a question for those who don't believe in global climate change

[Voidwar]

It doesn't just change on its own.

Quite simply false.

The earth is cooling. Air temp notwithstanding, the overall rock has been cooling for millenia and it does this on its own

Nothing simply changes.

Quite foolish assertion.

Our Star, Sol, is changing hydrogen into helium right now. On its own.

 

[Novan_Leon]

It doesn't just change on its own. Nothing simply changes. Orbital variations, variations in solar output, ocean currents, volcanic activity and CO2 ppm in the climate all are forcing agents.

Nature changes on it's own.

Evolutionists and global warming proponents alike make two mistakes:

1. They underestimate the vastness, complexity and power of nature. Nature is not fragile, nor is our entire global ecosystem likely to be thrown out of balance by farting cows like we're being told.

2. They overestimate man's ability to track and analyze all the facets of nature that simultaneously affect on another, and make predictions accordingly.

 

[Rick]

A lot people don’t realize just how thin that atmosphere is in relation to the earth. Scientist generally demonstrate it like this: If you took a basketball and painted a single coat of varnish on it, that layer of varnish would be about the same thickness as the earth’s atmosphere is proportional to the earth.

Hmmmmmmmmm .... Sagan's old claim - let's check it out:

Thickness of atmosphere (taking the Karman Line) = 62 miles.

Radius of earth: 3963 miles.

Ratio: 1.56%

NBA standard basketball radius: 4.7 inches

Proportional thickness on basketball: 0.07 inches.

Layer of varnish: .25 mm = 0.01 inch

Off by a factor of 7 ..... not bad! :lol:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Quite simply false.

The earth is cooling. Air temp notwithstanding, the overall rock has been cooling for millenia and it does this on its own



Quite foolish assertion.

Our Star, Sol, is changing hydrogen into helium right now. On its own.

Our sun is not just magically changing from hydrogen into helium, this is the result of billions of years of nuclear fusion. Nothing just magically happens, there is always a cause.

 

[Voidwar]

Nothing just magically happens, there is always a cause.

What "causes" radioactive emission from a particular atom at a particular time then ?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What "causes" radioactive emission from a particular atom at a particular time then ?

You are talking about physical laws now. Its an apples to oranges comparison. Our climate is not a physical law.

 

[Voidwar]

Our climate is not a physical law

A result of many.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

A result of many.

Exactly, and those are forcing agents and various positive feedbacks.

 

[UtahBill]

Exactly, and those are forcing agents and various positive feedbacks.

just positive feedbacks? no negative?

ever watch the show "Little Ice Age" ? or Mega Disasters, such as the one on TV right now about the possibility of a new era of extreme cold.

 

[jfuh]

Evolution is poppycock; so is the man-made global warming threat. You're right, there probably is a connection between at least these two.

To answer your question, yes, I would need to see a precise measurement of both nature's and man's contribution to global warming and the reasoning/evidence behind it. As far as I can see, there is nothing new about our current climate over anything within the last 500 years at least.

Evolution is poppycock? You might as well then just say that science then is poppycock.

 

[Novan_Leon]

Evolution is poppycock? You might as well then just say that science then is poppycock.

Evolution is junk science gone wild, much like the man-made global warming foolishness. When it was merely accepted as a theory it was different. The issue began when people began to accept and teach it as fact.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Evolution is junk science gone wild, much like the man-made global warming foolishness. When it was merely accepted as a theory it was different. The issue began when people began to accept and teach it as fact.

Obviously you don't know the definition of a Scientific Theory: A theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

For all intents and purposes, a theory in science is fact, until falsified.

 

[Novan_Leon]

Obviously you don't know the definition of a Scientific Theory: A theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

For all intents and purposes, a theory in science is fact, until falsified.

If so, this is poor science. When a theory has no solid scientific foundation, it should not be accepted as fact until something better can come along. In order for a theory to reach this level of acceptance it must first have a solid foundation, which, when you dig into the supporting evidence, neither evolution nor global warming do.

the·o·ry

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Creationism is also a theory; however, that doesn't seem to have you convinced. That's because a theory, in and of itself, means nothing. It's the amount of scientific evidence surrounding the theory that gives it credence. When your theory is supported by faulty science, then your theory loses all credibility.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

If so, this is poor science. When a theory has no solid scientific foundation, it should not be accepted as fact until something better can come along. In order for a theory to reach this level of acceptance it must first have a solid foundation, which, when you dig into the supporting evidence, neither evolution nor global warming do.

the·o·ry

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Creationism is also a theory; however, that doesn't seem to have you convinced. That's because a theory, in and of itself, means nothing. It's the amount of scientific evidence surrounding the theory that gives it credence. When your theory is supported by faulty science, then your theory loses all credibility.

Have you ever so much as stepped into a Museum of Natural History?

Also, for creationism to be a scientific theory, there must be positive empirical evidence for it, do you know of any?

 

[jfuh]

If so, this is poor science. When a theory has no solid scientific foundation, it should not be accepted as fact until something better can come along. In order for a theory to reach this level of acceptance it must first have a solid foundation, which, when you dig into the supporting evidence, neither evolution nor global warming do.

the·o·ry

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Creationism is also a theory; however, that doesn't seem to have you convinced. That's because a theory, in and of itself, means nothing. It's the amount of scientific evidence surrounding the theory that gives it credence. When your theory is supported by faulty science, then your theory loses all credibility.

Ok, then show us, convince us of the emperical evidence of creationism and not just "because you say so".
Hey guess what, gravity is just a theory as well - hence perhaps the earth revolving around the sun isn't real:roll:

 

[UtahBill]

Have you ever so much as stepped into a Museum of Natural History?

I used to visit them a lot, when I was just a child, but back then they were still zoos.

 

[Novan_Leon]

Have you ever so much as stepped into a Museum of Natural History?

Many times.

Also, for creationism to be a scientific theory, there must be positive empirical evidence for it, do you know of any?

I'm glad you asked. Yes, I do know of emprical evidence supporting creationism; however, I'm sure you would claim that this evidence is flawed. I would claim the same concerning evolution. In the end we're right back where we started. It comes down to the validity of the evidence surrounding the theory in order to give the theory credence. This is my point.

A theory without sufficient valid evidence to support it is nothing more than speculation. I'm not sure how you can dispute this.

Ok, then show us, convince us of the emperical evidence of creationism and not just "because you say so".
Hey guess what, gravity is just a theory as well - hence perhaps the earth revolving around the sun isn't real:roll:

We were discussing a comparison of evolution and global warming. I have no desire to delve into a debate on creationism.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Many times.



I'm glad you asked. Yes, I do know of emprical evidence supporting creationism; however, I'm sure you would claim that this evidence is flawed. I would claim the same concerning evolution. In the end we're right back where we started. It comes down to the validity of the evidence surrounding the theory in order to give the theory credence. This is my point.

A theory without sufficient valid evidence to support it is nothing more than speculation. I'm not sure how you can dispute this.



We were discussing a comparison of evolution and global warming. I have no desire to delve into a debate on creationism.

Dodge the question all you want, but as a Christian, I would love to see you provide positive empirical evidence of a creator. Please provide such an example. I only wish that C.S. Lewis was alive to see you do so as such evidence would be as big of news to him as it would be to me.

 

[jfuh]

We were discussing a comparison of evolution and global warming. I have no desire to delve into a debate on creationism.

Yet, that is the contrast that you give for why evolution is flawed because you believe that creationism is factual. By the same token of rational you believe that global warming is a myth. Hence I must ask you, what evidence do you have to support that creationism is the truth or what do you have to question evolution - for by the same rational then I can only then begin to discuss global warming with you.

 

[Novan_Leon]

Dodge the question all you want, but as a Christian, I would love to see you provide positive empirical evidence of a creator. Please provide such an example. I only wish that C.S. Lewis was alive to see you do so as such evidence would be as big of news to him as it would be to me.

But this is entirely besides the point. I brought up a comparison between evolution and global warming and somehow you guys want to force this into a debate on the validity of creationism.

Yet, that is the contrast that you give for why evolution is flawed because you believe that creationism is factual. By the same token of rational you believe that global warming is a myth. Hence I must ask you, what evidence do you have to support that creationism is the truth or what do you have to question evolution - for by the same rational then I can only then begin to discuss global warming with you.

How you can manage to bend logic like this is amazing to me. I need to justify my belief in creationism to be able to discuss global warming? Where did I even say I believe in creationism? Evolution and global warming is flawed because of it's lack of sound scientific evidence. What I think about creationism is completely besides the point.

You're funny guys, you really are. :lol:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

But this is entirely besides the point. I brought up a comparison between evolution and global warming and somehow you guys want to force this into a debate on the validity of creationism.

No, you are attacking Global Warming which is the scientific consensus, and you are stating the evolution is bad science. If you believe that evolution is bad science, then there is no point in trying to convince you of anything because such a belief is as hostile to modern science as one can get.

The reason why you need to justify your belief from a scientific perspective in creation, is that this is a scientific issue and debate. Scientists do not chose their beliefs in terms of scientific knowledge, but rather they simply accept empirical evidence. You on the other hand are obviously choosing which science you wish to accept or not just like one would choose their denomination.

 

[jfuh]

How you can manage to bend logic like this is amazing to me. I need to justify my belief in creationism to be able to discuss global warming? Where did I even say I believe in creationism? Evolution and global warming is flawed because of it's lack of sound scientific evidence. What I think about creationism is completely besides the point.

You made the claim:

Evolution is junk science gone wild, much like the man-made global warming foolishness. When it was merely accepted as a theory it was different. The issue began when people began to accept and teach it as fact.

Guess what, gravity is only a theory as well.
So you claim that like evolution global warming is junk science. You claim there is no sound scientific evidence in support of evolution when there is more than enough hundreds of folds over in support of evolution - just go to any natural history meuseum or sit in any biological science college class and you're actually learn it. Same with global warming

The problem with people like you is that you confine yourself to a set amount of knowledge and refuse to learn anything else on the topic. Then basing off of what you do know you state that everyone else is full of crap because you know a little bit about something.

In the scientific community there is no controversy over evolution nor about anthropogenic global warming - none - my rational can be easily supported in every single scientific paper ever published on either of the two topics. Not a single scientific paper has ever been published that ever contradicts the underlying premise of either these two. There is 0 evidence to contradict either of these two.
But people like you prefer to remain oblivious - it doesn't matter how much evidence I show you you're still going to be in denial and tout your religious bullshit day in day out regardless of.

So here's the message, instead of coming here with the intent of spreading rhetoric or propaganda go do some homework and actually research these topics - study the science instead of reading the propaganda that supports what you already believe.
This is a debate site, not your rhetoric blasting site.

 

[Novan_Leon]

I don't really have anything else to say on the topic, I just find it funny that neither of you want to debate the evidence supporting evolution or global warming; instead, you turn around and begin accusing me of "spreading rhetoric or propaganda" by claiming that two controversial theories are unfounded. You make over-arching statements against my approach to the truth but have no desire to discuss the details.

Oh well, que sera sera.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I don't really have anything else to say on the topic, I just find it funny that neither of you want to debate the evidence supporting evolution or global warming; instead, you turn around and begin accusing me of "spreading rhetoric or propaganda" by claiming that two controversial theories are unfounded. You make over-arching statements against my approach to the truth but have no desire to discuss the details.

Oh well, que sera sera.

You have provided no positive evidence for an alternative forcing agent behind our current warming.

You have provided no positive evidence for an alternative theory to evolution.

Who is not wanting to debate this?

Moreover, Evolution is as universally accepted as any theory in all of science. If you believe it be controversial, then I would challenge you to provide just one peer reviewed article or study that challenges it.

I might add, in terms of the majority of the world's 2 billion Christians, Evolution is the majority view. Literal creationist make up a minority among the world's 2 billion Christians. The majority view is that the Bible "contains all things necessary for salvation", is the inspired and authoritative source of truth about God, Christ, and the Christian life, but does not contain all necessary truths about everything else.

It is the majority view even in Christianity that the Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook and that we discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.

The only people for whom evolution is controversial are those that are ignorant or misinformed as to the science and empirical evidence that underlies the theory.

Finally, once again, if our current and projected warming is not due to greenhouse effect forcing, then what is causing it?

 

[Novan_Leon]

You have provided no positive evidence for an alternative forcing agent behind our current warming.

You have provided no positive evidence for an alternative theory to evolution.

Who is not wanting to debate this?

As I pointed out before, a theory built on faulty evidence should not assumed true by default until an alternative theory is presented. The only "proof" you've cited was that of community consensus, something that even proponents of the "world is flat" school of thought had centuries ago.

Also, it was not my original intention to start a full-fledged debate on evolution, but merely to compare the nature of the evidence behind evolution with that of global warming. I was struck by the fact that both you and jfuh immediately took the approach of attacking my intellectual integrity instead of calling me on the science behind my claims (which is proper form for the scientifically minded, I believe).

By all means, if you feel compelled to call me on my claim that "evolution is junk science gone wild", feel free to open a new thread and start the debate it a dedicated thread (or wait until someone else does).

Finally, once again, if our current and projected warming is not due to greenhouse effect forcing, then what is causing it?

Natural causes for one? Since you're not even able to show the total effect of humanity versus the total effect of nature on global warming, why should I believe that humanity is the primary cause?

Call me crazy but, humanity's inability to accurately explain numerous aspects of climate change phenomena, along with the numerous conflicting reports among proponents of the global warming crisis, leads me to be skeptical to say the least.