Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

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".

Willful stupidity makes me mad. I'm gonna make you guess how I voted.

Originally Posted by xman

Willful stupidity makes me mad. I'm gonna make you guess how I voted.

Well, the count for the way I voted hasn't changed so my guess is you should be mad at yourself!

Ya, me too.

2Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

1Cor. 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Ya, me too.

2Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

1Cor. 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Why should I choose your god over the large number of excellent gods available to me for worship?

Originally Posted by xman

Why should I choose your god over the large number of excellent gods available to me for worship?

This is the question that all need to ask about every "god" or "gods" be it money, science, religion etc.

Originally Posted by xman

Why should I choose your god over the large number of excellent gods available to me for worship?

Back in the late 1400's there was a very good reason that nobody expected ...



Today, take your pick but be careful who you offend. The Christians are a lot more tolerant than they used to be but others haven't mellowed as much.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Oh, my apologies, I referenced the experiment but did not link the article, but did not link to it. It is here: Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'ello D. Not sure about that link, I suppose that you probly mean this one - Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
But there still remains the fundamental problems which make it a faith based religious belief. Plus the want us to also believe that the archived sample of the experiments product is the actual product and has not been contaminated or corrupted in any way. And I would very much suspect that you realize that the mixture that they made was designed to be likely to produce the results that they were biased and predisposed to getting, it wasn't because they knew or thought or believed that it was the composition of the atmosphere supposedly billions of years ago, so they also just want you to accept and believe this by faith, no one knows what the atmosphere was like, and there isn't anywhere today that it is like that except in laboratory experiments. Why don't they just show an actual real example? Because it doesn't exist except in their minds and writings. And if it's a good scientific experiment then why don't they do it again and again and have students do it in classrooms, probly because it isn't and the results are not consistent, inconsistent results would not be helpful in building the faith of their converts and proselytes. 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. That is their reasoning. Do you think that this is good scientific reasoning? Not to mention that there where problems which you have probly read about which would have prevented the product of their work from forming life, but of course some have gone on since then trying to prop it up and make wild speculations and suppositions and excuses, which is exactly what any cult does in order to defend it's doctrine and threatened membership levels and existence. And no doubt you did notice that they in the wiki (and I will say as you should no doubt know that wiki is not an absolutely totally reliable and unbiased forum) they did unsurprisingly refer to the 'Directed Panspermia Theory', even Richard Dawkins is accepting of this theory. What a mess. In fact as you also probly know it is a very widely accepted though not much talked about theory in the scientism community which has largely abandoned Urey and Millers experimental practice and theory.

Again, it doesn't occur now and we can't show you an example in nature.
BUT, IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

Now you really and honestly are telling me that you can not see that the only thing that they proved is that some intelligent source using an environment that they have designed and are controlling can produce an intentional and anticipated and expected result? Really? You can't see that? Please kid, tell me it ain't so. I really do want to believe that you are smarter than that.



edit: huh, I guess that link gets messed up when pasted in here for some reason, sorry.

Originally Posted by xman

Why should I choose your god over the large number of excellent gods available to me for worship?

Because none of them come close to comparing to Him, and most importantly He is the only one who actually did something (not to mention just about everything) for you and all the rest of us.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Because none of them come close to comparing to Him, and most importantly He is the only one who actually did something (not to mention just about everything) for you and all the rest of us.

That's what all the others say too!