|
Post by phinehas on Mar 14, 2007 17:19:10 GMT -5
There is no proof whatsoever of macro evolution.
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Mar 14, 2007 17:30:46 GMT -5
Blondie- The reason you gave up arguing evolution long ago is because deep inside, you know that your belief is based just as much on "FAITH" as mine. "True Science" can only be determined using the Scientific Method. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodYour "Big Bang Arguement" is nothing more than a hypothesis as is the whole idea of Evolution. Because it can not be tested, nor seen taking place today, neither qualify as a theory. How about mathmatical impossibilities? Since you're an intelligent person, maybe you can show billt and WOMI what the probabilities are of "something coming from nothing" and "humans evolving from apes at some point in our past and then stopping the evolution process altogether". I'll give you some time to come up with this one. Billt- I believe history will show Global Warming to be a fraud as it has many reputable scientists that believed "the earth is flat", "the sun and planets revolve around the earth", "bloodletting to expel sickness from the body", etc. etc. Those that debunked this "Science" were once labled as quacks.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 14, 2007 17:37:37 GMT -5
does ANY other person here think i am a new earth creationist, that doesnt believe the science of evolution, thinks the earth is only a few thousand years old(since i have used the ice core records as proof that HCGW is a scam, a "thinking" person couldnt possibly accuse me of that) or in any way a person that rejects science?
intellectually blondie exposed...hard to show me as a 5000 year old earth proponent when i have used the ice core records as scientific proof(they are) to debunk HCGW.
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Mar 14, 2007 17:53:24 GMT -5
Billt- Blondie wasn't paying attention. As a NEC, I'd disagree with your ice cores arguement. Ice core age can't be precisely determined.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 14, 2007 17:53:40 GMT -5
thank you family 1st.
common sense coming again from 8th grade science...warmer air holds more water vapor than colder air, water vapor is the predominate greenhouse gas, since co2 is a GHG then i submit the hypothesis that warmer air may be able to hold more co2 longer than cooler air....I submit in support the ice core records that clearly show RISES in temperature FOLLOWED by rises in co2 levels happening in cycles for many hundred thousand years.
that evidence alone exposes the fraud of HCGW!
i dont deny that humans do have a TINY influence but just like urinating doesnt cause floods, exhaling doesnt warm the planet!
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Mar 14, 2007 17:57:13 GMT -5
Billt- We can agree on the GW issue.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 14, 2007 17:59:12 GMT -5
i understand the problems with aging of ice cores and agree they arent the 100% accurate, i also understand the pressures involved over the years the change the composition of the co2 itself within them, but having siad that they remain as the state of the art science today.
the actual records from KNOWN history that are accurate also show the same thing as the cie cores in the relationship between temperature and co2 levels, the warming of the 1850's began before human co2 increased, then as co2 levels rose after the warming of the 1850-1930 time frame from 1940 to the 70's BUT the temperature COOLED during that same time....then more warming until the last 8 years which have shown slight cooling.
natural cycles been going on for a very long time with or without humans driving cars.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 14, 2007 18:11:23 GMT -5
Al Gore being a favorite target of criticims by the MSM?
That might the the single least credible thing I've read thus far in this discussion.
Believe you me, when it comes to the eco-chondriacs' side of the debate- and yes there is a debate- that's saying something.
The only reason "Pop Algore I' has the 'pulpit' to 'preach' on the issue is that the MSM has bent over backwards to give him said pulpit because they are, like Gore, anti-capitalists/socialists at their very core.
The undenyable fact is that it is almost impossible to find any MSM criticism of "Pope Algore I'.
Again, I ask why the eco-chondriacs are so reticent to debate the issue if, as they claim, the evidence is completely on their side. Seems like an easy victory- IF that's the case. So why do they hid under their desks when the 'deniers' come 'round?
I've cited a whole host of scientists whose opinions run the anti-anthropogenic global warming range of opinions from "there is not global warming" to "there is globlal warming but humans have little, if anything, to do with it" to those who believe that "it is real, we're causing it but that's not necessarily a bad thing for humans".
Obviously, some of those viewpoints are contradictory and some are more extreme than others.
But then the pro-anthropogenic global warming side has opinions that are, if anything, even more disparate than those.
Yet for whatever reason, such diversity of opinion is seen as bad only for the 'deniers' side of the argument.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 14, 2007 18:13:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 14, 2007 18:15:22 GMT -5
This is a chance to see the documentary that the eco-condriacs don't want you to see: powerlineblog.com/archives/017028.phpThis link is to Powerline Blog's posing of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" film that BBC 4 broadcast recently.
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Mar 14, 2007 18:20:48 GMT -5
Agreed! We can discern simularites in the ice core samples and our recent history to obtain a better understanding of events happening today. Outside of our limited history, we're leaving the realm of science and moving into speculation.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 14, 2007 18:21:38 GMT -5
i posted a link to it a few days ago, it is obvious from the lack of comment that nobody watched it.
it is the actual science on the issue, and in essence ends the debate among thinking people.
ends the debate about human causation that is.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 14, 2007 19:34:47 GMT -5
i posted a link to it a few days ago, it is obvious from the lack of comment that nobody watched it. it is the actual science on the issue, and in essence ends the debate among thinking people. ends the debate about human causation that is. Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunbelievible, man, have you no pride? My mind is just spinning. It's like you can't tell the difference between evidence and imagination. billt, you're saying you're not a young earth creationist? Usually when someone rejects something that is this easy to research it's because it would involve questioning their religion. What's your motivation? Did a scientist kill your brother?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 14, 2007 21:25:01 GMT -5
i posted a link to it a few days ago, it is obvious from the lack of comment that nobody watched it. it is the actual science on the issue, and in essence ends the debate among thinking people. ends the debate about human causation that is. bill- Actually, I've got zero problem with someone saying that they THINK global warming is caused to some extent by mankind, and I'm perfectly willing to listen to the evidence they present, expecting only them to reciprocate. And therein lies the rub... The eco-chondraics simply do not want to accept the fact that there >IS< debate- a great deal of debate in fact- as to whther or not man is having ANY appreciable impact on climate change. Why, you might ask? Well, it's pretty simple. In a debate, both sides are expected to state their positions and to offer proof, substantiation, evidence, etc. in order to convince the judge(s) that their position is the correct one. Further, each opposing side is given the opportunity to rebut the other side's arguments, offering proof of their own to support their contentions. See where I'm going on this? The reason the eco-chondraics are trying with all their collective might to convince peoplethat the debate is over is because they dare not expose their position to free and impartial scrutiny. To do so would be to expose the highly suspect nature of their 'evidence'. They can't risk losing this argument against the free market system and capitalism like they lost the last round, a round in which many of these same people tried to tell us that communism and/or socialism is a superior form of government than is capitalism. I think the tide is slowing turning against the eco-chondraics. When the NY Times takes issue with 'Pope Algore I's' opinions, you've got to conclude that his opinion is really, really indefensible for, if it were not, you know the Times would be all too willing to carry his water on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 15, 2007 21:17:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 15, 2007 21:44:52 GMT -5
Good job Phinehas. The best argument against global warming is that the climate is just too complicated to understand. This takes into account the fact that all the evidence supports the general consensus. The guy loses credibility when he starts into his conspiracy theory. Now compare that argument to billt's: "IF co2 is capable of blocking IR waves heading out to space, wouldnt co2 ALSO have that SAME ability to block those same type waves as the come IN from the sun?" Now if you could only think reasonably about evolution: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 15, 2007 21:51:06 GMT -5
blondie-
All I've ever asked for is that the eco-chondraics admit that they might not be sure of either the cause or the effects of climate change.
I admit that I don't know and, interestingly, that's a 'talking point' if you will of virtually all of the people who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. We're willing to admit that there is much we don't know, despite our best efforts, and the other side meeting us halfway or so would be very constructive.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 15, 2007 22:47:34 GMT -5
Blondie, do you have any scientific evidence that refutes what Professor Andresen stated?
As far as your ape man link..ask Professor Stoneking what was the evolutionary purpose of humans losing their body hair, which people call, "fur" on animals? Why didn't that same purpose then effect only humans and no other animal? Speaking on chimps....if humans diverged from chimpanzees between five and seven million years ago, as some scientists say...what links can you point me to that show all the continued evolutionary changes that have occured with chimpanzees since the divergence?
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Mar 16, 2007 0:35:49 GMT -5
"As far as your ape man link..ask Professor Stoneking what was the evolutionary purpose of humans losing their body hair, which people call, "fur" on animals? Why didn't that same purpose then effect only humans and no other animal?"
Not sure about that one myself... Maybe I'll ask a whale or dolphin or porpoise to help me find the answer...
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 16, 2007 0:45:29 GMT -5
Maybe you could also ask them when they had fur, since you seem to think they did at one time...
You could also ask them to explain why they would evolve in the ocean, then evolve to the land and then evolve back to the ocean again.
|
|
jamiko
Newbie Cog
another one rides the bus
Posts: 7
|
Post by jamiko on Mar 16, 2007 3:05:37 GMT -5
Global warming is very possible, and most probably will happen if man keeps spewing gases in to the air, however I am one who belives that the change of weather is do to the earth and the solar systems natural changes, for instance thousands of years ago the ice age happend and this is scientificly proven is it not? you see what happens is the world changes distance from the sun like in the seasons but more drasticly causing the earth to get ether very hot or very cold, cold times being called ice ages and hot times being called hot ages, so i say that a new hot age is coming in the next 1000 years or so, there for its getting hotter. But thats just what i think.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Mar 16, 2007 3:38:52 GMT -5
Maybe you could also ask them when they had fur, since you seem to think they did at one time... You could also ask them to explain why they would evolve in the ocean, then evolve to the land and then evolve back to the ocean again. Actually I read about it in a book written by some old guys a long time ago. They could have been incorrect in some of their postions. A lot of those old books weren't always correct about everything...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 16, 2007 6:00:46 GMT -5
blondie- All I've ever asked for is that the eco-chondraics admit that they might not be sure of either the cause or the effects of climate change. I admit that I don't know and, interestingly, that's a 'talking point' if you will of virtually all of the people who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. We're willing to admit that there is much we don't know, despite our best efforts, and the other side meeting us halfway or so would be very constructive. This might be hard for you to believe but I'm not a straw man and the EPA's not straw men. This is from their site: "Throughout the science section of this Web site, use of "virtual certainty" (or virtually certain) conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include "very likely" (90-99% chance the result is true) and "likely" (66-90% chance the result is true). These judgmental estimates originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Nobody's claiming 100% certainty about anything. Still, it's easy to see where the real science is. I can see a bogus graph, a ridiculous petition that anyone can sign and embarrassing discredited documentary a mile away. I can also see that all of this is so complicated that know one can know for sure. I'm not as quick to dismiss the handful of legitimate skeptics as some are willing to dismiss the overwhelming majority of experts who believe in human caused GW. If you have to factor in an enormous international conspiracy theory involving everyone who is in a position to know what they're talking about your position has serious problems. The little research I did into the actual "scientific" claims on this thread reminded me of creationist arguments. Scientific jargon used to fool people who don't have a clue.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Mar 16, 2007 7:07:36 GMT -5
Concerning Global Warming:
To tree-hugging, enviro-whackjobs: You're buying into a load of crap.
The planet has the power to shake off mankind like a bad case of fleas. We are not destroying the planet. It won't let us. Scream global warming while facing an F5 tornado or tsunami. The power of the planet is awesome.
To the stringent, militaristic anti-warming crowd: You're buying into a load of crap.
We can and must be good stewards of our earth. There is much we can do to make it better. We need to consume smarter. We need to keep it clean. We can and do damage the environment at times by our greed, and it comes back to haunt us in the form of acid rain, polluted water, and destroyed landscapes. We overdevelop.
We can and should drill in ANWR, albeit responsibly, and utilize that resource until we can successfully and prudently develop alternative fuels.
We can and should reduce emissions to the extent possible and prudent. Why not?
The entire argument is another effort to divide and conquer, brought to you by the political party of your choice that is controlled by the special interest of its choice.
The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Mar 16, 2007 9:26:39 GMT -5
Global warming is very possible, and most probably will happen if man keeps spewing gases in to the air, however I am one who belives that the change of weather is do to the earth and the solar systems natural changes, for instance thousands of years ago the ice age happend and this is scientificly proven is it not? you see what happens is the world changes distance from the sun like in the seasons but more drasticly causing the earth to get ether very hot or very cold, cold times being called ice ages and hot times being called hot ages, so i say that a new hot age is coming in the next 1000 years or so, there for its getting hotter. But thats just what i think. you know, I think that's a good point......but who can tell the future we are just now able to get weather forecast a week or so out and that's not always correct. who's to say scientist have figured out whether or not the earths distance to the sun isn't causing a global temp. change over 100s of years.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Mar 16, 2007 9:51:57 GMT -5
Maybe you could also ask them when they had fur, since you seem to think they did at one time... You could also ask them to explain why they would evolve in the ocean, then evolve to the land and then evolve back to the ocean again. Actually I read about it in a book written by some old guys a long time ago. They could have been incorrect in some of their postions. A lot of those old books weren't always correct about everything... That's what I thought. Make you dig one inch below the dirt and there is nothing there.
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Mar 16, 2007 11:11:31 GMT -5
Blondie- What's wrong??? Are you afraid to discuss the mathmatical (im)possibilities with your Evolution and Big Bang ideas?? You can can slam creationists and anti-GW skeptics all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that your ideas are mathmatically impossible.
GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS= A CONSENSUS OF LEMMINGS ;D
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Mar 16, 2007 15:54:28 GMT -5
A new quote from Blondie under the Jesus Tomb thread: "I find this ironic. Creationists and Bible Code proponents are always using statistics to back up their bogus claims too.
Don't forget, everything is a statistical impossibility."
Blondie-Is this the best you can do??? How can you disrespect billt for his arguements and then come up with this lame excuse of a comment on another thread. This just proves that your "Science" is in reality, nothing more than a "Faith" religion.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 16, 2007 16:59:01 GMT -5
A new quote from Blondie under the Jesus Tomb thread: "I find this ironic. Creationists and Bible Code proponents are always using statistics to back up their bogus claims too. Don't forget, everything is a statistical impossibility." Blondie-Is this the best you can do??? How can you disrespect billt for his arguements and then come up with this lame excuse of a comment on another thread. This just proves that your "Science" is in reality, nothing more than a "Faith" religion. Everything IS a statistical impossibility. Think about it. Now let's look at one of billt's "scientific" statements: "the actual records from KNOWN history that are accurate also show the same thing as the cie cores in the relationship between temperature and co2 levels, the warming of the 1850's began before human co2 increased, then as co2 levels rose after the warming of the 1850-1930 time frame from 1940 to the 70's BUT the temperature COOLED during that same time....then more warming until the last 8 years which have shown slight cooling. natural cycles been going on for a very long time with or without humans driving cars." So billt's saying this is just a normal flux. I wonder what would happen if I did about 30 seconds of research on the Internet looking only for recognizable credible sources. My oh my, look what I found: Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores. Even if this is all caused by the martians, the sun, god or man, billt and his ilk are going to be the first up against the wall when the food riots start. (I kid, I kid, I kid 'caus I love)
|
|
|
Post by billt on Mar 16, 2007 17:06:56 GMT -5
i NEVER claimed co2 levels arent UP as a matter of fact the very quote blondie used shows exactly that i understand they are up. thank you blondie for raising a very good question, then how come we arent 27% hotter than ever in the last 650,000 years??? how come years back in the 30's were warmer than now? food riots??? that LUNACY was opined by the same fellow involved in global warming now back in the 70's he claimed they would be happening in the 1980"s, dang, i missed them? also common sense, co2 IS PLANT FOOD, why would more of it harm plants? ?
|
|