Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[palerider]

Are you suggesting that those who support AGW are drooling idiots? Because it appears that that is what you are saying?

Not necessarily drooling and in some cases not necessarily idiots. Duped would be the more accurate term.

duped -noun
1. a person who is easily deceived or fooled.
2. a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person

 

[Gipper]

Not necessarily drooling and in some cases not necessarily idiots. Duped would be the more accurate term.

duped -noun
1. a person who is easily deceived or fooled.
2. a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person

No doubt Pale...now how can we take all their money???

 

[palerider]

No doubt Pale...now how can we take all their money???

With agw sliding inexorably down the tubes, it sort of seems like the next catastrophe will be along the biological diversity lines. I have already heard that one mixed in with losing agw arguments. If you get in on the ground floor there I suppose there are some $$$ to be made. Get in and get out though, you don't want to end up like algore with is fortune tied up in (snicker) carbon credits.

 

[GenSeneca]

Palerider, you don't get to decide for me what is legitimate criticism and what isn't.

But you should get to decide what criticism of AGW is legitimate and what is not... Who is qualified to criticise AGW and who is not... Pretty convenient.

Are you suggesting that those who support AGW are drooling idiots? Because it appears that that is what you are saying?

While that is not what I said, I will once again point out that both you and PLC have repeatedly stated that opponents of AGW are "anti-science" and/or too stupid to understand "basic science".

Now as for my comment, I was pointing out the fallacy of your position...

You think the only people qualified to legitimately criticise AGW are scientists in a related field (but any who come forward are dismissed as being corporate shills)...

But when it comes to supporting AGW, anyone willing to support AGW, no matter what their background, is considered fully qualified to do so.

As I said, I've seen this tactic before used for both military and abortion topics. The latter claims that only women are qualified to comment on abortion and the former claims that only military personnel are qualified to comment on military matters - Both are fallacious arguments intended to eliminate as much opposition as possible.

 

[GenSeneca]

No doubt Pale...now how can we take all their money???

Follow the Al Gore model.... Start an organization to "raise awareness" for biological diversity. Offer some famous hand-wringing Liberal/Progressives a pile of money for doing a concert. Charge outlandish prices for the tickets but be sure to keep telling everyone "it's for a good cause" so they don't complain. Rake in a few million for yourself, pay the Libtards a few million, put the rest in your organizations account for the next concert, and don't do a damn thing to actually improve biological diversity.

If anyone catches on that you're not actually helping biological diversity, point out that your objective is to "raise awareness", not to actually do anything useful... That's what Conservative organizations are for.

 

[PLC1]

No because evolution suggests nature alone.

It might suggest it. It doesn't require it.

The laws of nature demand more entrophy, not more organization. Plus the sudden appearance of new species with no evidence of transitional species might suggest the outright addition of new species.

Or, it could signify that there are fossils yet to be found, or perhaps that many species died out without leaving fossils. We obviously don't have fossils for every species that has ever existed.

Is this my explanation for how we got here? Not necessarily but it seems more plausable than any explanation offered up by evolutionists and certainly requires less of a leap of faith.

That extraterrestials brought life to Earth, then created new species through genetic engineering requires less of a leap of faith than evolution, even though there are mountains of evidence for evolution, yet zero for ID.

OK, if you say so.

 

[palerider]

That extraterrestials brought life to Earth, then created new species through genetic engineering requires less of a leap of faith than evolution, even though there are mountains of evidence for evolution, yet zero for ID.

OK, if you say so.

First, there are not mountains of evidence for evolution. There are mountains of fossils, but precious little evidence for evolution beyond microevolution. No transitory fossils at all. All those so far claimed to be transitory have turned out to be frauds or like Archaeopteryx a full blown flying bird. The fossil had fully developed flight feathers, nothing transitory about it.

Secondly, it only requires a leap of faith if you believe that we are alone in the universe or at least the most advanced creatures in the universe.

 

[Gipper]

First, there are not mountains of evidence for evolution. There are mountains of fossils, but precious little evidence for evolution beyond microevolution. No transitory fossils at all. All those so far claimed to be transitory have turned out to be frauds or like Archaeopteryx a full blown flying bird. The fossil had fully developed flight feathers, nothing transitory about it.

Secondly, it only requires a leap of faith if you believe that we are alone in the universe or at least the most advanced creatures in the universe.

Hey pale maybe you hit on something there that we can use to take all the libs money.

We can claim we are from another planet. We will need to get libs to believe us. That should not be hard if we proclaim the following. No God exists, socialism is the answer, illegal drugs are enlightening, AGW is real cause it destroyed our planet, evolution is fact, killing unborn babies has no consequences, unlimited sex is good, etc...we ask libs for their money to help us proclaim the TRUTH TO THE WORLD....

What do you think?

 

[PLC1]

First, there are not mountains of evidence for evolution. There are mountains of fossils, but precious little evidence for evolution beyond microevolution. No transitory fossils at all. All those so far claimed to be transitory have turned out to be frauds or like Archaeopteryx a full blown flying bird. The fossil had fully developed flight feathers, nothing transitory about it.

Secondly, it only requires a leap of faith if you believe that we are alone in the universe or at least the most advanced creatures in the universe.

Sounds a lot like 2001 A Space Odessy

It's an interesting idea, and might even be true. There is no evidence that it is, but who knows?

Oh, and those mountains of evidence for evolution? No "transitory" fossils? Do you mean transition fossils? I think fossils quit moving around on their own some time ago.

There are feathered dinosaurs, of course, and some that glided from tree to tree, using feathers much as modern day birds do. There are upright creatures who had small brains, yet made simple tools. There are fish that had rudimentary legs. Modern day whales have remnants of legs.

But no, no transitory fossils.

 

[orogenicman]

" Plus the sudden appearance of new species with no evidence of transitional species might suggest the outright addition of new species."

Or, since many species are likely never preserved in the fossil record due to preservation bias, the appearence of new species might NOT mean that transitional species never occurred. IN fact, is it highly likely that they did occur, otherwise there would be no new species. And just for the record, there are no transitonal species in the manner in which creationism/ID tries to explain it. In fact, ALL species are transitional.

 

[orogenicman]

And the logical fallacy just keeps on coming. Here is a list of them. Be original, try something new. You'll get stuck in a rut if all you do is appeal to ridicule, engage in the various ad hominems, and confuse cause and effect.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Common Practice
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to Flattery
Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Spite
Appeal to Tradition
Bandwagon
Begging the Question
Biased Sample
Burden of Proof
Composition
Confusing Cause and Effect
Division
False Dilemma
Gambler's Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
Guilt By Association
Hasty Generalization
Ignoring A Common Cause
Middle Ground
Misleading Vividness
Personal Attack
Poisoning the Well
Post Hoc
Questionable Cause
Red Herring
Relativist Fallacy
Slippery Slope
Special Pleading
Spotlight
Straw Man
Two Wrongs Make A Right

Where, exactly, does Occum's razor fit into your list of logical fallacies?

 

[orogenicman]

And yet again, you prove beyond doubt that you don't know what the hell you are talking about and prove it by making claims that you can't support. Once more, I am laughing in your face.

What makes people like you claim that you know a thing for a fact when you have to know by now that you will be asked to prove it and you know as well as I that you can prove no such thing.

Translation: You either never heard of the Dover case, or have heard of it, and are how running away. PNWED!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

 

[orogenicman]

Of course I don't. You have proven already that you are perfectly capable of believing in whatever the hell you choose to without regard to its basis in fact. You have proven clearly that belief is all you have as you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you squarely on the ass.

It's it's not too much trouble, perhaps you could browse to PCLs poll where I posted a very length analysis of your petition.

Of course I don't? Of course I do. Oh, and I do believe that PCL specifically stated that personal attacks are not allowed on these forums.

 

[orogenicman]

No rational explanation, and no supporting observed evidence. How completely unsurpising. YAWWWWWWN

So, you, an alleged biochemist, don't belive that organic matter is composed of inorganic matter? What century did you say you received your alleged degree?

 

[orogenicman]

To point out to you that higher concentrations of CO2 didn't result in the "catastrophe" you claimed was coming.

The hypothesis of agw depends on backradiation. Sorry guy, but NO gas can re emit radiation and further warm its original heat source. You still believe in an energy surplus, ie perpetual motion.

Oh really? So you, an alleged biochemist who has repeatedly shown little actual understanding of biochemistry, are now claiming that the Permian/Triassic extinction had nothing to do with a serious run away greenhouse gas events?

Dude, the original heat source is the sun. Of course the CO2 isn't going to re-radiate it back to the sun, because the heat is now trapped in the lower atmosphere. What kind of silly argument are you trying to make here? Did you bother to read the huge article I posted refuting the argument of deniers about the greenhose effect? I assume that you didn't since you've yet to comment on it.