Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

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

So the scientists who research global warming are duped by their own research? Well, of course, that is a nonsensical statement that has no basic in fact, as witnessed by your lack of supporting documention.
 
Werbung:
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.

So what is your explanation for the fact that the extinction rate today is the highest it has been in many millions of years. Do you believe they are all committing suicide in a show of empathy for shopping malls?
 
"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."

Yeah, thinking minds ARE pretty convenient, aren't they? Imagine all the things you could do with one.
 
"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).."

This, of course, is not true. as I've already pointed out, there have been many learned professionals within the firld that question AGW every day. The difference is the process in which they conduct such criticism and their intent, which is to help science progress, as opposed to the vehemnence in which certainly people outside the field criticise it and their intent to make it go away. You don't see a difference?
 
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.

First of all, this is where you have overeached your expertise. I am a geologist, and am published in the Journal of Paleontology. I read as man issues as I can afford, which is quite a lot. In the 1990s, three of my colleagues and I discovered 8 new species of extinct Mississippian-aged crinoids, which were described over the coarse of several years, and then published in 2000. Along with those newly described species, where dozens of species for which only a handful, and in a few cases, only one other known extent specimen.

And we not only decribed new species, but an entirely unknown faunal collection (some 30 genera, and 72 ne species in a colection of nearly 450 speciments) insitu, enclosed in sedimentary structures in the limestone that demonstrated that the collection consisted of a local reef that had been subjected to numerous huge storms (the sedimentological term for rocks that contain these structures is "tempestites") over a period of hundreds of thousands of years. And this reef is now considered to be one of the most diverse crinoid reefs ever found. The diversity includes all three classes of crnoids, which is itself unique, because crinoids are classified based partially on the energy of the environment in which they can sustain themselves. Crinoids are filter feeders, and so have certain current requirements in order to feed. What's more, their strucures are such that some crinoids can only survive in a slow current due to their fragile nature. Others can withstand very intense currents and even ocean floor scouring at storm wave base. Then there is a transitional class that is less delicate than some, more stout than others, and yet can survive in all but the worst currents.

What was unique is that all three classes were found in a location that experienced very strong currents and even large, likely hurricane force currents. This had never been seen before, and even more interesting is that in this environment, all three classes thrived, many attaining very large sizes. This can only have occurred if there had not been ongoing adaptation to the environment in which they had been subjected, because it is clear that many of these fragile animals have never been seen in such environmental conditions. What was found was that they had adapted in a way that prevented either their calyxes from easily being ripped off the stems, or their holdfasts were more robust that was seen elsewhere. This is a classic example of evolution on both microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scales. For there are indeed trasition species in this collection, and those species are all inadunates, which is what would be expected, since they are the generalists of the three classes.

That said, the fact is that all species are, by the very nature of evolving, transitional species.
 
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?

So it is not truth you seek but personal gain. How typically conservative of you.
 
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.

No. I meant transitory. You might add a dictionary to your arsenal. Or at least look up the word before you suggest that it is used incorrectly. You guys operate on assumption after assumption after assumption; never bothering to check to see if you are, in reality, right or wrong.

transitory (ˈtrænsɪtərɪ, -trɪ)

— adj
of short duration; transient or ephemeral

http://news.discovery.com/earth/punctuated-equilibrium-how-stuff-works.html

CLIO: "That would help explain the lack of transitory fossil samples."

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...I1r-E#v=onepage&q="transitory fossil"&f=false

CLIP:Moreover, there has not been discovered a single transitory fossil that is able to confirm an accurate or a proven transfer of a basic body structure by evolution from a lower species to a more advanced species
 
Where, exactly, does Occum's razor fit into your list of logical fallacies?

If you applied Occam's Razor, you wouldn't be arguing that CO2 is driving the climate as the climate has been both warmer and cooler with higher and lower atmospheric CO2 levels. Occam's Razor tells you to find something else to blame.
 
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

And you actually believe that a court case constitutes any sort of scientific proof? You really are out there aren't you. I suppose you believe that because the court said that unborn human beings are something other than human, that in fact, there is a stage in which the offspring of two human beings is something other than a human being. I suppose if a court said that rocks were grass, you would be out of a job wouldn't you?
 
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.

Pointing out that you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass isn't a personal attack. It is a quantifiable observation.
 
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?

And still no evidence to support your claims. It is 5:41 in the morning and you are putting me to sleep here. I am going to be away for the weekend to see some offshore boat races, try and actually find some of your imagined evidence for next week.
 
So the scientists who research global warming are duped by their own research? Well, of course, that is a nonsensical statement that has no basic in fact, as witnessed by your lack of supporting documention.

Nope, the scientists involved in pushing AGW are the dupers, not the dupees.
 
So what is your explanation for the fact that the extinction rate today is the highest it has been in many millions of years. Do you believe they are all committing suicide in a show of empathy for shopping malls?

I asked you to name off a few species that have gone extinct in the past 25 or 50 years. If the extinction rate is the higest it has been in many millions of years, you should be able to tick them off at a prodigious pace.

Name them.
 
First of all, this is where you have overeached your expertise. I am a geologist, and am published in the Journal of Paleontology.

Considering the nunber of basic principles you have gotten wrong, I highly doubt that; unless you are perhaps a printer.

That said, the fact is that all species are, by the very nature of evolving, transitional species.

And which part of that do you believe constitutes an sort of proof?
 
Werbung:
If you applied Occam's Razor, you wouldn't be arguing that CO2 is driving the climate as the climate has been both warmer and cooler with higher and lower atmospheric CO2 levels. Occam's Razor tells you to find something else to blame.

Arguing that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change is rather stupid. Sorry, I can't be kind about this. Furthermore,. you have yet to explain why the climate is changing, if not due to AGW, and have yet to explain how a reactive gas can be released into the atmosphere at such high quantities every year, and not effect the atmosphere in any way.
 
Back
Top