Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

Originally Posted by Kees

I voted other. Statement B is correct IMHO. I think our climate is changing. However climate has never been stable throughout the eons. I think man is certainly partly responsible for climate change. It is all part of the famous J-curve. When a certain species appears its numbers will increase, if the increase is rapid and uncontrolled some event that is catastrophic to that species will cause a rapid decline in numbers or even extinction.

As there are too many hunmans on this planet, sooner or later there will be a decline in numbers one way or another. The current human population is only sustainable due to modern technology which is fossil fuel based.

That's why I voted for the option "other".

Too many humans? Come on brothuman. That's another old phoney scare scam used to scare and try to control people. Now look bro, I live close to the border of Bexar county Texas (check out the pics below) and you can do the math, I did, if you gave everyone on the planet an area of 2 feet by 3 feet (in fact you could fit 2 average sized adults, or 3 or 4 little kids in such an area) you could fit over 6 billion people inside of the Bexar county area with room to spare, the current world population even if given a 2 foot by 3 foot space which is plenty big even for larger people would only require an area 39 X 39 square miles. Surely you realize how small that is compared to the earth. Over population is another hoax.

I've read your response and found it quite similar to your previous post, so I re-read both. I'm seeing again statements that the experiment cannot be/has not been repeated, that the starting conditions were pre-arranged to yield the outcome, that the conditions in the experiment do not exist today, and that a "real" example has not been shown.

I've responded to all of that in my previous post.

The mention of Panspermia is on the same page in the wiki, but has nothing to do with the discussion of the actual experiment we are talking about. I see no mention of Dawkins on the wiki page, and since I am unaware of anything about him, I'm not sure why you've brought him up. I did read through the Wiki page on Panspermia, and I don't see anything saying that it is very widely accepted, so I'll have to rely on you to show me something saying that Panspermia is widely accepted.

Interestingly, your link and mine both go to the same place, and neither is the article we are talking about.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I've snipped up your statement just because I'd like to interject something about theories. No theory is "true." A theory may be well supported, but it actually cannot be shown to be true. This is part of the definition of a theory.

One could attach a truth value to the statement "life has evolved" in much the same way that one could attach a truth value to the statement "gravity exists," but the theories that explain evolution or gravity do not have truth values.

Maybe I'm just a bit anal after having sat through no only years of science classes but also years of philosophy of science classes...

Yeah, you're right, of course. I really didn't want to get overly semantic about it at the time, especially since the self correcting nature of science- that any theory or law, no matter how well established, can be overturned if there is sufficient evidence-is one of the things that is often manipulated to make scientific evidence seem weak, inconclusive, ect. The whole "its just a theory" argument, for example. Personally, I'm willing to say the theory of evolution is true, just as I'm willing to say the theory of gravity is true. If either of these were shown to be mistaken, I'd be so surprised I'd fall out of my chair... maybe.

(Plus, I was hungover and really didn't want to type a whole lot)

People require more than just space, so I don't think an argument against overpopulation based purely on space is sufficient. I'm not speaking for or against overpopulation, I don't know nearly enough about the subject to have an informed opinion. But I do know there are other factors aside from just population density as a raw ratio.

Originally Posted by xman

That's what all the others say too!

No they don't.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

It's not even a bum guess.
It's only accepted by the scientism cult as a whole, and anyone who disagrees is excommunicated and declared a heretic - aka not a real scientist - regardless of their education intelligence schooling or credentials.
And like any tenent of any false religion, they have to keep jumbling it around to make it line up with the real and unavoidable science unless they can suppress it when the faults of their doctrine get exposed.

As I said, there is a tremendous body of evidence supporting evolution. No theory supported by the scientific community as whole is just a "bum guess". It may be inaccurately labeled as such by people who wish to maintain their gods monopoly on creation, and the power of the organizations that benefit from this (religious organizations, obviously), but that doesn't change the fact that it's there, waiting to be observed.

There is no "Scientism cult" The nature of the scientific method prevents this. A cult is a group of people indoctrinated into a certain way of thinking that they are not to question, usually b/c there is no evidence to support the clams of the cult, or the claims of the cult fall apart when subjected to reason. Cults have always been the domains of mystics and religions. In science, everything is constantly questioned over and over. Calling the scientific community a cult is an attempt to bring it into the realm of belief, and make it seem as if evolution is simply another competing mystical belief system, which it is not. You can choose not to believe in gravity, but you'll still fall if you jump off a building.

I'm not sure, but it seems possible that you may believe something like there is a vast conspiracy of scientists to "dethrone God" or something like that. I can assure you that the scientific community is made up of many people who believe in many different religions throughout the entire world. Its not a bunch of atheists seeking to end religion by promoting evolution or anything like that.

[QUOTE=59caddy;480464]

Originally Posted by Pete_S

Well, evolution is a proven, robust, scientific theory that is accepted by the scientific community as a whole, and not disputed by any reputable scientists. Its absolutely true.

GOD IS REAL. that is my story and i'm sticking to it

No one said he wasn't. It doesn't have to be one or the other between God and evolution. As a matter of fact, the Pope encourages you to believe in both.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I've read your response and found it quite similar to your previous post, so I re-read both. I'm seeing again statements that the experiment cannot be/has not been repeated, that the starting conditions were pre-arranged to yield the outcome, that the conditions in the experiment do not exist today, and that a "real" example has not been shown.

I've responded to all of that in my previous post.

The mention of Panspermia is on the same page in the wiki, but has nothing to do with the discussion of the actual experiment we are talking about. I see no mention of Dawkins on the wiki page, and since I am unaware of anything about him, I'm not sure why you've brought him up. I did read through the Wiki page on Panspermia, and I don't see anything saying that it is very widely accepted, so I'll have to rely on you to show me something saying that Panspermia is widely accepted.

Interestingly, your link and mine both go to the same place, and neither is the article we are talking about.

If you want to believe in an experiment based on total speculation, then that's fine, that's your religion. And of course I forgot to mention their greatest false belief, that the world is billions of years old. Then, why is everything so young? The earth couldn't possibly be so old.

You don't know about Richard Dawkins? Surely you are kidding.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

I know their reasoning, they want you to believe that although they can't show you an example of what they want you to believe and although it isn't happening today or anywhere that can be observed in nature they just want you to believe that it must have happened and been that way in the past.

Actually, I don't think that was exactly the point of the experiment. There is the element of the hypothetical: IF these conditions are met THEN these results are possible. "Must have happened" is an oversimplification and therefore an easy (and unfair) target. Things are much more subtle than that. The point is that the possibility of that situation can be considered (or its impossibility can be dismissed).

Sometimes science progresses in small steps.

And the earth's early atmospheric properties CAN be inferred (or at least narrowed down) by evidence from other scientific disciplines.

It is said that God works in mysterious ways but I don't think we are either disallowed or incapable of at least partially unraveling some of those mysteries. I wonder if God would be so cruel as to mislead us with so much tantalizing evidence. Perhaps he has a mean streak? Or maybe his creation is less than perfect and has a bunch of inconsistencies. Maybe he will do a better job next time: no appendix, no optic nerves blocking our retina, no aortic loop for the laryngeal nerve*, etc... Lots of room for a more intelligent design.

*NOTE on laryngeal nerve: There are two nerves that go from the brain to the larynx. One of these (but not both) travels all the way to the heart, loops around an artery and finds its way back to the larynx. This is an odd detour in humans but it does the same thing in giraffes! It also does so in fishes where the equivalent to the larynx is in the gills but because of the overall structure of a fish (no neck) this happens to be a direct route and not a detour. Now if mammals evolved from fishes that could explain everything! As it happens, mammals DO have gills with similar "wiring" -- in the embryonic stage.

P.S. You haven't responded to my earlier post where I asked you for an alternative for us to consider.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

If you want to believe in an experiment based on total speculation, then that's fine, that's your religion. And of course I forgot to mention their greatest false belief, that the world is billions of years old. Then, why is everything so young? The earth couldn't possibly be so old.

You don't know about Richard Dawkins? Surely you are kidding.

I don't understand what you are referring to when you say "total speculation." There is a very clearly detailed experiment that is repeatable and has been repeated.

The age of the Earth is a whole other discussion which is not related to this one.

I do not know about Richard Dawkins. I am not kidding.