Greenie-Weenies Knowledge Base matches CO² Levels...

[pjmret]

And, you're an example of that? I rest my case.

yes, i understand science.
and know how to use google.
you are too stupid to know how to google intelligently?
i rest my case

 

[mark francis]

intelligent people can use google to educate themselves.
you are clearly not in that group lol

If you want to be rightly educated you need to avoid the leftist lies and propaganda promoted by humans with misunderstandings of science, religion, business, and politics.

 

[mark francis]

i said they aren't scientists, *****. i don't go to them to learn science. duh
but like any advocate, they can be advocates for science. duh.
god you're stupid. lol

If you want to learn science you should do what worthy scientists do and examine all reports on every side in search of the truth among all the misunderstandings, misinterpretations, deceptions, dishonesty, and false science.

 

[pjmret]

If you want to be rightly educated you need to avoid the leftist lies and propaganda promoted by humans with misunderstandings of science, religion, business, and politics.

Says the science ***** who doesn't understand how co2 works in the atmosphere lol

 

[mark francis]

The Gaia Theory (James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, 1972) includes the pivotal effects of clouds forming as the sun heats surface waters to some point; those clouds reduce the sun's energy reaching the surface below the clouds, cooling the surface. The difference between Earth and Mars is water. No water, -no media to change solar radiation into heat-reflecting clouds. Clouds exist within a small range and deliver rain to places with little water. No water, -no weather. No weather, only one climate can exist; that being day or night.

Settled science is merely a different way to say that the issue is closed. Only minds can be closed; -science? Never!

I may be turning down a rabbit trail but I would like to say something about Lynn Margulis. She was a noted scientist in her own right and she married Carl Sagan right out of school. But she expressed a disbelief in some aspects of Darwinian theory that got her in trouble in her later years, in spite of the fact that she was right in her objections. But what surprised me was what she said about her conversation with Richard Lewontin, another noted scientist, who hinted at the fact that he also disagreed with Lynn about the errors of Darwinian evolution but kept preaching the erroneous dogma because of money.

Lynn Margulis disses evolution in Discover magazine, embarrasses both herself and the field – Why Evolution Is True 4-12-11

Finally, Margulis said something about my Ph.D. advisor, Dick Lewontin, that really bothered me. She characterized him as a money-grubbing scientist driven to take grant money for work that he knows is meaningless:

Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathematized all of it—changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of the talk he said, “You know, we’ve tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.” This just appalled me. So I said, “Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it’s gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?” And he looked around and said, “It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it I won’t get my grant money.”

 

[LittleGreenMan]

I don't have any standing in the scientific community, but I lean towards the, "all of the above" when it comes to evolution. It's my experience that there is no such thing as a single, all-encompassing rule that works in all cases in anything, especially something as complex as the evolution of all species over billions of years. I do a little Hosta hybridzing, and agree with LM that getting bigger eggs via accumulating big egg related genes will almost for sure get you bad feathers and wobbly legs. Also, the jerky progressions reflect (for me) the changes that result from environmental chemistry, that's a different kind of evolution. We do that too with a drop of diluted Round-Up at strategic times of growth of seedlings. Most drop dead, but occasionally one lives and sometimes results in ploidy changes, usually doubling. Sunspot eruptions could do similar things, but that's hard to control. It has been proposed that all Hosta have (retain) the whole set of Hosta genes and that crossing species merely turns on or off some that control this or that characteristic instead of really altering forever given genes. This seems to be indicated (in my mind) by those cultivars that "revert" to all green or otherwise "lose" the characteristics of a cultivar. (They don't actually "revert", new eyes are technically new, separate child plants that exhibit new characteristics that coincidentally look like Gramps). Hosta happens to be genetically unstable and that's why it all works. Hooray for that! I speculate that all species have some instability, but some more than others and this, too, contributes to evolution. When combinations of different mechanism arise together, the results can be very unpredictable. I would add that there is not a nice clean evolutionary record where one can follow progressions 1,2,3,4. There are gapping holes and lots of extrapolations goin' on, so I'm not convinced there are any absolutes, or even that all the different mechanisms have presented. So, that's a layman's rant.

 

[mark francis]

I don't have any standing in the scientific community, but I lean towards the, "all of the above" when it comes to evolution. It's my experience that there is no such thing as a single, all-encompassing rule that works in all cases in anything, especially something as complex as the evolution of all species over billions of years. I do a little Hosta hybridzing, and agree with LM that getting bigger eggs via accumulating big egg related genes will almost for sure get you bad feathers and wobbly legs. Also, the jerky progressions reflect (for me) the changes that result from environmental chemistry, that's a different kind of evolution. We do that too with a drop of diluted Round-Up at strategic times of growth of seedlings. Most drop dead, but occasionally one lives and sometimes results in ploidy changes, usually doubling. Sunspot eruptions could do similar things, but that's hard to control. It has been proposed that all Hosta have (retain) the whole set of Hosta genes and that crossing species merely turns on or off some that control this or that characteristic instead of really altering forever given genes. This seems to be indicated (in my mind) by those cultivars that "revert" to all green or otherwise "lose" the characteristics of a cultivar. (They don't actually "revert", new eyes are technically new, separate child plants that exhibit new characteristics that coincidentally look like Gramps). Hosta happens to be genetically unstable and that's why it all works. Hooray for that! I speculate that all species have some instability, but some more than others and this, too, contributes to evolution. When combinations of different mechanism arise together, the results can be very unpredictable. I would add that there is not a nice clean evolutionary record where one can follow progressions 1,2,3,4. There are gapping holes and lots of extrapolations goin' on, so I'm not convinced there are any absolutes, or even that all the different mechanisms have presented. So, that's a layman's rant.

I believe what Margulis said proved Richard Lewontin knew the evolutionist claims about DNA mutations causing Darwinian evolutionary changes in species were unprovable. Likewise, Francis Crick knew from his studies in DNA that life could not possibly have spontaneously begun on earth, which is why he promoted the panspermia theory of the origin of life on earth, which essentially surmised that life on earth was seeded by aliens in spaceships hovering over our planet. Furthermore, Carl Sagan, Margulis' husband, totally rebutted that idea with facts about harmful radiation in space.

 

[pjmret]

I believe what Margulis said proved Richard Lewontin knew the evolutionist claims about DNA mutations causing Darwinian evolutionary changes in species were unprovable. Likewise, Francis Crick knew from his studies in DNA that life could not possibly have spontaneously begun on earth, which is why he promoted the panspermia theory of the origin of life on earth, which essentially surmised that life on earth was seeded by aliens in spaceships hovering over our planet. Furthermore, Carl Sagan, Margulis' husband, totally rebutted that idea with facts about harmful radiation in space.

So someone has proven life couldn't have arisen spontaneously on earth? Crick didn't did someone else?

 

[mark francis]

So someone has proven life couldn't have arisen spontaneously on earth? Crick didn't did someone else?

The scientific arguments on all sides leave little doubt that life could not have begun on earth apart from a miracle and an unknown miraculous cause, of the type of miracle and Cause revealed in the Bible.

 

[pjmret]

The scientific arguments on all sides leave little doubt that life could not have begun on earth apart from a miracle and an unknown miraculous cause, of the type of miracle and Cause revealed in the Bible.

Prove it
But you won't as always
All you ever have is religious blather, not science

 

[mark francis]

Prove it
But you won't as always
All you ever have is religious blather, not science

As always you are way behind the rest of the academic world when it comes to understanding the facts pertaining to the origin of life on earth. If you disagree with those who see the Biblical explanation is the most acceptable from a scientific standpoint then you are free to make your claims with compelling arguments.

 

[pjmret]

As always you are way behind the rest of the academic world when it comes to understanding the facts pertaining to the origin of life on earth. If you disagree with those who see the Biblical explanation is the most acceptable from a scientific standpoint then you are free to make your claims with compelling arguments.

Let me know when you do anything except blather. You never post compelling credible proof of your nonsense

Post proof of a scientific concensus of the Bible explanation
But you wont

 

[LittleGreenMan]

As always you are way behind the rest of the academic world when it comes to understanding the facts pertaining to the origin of life on earth. If you disagree with those who see the Biblical explanation is the most acceptable from a scientific standpoint then you are free to make your claims with compelling arguments.

Life had to start somewhere. It may have been seeded here via comets or what have you from elsewhere, but whatever the mechanism, it occurred ~spontaneously~ somewhere. One might assume that it could happen twice if it happened once. Or even millions of times? Since we can't pin it down with today's science, that leaves it wide open to every kind of speculation. To each, his own?

 

[mark francis]

Let me know when you do anything except blather. You never post compelling credible proof of your nonsense

Post proof of a scientific concensus of the Bible explanation
But you wont

Don't be silly. Real science does not assemble a mob and then seek majority opinions upon which to build truth. That sort of mob agreement substitute for respectable scientific research is scientifically unacceptable.

 

[mark francis]

Life had to start somewhere. It may have been seeded here via comets or what have you from elsewhere, but whatever the mechanism, it occurred ~spontaneously~ somewhere. One might assume that it could happen twice if it happened once. Or even millions of times? Since we can't pin it down with today's science, that leaves it wide open to every kind of speculation. To each, his own?

Life could not possibly have begun on earth spontaneously without God. Likewise, with profound apologies to men like Rictard Dawkins, as Carl Sagan pointed out, life could not have traveled on spaceships to earth to be seeded into earth's atmosphere by space aliens.