Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[Gipper]

I got it Pale!!! I got it!!!! I have had an epiphany! Praise the Lord...we are going to be RICH!!!!

Incredibly rich...but we must keep the libs in the dark. That should not be difficult knowing their willingness to be defrauded. Now libs can all do their part every day to save the planet..thanks to our little green pill....

Here is my plan:
We develop a pill that liberals can take that will reduce their CO2 emissions. Since humans exhale on average 1,000 lbs of CO2 per year, we will reduce that number with our little green pill by 75%!!!! We will save the planet!!!

Of course, the pill will not really do anything other than give libs lots of methane gas causing more global warming...hahahahahahahaha.

But, we will claim it works and sell it on campuses, Hollywood, liberal centers like NYC, DC, etc...in health food stores, coffee shops, head shops (that should really do the trick).

Then we will claim all profits go to saving the whales...but of course this will be a fraud too, since there will be no profits...hahahahahahaha

Also, I know of a cheap drug lab in Mexico that can pump out the little green pills real cheap. The pills will come in the form of cute animals libs love like polar bears and such...

WE ARE GOING TO BE RICH!!!!!

And to further the fraud and make this most ironic, we will give millions to political candidates and organizations who fight the Marxist AGW movement and promote liberty for all Americans!!!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_CO2_is_exhaled_by_the_average_human_each_year
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

 

[dahermit]

Can you name one species that evolved into another species? That is the issue, not microevolution. If the theory of evolution were true, ie macroevolution, considering the history of life on earth, whenever a fossil is found, the odds would be in favor of that fossil being a clearly transitory form. Clearly, that is not the case.

I will take a shot at it. The unknown species of marsupial that is the common ancestor of all the marsupial species currently living in Australia.
Unless of course, you are using the terms "species" and/or "class" incorrectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial

 

[palerider]

I got it Pale!!! I got it!!!! I have had an epiphany! Praise the Lord...we are going to be RICH!!!!

Incredibly rich...but we must keep the libs in the dark. That should not be difficult knowing their willingness to be defrauded. Now libs can all do their part every day to save the planet..thanks to our little green pill....

Here is my plan:
We develop a pill that liberals can take that will reduce their CO2 emissions. Since humans exhale on average 1,000 lbs of CO2 per year, we will reduce that number with our little green pill by 75%!!!! We will save the planet!!!

Of course, the pill will not really do anything other than give libs lots of methane gas causing more global warming...hahahahahahahaha.

But, we will claim it works and sell it on campuses, Hollywood, liberal centers like NYC, DC, etc...in health food stores, coffee shops, head shops (that should really do the trick).

Then we will claim all profits go to saving the whales...but of course this will be a fraud too, since there will be no profits...hahahahahahaha

Also, I know of a cheap drug lab in Mexico that can pump out the little green pills real cheap. The pills will come in the form of cute animals libs love like polar bears and such...

WE ARE GOING TO BE RICH!!!!!

And to further the fraud and make this most ironic, we will give millions to political candidates and organizations who fight the Marxist AGW movement and promote liberty for all Americans!!!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_CO2_is_exhaled_by_the_average_human_each_year
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

When you said a little green pill to reduce their CO2 output, I was thinking cyanide in a green capsule.

 

[palerider]

I will take a shot at it. The unknown species of marsupial that is the common ancestor of all the marsupial species currently living in Australia.
Unless of course, you are using the terms "species" and/or "class" incorrectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial

Are you sure that there is a common ancestor? Of course, if you buy macroevolution, then you must also buy one class evolving into another as well, and at some point, members of one kingdom evolving into another.

I had stuck with species though because there exists no series of fossils that clearly show a transition from one species into another, much less showing one class or kingdom evolving into another.

 

[orogenicman]

I have no buddies that don't accept the laws of thermodynamics. More claims that you simply can not support. Your arguments have turned into nothing more than a joke. You can't provide any observed evidence to support your claims so now logical fallacy is all that is left to you.

You should be piss that you have been duped and led to believe that there was actual observed evidence to support the claims when in fact there isn't. Your church has left you hanging out to dry.

And what the hell do you think that ID has to do with the laws of thermodynamics? Evolution is the theory that seems to fly in the face of increased entrophy wouldn't you say?

Supporters of IS have, in fact, made arguments that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed. Secondly. since I am an atheist, what church do you think I attend. Third, since you yourself have pointed out that the Earth is not a closed system, how is it that you believe that evolution of life on Earth can violate the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[orogenicman]

If one looks at the gaping holes in the record, some sort intervention (probably of a genetic engineering sort) over vast spans of time would seem to be a plausible explanation if you believe that there are more ancient and advanced life forms in the universe than ourselves.

What gaping holes? If you are referring to the fossil record, there are several reasons for this. First, the relevative geologic time scale is not complete because the Earth is a dynamics system. Rocks erode, or else don't leave a complete record. Secondly, the fossil record is incomplete for the same reasons in addition to the fact that fossil preservation is the exception rather than the rule. If yo are referring to the "no transition fossils" argument, that is a false argument, since transitional species hae been found, and and since all species are transitional.

 

[orogenicman]

At this point, you have yet to show the first piece of observed evidence that CO2 or any other gas is driving the climate. Till you do, you just look silly showing evidence of change. In case you didn't know, evidence of change does not constitute evidence of cause.

Your response doesn't actually answer my question, does it? "Man did not exist when this happened?" Evidence of change doesn't constitute evidence of cause, but does rule out certain possibilities and rule in others because the nature of said evidence.

 

[orogenicman]

No because evolution suggests nature alone. 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.

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.

The Earth is not a closed system. Transitional species exist because all species are transitional. So you believe that ancient aliens travelling untold gazillion light years to "seed" a lonely rock in a galactic outback for no apparent reason is more plausible than species evolving on their own on a world which is well within the habitible zone of its native star. Well, isn't that special!

 

[orogenicman]

Why do you keep trying to inject God into the conversation?

Do you believe that ID is only about God?

ID IS about God, and only about God. Did you not read the transcript of the Dover trial?

 

[PLC1]

Can you name one species that evolved into another species? That is the issue, not microevolution. If the theory of evolution were true, ie macroevolution, considering the history of life on earth, whenever a fossil is found, the odds would be in favor of that fossil being a clearly transitory form. Clearly, that is not the case.

Homo habilis to homo sapiens. Therapsids to Pelycosaurs. There are many examples of evolution from one species to another.


Polar bears evolved from grizzly bears recently enough (some estimates say only about 70,000 years ago) that it is unclear whether they are really separate species. There have actually been incidents of interbreeding producing fertile offspring. Such relations between closely related creatures blur the lines between one species and the next. That blurring is, beyond question, proof of gradual evolution between species.

More about polar and grizzly bears here

Once again, the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" has meaning only to creationists. In terms of biology, they are the same process.

I saw no pictures and no examples of transitory fossils. What I saw primarily was you assuming that I had used the word transitory wrong and attempting to correct me.

The correct word is transitional, not transitory, but what the heck. Go ahead and make up your own vocabulary if you wish.

If you believe you know of some transitory form found in the fossil record, by all means post it and I will happily give you some credible material that shows that it isn't. There have been no transitory forms found in the fossil record.

you will happily give me material. Credible material simply doesn't exist.

Every species on Earth is in a constant state of evolutionary change, and therefore transitional. That change takes place very slowly, over what is to humans a very long period of time. If you want examples of transitional, or transitory if you prefer to misuse that term, species, than just name any species.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Do you deny that DNA is a basic body/cellular structure? If you agree that it is (and there is certainly no reason to suppose that it isn't), then do explain how it is that nearly all species above that of a sponge contains relic DNA strands of sponges in their genetic codes. Explain how all modern placental mammals have the same endogenous retrovirus strands in their DNA that caused them to be placental mammals in the first place. Explain how modern whales have relic leg bones of their terrestrial ancestors. Explain the transition between egg bears and live bearers, and the fact that there are living transitional species between the two. Explain live transitional species such as the duck billed platypus. Explain feathered dinosaurs. Explain the existence of such diverse echinoderm species as starfish, crinoids, echinoids, blastoids, and sea cucumbers.

 

[orogenicman]

Had no idea. I am pretty sure my parent's were homo sapien sapien, and to the best of my knowlede I am too. He must be mistaken. Hey, that would be a surprise, wouldn't it?

The point is that traits breed true. Your DNA consists of DNA you inherited from both of your parents. YOU are a composite of both of them, not an identical copy. This is how evolution works. There are no wild cows that bear any resemblence to the modern cows we have domesticated. The modern horse exists because we have bred the wild horse out of it. If artificial selection can make such huge changes in a relevatively shor period of time, imagine what natural selection can do over theeons of time. And what it can and has produced is all the diversity of life on Earth.

In nature, evolution works not on individuals of a species, but on populations.

 

[orogenicman]

Of course, since you can not produce a single one, you must make up some story to account for that fact.

 

[orogenicman]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6574/...f=FORID:9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=global+cooling#1046

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article...arm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

http://wbztv.com/curious/solar.min.sunrise.2.979838.html

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/20...daleo-we-are-headed-for-a-dalton-minimum.html

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/cw17434027026726/

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3515/...erature-drop--not-catastrophic-global-warming

There are plenty of warmings of cooling out there for anyone who is not under the influence of the koolaid.

The latest solar minimum has, in fact, ended. The sun has been very active all summer, and has had numerous sunspots and CME (coronal mass ejections).

Here is an image of the sun taken by SOHO today:

 

[orogenicman]

Can you name one species that evolved into another species? That is the issue, not microevolution. If the theory of evolution were true, ie macroevolution, considering the history of life on earth, whenever a fossil is found, the odds would be in favor of that fossil being a clearly transitory form. Clearly, that is not the case.

All species have evolved from another species. Your question is a red herring.