I was trying to have a decent debate (I promise)CID1990 wrote:Hey look! Another anthropogenic global warming evolution voodoo versus science vanilla anal secretions from a beaver palooza thread! Awesome!
Lets all argue!
we stumbled right out of the gate
Who here doesn't believe that?Chizzang wrote:I was trying to have a decent debate (I promise)CID1990 wrote:Hey look! Another anthropogenic global warming evolution voodoo versus science vanilla anal secretions from a beaver palooza thread! Awesome!
Lets all argue!
My point of debate was: There's no point in debating this...
until we all at least agree in the earth is more than 6,000 years old and Jeezus isn't manipulating the weather patterns
The bolded part above of HD's post is a large part of the logic that the argument for intelligent design of the universe is based upon. It is interesting to note you using it.houndawg wrote:Maybe true at current population levels, maybe more effect when the population doubles again. I recall listening to a Sagan interview where he was explaining the knife edge that life is balanced on, that if any one of several physical constants of the universe differed in the fourth decimal place, or even smaller in some cases, from where they are now that life as we know it wouldn't be possible in this universe. Not disagreeing with your statement just saying that the way population has exploded and is projected to keep growing I could see humans adding just enough input to be a tipping point somewhere down the line.LeadBolt wrote:The history of climate change shows constant flux. This was the case before mankind and has been the case since. Those who blame it solely on man's actions must ignore millions of years of evidence from the geologic record which show much higher temperatures during the dinosaur age and much lower during the ice age, when man wasn't on the earth in sufficient numbers (if at all) to make a difference.
The earth has natural cycles of cooling and heating upon which man has no effect. Any effect man has is most likely only at the margins and of much smaller consequence than the "sky is falling crowd" would have us believe, as is evidenced by the divergence of the actual data from the predictions of the global warming models over the last 15 years.
Read PWNS previous post and my response...AZGrizFan wrote:Who here doesn't believe that?Chizzang wrote: I was trying to have a decent debate (I promise)
My point of debate was: There's no point in debating this...
until we all at least agree in the earth is more than 6,000 years old and Jeezus isn't manipulating the weather patterns
Self regulating population: I think its a stretch to say "more than likely" at this stage of medical science; a hundred years ago there was an influenza epidemic that killed millions but I don't think we can count on disease to do the job today. Just the right sized asteroid, not too big, not too small......LeadBolt wrote:The bolded part above of HD's post is a large part of the logic that the argument for intelligent design of the universe is based upon. It is interesting to note you using it.houndawg wrote:
Maybe true at current population levels, maybe more effect when the population doubles again. I recall listening to a Sagan interview where he was explaining the knife edge that life is balanced on, that if any one of several physical constants of the universe differed in the fourth decimal place, or even smaller in some cases, from where they are now that life as we know it wouldn't be possible in this universe. Not disagreeing with your statement just saying that the way population has exploded and is projected to keep growing I could see humans adding just enough input to be a tipping point somewhere down the line.
The fact is, I agree with you that life is balanced upon a knifes edge. What is left out of the argument is what TM showed in the Carlin video. The earth is a self correcting system that was here well before mankind. It was designed that way.
As far as the explosion of population goes, more than likely that will self regulate as well.
houndawg wrote:Self regulating population: I think its a stretch to say "more than likely" at this stage of medical science; a hundred years ago there was an influenza epidemic that killed millions but I don't think we can count on disease to do the job today. Just the right sized asteroid, not too big, not too small......LeadBolt wrote:
The bolded part above of HD's post is a large part of the logic that the argument for intelligent design of the universe is based upon. It is interesting to note you using it.
The fact is, I agree with you that life is balanced upon a knifes edge. What is left out of the argument is what TM showed in the Carlin video. The earth is a self correcting system that was here well before mankind. It was designed that way.
As far as the explosion of population goes, more than likely that will self regulate as well.
Intelligent design: I'm all ears, besides the part you bolded there is also the entropy argument, which I'm surprised that ID people aren't all over. Basically it says that entropy always increases as time goes forward and that as we "wind the clock" back toward the Big Bang we have a universe with more and more order to it, the obvious conclusion being that it was in its highest state of order at the time of the Big Bang.
I believe that the "self-regulation" of human population will come from personal choice and other socio-economic factors. Several nations already have birthrates that are lower than the required 2.0 level to sustain population.houndawg wrote:Self regulating population: I think its a stretch to say "more than likely" at this stage of medical science; a hundred years ago there was an influenza epidemic that killed millions but I don't think we can count on disease to do the job today. Just the right sized asteroid, not too big, not too small......LeadBolt wrote:
The bolded part above of HD's post is a large part of the logic that the argument for intelligent design of the universe is based upon. It is interesting to note you using it.
The fact is, I agree with you that life is balanced upon a knifes edge. What is left out of the argument is what TM showed in the Carlin video. The earth is a self correcting system that was here well before mankind. It was designed that way.
As far as the explosion of population goes, more than likely that will self regulate as well.
Intelligent design: I'm all ears, besides the part you bolded there is also the entropy argument, which I'm surprised that ID people aren't all over. Basically it says that entropy always increases as time goes forward and that as we "wind the clock" back toward the Big Bang we have a universe with more and more order to it, the obvious conclusion being that it was in its highest state of order at the time of the Big Bang.
What I'm talking about is that there are many "officially accepted" aspects of conventional wisdom that are based on a faith in the credibility of the practice of science and in many cases practitioners overstate the certainty associated with conclusions associated with observational study. Observational study is what "climate science" is. It's also what the study of the age of the Earth and Evolution primarily are.Yeah...^
Not so much Johnny
Science says the world is more than 6,000 years old and 40% of Americans disagree
Science says that Natural Selection is observable and suggests evolution 44% of Americans disagree
Something like 80% of Americans believe in Miracles (yes 80%)
Almost 20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth
37% of Americans believe that "things" can be haunted / even after thousands of years of NOBODY on earth being able to provide ONE shred of hard evidence
25% percent believe vigorously in Astrology
Hey look! Another anthropogenic global warming evolution voodoo versus science vanilla anal secretions from a beaver palooza thread! Awesome!
Lets all argue!
LeadBolt wrote:The earth is a self correcting system that was here well before mankind. It was designed that way.
As far as the explosion of population goes, more than likely that will self regulate as well.
Cluck U wrote:LeadBolt wrote:The earth is a self correcting system that was here well before mankind. It was designed that way.
As far as the explosion of population goes, more than likely that will self regulate as well.
The Earth was a collection of space dust, then a collection of boulders, then a fiery piece of rock with a lava center getting bombarded by meteors, then a warm centered planet with a frozen outside, then a water covered paradise for life, and it will become a waterless, barren circle of rock as the sun heats up and expands...and it will be a trillion, Obamaillion pieces of rock again once the sun explodes in a couple billion years.
Yeah, the "Earth" is "self"-regulating.
Nice deflection.LeadBolt wrote:Cluck U wrote:
The Earth was a collection of space dust, then a collection of boulders, then a fiery piece of rock with a lava center getting bombarded by meteors, then a warm centered planet with a frozen outside, then a water covered paradise for life, and it will become a waterless, barren circle of rock as the sun heats up and expands...and it will be a trillion, Obamaillion pieces of rock again once the sun explodes in a couple billion years.
Yeah, the "Earth" is "self"-regulating.
And a 777 was assembled by a wind storm blowing through a junk yard.
Besides SuperHorney, I don't know anyone else.AZGrizFan wrote:Who here doesn't believe that?Chizzang wrote: I was trying to have a decent debate (I promise)
My point of debate was: There's no point in debating this...
until we all at least agree in the earth is more than 6,000 years old and Jeezus isn't manipulating the weather patterns
God works in mysterious ways.Cluck U wrote:Nice deflection.LeadBolt wrote:
And a 777 was assembled by a wind storm blowing through a junk yard.
The Earth isn't going to be here in billions of years...and yet YOU said it (the Earth) was self regulating. I guess the Earth will decide it will be blasted into dust by the sun gun.
Hello human beings, this is your God speaking.kalm wrote:God works in mysterious ways.Cluck U wrote:
Nice deflection.
The Earth isn't going to be here in billions of years...and yet YOU said it (the Earth) was self regulating. I guess the Earth will decide it will be blasted into dust by the sun gun.
Just sayin...A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the "dominant cause" of global warming since the 1950s.
The report by the UN's climate panel details the physical evidence behind climate change.
On the ground, in the air, in the oceans, global warming is "unequivocal", it explained.
It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends.
The panel warns that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all aspects of the climate system.
To contain these changes will require "substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions".
Projections are based on assumptions about how much greenhouse gases might be released
After a week of intense negotiations in the Swedish capital, the summary for policymakers on the physical science of global warming has finally been released.
The first part of an IPCC trilogy, due over the next 12 months, this dense, 36-page document is considered the most comprehensive statement on our understanding of the mechanics of a warming planet.
It states baldly that, since the 1950s, many of the observed changes in the climate system are "unprecedented over decades to millennia".
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface, and warmer than any period since 1850, and probably warmer than any time in the past 1,400 years.
"Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and that concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," said Qin Dahe, co-chair of IPCC working group one, who produced the report.
Speaking at a news conference in the Swedish capital, Prof Thomas Stocker, another co-chair, said that climate change "challenges the two primary resources of humans and ecosystems, land and water. In short, it threatens our planet, our only home".
Since 1950, the report's authors say, humanity is clearly responsible for more than half of the observed increase in temperatures.
"Trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends," the report says.
Prof Stocker, added: "I'm afraid there is not a lot of public literature that allows us to delve deeper at the required depth of this emerging scientific question.
"For example, there are not sufficient observations of the uptake of heat, particularly into the deep ocean, that would be one of the possible mechanisms to explain this warming hiatus."
"Likewise we have insufficient data to adequately assess the forcing over the last 10-15 years to establish a relationship between the causes of the warming."
However, the report does alter a key figure from the 2007 study. The temperature range given for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, called equilibrium climate sensitivity, was 2.0C to 4.5C in that report.
In the latest document, the range has been changed to 1.5C to 4.5C. The scientists say this reflects improved understanding, better temperature records and new estimates for the factors driving up temperatures.
In the summary for policymakers, the scientists say that sea level rise will proceed at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years. Waters are expected to rise, the document says, by between 26cm (at the low end) and 82cm (at the high end), depending on the greenhouse emissions path this century.
The scientists say ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for 90% of energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010.
For the future, the report states that warming is projected to continue under all scenarios. Model simulations indicate that global surface temperature change by the end of the 21st Century is likely to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to 1850.
Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, from Imperial College London, told BBC News: "We are performing a very dangerous experiment with our planet, and I don't want my grandchildren to suffer the consequences of that experiment."
Nice deflection your self. The potential of a solar blow up has nothing to do with global climate change and man's role in it. None of us really knows when that event may or may not occur and whether the earth will be here in billions of years, but one thing we all do know is that man's contribution to the change of the gaseous structure of the earth's atmosphere has no impact on a solar blow up.Cluck U wrote:Nice deflection.LeadBolt wrote:
And a 777 was assembled by a wind storm blowing through a junk yard.
The Earth isn't going to be here in billions of years...and yet YOU said it (the Earth) was self regulating. I guess the Earth will decide it will be blasted into dust by the sun gun.
For the life of me, I can't figure out how ID is a fear based concept.Chizzang wrote:houndawg wrote:
Self regulating population: I think its a stretch to say "more than likely" at this stage of medical science; a hundred years ago there was an influenza epidemic that killed millions but I don't think we can count on disease to do the job today. Just the right sized asteroid, not too big, not too small......
Intelligent design: I'm all ears, besides the part you bolded there is also the entropy argument, which I'm surprised that ID people aren't all over. Basically it says that entropy always increases as time goes forward and that as we "wind the clock" back toward the Big Bang we have a universe with more and more order to it, the obvious conclusion being that it was in its highest state of order at the time of the Big Bang.
Intelligent Design is a fear based concept not discovery and science based
I'll explain it slowly for you...LeadBolt wrote:For the life of me, I can't figure out how ID is a fear based concept.Chizzang wrote:
Intelligent Design is a fear based concept not discovery and science based
They weren't atheists to begin with.I have a good friend who is an owner in a medical practice that staffs emergency rooms here in Central FL and he is a physician himself (obviously).
His take on atheists and guys who poo poo God is this: They always come back to God in the end, when they really need Him, when they are faced with their mortality and are about to die, then they see the light- just about without exception. They all talk big until then.
Funny how that works, ain't it?
blueballs wrote:I have a good friend who is an owner in a medical practice that staffs emergency rooms here in Central FL and he is a physician himself (obviously).
His take on atheists and guys who poo poo God is this: They always come back to God in the end, when they really need Him, when they are faced with their mortality and are about to die, then they see the light- just about without exception. They all talk big until then.
Funny how that works, ain't it?
At this point one has to have faith in the unexplained/unproven to believe either in God or the lack thereof in creation. There are too many holes that are not explained by the scientific method.Chizzang wrote:I'll explain it slowly for you...LeadBolt wrote:
For the life of me, I can't figure out how ID is a fear based concept.
I wan't "god to exist"
because it makes me feel better (safer) and more connected
Intelligent Design Theory insists that chemistry and chance cannot explain how living things were made
That is THE ENTIRE THEORY (period) they say it requires an Intelligent Designer (God)
in short:
I'm afraid so I'll ignore science
And say it's God because that makes me feel better
Except: oops
"Our work shows that the basic building blocks of life can be assembled anywhere in the Solar System and perhaps beyond,"
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -life.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
or here:
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists ... -life.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
or here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134341.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Look I love the idea of God
But right now as best as I can figure, our only real shot at figuring out God or the Universe is through Science and the non-emotional fact finding Scientific Method
Not Intelligent Design (dead end)
and sure as hell not Creationism (just plain unfounded nonsense)
Yes. I tried to look at the report to see if they still concede that unequivocal conclusions with respect to any particular cause for climate changing in a particular way would require experiments that are not possible to conduct but the report itself is not yet available on the IPCC website. A "draft" version of it should be available on Monday. Here's what it says:Dawn has arrived...
You know that kind of brings up another issue. Isn't it kind of bass-akwards to issue a "Summary for Policymakers" before you've finalized the report you're summarizing? Then you're going to edit the draft report as necessary to make it consistent with the Summary for Policymakers?The Summary for Policymakers will be released on Friday, 27 September 2013. The accepted Final Draft of the full Working Group I report, comprising the Technical Summary, 14 Chapters and three Annexes, will be released online in unedited form on Monday 30 September. Following copy-editing, layout, final checks for errors, and adjustments for changes for consistency with the Summary for Policymakers, it will be published online in January 2014 (tbc) and in book form by Cambridge University Press a few months later.
