OK, let's get back on topic. [Locked]
While there might be disagreement about whether or not man-caused global warming is occurring, there is no debate about the remedy, which is laid out in the Kyoto Protocol. This legally binding, worldwide prescription to cure global warming would be the law of the land today had not the U.S. and Australia failed to sign on. Once there are enough believers, a current version of Kyoto will surely become international law. We are about one-quarter inch away from that outcome right now.
It is not easy to explain the minutia of Kyoto, but here is the mandate in a nutshell. The U.S. will need to cut its current energy consumption by 30% within ten years. Bear in mind that the U.S. energy consumption is rising, so 30% cut from today’s rate will be a much higher cut from the rate that would be arrived at in ten years if there were no cut.
While the poor nations pollute more than the rich nations per capita because of their lack of regulations, the poor nations pollute less than the rich nations in total. This is because the rich nations have a higher standard of living and do more manufacturing. Some argue that this disparity is unfair. Certainly Kyoto does. It punishes the rich nations for polluting more than the poor nations, and rewards the poor nations for polluting less than the rich nations. It literally robs from the rich to give to the poor, all in the name of fairness.
Some people decry the lack of progressiveness on the part of the U.S. for not signing onto Kyoto while the rest of the world has signed on. But there is a good reason for skepticism on the part of the U.S. because Kyoto will severely punish the U.S. more than any other country. Countries like Ecuador or Pakistan will not only be exempt from punishment, but they will also be rewarded handsomely with the largess that is extracted from the U.S. and other advanced countries as punishment for their creation of greenhouse gases.
futuremodal wrote: vsmith wrote: I was refering to the last really big temp increase, 300,000 years ago, the last time Florida was a really nice reef, Antarctic ice is increasing? Thats news to me...care to reference that, Sure, here it is - BTW anyone could have found this if they had tried ("tried" being code for pulling your head out of the sand!) http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html Note - these guys believe as you do, that global warming is man caused. BTW - since today's warming is still a few degrees below that of the Medevial Warming, why are you still refering to 300,000 years ago?
vsmith wrote: I was refering to the last really big temp increase, 300,000 years ago, the last time Florida was a really nice reef, Antarctic ice is increasing? Thats news to me...care to reference that,
I was refering to the last really big temp increase, 300,000 years ago, the last time Florida was a really nice reef, Antarctic ice is increasing? Thats news to me...care to reference that,
Sure, here it is - BTW anyone could have found this if they had tried ("tried" being code for pulling your head out of the sand!)
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html
Note - these guys believe as you do, that global warming is man caused.
BTW - since today's warming is still a few degrees below that of the Medevial Warming, why are you still refering to 300,000 years ago?
Have fun with your trains
JSGreen wrote: oltmannd wrote: Back to engineering school for you! You're making a complete mess of the 2nd law of Thermo. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo I particularly enjoyed a line in the introduction of the above referenced article..."If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it."
oltmannd wrote: Back to engineering school for you! You're making a complete mess of the 2nd law of Thermo. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
Back to engineering school for you! You're making a complete mess of the 2nd law of Thermo. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
To be fair, you ought to read Wallace's rebuttal - which is very thoughtful and thought provoking - although it starts to muddy the water between science and philosophy. Neither the explanation nor the rebuttal can be summarized in a few sentences - which is the basic problem with us neo-phytes debating such issues......
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote:Back to engineering school for you! You're making a complete mess of the 2nd law of Thermo. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
solzrules wrote: dsktc wrote: You really need to get out of Wisconsin more often. "Evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. And you need to read your textbook a little bit closer. Evolution is not a FACT it is a theory - a hypothesis waiting to be proven. In leu of a religious explanation (something a good humanist shuns at all costs) it is the only explanation for the origin of species that does not include a religious component. I read Darwin's origin of the species, and I found it to be an interesting read. Next time you pick it up, be sure to check out one of the last chapters that talks about the problems with his 'theory' (note Darwin even called it a theory). Darwin stated basically that if no intermediate forms of fossils are discovered, the theory is bogus. Here we are almost 150 years later and no intermediate fossils appear. I have seen some nice artisitic renditions of what they might look like, but that hardly passes for evidence of evolultion. If anything, it is a sign that the evolutionists are certainly creative. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun." Now here is a ham dinger of a conundrum for ya: Fossil history has shown that we used to have a vast array of species on the planet. Many of the species are now extinct. (I doubt anyone could disagree here....) Today there is a vast majority of species that are endangered in some way. If left to their own devices, these animals would most likely be extinct within a generation or two. In some cases, man is responsible for this because we tend to develop their habitat and they lose a place to live and a place to hunt. In other cases, the species dies out on its own. Either way, the number of species on the planet is DECREASING in number. The species that are able to propogate and sustain their kind are becoming increasingly albino in nature - their genes are simplifying and we are seeing less and less variety in nature. In other words, if one were to examine the trends within the study of zoology, we find that the animal kingdom is becoming inreasingly less complex and simplified (fewer species, less micro-evolution, etc.). This agrees completely with the PROVEN 2nd law of Thermodynamics: Energy is constantly and increasingly moving towards entropy (or disorder). The theory of evolution REQUIRES that energy systems become increasingly MORE complex and intricate. If we are supposedly evolving to a more refined species then we are doing so in direct opposition to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, a proven-as-fact law that all energy systems must submit to. Evolution contradicts proven science.
dsktc wrote: You really need to get out of Wisconsin more often. "Evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.
You really need to get out of Wisconsin more often.
"Evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.
And you need to read your textbook a little bit closer. Evolution is not a FACT it is a theory - a hypothesis waiting to be proven. In leu of a religious explanation (something a good humanist shuns at all costs) it is the only explanation for the origin of species that does not include a religious component.
I read Darwin's origin of the species, and I found it to be an interesting read. Next time you pick it up, be sure to check out one of the last chapters that talks about the problems with his 'theory' (note Darwin even called it a theory). Darwin stated basically that if no intermediate forms of fossils are discovered, the theory is bogus. Here we are almost 150 years later and no intermediate fossils appear. I have seen some nice artisitic renditions of what they might look like, but that hardly passes for evidence of evolultion. If anything, it is a sign that the evolutionists are certainly creative.
It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
Now here is a ham dinger of a conundrum for ya:
Fossil history has shown that we used to have a vast array of species on the planet. Many of the species are now extinct. (I doubt anyone could disagree here....) Today there is a vast majority of species that are endangered in some way. If left to their own devices, these animals would most likely be extinct within a generation or two. In some cases, man is responsible for this because we tend to develop their habitat and they lose a place to live and a place to hunt. In other cases, the species dies out on its own. Either way, the number of species on the planet is DECREASING in number. The species that are able to propogate and sustain their kind are becoming increasingly albino in nature - their genes are simplifying and we are seeing less and less variety in nature.
In other words, if one were to examine the trends within the study of zoology, we find that the animal kingdom is becoming inreasingly less complex and simplified (fewer species, less micro-evolution, etc.).
This agrees completely with the PROVEN 2nd law of Thermodynamics: Energy is constantly and increasingly moving towards entropy (or disorder).
The theory of evolution REQUIRES that energy systems become increasingly MORE complex and intricate. If we are supposedly evolving to a more refined species then we are doing so in direct opposition to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, a proven-as-fact law that all energy systems must submit to.
Evolution contradicts proven science.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Oh, my!
This is a thread about a steam locomotive in a commercial and now we're debating evolution and global warming? When does the debate on Noah's flood, continental drift, and Big Bang start?
There are lots and lots of places on the web where you can get neck deep in these debates. Do you really want to do it here? (dumb question.)
A few of things worth keeping in mind - at least IMHO:
1. Remember that Christians have varying degrees of belief in creation and evolution. For some, a literal understanding of Genesis 1 is a necessary part of their Christian faith. Christians are called to build each other up, not tear each other apart, so try to be respectful of each other's faith tenets (even when you know they're wrong!) Some of my best friends are YECs (even though I'm not - and it would be evil of me to argue the point with them).
2. Try not to confuse Evolution - The Philosophy (theology?) with Evolution - The Theory.
3. Try not to confuse the scientific term "theory" with the common usage of the word. Gravitation is a scientific theory not a "fact", but Newton's Third Law is based on the theory. I don't think anybody is debating this theory - except maybe some "flat-earthers"?
4. Understand that there is no proof of anything except in math. No measurements are absolute. Results only have meaning in a statisitcal sense e.g. "we are 99% sure that these two sets of measurements are different by 5%. Or "we are 95% sure that this part's diameter is between 1.0050" and 1.0060".
5. We can't all be experts on everything. There's just too much to know these days. From what I've read elsewhere, biologists will tell you that the vast majority of the evidence of evolution is biochemical, not fossil, and it is the foundational theory of biology. Most biochemistry is way beyond me (I think the Krebs cycle is the former ATSF chief's exercise machine), so I'll have to take their word on it - or not - my choice.
6. Understand that anecdotal evidence is just that. And, unlike the media, where 3 coincidental items = a story, science is a lot more rigorous - and requires peer review.
7. For all that is known about evolution and global warming, there is much more not known, particularly about global warming. Both are pretty complicated and hard to study. We are pretty much forced to rely on experts for at least mid-level conclusions. We are not going to be doing our own analysis of data and only occasionally are we going to try to digest published scientific papers. How many of us subcribe to any scientific journals? I don't. I don't even read Scientific American - although I used to subscribe to Science News.
8. Whether things "are" or "aren't" is really irrelevant in a practical sense. The issue is "what do we do?" It's about risk and reward. Knowing there is 0.3% chance greater you'll die on you daily 10 mile commute if you don't buckle up, might make you buckle. Although the risk is miniscule, the consequences are large. It might be useful to think of global warming along these lines. This is generally where the political gets tangled up with the science.
9. You will not win anyone over to your point by implying that they're "stupid" (see Kevin Kline in a Fish Called Wanda for "proof" of this theory). If someone's reaction to an issue is emotional, you won't win them over with facts - at least not at first. You have to start with rapport.
OK. So, does anyone know where the commercial was shot?
vsmith wrote: futuremodal wrote: vsmith wrote: The simple unavoidable facts are ... FACT global atmospheric temperatures ARE rising FACT global ocean temperatures ARE rising FACT mountain glaciers worldwide ARE receding- fast FACT polar ice caps ARE receding FACT - the earth is coming out of a Little Ice Age, so "duuuh!". Clarification - The Arctic Ice is diminishing, but the Antarctic Ice is increasing. Climates change, Yes. The the big difference between now and the last big climate warming is that we were not around... That is false. The "last big climate warming" occured a mere 1000 or so years ago, at least 2-3 degrees warmer than what we are experiencing now, and all the evidence we have points to the fact that, yes indeed, there was human habitation going on! In fact, that particular warming period resulted in subsequent growth of European standards of living - wealth, education, personal freedoms. We have a name for this period in our history books - it's called "The Renaissance". I was refering to the last really big temp increase, 300,000 years ago, the last time Florida was a really nice reef, Antarctic ice is increasing? Thats news to me...care to reference that, last time I checked scientists were alarmed that some ice shelves were showing signs of increased degredation and were concerned what would happen if they collapsed into the ocean. so....AGAIN, please pull your head out of the sand and instead of mearly dismissing the topic, try wrapping your head around the potential problem...namely what will happen, AGAIN REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE FOR THE THIRD TIME what will happen if the sea starts rising... ...Oh nevermind... just sit back and watch the cable TV, enjoy the happy stories, dont worry about tommorow, your kids can handle it.
futuremodal wrote: vsmith wrote: The simple unavoidable facts are ... FACT global atmospheric temperatures ARE rising FACT global ocean temperatures ARE rising FACT mountain glaciers worldwide ARE receding- fast FACT polar ice caps ARE receding FACT - the earth is coming out of a Little Ice Age, so "duuuh!". Clarification - The Arctic Ice is diminishing, but the Antarctic Ice is increasing. Climates change, Yes. The the big difference between now and the last big climate warming is that we were not around... That is false. The "last big climate warming" occured a mere 1000 or so years ago, at least 2-3 degrees warmer than what we are experiencing now, and all the evidence we have points to the fact that, yes indeed, there was human habitation going on! In fact, that particular warming period resulted in subsequent growth of European standards of living - wealth, education, personal freedoms. We have a name for this period in our history books - it's called "The Renaissance".
vsmith wrote: The simple unavoidable facts are ... FACT global atmospheric temperatures ARE rising FACT global ocean temperatures ARE rising FACT mountain glaciers worldwide ARE receding- fast FACT polar ice caps ARE receding
Climates change, Yes. The the big difference between now and the last big climate warming is that we were not around...
I was refering to the last really big temp increase, 300,000 years ago, the last time Florida was a really nice reef, Antarctic ice is increasing? Thats news to me...care to reference that, last time I checked scientists were alarmed that some ice shelves were showing signs of increased degredation and were concerned what would happen if they collapsed into the ocean.
so....AGAIN, please pull your head out of the sand and instead of mearly dismissing the topic, try wrapping your head around the potential problem...namely what will happen, AGAIN REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE FOR THE THIRD TIME what will happen if the sea starts rising...
...Oh nevermind... just sit back and watch the cable TV, enjoy the happy stories, dont worry about tommorow, your kids can handle it.
Solz - Think about what you just said for a minute. Now im not sure if im thinging right but this would be the logical idea. As Evolution takes place, it gets complicated, thus becoming more disorderly. So Evolution and Thermodynamics would then be running concurrently.
Miniwyo - I read my post and I could see how you would come away with that, and it diserves to be clarified.
As we evolve the extremely complex systems that exist in our body should become more complex. In order to do this they would have to become more orderly. If they evolved into a disorderly complex state I don't think we would survive long. If we assume that 99 percent of all genetic mutations are harmful to an organism, and that many genetic mutations are required to evolve a system to another 'functional' level, I think we can safely say that a more complex equilibrium will not result from genetic mutation. The result of mutation is visible in hospitals in the form of cancer, super viruses, HIV, and so on. Cancer is an especially good example of cells that are mutating that are not benefitting the host organism. What is happening that we can see everywhere is that when complex organisms age, they begin to break down. The celluar processes begin to slow down. The immune system begins to forget diseases it was immunized against. Without the intervention of an outside source, the result is death. Species begin to fall victim to disease and pass on to extinction. The sun, a huge energy system, is gradually expanding as the hydrogen fuel inside it is replaced by helium - a byproduct of nuclear fusion. One day the sun will burn out. The earth, with all of its complex biological systems, is begining to wear out. Some of this can be attributed to man, I won't disagree there, but there are other forces at work too. I think scientists recognize this, but they cannot agree to the cause. I know what the problem is, but that is a religious discussion, not a scientific one. (Technically neither one of them is suited for here, but hey, this is fun!)
All around us the evidence points to complex systems breaking down into simple parts. This is the evidence that proves the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. That 2nd law is at odds with evolution. If evolution were true, then somewhere in nature we should see evidence of energy systems becoming more complex with the passage of time. This is not the case.
RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
dsktc wrote: "Evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun." Dave
"Evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
Dave
Sorry, but you -- well, the guy who actually wrote the above passage -- is only 95 percent correct. Science still lacks specific physical evidence (i.e., transitional fossils) that can indisputably connect Homo Sapiens to primitive ape-like creatures. So what should have been said is that making that association is only a grand assumption, and NOT FACT. Just because the evolutional lineage of most other species on the planet can be so connected does not automatically connect man, and therein lies the fallacy. And therein lies the engine for another theory, equally plausible to those who elect to support it -- Creationism.
Science out of necessity needs to be more exact than that. And contrary to what you've quoted above, scientists once did declare the earth was flat and had a revolving sun.
What you offer in the passage you've chosen is not your own thinking, so let me credit your source for you as you cut and pasted one lone paragraph that seems to support your contentions. It is from the book Evolution versus Creationism, which was written over 25 years ago by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University geneticist. Lewontin's theories on the subject have been widely embraced by the scientific community, which is populated by liberal-minded people. And he wrote exactly what they wanted to hear.
However, to be fair here, let's keep in mind Lewontin has been widely criticized for both being too political and failing to notice important key connecting facts in his racial gene research, which critics say has flawed the results.
PZ -- Whenever you screw up, just claim "The Devil made me do it!"
vsmith wrote: miniwyo wrote: solzrules wrote: dsktc wrote: If you believe evolution is not a fact, then you better go back to school. Dave Or maybe you should read your textbook. Theories are not facts. They have yet to be proven. There is a big difference between fact and theory. Not just A text book, you need to read THE textbook. The Origin of Species. Pretty good read, but then again I am only about 1/3 of the way in. Guess this means that I cannot prove that Newtons Theory of Gravity is fact, but if I dropped a brick on someones foot it would be a pretty good illustration that the theory IS sound.
miniwyo wrote: solzrules wrote: dsktc wrote: If you believe evolution is not a fact, then you better go back to school. Dave Or maybe you should read your textbook. Theories are not facts. They have yet to be proven. There is a big difference between fact and theory. Not just A text book, you need to read THE textbook. The Origin of Species. Pretty good read, but then again I am only about 1/3 of the way in.
solzrules wrote: dsktc wrote: If you believe evolution is not a fact, then you better go back to school. Dave Or maybe you should read your textbook. Theories are not facts. They have yet to be proven. There is a big difference between fact and theory.
dsktc wrote: If you believe evolution is not a fact, then you better go back to school. Dave
If you believe evolution is not a fact,
then you better go back to school.
Or maybe you should read your textbook. Theories are not facts. They have yet to be proven. There is a big difference between fact and theory.
zugmann wrote: solzrules wrote:How can she be our president if she is on the moon?????Dog butts aren't allowed to be president. Oh wait...that's an insult to dog butts everywhere... never mind.
solzrules wrote:How can she be our president if she is on the moon?????
Come on, now, you are hurting my one feeling!
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
solzrules wrote: Who is actually being scientific here and subscribing completely to the scientific method? Anyone?
Who is actually being scientific here and subscribing completely to the scientific method? Anyone?
And furthermore, why would you assume that science is objective? Most science is funded by the public sector. Any crisis that tickles the fancy of the public sector is good for funding.
JSGreen wrote: solzrules wrote:Blind faith in science is blind faith that man knows what he is doing. All scientists used to claim that the world was flat, and that was considered a locked-tight fact. They look pretty stupid now, don't they? Actually, I think you'll find science did not claim that the world was flat. As I learned it, it was "science" that said the world was round, and the sun did not revolve around the earth...it was the church that disagreed. And instead of a rational argument backed up by observations, it was a persecution and ex-communication, and sometimes death, to those who challenged "Common Knowledge", and poor translations of a book that was put together by a committee 300 years after the fact...Good thing we are above all that by now, isnt it.Blind faith in Science is as dangerous as blind faith in religious matters. But have you asked yourself, "What is the worst that can happen, if I am wrong?"
solzrules wrote:Blind faith in science is blind faith that man knows what he is doing. All scientists used to claim that the world was flat, and that was considered a locked-tight fact. They look pretty stupid now, don't they?
Ah, but religion is not supposed to enter this discussion, right? Have you ever considered your subscription to a theory that can't be proven to be a humanist religion? Really, there isn't much difference. I accept what I believe in because of faith - I can't prove it. You accept what you believe in because you have faith in the accuracy of science - and I have yet to see a scientist prove anything with regards to global warming. You can talk about a committee making descisions about the good book, but what about the committees that determine the proper orthodoxy of global warming? Plus that, the track record of scientists over the last couple of centuries hasn't been what I would call 'spot on'.
Personally I fail to see the difference. It's just a humanist religion. No one can prove it, but everyone better believe it or they are morons, right? So far, the only 'proof' I have seen on this thread is the following:
If you don't believe global warming is a fact you have your head in the sand.
Okay, so because I ask to see proof temps are rising I am retarded?
Doesn't science demand proof before a theory is taken as fact?
the feed wrote:Ok we all have mixed opinions. But can we still send Ann coulter on a one-way rocket to the moon?
How can she be our president if she is on the moon?????
traisessive1 wrote:Has anyone else seen the commercial yet?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.