Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[palerider]

You accurately predicted the outcome of the welfare state. Good for you, but why only black families? Don't whites get welfare payments as well?

Because blacks were a much smaller percentage of the population and a greater percentage of blacks would end up on welfare than whites. If you were aware of the black community at the time, and actually gave a ****, it was inevetable. Patrick Moynihan wasnt the only one who accurately predicted the outcome. In fact, the number of well placed people who did can only lead one to think that the people who pushed welfare through knew what would happen and did it deliberately.

A couple of observations about your post:

1. You confirmed my position that it is those calling themselves "conservatives" who tend to question established scientific theories, and gave an explanation of why that might be.

Are you calling anthropogenic climate change a "well established theory". Think again white man. Anthropogenic climate change is a half assed hypothesis. It will never rise to the status of theory in its present form. Hypotheses that are in opposition to physical laws are the stuff of politics, not scientists.

If "conservatives" are less likely to fall for a hoax, you might want to say something about Gipper's assertion that climate change is a way to make Marxism to take control of all the world, or perhaps for all to return to hunter gatherer status. Either of those beliefs certainly requires a high degree of gullibility, don't you think?

The primary driver of the hypothesis of manmade climate change is the UN. The UN has a stated goal of income redistribution. The UN has been caught repeatedly in fraudulent assertions regarding the "science" of climate change. You seem unable to divorce yourself from emotionalism and take a hard cold look at the facts. Even if a marxist agenda isn't at the heart of the anthropogenic climate change fraud, the hypothesis still lacks the factual wherewithall to make it scientifically plausable and there is no doub that the changes being suggested will drastically alter the way we live and cause great harm to the world economy. And based on what?

2. Biologists make no distinction between micro and macro evolution. It is a part of the same process. Creationists like to use micro evolution, as there is really no way to deny it.

You are telling a bio chemist that biologists make no distinction between micro and macro evolution? That's rich.

Here are some links to credible sources that state quite explicitly that micro and macro evolution are two distinct lines of thought. Most try to varying degrees of success to piggyback macro evolution on microevolution. They don't, however get even near the difficult issues with macroevolution that I have alread mentioned.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ev.tr.pr.pdf
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/pdf

Again, your broad brush exposes you as a shallow thinker ruled by emotion. Microevolution is observed science. Macro evolution is unable to answer even the most basic questions and has never been observed. It is a matter of evidence. Your statment proves my point though. Creationists do accept microevolution. I imagine that I would be making a true statement if I said that most creationists were conservative. That being said, most creationists accept microevolution as fact because the evidence in support of it is there. As I said, when you have real evidence (as opposed to pie in the sky piss poor hypothesis) conservatives are easy to convince because they are generally able to divorce themselves from the emotional feel good aspects of the issue and look at the facts for what they are.

Usually, people who attempt to stand reason on its head to deny evolution erroneously believe that evolution and god are opposing concepts. Is that your position?

I posed some very fundamental questions regarding macro evolution. Can you rationally answer any of them and provide hard evidence in support of your answers? I can ask that question with confidence because I know beyond a doubt that you can't. No answers exist or should I say, no rational answers supported by hard evidence exists. And yet, you claim that those who don't buy into the theory are turing reason on its head? What sort of reasonable person accepts a theory on faith when the proponents of the theory can't answer the foundational questions and have no hard evidence to support the claims?

My position is that there is hard observable evidence for one and no observed evidence for the other. I would have no problem with macroevolution on a religious ground if the evidence were there. I make fine furniture. I could afford to buy fine furniture if I wanted but I prefer the sense of satisfaction of making it on my own. I enjoy the feel of the wood under my hands and delight in shaping it to my will. Why would God buy off the rack when he could have the satisfaction of the work. Show me the hard observed evidence and I am in. Don't show me tiny pieces of bone fossil however, that have miraculously morphed into complete skeletons that proport to prove macroevolution.

3. There is no connection between evolution and abiogenesis. The first has been proven correct, the second is still in doubt.

Then were, according to your belief, did life arise? Your claim that there is no connection sounds like a religious distinction because you believe you can answer questions about one but know you can't answer questions about the other. If life didn't arise from non living substances, where did it come from and if it came here already alive, you have opened the door wide to intelligent design.

4. Global climate change is a theory. As such, it has been proven until and unless new facts not now in evidence are found. That said climate change is due to human activities is an hypothesis, not proven, but an idea that fits all of the facts.

Global climate change is a hard observable fact. There is no need to propose a theory that the climate changes because we see it happening all the time and throughout history. Manmade global climate change is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and a poor one at that.

I'm not going to try to discuss the theory of relativity, as it depends on higher mathematics than I've ever mastered. It is just interesting that self described conservatives want to try to refute that one, too, whether or not they possess the level of mathematical skills to understand it at more than a very basic level.

Did I try to refute it? I am a conservative's conservative and as such know that the material is over my head. That being said, on what rational basis would I refute it?

 

[palerider]

Obama is a Secret Muslim, Marxist, Terrorist, Not Born in America with a Fake Social Secrutiy number....but no they would never buy a hoax ( trickle down economics?)

Still nothing to say after all this time. How sad.

 

[palerider]

Now, you've put your finger on what I'm trying to get at. I've shown that self described conservatives do reject those three scientific theories, but is it really a part of conservative thought?

Rejecting bad theory is part of rational thought. Accepting bad theory even though no rational explanations for the events claimed by the theory exist and no hard supporting evidence can be found is a matter of faith, not rational thought.

If someone were to describe themselves as a conservative, then support global climate change theory, evolution, and relativity, would they be believable as conservatives, or would they be considered moderates, perhaps, or middle of the roaders, maybe even liberals in drag? What do you think?

Upon what basis do they accept the hypothesis. Upon what hard observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between man and the climate do they base their acceptance. I am sure that there are conservatives out there who are the kneejerk reaction type who can be swayed by their own ignorance so I am sure that there are conservatives who buy into the theory, but not because of any actual conservative thinking.

Could a conservative support basic science and still be considered to be conservative?

Being a scientist, I can unequivocally say yes. My bet is that it is your inability to actually recognize basic science that leads you to think that conservatives might not accept basic science. I have posed a number of very basic, elementary questions conserning the science you accept. I know that neither you, nor any scientist in the respective fields can answer them. An inability to answer even the basic quesitons precludes the existence of basic science unless you are willing to admit that you have no answers and your goal is to try and prove the basic science. That isn't what is happening with evolution or man made climate change. The basic questions remain unanswered and yet, the claim is that the theories represent reality and anyone who doesn't buy in is a wack job.

 

[PLC1]

Rejecting bad theory is part of rational thought. Accepting bad theory even though no rational explanations for the events claimed by the theory exist and no hard supporting evidence can be found is a matter of faith, not rational thought.

Yes, which is why I reject the notion that life forms we find today were created just the way we find them, with perhaps some tinkering by "micro evolution". There simply is no basis for that idea at all.

Upon what basis do they accept the hypothesis. Upon what hard observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between man and the climate do they base their acceptance.

They accept the hypothesis based on known facts. Nearly every credible climatologist accepts the hypothesis that human activity is accelerating climate change. Not being a scientist myself, I'm not going to try to posit a new hypothesis. Maybe that one will be disproved eventually, and maybe not. The opposition to that hypothesis stems not so much from facts and observations, as it stems from political opposition to fixes being proposed with no scientific proof that they would help.

I am sure that there are conservatives out there who are the kneejerk reaction type who can be swayed by their own ignorance so I am sure that there are conservatives who buy into the theory, but not because of any actual conservative thinking.

Correct. I see that all the time on these forums.

Being a scientist, I can unequivocally say yes. My bet is that it is your inability to actually recognize basic science that leads you to think that conservatives might not accept basic science. I have posed a number of very basic, elementary questions conserning the science you accept. I know that neither you, nor any scientist in the respective fields can answer them. An inability to answer even the basic quesitons precludes the existence of basic science unless you are willing to admit that you have no answers and your goal is to try and prove the basic science. That isn't what is happening with evolution or man made climate change. The basic questions remain unanswered and yet, the claim is that the theories represent reality and anyone who doesn't buy in is a wack job.

Being a scientist?

Did you or did you not, on the thread about scientific literacy, make the statement that the atmosphere does not retain heat? Could I have simply made that up, or misunderstood your scientific post?

 

[palerider]

Yes, which is why I reject the notion that life forms we find today were created just the way we find them, with perhaps some tinkering by "micro evolution". There simply is no basis for that idea at all.

Then propose a rational senario by which life could arise from non living material.

They accept the hypothesis based on known facts.

What known facts?

Nearly every credible climatologist accepts the hypothesis that human activity is accelerating climate change.

Based on what known facts? Based on what hard, observable evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between man's activities and the changing climate?

Not being a scientist myself, I'm not going to try to posit a new hypothesis. Maybe that one will be disproved eventually, and maybe not. The opposition to that hypothesis stems not so much from facts and observations, as it stems from political opposition to fixes being proposed with no scientific proof that they would help.

But you are perfectly willing to accept a bad hypothes based on no particular understanding of the science and are willing to ignore thousands of scientists who reject the hypothesis and hundreds of published papers that expose glaring problems with the hypothesis. Upon what basis do you accept the words of one group and deny the claims of the other if you admit that you don't grasp the science? Why accept the words of climatologists, when physical scientists (chemists and physicists) experts in the hard science that climate science relies on nearly universally reject the hypothesis. My bet is you accept because of the politics involved as the science, by your own admission can have no real role in your position.

Your claim of the hypothesis being rejected based on politics rather than facts, is just one more claim that you can't prove. Everyone I see here who is rejecting AGW is doing so based on the science.

Correct. I see that all the time on these forums.

Not nearly so often as you see liberals of the same sort although you probalby won't admit that any more than you will admit that you are one of them in light of your admission of not understanding the science but still trying to defend the postiion.

Being a scientist?

Yes, I am a biochemist.

Did you or did you not, on the thread about scientific literacy, make the statement that the atmosphere does not retain heat?

No I didn't. I said that there is no mechanism by which a gas molecule can absorb and retain heat. If you don't even grasp the misunderstanding you just made, then your position must be entirely political.

Could I have simply made that up, or misunderstood your scientific post?

Clearly you misunderstood it, and misunderstood it badly, but do feel free to bring forward any such quote from me in the context it was written.

 

[PLC1]

Then propose a rational senario by which life could arise from non living material.

abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.

What known facts?

Far more than there is room to post here, but this is a small part:

Based on what known facts? Based on what hard, observable evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between man's activities and the changing climate?

The same ones we have already discussed over and over.

But you are perfectly willing to accept a bad hypothes based on no particular understanding of the science and are willing to ignore thousands of scientists who reject the hypothesis and hundreds of published papers that expose glaring problems with the hypothesis.

Well, you did post one name on another thread. It didn't take long to discredit that name, as you recall. There are not "thousands of scientists" rejecting the hypothesis.

Yes, I am a biochemist.

If that's so, then you should understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

No I didn't. I said that there is no mechanism by which a gas molecule can absorb and retain heat. If you don't even grasp the misunderstanding you just made, then your position must be entirely political. Clearly you misunderstood it, and misunderstood it badly, but do feel free to bring forward any such quote from me in the context it was written.

Could be. I'll look for it. So, then it is your position that the atmosphere absorbs heat.

I don't think I said anything about a "gas molecule" holding heat. The individual molecules of CO2, methane, or water vapor are not holding heat, of course.

Here you go:

Unless, of course, you want to engage in word games.

Once again, thank you for supporting my position, as well as my new signature line:

Self described conservatives think they have to try to refute at least three accepted theories in order to be considered conservatives.

 

[orogenicman]

Then how is it that you missed the fact that your own site stated quite clearly that the energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is emitted, never mind the fact that they failed to note that it is emitted instantly and that a CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission spectrum of another CO2 molecule.



Describe how you believe this "barrier" to work. Keep in mind that once a CO2 molecule absorbs and emits IR, no other CO2 molecule can reabsorb that energy. How does a single absorption and immediate re emission of a parcel of IR represent a barrier



By definition, a closed system is a region in which energy may cross the barrier but matter may not. Are you claiming that matter may not cross the "barrier" that you claim CO2 represents?

No offense, but if you took 3 semesters of chemistry, you wasted your time.

By definition, an isolated system is one that has no interaction with its external environment-a system without any input. Closed systems with outputs are knowable only thorough their outputs which are not dependent on the system being a closed or open system. Closed systems without any output are knowable only from within.

The Earth is not an closed system, but the fact remains that CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as methane and water vapor causes heat build up in the atmosphere. If this was not the case, the Earth would not be habitable. So, since you are so convinced that the greenhouse effect is a myth, how do you explain the build up of heat energy in such experiments?

 

[orogenicman]

My political philosophy is conservative. That has nothing to do with my philosophy as a scientist. Proof convinces me. Hypothesis supported by strong observed evidence impresses me. Pop pseudoscience attempting to dress up as science and spewed by folks who lack the education to grasp the foundational problems with the pseudoscience they are spewing doesn't impress me in the least.

People who can't support their climate beliefs who engage in ad hominem and circumstantial ad hominem attacks in lieu of defending their postion impress me even less. You want to talk science, lets talk. You want to paint with a broad brush, you are wasting your time and mine as it is no more and no less than so much mental masturbation.

So you are saying that the scientists who do support the notion of global warming (and that would be the bulk of the world's scientists) are all wrong, but you somehow manged to get it right? The Nobel committee, no doubt, is waiting to hear from you.

 

[orogenicman]

"Are you calling anthropogenic climate change a "well established theory". Think again white man. Anthropogenic climate change is a half assed hypothesis. It will never rise to the status of theory in its present form. Hypotheses that are in opposition to physical laws are the stuff of politics, not scientists."

What part of global warming defies the laws of physics? Do be specific. So you are also saying that global warming is a UN conspiracy? What was it that PCL said about being gullible?

 

[orogenicman]

"Again, your broad brush exposes you as a shallow thinker ruled by emotion."

Wasn't it you who complained about ad hominem attacks?

 

[orogenicman]

"Macro evolution is unable to answer even the most basic questions and has never been observed."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[orogenicman]

"Then were, according to your belief, did life arise? Your claim that there is no connection sounds like a religious distinction because you believe you can answer questions about one but know you can't answer questions about the other. If life didn't arise from non living substances, where did it come from and if it came here already alive, you have opened the door wide to intelligent design."

I could ask you the same question. If life didn't arise from non living substances, and there is indirect evidence that it did, where did it come from, palerider? Is "God did it" a valid scientific answer? You realize, of course, that the watchmaker analogy was refuted over 80 years ago. Right?

 

[orogenicman]

"Global climate change is a hard observable fact. There is no need to propose a theory that the climate changes because we see it happening all the time and throughout history. Manmade global climate change is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and a poor one at that."

So, what do you think happens to that 6 billion tons of greenhouse gases we emit every year? Does it magically disappear? There is no connection between ocean acidification and the amount of acidic gases we emit every year? None at all? No connection between deforestsation and changing climate patterns? No connection between deforestation and soil depletion? No connection between global warming and the decrease in species diversification? No connection between global warming and the feedback effects we see that are currently happening, such as methane release from arctic tundra? Even if global warming is not caused by human agents, is it not still a huge concern, not only for those who live in coastal communities, but for the world at large? Even if we can't do anything about it, doesn't it behoove us to stop wasting our time arguming about it and try to mitigate what is surely a coming disaster of global proportions? Or are human beings and the rest of the life that lives here simply to go with the flow and let nature do what it will? Is there not a better way?

 

[orogenicman]

"Rejecting bad theory is part of rational thought."

Rejecting theories is not enough. If you reject a scientific theory, particularly one that is well established in the scientific community, then you must present an alternative that at a minimum explains what the current theory already explains. Even better, your alternative should explain more facts and do it better than the current theories do. Got anything like that? Creationists reject evolution for a myrid of reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that they are scientifically illiterate. But their only alternative seems to be "God did it". And of course, that doesn't explain anything.

Ages ago, desert tribesmen wrote down their myths, tales, lies, and gibberish. For centuries these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, torn to pieces, repeatedly shuffled, and badly translated into many languages. Creationists believe this text is the best guide to modern science.

 

[palerider]

abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.

So you believe that the life here on earth didn't originate here on earth? Lets start with the basics PLC1.

Far more than there is room to post here, but this is a small part:

What you have posted doesn't constitute proof of anything. In typical fashion, when asked for proof you claim that there isn't enough room to post the proof of evolution when the fact is that you could post all of the actual proof of macroevolution that exists on a grain of rice in a large font.

The same ones we have already discussed over and over.

You have never presented any and the discussion has always revolved around the fact that you can't present any. Have you noticed that as the conversation gets more involved and you are challenged to a greater degree that your answers get shorter and shorter? How long before you are speaking in sentence segments?

Well, you did post one name on another thread. It didn't take long to discredit that name, as you recall. There are not "thousands of scientists" rejecting the hypothesis.

What name? What discredit? And of course thousands of scientists are rejecting the hypothesis. The global warming petition project has accumulated almost 32 thousand signatures. Over 9,000 phDs. 3,800 of those specialize in air, earth, and the environment. Nearly 13,000 are educated in the hard sciences, physics and chemistry, biochemistry, biology. There are other petitions as well that include thousands of names.

If that's so, then you should understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

I do, but it is necessary to start at the basics. Again, do you believe that the life here on earth originated here, or did it come from somewhere else.

Could be. I'll look for it. So, then it is your position that the atmosphere absorbs heat.

Gasses in the atmosphere absorb and immediately emit IR radiation with the exception of water vapor which is the only gas capable of absorbing and maintaining heat. The atmosphere, is somewhat (not perfectly) analagous to a blanked. It slows the escape of heat, but like a blanket can not cause you to have a fever. It can not raise your temperature, it can only reduce the rate at which heat escapes.

If you are really interested, you can confirm this yourself relatively easy. Pick yourself a couple of points on the map along the same line of lattitude and to keep it simple, as nearly the same altitude as you can. Make one a coastal area and one a desert. The closer they are the better.

Check out the daytime temperatures. The desert will be hotter because the relative absence of water vapor in the atmosphere will allow more of the energy of the sun to reach the earth. The earth warms to a greater degree and the lower atmosphere is warmer LOCALLY because there is more radiation escaping the earth. Not because CO2 is holding it in. In the coastal area, the daily temperature will be lower because the greater humidity absorbs a the incoming radiation to a greater degree resulting in less warming of the earth and therefore less emitted IR.

Now look at the temperatures after the sun goes down. Both areas have the same atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but the desert cools at a very rapid rate once the heat source is gone. It cools faster because of the low relative humidity. Less water vapor, less "blanket" effect. In the coastal area, due to the high relative humidity, the night time temperatures fall much more slowly. The escape of heat has nothing to do with CO2, it is a function of water vapor. If CO2 were capable of retaining heat, the desert wouldn't cool of so quickly at night.

Unless, of course, you want to engage in word games.

I believe I just demonstrated with my example of the coast vs the desert that the atmosphere does not "trap" heat. And it is you who must engage in the word games.

Once again, thank you for supporting my position, as well as my new signature line:

'

Let the word games begin. Your position is one of ignorance by your own admission.