Global Warming: Junk Mathematics

Science doesn't even support evolution? If it does then please provide me with a full fossil record. Both are at best theory and neither is supported by science.

0 Replies

Evolution is supported by the differing breeds of various animals... i.e., little Shetland ponies bred for island life, huge Belgian draft horses bred to pull brewery wagons.
A little "selective breeding" (manipulation of Evolutionary factors) has created worlds of difference within species... in a relatively short period (hundreds of years rather than millions).

0 Replies

ignorance may seem like bliss........but the ostrich with it's head in the sand also has his fanny in the breeze. You need to inform yourself a bit more before speaking with such authority.

I gotta go.

0 Replies

Magus wrote:

Evolution is supported by the differing breeds of various animals... i.e., little Shetland ponies bred for island life, huge Belgian draft horses bred to pull brewery wagons.
A little "selective breeding" (manipulation of Evolutionary factors) has created worlds of difference within species... in a relatively short period (hundreds of years rather than millions).

That's called "microevolution", i.e. the kind nobody disputes. They're all still horses, same basic organs, same basic plan for life, same basic behavior.

What IS in dispute is whether or not you can get to a new KIND of animal via anything resembling combinations of microevolution and/or mutations. Logic says you can't and the fossil record shows no signs of it ever having happened.

There are any number of things in the animal world which cannot plausibly have evolved. Take whalebone for example. You start off with primitive whales which all had the kinds of teeth which lions and bears have and ate meat, and supposedly those animals evolved into whalebone whales...

How??

How does an animal with the teeth and all the instincts to hunt and kill large animals start straining for plankton? In any kind of a long path of evolution from the one to the other you'd come to a point at which the animal did neither well enough to survive. Conversely, if some gigantic system of mutations took place overnight and the animal was simply born with baleen, he'd have none of the instincts to use it. He'd go on trying to kill large animals until he starved, which would not take long at all.

A new KIND of animal means an animal with new organs, new requirements for systems integration between those organs as well as old ones, and a new basic plan for life. The claim that evolution can produce such a thing is the basic false claim of the theory of evolution.

0 Replies

oh please, gsnake..............do you really not understand a thing about natural selection? All this happened over billions of years........oh well, never mind.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

ignorance may seem like bliss........but the ostrich with it's head in the sand also has his fanny in the breeze. You need to inform yourself a bit more before speaking with such authority.

I gotta go.

When it comes to facts you are the ostrich. Do you have proof of evolutionary change in the fossil record? If so then please provide this record.

I am a huge proponent of science. It is something I can see and work with, where faith isn't. I look at science as a way to explain how God did everything with out just accepting it was done.

0 Replies

Just a comment on the original post.

Many scientists, especially earth scientists, work with grant money. Their livelyhood often depends upon money from governments and institutions. To get money from these institutions, there has to be a concern i.e. Global Warming: Our Doom!!! Of course the scientist are going to say this or that is a major concern, impending disaster, vital research: They all want money!!! No government is gonna give money to a scientist that claims whatever he is studying isnt much of a concern, or not that big of a deal. They grossly exaggerate their claims in an effort to spark interest or fear, and thus get more money to investigate and study our impending doom.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

oh please, gsnake..............do you really not understand a thing about natural selection? All this happened over billions of years....

Right....

The basic claim is that something which has been repeatedly shown to be impossible is GUARNTEED to happen, if only enough time is involved. That's basically the same as claiming that if you add two and two long enough, eventually you'll get five instead of four.

0 Replies

stoplearning wrote:

Just a comment on the original post.

Many scientists, especially earth scientists, work with grant money. Their livelyhood often depends upon money from governments and institutions. To get money from these institutions, there has to be a concern i.e. Global Warming: Our Doom!!! Of course the scientist are going to say this or that is a major concern, impending disaster, vital research: They all want money!!! No government is gonna give money to a scientist that claims whatever he is studying isnt much of a concern, or not that big of a deal. They grossly exaggerate their claims in an effort to spark interest or fear, and thus get more money to investigate and study our impending doom.

You got it. Some people refer to that as the yuppification of science. That's basically a problem with our modern age which nobody envisioned 150 years ago. Until fairly recently, a scientist was also typically a member of the house of lords, whose income did not depend on any external agencies. Such a person could not be made to take or defend ridiculous positons due to financial exigencies.

0 Replies

That's news to me... English Scientists were "typically" House of Lords members?
Your supposition is that if you were a scientist you were granted a Lordship?
I recall no such thing.
A FEW eminents may have been born with or granted Titles, but I doubt that vast hordes of England's Scientific community made to those rarified heights.
(I doubt most Scientists could have afforded the clothing required for such social standing.)

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Until fairly recently, a scientist was also typically a member of the house of lords, whose income did not depend on any external agencies. Such a person could not be made to take or defend ridiculous positons due to financial exigencies.

You don't know much about the British parliamentary history, British history and British parliamentary system, do you?

House of Lords - homepage

0 Replies

The American educational system...a wonder to behold.

0 Replies

Canada? Whats so great aboot Canada. eh? Razz

It boils down to intelligence. A complete moron could be "educated in Canada!!!" and still fail miserably. Education isnt where its at. Wherewithal. problem solving, bottom end: The ability to solve problems, to plow through difficulty. That is a measure of an individual.

You can prance and preen all you want about the Canadian system. In the end, the results show the difference.

0 Replies

Eh, yes, stoplearning, ... I mean, you are saying by that highly qualified response now that Canadians neither understand mathematics nor evolution nor creation and you are an expert in British parliamentaryand constitutional law, et cetera - or did I misunderstand you and you only wanted to prove the correctness of your A2K - nom de guerre?

0 Replies

Huh? I am saying that all these countries that tout thier education system as superior are ultimatley deficient. They are educated, but the governemt solves many of their life problems. The people dont learn to help themsleves. Nanny government. Few obstacles. They can espouse some philosophical/scientific info, but if you place a seriious problem in front of them, I dont think they could handle it like many Americans.

0 Replies

Oh for goodness sake. I'm not touting the Canadian education system, you ninny. I'm pointing to the evident failings of the education of several posters on this thread. How on earth did these people get this stupid?

As regards the notions in your last post here, let me place a serious problem in front of you. Please find some empirical data to back up even a teensy bit of the claims you forward.

0 Replies

Your 'nanny governments' are called here parliamentary democracies.

0 Replies

Walter

Perhaps, if I place a big lever beneath the sacred 49th parallel, and if you wedge another into the contintental shelf just outside New York, we can float this abomination off over the edge of the world. It seems worth a try.

0 Replies

Gungasnake, I challenge you to come up with a reason why "microevolution" would not over time amount to "macroevolution", as species change bit by bit by bit.

0 Replies

blatham

I'll do that after having discussed the costs it with an engineer.

0 Replies

Global Warming: Junk Mathematics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know