How to Adjust to Climate Change

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

I would like you to explain to me why all of the so-called predictions have been wrong.

The Alarmists say the science is on their side, while the Deniers have the facts on their side.

If natural selection is based on blind chance as you mentioned, then from what intellectual footing do Alarmists base their opinion on ?

We were told that we would have more hurricanes since Katrina, while there have been very few. We were told the polar bears would be nearly gone, while their populations have increased. We were told our planet would continue to warm while last winter was one of the coldest in recent years.

How many mistakes need to be made by Alarmists before it becomes apparent that no one understands how the planet behaves ?
[/quote]

What the fuck does evolution have to do with global climate change? [/quote]

Where the fuck in my post do I even mention or suggest evolution ? I asked you why the predictions by Alarmists have not come true.

Maybe you don’t know it all, and neither do I. Maybe the planet has mechanisms to accommodate for changes within it’s own biology. Maybe the planet has tempered itself within it’s 4.5 Billion years of existence.

4.5 Billion years, and you think every day of it was warm and sunny with a slight breeze coming from the west ?

Creatures 200,000 years old have the balls to assume they can explain and predict the behavior of something 4.5 Billion years old !

Fucking hubris man, I love it. We cannot cure the common cold dude.

502

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

One of the best arguments I’ve seen - short, sweet and to the point. Interesting factoid: I recently sent my spit to 23andme.com to have my genetics tested for fun (it was only a hundred bucks, and I found out LOTS of cool stuff) and I am over 2% Neanderthal. When I told my eldest son this, his first reaction was, “well THAT explains it”. Funny stuff. But the study of genetics and the science spawning from that is really beginning to prove evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt - kinda like the “theory” of gravity.[/quote]

Easiest thought experiment is to get out the scale and place in one pan the totality of the specific evidence in favor of evolution – this will take years – and, in the other, the totality of the specific evidence in favor of Genesis 2:7 – this will take seconds.

They are in mutually exclusive competition, after all, as contradictory accounts of man’s origin. On the one hand, abiogenesis through the process of evolution and all the way up to the present; on the other, The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God made man from dust and then breathed life into his nostrils – it is a claim, and claims are to be believed or not believed in accordance with the strength or weakness of the specific evidence adduced in their favor. Ask any Christian apologist to apprise you of the direct evidence by which he feels that he can claim it reasonable to believe the claim that “the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” You will be met with a thick and delicious silence.[/quote]

Can you answer my question from above?
[/quote]

That question is essentially, “How could abiogenesis have happened?” I hope you understand that I am not going to spend the next few months walking through half a century of scientific work on the subject. Of course, if you are actually interested, choose a few of the most reputable scientific journals and search them. You will find thousands of pages, written by the very most competent of scientific minds, awaiting your perusal.

Now, I will happily accept the same sort of answer in response to my question. Send me anywhere – send me [i]to a Wikipedia page[/i] – that specifically evidences and/or suggests the mere possibility of the claim that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”[/quote]

I’m curious as to why you are angrily supportive of the Theory of Evolution of which its cornerstone, abiogenesis, has not ever been replicated or observed despite the number of papers written about it. I guess you have faith in something that cannot be proven.

503

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

One of the best arguments I’ve seen - short, sweet and to the point. Interesting factoid: I recently sent my spit to 23andme.com to have my genetics tested for fun (it was only a hundred bucks, and I found out LOTS of cool stuff) and I am over 2% Neanderthal. When I told my eldest son this, his first reaction was, “well THAT explains it”. Funny stuff. But the study of genetics and the science spawning from that is really beginning to prove evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt - kinda like the “theory” of gravity.[/quote]

Easiest thought experiment is to get out the scale and place in one pan the totality of the specific evidence in favor of evolution – this will take years – and, in the other, the totality of the specific evidence in favor of Genesis 2:7 – this will take seconds.

They are in mutually exclusive competition, after all, as contradictory accounts of man’s origin. On the one hand, abiogenesis through the process of evolution and all the way up to the present; on the other, The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God made man from dust and then breathed life into his nostrils – it is a claim, and claims are to be believed or not believed in accordance with the strength or weakness of the specific evidence adduced in their favor. Ask any Christian apologist to apprise you of the direct evidence by which he feels that he can claim it reasonable to believe the claim that “the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” You will be met with a thick and delicious silence.[/quote]

Can you answer my question from above?
[/quote]

That question is essentially, “How could abiogenesis have happened?” I hope you understand that I am not going to spend the next few months walking through half a century of scientific work on the subject. Of course, if you are actually interested, choose a few of the most reputable scientific journals and search them. You will find thousands of pages, written by the very most competent of scientific minds, awaiting your perusal.

Now, I will happily accept the same sort of answer in response to my question. Send me anywhere – send me [i]to a Wikipedia page[/i] – that specifically evidences and/or suggests the mere possibility of the claim that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”[/quote]

I’m curious as to why you are angrily supportive of the Theory of Evolution of which its cornerstone, abiogenesis, has not ever been replicated or observed despite the number of papers written about it. I guess you have faith in something that cannot be proven.
[/quote]

Again, you’re demonstrating that you lack an introductory undergraduate understanding of evolution. Are you unfamiliar with the Miller-Urey experiment conducted in 1953? You also continue to avoid addressing the overwhelming amount of evidence of human evolution and Homo sapiens close relation to the great apes.

504

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

One of the best arguments I’ve seen - short, sweet and to the point. Interesting factoid: I recently sent my spit to 23andme.com to have my genetics tested for fun (it was only a hundred bucks, and I found out LOTS of cool stuff) and I am over 2% Neanderthal. When I told my eldest son this, his first reaction was, “well THAT explains it”. Funny stuff. But the study of genetics and the science spawning from that is really beginning to prove evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt - kinda like the “theory” of gravity.[/quote]

Easiest thought experiment is to get out the scale and place in one pan the totality of the specific evidence in favor of evolution – this will take years – and, in the other, the totality of the specific evidence in favor of Genesis 2:7 – this will take seconds.

They are in mutually exclusive competition, after all, as contradictory accounts of man’s origin. On the one hand, abiogenesis through the process of evolution and all the way up to the present; on the other, The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God made man from dust and then breathed life into his nostrils – it is a claim, and claims are to be believed or not believed in accordance with the strength or weakness of the specific evidence adduced in their favor. Ask any Christian apologist to apprise you of the direct evidence by which he feels that he can claim it reasonable to believe the claim that “the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” You will be met with a thick and delicious silence.[/quote]

Can you answer my question from above?
[/quote]

That question is essentially, “How could abiogenesis have happened?” I hope you understand that I am not going to spend the next few months walking through half a century of scientific work on the subject. Of course, if you are actually interested, choose a few of the most reputable scientific journals and search them. You will find thousands of pages, written by the very most competent of scientific minds, awaiting your perusal.

Now, I will happily accept the same sort of answer in response to my question. Send me anywhere – send me [i]to a Wikipedia page[/i] – that specifically evidences and/or suggests the mere possibility of the claim that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”[/quote]

I’m curious as to why you are angrily supportive of the Theory of Evolution of which its cornerstone, abiogenesis, has not ever been replicated or observed despite the number of papers written about it. I guess you have faith in something that cannot be proven.
[/quote]

  1. I’m not angry at all.

  2. I have faith in many things that cannot be–or have not yet been–proved, and I have never claimed otherwise. One could make the epistemological argument that everything or almost everything I believe is, at some fundamental level, unproved or unprovable. I believe, without being able to prove it, that the sun will appear in the eastern sky tomorrow morning. That I cannot prove this does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I have no better reason, on the evidence available to me, to believe it than I have to believe its negation.

  3. The standard of evidence asked of you was not “proof,” so your invocation of it is an utter non sequitur (though not one without its indicative powers: That you were challenged to run a mile, and responded by challenging me to run across the country, is surely telling of something). It–the standard–was, and I quote, “evidences and/or suggests the mere possibility of.” If you believe that the evolutionist cannot rise to meet this lax request, you have not done enough reading on this subject to merit the continuation of this discussion. But we both know you have, so, I ask you, with genuine interest, whether or not the Old Testament’s response to abiogenesis/evolution–the Genesis 2:7 account of man’s origin–is attended by a single scrap of specific and direct evidence (note: evidence is not proof), a single evidential suggestion of its possibility.

In other words, you are to debate an evolutionist/biologist on this matter, before a group of extremely intelligent and perfectly unbiased observers. The evolutionist/biologist gets up and makes his case – hours and hours of lecture and a parade of physical and experimental evidence, offered in direct and specific support of his contention. We all know what it is, and we’ve fought it out many times here before.

Now it’s your turn. You read: “The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” And then you make your case – you offer direct and specific support of your contention. What is it? I am asking sincerely – what is it? Where can I find it? As I said earlier, I’ll take a Wikipedia page (but note the words direct and specific – it’s got to specifically deal with the relevant contention, the one regarding man’s having been made in the way that Genesis 2:7 alleges).

505

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

  1. I’m not angry at all.

[/quote]

Maybe not. But you are a ruthless savage.

510
511

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I believe, without being able to prove it, that the sun will appear in the eastern sky tomorrow morning.[/quote]

Nailed it.

512

@smh. The argument put forth by the evolutionist is conjecture. He can’t duplicate abiogenesis even under the most favorable of lab conditions, he cannot create energy from nothing, there is no fossil record explaining the gaps between single-celled organisms and invertebrates, the odds that repeated mutations repeatedly helped, not harmed, life forms is so high against that it is not calculable, the switch from efficient asexual to the inefficient sexual reproduction method is unlikely, and a plethora of other problems that cannot be resolved scientifically. He could drone on for hours without ever answering these important questions.

There is ample research and papers written supporting the idea of intelligent design all easily found online. Your claim the Creationist has only the Bible to reference indicates ignorance or disingenuousness. Are you really ignorant of the Nye-Ham debate? Or of Google?

The difference between the evolutionist and the Creationist is that one believes impossible things happened repeatedly by random chance in the face of infinitesimally overwhelming odds and the other believes it happened by design. Neither one can scientifically reproduce what they believe.

513

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
@smh. The argument put forth by the evolutionist is conjecture. He can’t duplicate abiogenesis even under the most favorable of lab conditions, he cannot create energy from nothing, there is no fossil record explaining the gaps between single-celled organisms and invertebrates, the odds that repeated mutations repeatedly helped, not harmed, life forms is so high against that it is not calculable, the switch from efficient asexual to the inefficient sexual reproduction method is unlikely, and a plethora of other problems that cannot be resolved scientifically. He could drone on for hours without ever answering these important questions.

There is ample research and papers written supporting the idea of intelligent design all easily found online. Your claim the Creationist has only the Bible to reference indicates ignorance or disingenuousness. Are you really ignorant of the Nye-Ham debate? Or of Google?

The difference between the evolutionist and the Creationist is that one believes impossible things happened repeatedly by random chance in the face of infinitesimally overwhelming odds and the other believes it happened by design. Neither one can scientifically reproduce what they believe.[/quote]

Creationism is to evolution what alchemy is to chemistry. Let’s set aside abiogenesis for the moment so we discuss the question that I posed to you. How does the creationist reconcile the account given by genesis with the overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that support human evolution and Home sapiens close relation with the great apes? There existed 15-20 early human species before the emergence of modern humans 200,000 years ago.

514

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
@smh. The argument put forth by the evolutionist is conjecture. He can’t duplicate abiogenesis even under the most favorable of lab conditions, he cannot create energy from nothing, there is no fossil record explaining the gaps between single-celled organisms and invertebrates, the odds that repeated mutations repeatedly helped, not harmed, life forms is so high against that it is not calculable, the switch from efficient asexual to the inefficient sexual reproduction method is unlikely, and a plethora of other problems that cannot be resolved scientifically. He could drone on for hours without ever answering these important questions.

There is ample research and papers written supporting the idea of intelligent design all easily found online. Your claim the Creationist has only the Bible to reference indicates ignorance or disingenuousness. Are you really ignorant of the Nye-Ham debate? Or of Google?

The difference between the evolutionist and the Creationist is that one believes impossible things happened repeatedly by random chance in the face of infinitesimally overwhelming odds and the other believes it happened by design. Neither one can scientifically reproduce what they believe.[/quote]

This is a trial. That we don’t have video evidence of the murder, and can’t recreate it, does not mean that we can’t weigh evidence and attempt to adjudicate. If you disagree, then please say so, because that concludes the proceedings.

Now, if you read my last post carefully, you will see that I am well aware of the incompleteness of the theory of evolution (as I said, we have argued the points here many times before). What you should become aware of is the fact that incompleteness is not incorrectness. Surely you are aware that the evolutionist has a case to make. I am not talking about complete proof, I am talking about a case.

What I am asking you – and you are doing a valiant job of pretending not to notice the question – is what case you have to make. It is important here, as it is always and everywhere, to think specifically. The direct and specific Biblical competitor to abiogenesis/evolution is Genesis 2:7, the account of man’s origin. What evidence, external to the passage itself, gives us the slightest reason to believe that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” What evidence suggests that, of all the competing accounts of man’s origin, this is the one to which the rational observer is compelled to subscribe?

Again, the evolutionist makes his case, offers the specific evidence which directly supports (note, again, the absence of the word “proves”) his hypothesis (and please don’t suggest to me that he would stand there in silence; we all know what he would say, and we have all been through the debates a hundred times before). And now it’s your turn. You make a claim: “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” And now you tell us your specific, direct evidence. What is it?

515

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Again, you’re demonstrating that you lack an introductory undergraduate understanding of evolution. Are you unfamiliar with the Miller-Urey experiment conducted in 1953? You also continue to avoid addressing the overwhelming amount of evidence of human evolution and Homo sapiens close relation to the great apes. [/quote]

You should perhaps read about the Miller-Urey experiment from somewhere other than its Wikipedia page and see why it doesn’t support your belief as much as you think it does. Are you referring to the Piltdown man? Or perhaps the Laetoli footprints(which are indistinguishable from modern human prints)that were made during the same time our supposed ancestor Lucy roamed? The fossil record you rely on is full of conjecture and is vastly incomplete.

517

I should add this to my last post:

I am talking about a specific claim (Gen 2:7) which pretends to describe the specific chain of events whereby human life came to exist. This, as I have said more than a few times now, is abiogenesis/evolution’s direct competitor, and any evidence offered in its support should actually, specifically, and directly support it. That is, a logical argument from contingency, for example, is not going to even remotely do the trick (and wouldn’t be proved anyway).

518

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Again, you’re demonstrating that you lack an introductory undergraduate understanding of evolution. Are you unfamiliar with the Miller-Urey experiment conducted in 1953? You also continue to avoid addressing the overwhelming amount of evidence of human evolution and Homo sapiens close relation to the great apes. [/quote]

You should perhaps read about the Miller-Urey experiment from somewhere other than its Wikipedia page and see why it doesn’t support your belief as much as you think it does. Are you referring to the Piltdown man? Or perhaps the Laetoli footprints(which are indistinguishable from modern human prints)that were made during the same time our supposed ancestor Lucy roamed? The fossil record you rely on is full of conjecture and is vastly incomplete.
[/quote]

Creationism isn’t science in any sense of the word. To argue that the two are of rough parity in adequately explaining the origin of species (and Homo sapiens in particular) is beyond ludicrous. Your argument is completely contingent on an ancient text that is rife with fallacies and contractions. The evidence for evolution as the origin of life on earth and the eventual cladogenesis of modern humans from a long line of precursor human species, themselves sharing a common ancestor with the great apes, is holistic and overwhelming.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species

520

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

Do I believe that species adapt and change according to their environment? Yes. Do I believe all life evolved from a single-celled organism? No. More power to you if you choose to believe you are nothing more than a talking monkey.
[/quote]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. Exempli gratia, natural selection does not grant organisms what they “need”; it is dictated by blind chance. It is untenable to accept microevolution (trait evolution) while rejecting macroevolution (speciation). The processes are essentially the same, and are differentiated by the time-span required. The findings of all divisions of science support the validity of evolution. By rejecting it, you are rejecting the entirety of the scientific literature by extension.

Humans are primates. If you reject this, you may as well reject the theory of gravity. Physical and genetic analysis indicates that Homo sapiens has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans didn’t descend directly from the great apes species; which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. They do, however, share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Early human species lived between 6 and 2 million years ago. Prior to Homo sapiens, there existed 15 to 20 different species of early humans, from which we are directly descended. Modern humans are a very young species, having existed for only 200,000 years. Do you also reject the existence of these early human species, of which there is a plethora of concrete evidence?

[/quote]

One of the best arguments I’ve seen - short, sweet and to the point. Interesting factoid: I recently sent my spit to 23andme.com to have my genetics tested for fun (it was only a hundred bucks, and I found out LOTS of cool stuff) and I am over 2% Neanderthal. When I told my eldest son this, his first reaction was, “well THAT explains it”. Funny stuff. But the study of genetics and the science spawning from that is really beginning to prove evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt - kinda like the “theory” of gravity.[/quote]

Ummm…no, it’s not.
[/quote]

Fir the Bible tells you so? It’s an infinitely better explanation of cladogenesis than the about given by genesis, which indicates that humans were the product of an omnipotent deity that breathed life into dirt 6,000 years ago.