Open Minds?
The first and most basic requirement of an open minded individual is whether or not they are willing to change their opinion once presented with the facts. This does not mean that you need to trow out all of your core values, but that you are willing to learn and accept fact when it is presented to you. Another term for an open mind could be wisdom which is gained from knowledge and experience. The Liberal movement brags that they are the party of the open minded, free thinkers. They point to the fact that the fringe groups and minority groups tend to support liberal politicians. Liberals have become ensconced in the educational wings of our country, especially in colleges. But are they really open minded? They are usually the ones who discriminate against anyone who has a different opinion than their politically motivated viewpoint.
It is amazing to me how people choose to ignore the facts when they do not fit with their socio-political agenda. Take the hot topic of Global Warming. If you are a proponent of Global Warming, regardless of your credentials or expertise, you can get virtually unlimited air time on radio, TV, news, etc. If, however, you are an expert in climatology yet disagree with the Global Warming acolytes, you are shunned by virtually all forms of media. Just look at the case of Joe Bastardi, the famous hurricane tracker and Climatologist for AccuWeather.com. He recently shared on Fox News that we have actually been in a period of cooling for the past dozen years (click here). He has also debunked with science much of the fear mongering that Al Gore has spread throughout the world (click here).
If humans were the problem with Global Warming (or flatulent cows or SUVs as some claim) than why is the temperature on Mars rising and falling in sequence with our own planet (click here). Mars has no people, or cows or SUVs. It seems that intelligent people could figure out that the sun has much more to do with Global Warming or cooling than humans. The continuing debate about CO2 emissions never seems to mention that some CO2 is actually needed for healthy plants and trees which takes on CO2 and produces oxygen. Humans in turn breathe oxygen and expel CO2.
More and more scientists are backing away from supporting the seriously flawed Global Warming data. What do I mean by flawed data? Could it be that the average news media outlet has not shared this information with the masses? Look into true scientific facts and you will find that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data was tainted by either inept of politically motivated researchers. Imagine a government run organization being involved in politics. NOAA's data recording devices used to provide data proof for Global Warming cannot be trusted because the devices were placed beside heat providing objects, such as generators. Just look at the photographic proof shown on Bobby Shred's Blog (click here).
Another evolving debate is that of Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design. For the past 30-50 years evolutionism has enjoyed an almost free reign in the public school systems around the United States. Many scientists have changed positions in the past 10 years as evidence continues to mount which brings doubt into many arenas of evolutionary science. But just attempt to have a debate about the many holes in evolution, which is still just a scientific theory not a scientific proof or fact, and you will be blasted as an imbecile by the education elitists. The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) recently published an article in their Acts and Facts magazine showing some major discrepancies involving dinosaur fossils and dating. It seems that several instances of recent fossil discoveries have included soft tissue inside the fossils (click here). The presence of soft tissue creates a serious problem for scientists who believe that it has been millions of years since the dinosaurs roamed the planet. Soft tissue cannot possibly still exist after millions of years. Science proves that. So which is wrong, carbon dating of dinosaur fossils or the science of decay?
Is there enough data to debunk all of the religious zealots of Global Warming, Evolution and other secular humanistic sciences? No. Is there enough data to debunk the religious zealots of Creation. No. So why is it that we cannot seem to have open minded discussions about these things? Why is it that only one theory is taught while the other is ridiculed? I believe that it is precisely because those in charge of our education in the United States have no interest in the truth, but rather they are more interested in keeping their control and power intact as well as continuing to push their political agendas forward regardless of what it does to the American people.
It is amazing to me how people choose to ignore the facts when they do not fit with their socio-political agenda. Take the hot topic of Global Warming. If you are a proponent of Global Warming, regardless of your credentials or expertise, you can get virtually unlimited air time on radio, TV, news, etc. If, however, you are an expert in climatology yet disagree with the Global Warming acolytes, you are shunned by virtually all forms of media. Just look at the case of Joe Bastardi, the famous hurricane tracker and Climatologist for AccuWeather.com. He recently shared on Fox News that we have actually been in a period of cooling for the past dozen years (click here). He has also debunked with science much of the fear mongering that Al Gore has spread throughout the world (click here).
If humans were the problem with Global Warming (or flatulent cows or SUVs as some claim) than why is the temperature on Mars rising and falling in sequence with our own planet (click here). Mars has no people, or cows or SUVs. It seems that intelligent people could figure out that the sun has much more to do with Global Warming or cooling than humans. The continuing debate about CO2 emissions never seems to mention that some CO2 is actually needed for healthy plants and trees which takes on CO2 and produces oxygen. Humans in turn breathe oxygen and expel CO2.
More and more scientists are backing away from supporting the seriously flawed Global Warming data. What do I mean by flawed data? Could it be that the average news media outlet has not shared this information with the masses? Look into true scientific facts and you will find that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data was tainted by either inept of politically motivated researchers. Imagine a government run organization being involved in politics. NOAA's data recording devices used to provide data proof for Global Warming cannot be trusted because the devices were placed beside heat providing objects, such as generators. Just look at the photographic proof shown on Bobby Shred's Blog (click here).
Another evolving debate is that of Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design. For the past 30-50 years evolutionism has enjoyed an almost free reign in the public school systems around the United States. Many scientists have changed positions in the past 10 years as evidence continues to mount which brings doubt into many arenas of evolutionary science. But just attempt to have a debate about the many holes in evolution, which is still just a scientific theory not a scientific proof or fact, and you will be blasted as an imbecile by the education elitists. The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) recently published an article in their Acts and Facts magazine showing some major discrepancies involving dinosaur fossils and dating. It seems that several instances of recent fossil discoveries have included soft tissue inside the fossils (click here). The presence of soft tissue creates a serious problem for scientists who believe that it has been millions of years since the dinosaurs roamed the planet. Soft tissue cannot possibly still exist after millions of years. Science proves that. So which is wrong, carbon dating of dinosaur fossils or the science of decay?
Is there enough data to debunk all of the religious zealots of Global Warming, Evolution and other secular humanistic sciences? No. Is there enough data to debunk the religious zealots of Creation. No. So why is it that we cannot seem to have open minded discussions about these things? Why is it that only one theory is taught while the other is ridiculed? I believe that it is precisely because those in charge of our education in the United States have no interest in the truth, but rather they are more interested in keeping their control and power intact as well as continuing to push their political agendas forward regardless of what it does to the American people.
Comments