news…

Man Made Global Warming can only be defeated one way but it will take billions of dollars to accomplish this momentus task. You can be a part of this effort for just dollars a year.

Just send 1 dollar [100 pennies] to DannoJyD@ScamTheIdiots.Con and you will be able to sleep soundly as you have helped to save the planet.

They all whine but no one has offered to help. I am outraged! /major sarcasm

It’s obvious to everyone that the Sun is the fuel that drives the earth’s climate engine and that total atmospheric CO2 concentration is only a small gear in a very large machine. You can change the size of the small gear and have a correspondingly small effect on the engine’s output, but change the amount of fuel entering that engine and you suddenly have a huge effect. Why are we so concerned over the size of a small gear (CO2) when we should be looking at how much fuel (sunlight) that engine is receiving?

Oh, and don’t worry about Global Warming destroying life on earth, life seems to do fine in a wide variety of climatic conditions. Here in Minnesota we experience around a 100 degree difference between summer and winter, yet we seem to be doing fine. If a sudden temperature difference is suppose to be devastation to life, why do so many people, plants, and animals survive here each winter? The temps can rise or fall 40-50 degrees in a single day, yet I don’t see everything dying off. Global Warming will destroy the earth? Bull!

I just bought a trillion “climate change credits” from the “sun”….. just like Gore lives a “carbon nuetral life”.

In the spirit of “saving the planet” I give all my “climate change credits” to the people of the world………. so I zero out. Perfect.

There, problem solved, now just pick up your fricken trash and stop polluting our world, “China, India, and Mexico…..”

RW: You keep telling me you’re arguing science, but I can’t find it. What, in your opinion, is the mechanism that caused all these different species to come into being and what is the meaning of the fossil record? I don’t mind if you don’t answer. It’s way outside the scope of this thread, so I’m feeling like a hijacker and will happily shut up.

kmcguire on March 22, 2007 at 8:04 AM

This is your problem, I didn’t attempt to identify a mechanism. I just spoke on observable science that leads to the obvious conclusion that things have been designed. You’ll even see top scientists writing up their studies talking about how various aspects of life at all levels are “engineered” and “designed” (not even realizing what that language implies), and never daring to attempt to explain how some things evolve, all the while assuming they do.

But see, this is your little trap. I said nothing abour origins. I just spoke about science, and how ridiculous evolutionary theory looks when science is actually considered, instead of baseless assumptions and a ridiculous story written after observing microevolution, which isn’t in dispute (by the way, why do you keep raising things like asking me how I can accept micro but dismiss macro, and then when you get an answer you just brush it off completely?).

Anyway, YOU originally accused me of bringing God in to the science discussion, which I NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE TO DOING. But that’s a tactic that we’ve all come to expect from the evolutionist side. The evidence isn’t on their side, so they resort to not only attacking the messenger, but making up their own reason to attack them, so that you can dismiss them as religious kooks and then you can flee the scene.

You can hide from it all you want, but this is what YOU did, bud. You can keep saying “well then what did you mean”, and I can keep explaining that I was strictly talking about science, but in the evolutionist mind you feel the need for someone to tell you where everything came from, even if the story you’ve been told is baseless. So you expect me to say “God”, which happens to be true… But you just want me to say that, so you can dismiss me as a religious nut. But again, that’s only so you don’t have to answer to the science that doesn’t add up for evolution, which is what I was talking about, not religion. You can draw your own conclusions from actual science, but stop insisting that I explain origins to you, because that’s simply not testable and observable science. I could argue that design is very evident in (well, I already gave you a brief list to consider.. you totally ignored it, as you’ve done most of my lengthy posts. You laid down the gauntlet, and I’ve done you the courtesy of responding at length… Yet you just give one or two line responses, that are independent of anything I actually said).

But again, none of that has any point. I was talking science, and simply because the observable known facts don’t relate to anyone’s story of origins, you can’t get past that? Again, why can’t we just study what is actually known? (Again, I point to that gliding lizard article, which which is in a sea of THOUSANDS of similarly written articles, where nothing about evolution is observed, but because it’s assumed, there’s an obligatory line thrown is as a sacrifice to the lord Charlie…. You’ve yet to comment on that?)

But back to one other point (again), I agree that global warming is crap, and that the science doesn’t support it. But why are you so quick to agree with that, yet you can’t even spare an ounce of skepticism on evolution? Is it not possible that you haven’t been given the proper information, or it’s been spun… just like is done with global warming “science” now, to generations of people who buy in to it?

Ah, the Sun. On one hand, the source of light and warmth that makes life possible. On the other hand, a bad “environmental citizen” responsible for catastrophic planetary heating and cooling not only on our world but on Mars……

No matter how many observations, no matter how great our confidence in it, it never attains some magical, unassailable level (as was demonstrated clearly by Newton).

I should’ve parenthetically noted “as was demonstrated clearly with Newton’s theories,” not “by Newton.” Newton didn’t demonstrate it personally.

“The temperature shown on the thermometer in my rectum at time x was 99.7 degrees” is a fact.

You only call it a fact be virtue of your extreme confidence that there will be no refutation–i.e., that you aren’t hallucinating, or something similarly unlikely. I often do the same thing in every-day parlance, when I’m not discussing philosophy of science and am worried about subtle misunderstandings. But in principle there is nothing different between statements about a direct observation, no matter our level of confidence in it, and even the wildest of theories. If it’s a statement about the world (as opposed to, say, a verse of poetry), it’s a contingency.

And again, this wanders astray of the original subject, which is that there is no point at which general scientific laws transcend their status as theories and become something epistomologically special. No matter how many observations support a theory, it remains a theory, open to potential refutation by the next observation (which is precisely what happened with Newton). No matter how many observations, no matter how great our confidence in it, it never attains some magical, unassailable level (as was demonstrated clearly by Newton).

Apparently, words don’t have meanings. A fact is a proposition is a theory.

You’ve got to be kidding. I’m the one who’s being meticulous with the meanings of the words.

Guess that means its not fact after all?

Centurion68 on March 22, 2007 at 6:28 AM

You need to read more carefully. I said evolution is a fact. There are a variety of theories that attempt to explain the mechanisms of its operation.

RW: You keep telling me you’re arguing science, but I can’t find it. What, in your opinion, is the mechanism that caused all these different species to come into being and what is the meaning of the fossil record? I don’t mind if you don’t answer. It’s way outside the scope of this thread, so I’m feeling like a hijacker and will happily shut up.

Global warming is not due to “some sort of magic…solar system phenomenon.”

The debate is over.

I’m perfectly willing to admit that the various theories of evolution have huge holes in them

Guess that means its not fact after all?

Maybe it’s because he/she went out today, and got a sunburn?

Who knows?

Who cares?

Heh… Science, Facts, Astronomy……… they always get in the way.

RW, I apologize for my need to make a living while working on cogent arguments. But geez, dude, you’re coming across as awfully hostile.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Why would I be hostile when you can’t argue science so you start blabbing about me bringing God in to the argument, which I DIDN’T DO. YOU DID.

RW: Correct me if I’m wrong, but your arguments are encapsulated by the term Creationism, no? Creationism states (or implies) that a creator (supreme being, god, etc.) one way or another had a hand in making everything and everyone. So forgive me for inferring you meant God and not some generic agent of change. And yes, I know, you never mentioned “Creationism” either.

I’ve been studying your posts as best I can to find the scientific arguments to refute, but all I can find is that evolution is just plain stupid since nobody has, say, pointed out intermediate steps in wing formation. Okay.

I can envision a variety of ways and reasons for wings to develop slowly, over generations. There are creatures that can’t fly, but they come close. Ever heard of a flying squirrel? It can’t actually fly, but it can glide. That’s an intermediate step. What about mud skippers? Are those legs or fins? Gills or lungs? These arguments are not dispositive, I know. Nothing is dispositive of such a complex arena. I’m perfectly willing to admit that the various theories of evolution have huge holes in them, as you have endeavored to point out. The fact that you admit that microevolution is not in dispute makes me wonder how you so easily dismiss the notion that microevolution over geologic time scales might yield a variety of species.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM

I will correct you, because you are wrong. My ideas aren’t encapsulated in anything! I spoke about science, which is what the evolution side is afraid to do. I spoke about observable, testable, science. Not a story of origins totally made up to go along with it, that has nothing to do with the evidence. Finding variation within a species, and then making up a story that billions of years ago, there was so much nothing, it exploded in to everything, then there was rain on Earth, and it landed on rocks… AND LIFE HAPPENED! Then somehow, that developed in to the complex forms of life we see today.

That isn’t science, it’s a fairytale. Just like global warming, just because scientists call it science, doesn’t make it so. (I direct you to my earlier post on LiveScience’s article on the gliding lizard. The study showed nothing about evolution at all. But because evolution is assumed, the language is brought in with an obligatory line of worship to Pastor Charlie. Well, when evolution is always assumed, you can’t ever disprove it because the evidence is always twisted in to what is assumed to be solid truth… get it? There is a never ending stream of evidence that goes against evolutionary assumptions, and almost never do the studies say anything about how something evolved, but because it’s assumed that it did, they throw language in about how it must have “evolved different” or “faster” or whatever, instead of just reporting what they actually found.)

Now, as for your sad attempt to explain the intermediate steps of a wing… Even an evolutionist wouldn’t attempt to use a flying squirrel as an intermediate to a winged bird or lizard. Are you kidding me?

Yes, some birds have wings and don’t fly. But they don’t have a little nub. And a species, without the information already being engineered in to them, isn’t going to just sprout a full wing. Nor is it going to sprout a half, or even 1% of a wing. It would, as evolutionists love to say, take “millions of years”, but as I said, that mutation which would start as a nub (and please, don’t focus to much on the wing, this is just a visual example.. consider eyes, tonails, taste buds, ability to distinguish voices and smells, unique fingerprints, butterflies and birds that travel thousands of miles, turtles that return to beaches where they were born, bees that wiggle their butts a certain way that gives directions for the others on where to find food). Anyway, that “nub” would need to provide a benefit, or it would be selected out. But not only does a physical feature need to mutate, the functionality of that physical feature needs to come in at the same time, as well as the brain’s understanding and capability to use it.

As for your confusion of how I can accept microevolution, but be dismissive of macroevolution… it’s because we’re talking about two entirely different things. Micro, is slight variations within a species. It doesn’t require new information, previously non-existant. Mutations can only work with what they have.. they can lose, or duplicate, or mix up available information… But totally new information doesn’t spring out of nowhere. Here’s another brief explanation. There are many species of dog. But they are all still dogs.. They aren’t dog/fish hybrid’s or dog/bird hybrids. They are dogs. Micro-evolution is observed. Macro is assumed to fit a story that was written, so evidence (which more often than not contradicts) is forced in to the Evolution box.

I keep seeing references to the IPCC reports. I’m familiar with them. Of course, the IPCC refused to allow any scientists who disagreed with their assumptions of man-made global warming from participating, used models long debunked as faulty and missing many, many key variables (hint, to date none of them are able to take past data and even come close to predicting known climates).

Case closed.

There are good reasons to help take care of the environment. The problem is political activists have taken over the environmental movement and eventually will destroy any good environmental work because of their bogus hyperbole. And when the time comes that the planet faces a real problem no one will listen. Y2K hyperbole was first….the whole man-made global warming is second.

when my furnace keeps kicking on, reminding me how cold it still is.

Man, I so feel your pain. It was chilly enough this morning when I got ready for work that I almost didn’t wear flip flops.

It’s brutal here in California, let me tell you.

Bob’s Kid on March 21, 2007 at 4:20 PM

What? No toasty wildfires?

“The temperature of my rectum at time x was 99.7 degrees” remains a theory

“The temperature shown on the thermometer in my rectum at time x was 99.7 degrees” is a fact. Note that I never said anything about “the temperature of” my mouth, rectum, armpit, or testes; only the temperature reading on a specific thermometer at specific times in specific places.
The observations, the directly perceived data, are facts. The inferences I make from those observations are hypotheses, theories, etc.

If I stick a thermometer up my butt and record my temperature as 99.7 degrees Fahrenheit, that’s a fact.
If I stick the same thermometer in my mouth……
The Monster on March 21, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Dude! I hope you’d clean that baby first.

hahaha J?K
Sorry, couldn’t resist.

You can call it a “fact,” if you’d like, but it’s not in principle different from any other proposition. “The temperature of my rectum at time x was 99.7 degrees” remains a theory

Apparently, words don’t have meanings. A fact is a proposition is a theory.

Ridiculous. Like moral relativity.