one in the same?

      I find that curious, especially knowing how liberals change the meanings of terms over time (such as the fact that liberal today no longer means what it did in the 19th century when it referred to what today is know as Christian conservative, but is now the term used to refer to atheist socialists). I don’t know. I can’t know everything. It would have been more correct to say physics and cosmology, but how does that relate to the global warming scam?

      It doesn’t. It’s just another leftist attempt to silence the opposition by proving one statement to be in error and applying it to all statements with the typical leftist bigoted broad brush. The problem you run into is that intelligent people know the difference between a person making a mistake and being 100% about everything. It just doesn’t happen.

      I can’t know all science. But I can know that the Earth’s climate changes, mankind’s CO2 pollution has no measurable effect and, as a heavier than air gas does not make a “greenhouse bubble.” And I can know that all of the computer models that predict the Earth’s oceans will flood the planet while, at the same time, cause all the landmasses to dry up unless America institutes socialism are just a load of sh*t.

      Like

      • George Hillier Sr says:

        Gee, Rusty…Dusty, I looked at numerous current definitions of liberal, and not one of them mentioned atheist socialist. What reference work were you looking at?

        As for painting with a broad brush…assuming all liberals believe in global warming and all conservatives don’t would seem to make you guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of.

        Perhaps you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

        Also, no need to be paranoid, no one is trying to silence you. If they were, your ramblings wouldn’t be on this blog.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        Amusing, George, but impertinent.

        Like

  7. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    It is not a “greenhouse bubble” – you are being ignorant again.
    You say that mankind’s CO2 pollution has no measurable effect, but that is not true: we can both measure the effects, and can demonstrate that the cause almost certainly is human activity. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

    Instead of blaming your high school teacher, why not try to become better informed?

    Every time you try to “expose the global warming scam” you end up making yourself look foolish, because you understand the subject very poorly and your grounding in science is very weak.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      yeah, I’ve already written about the greenhouse bubble and attempts by alarmists to say they didn’t say it was a bubble. Let me draw you a picture;
      http://astrocampschool.org/greenhouse-effect/

      And I have already proven that knowledge of science is unnecessary to prove it is a fraud when the solution is the United States must become a socialist state and must stop using fossil fuels while China increases their use exponentially.

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        Dusty, your certainty, in the absence of evidence or facts, is the source of your many of your problems.

        Thanks for the picture. Nowhere in that article is the word “bubble” used. The “greenhouse bubble” is a theory you made up. You cannot argue effectively against the real theory, so you have invented a strawman theory to rail against. You probably don’t even realize that is what you are doing.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        You know what I think? I think you have to do everything to discredit me because you cannot discredit the facts. Pointing out that the article doesn’t say “bubble” when it has a picture of a reflective greenhouse bubble around the Earth is just comical.

        Like

  8. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    Not at all. I am the one who cites facts and articles that reference actual climate scientists.

    You are the one who cites an article about children’s projects for Earth Day, and then when we read this article we see that it does not even say anything about a bubble, or anything like the nonsense you have been spouting.

    The facts appear to be on my side.

    Like

  9. stlonginus says:

    Why do you keep calling it ‘fossil fuel’? How many dinosaurs had to live/die to provide the seemingly unlimited quantities of oil the earth provides?

    http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html

    The article itself isn’t as interesting as the comments.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      This is why education is so important. Both animals and plants are all composed of organic material. It’s called ‘fossil fuels’ because oil is composed of organic matter from decaying plants and animals that seeped deep into the earth. Just because the word ‘fossil’ is part of it does not mean it became infused into rock.

      Like

  10. Tom says:

    Uhhhhh don’t know why you think that scientists say we use 10% of our brain… that’s like an elementary school urban legend. We use 100% of our brain. The fact that you looked nothing up on that topic before posting this concerns me with the rest of your information

    PhD Neuroscience

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      What you should question is your making an assumption based on the title rather than investigating the substance by actually reading the article. 😉

      Like

      • Tom says:

        Are you serious? He talks about how scientists say people use 10% of our brain, when no scientists actually say that… you should read the article. Every animal uses 100% of their brain.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        The subject of the quote is the scientists in the movie, “Lucy.” Is that not clear? But, yes, there are some scientists who came up with this and they are just as accurate as the bunch that came up with man-made global warming.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s