This helps explain the irrationality of many, like person-of-faith jerm, that reject science. This faith-based thought process is very dangerous. ******************************************************** THE arrival of the “post-truth” political climate came as a shock to many Americans. But to the Christian writer Rachel Held Evans, charges of “fake news” are nothing new. “The deep distrust of the media, of scientific consensus — those were prevalent narratives growing up,” she told me. Although Ms. Evans, 35, no longer calls herself an evangelical, she attended Bryan College, an evangelical school in Dayton, Tenn. She was taught to distrust information coming from the scientific or media elite because these sources did not hold a “biblical worldview.” “It was presented as a cohesive worldview that you could maintain if you studied the Bible,” she told me. “Part of that was that climate change isn’t real, that evolution is a myth made up by scientists who hate God, and capitalism is God’s ideal for society.” Conservative evangelicals are not the only ones who think that an authority trusted by the other side is probably lying. But they believe that their own authority — the inerrant Bible — is both supernatural and scientifically sound, and this conviction gives that natural human aversion to unwelcome facts a special power on the right. This religious tradition of fact denial long predates the rise of the culture wars, social media or President Trump, but it has provoked deep conflict among evangelicals themselves. read more....https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/...cal-roots-of-our-post-truth-society.html?_r=0
this is pretty funny because.. once again we see the left creating fake news. 1. there is no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming. 2. and there is no science showing a complete pathway from non life to life. So while there has been evolution after life came about... we are still looking for the science that shows how life evolved from non life. There is no certainty we will find it because it looks like there was not enough time for it to happen by random chance. 3. its been said Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in the history the world. http://www.economist.com/news/leade...out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim s
look at the implicit deceit in these lefty minds. can't even accept science when the see it. they have to somehow distract us all from the truth.
Speaking of not accepting what you see, higher taxes = higher revenue: Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
I clicked on the link and the first thing I read was this. "Source of Revenue as Share of GDP" Share of GDP is irrelevant to the argument. I keep telling you tax revenues went up after tax cuts. So of course taxes would become a smaller part of GDP Ideally you would have a massive economy and a small percent of it be taxes. As long as revenues went up govt should be happy. Our economy does not exist to fund the govt... it exists to fund the taxpayers. -- finally if you would accept the fact you have to think in systems. There are parts of the curve where more taxes would generate more revenue... but as you move out the curve more taxes would shut down business and generate less revenue. vice versa for tax cuts. in a very low tax environment its possible tax cuts would hurt revenues.... but in a high tax environment tax cuts could generate more revenue. Its where you are on the curve that counts. Then when you get to the real world. Since the govt is always spending more... its easy to cut taxes and still see revenue go up. That is why in a dynamic (real world) environment I believe you should just keep cutting til revenues go down. -- finally in a world where we don't even know how much money the FED creates every year... its seems disingenuous for anyone to act lack revenues creates a need for income taxes. Why do we even worry about income taxes if the FED can create as much money as it wishes and it does not even report M3 anymore.
So "post truth" just now happened eh? I'm 65 years old and there hasn't been any fucking truth coming out of government in my entire lifetime, and before. Nooooow your concerned? Why, cause your chosen con artist got out conned?
At the risk of being swept into the vortex, I shall tip toe a bit around the rim. Re: 1 & 2. Neither Man made CO2 causing warming nor a pathway from non-life to life, are, however, precluded by your observations. My view on 1. is different. I am satisfied that the science is now quite convincing that current warming is not caused primarily by CO2, and that reducing CO2 emission, though not a bad thing to do, will have little effect on global temperature. Re 2. You have never understood that most scientists who are working on evolution hpotheses have long ago rejected the idea of random encounters alone being responsible for evolution of life forms. You'll be overjoyed to learn that there is more and more evidence building that the process of evolution takes place far more rapidly, at least in some prominent cases, than was originally thought possible. In the case of man, it is currently thought that man himself affected his own evolutionary rate. But of course if this is possible for man, it is also possible for lower organism. Imagine, and accept, that the rate of evolution, is not linear but increases with time and you'll have no further problem .
1.so you would agree that to believe that man made co2 causes warming takes faith because there is no peer reviewed science showing it. 2. Why do you continually mis-represent my beliefs in subject after subject. You make presumptions that are wrong and then I have to correct you. I have understood for years that many if not most scientists have rejected the idea that random chance is responsible for evolution. That is why I wrote what I wrote. Now if you are attempting to argue that scientists now think we have had directed evolution I agree with you. that is what many think. The question is then even more interesting... how did the drive for life that may allow life to evolve more quickly than chance... come about. As one scientists wrote... “If you think of all these little molecules we’re making as Lego blocks, and life as a kind of very complex, organised Lego castle, the fact that Lego blocks are falling out of the sky can’t be a bad thing.” -