warri0r45

Considering that there is several hundred theories on global warming I highly doubt that, and over 75% of those theories say that we are screwed for the next few hundred years, even if we do something now, it is very likely that we are too late. Forgive my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that there were 'several hundred' theories on global warming. Why do you say this?

(1) Fine, you have explained how science works. However, I'm not trying to redefine science, I'm questioning the authority and the validity of science. I suppose it's reasonable to search for the easiest scientific explanation but sometimes science can't explain things. Of course science knows its boundaries and it doesn't claim to be able to explain everything. What I don't like is that people who rely heavily on science seem to disregard everything that isn't science. Perhaps they could consider the concept of a God but that's a stretch and God probably just triggered the creation and nothing more. (2) How is natural selection the antithesis of undirected? Who's the director? (3) The most frequent criticism of ID is that it's not science. It's basically just a mantra. In my world view right and wrong is not equal to science and not science. Saying that it's not science is perhaps sufficient for you but it's not for me. (4) I haven't shut the door for theistic evolution but at the moment I have problems with the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. It also just seems like the easy way out to try and keep your credibility on the scientific field. (1) What am I supposed to rely on? An ignorant bronze age creation myth or tests which people actually perform to test the feasibility of their ideas rather than holding to them like dogma? Your questions of the validity of science are yet to have basis. The fact that you don't like that people rely on science rather than arguments from ignorance (ID's claim to fame is that it explains what we don't know by way of invoking something we can't possibly know and which, for whatever reason, dosen't require explanation) and belief is your prerogative yet I still disagree with you. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not telling you everything science posits is correct and everything else is incorrect (a lot science has to say is actually wrong, which is the reason for being accountable and not dogmatic), itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just my opinion that knowing is better than believing. If you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t like that, I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help you. Just my opinion. (2) Nature is the director (or god, as paperclips suggested, if you like). If you don't meet the requirements of nature, you're out of 'life' and you lose. That means your mutations must work. The fact that the IDists either donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know or neglect that natural selection is directed means they are ignorant and/or driven by agendas which seek to discredit the opposition in any way possible even if it means using a woeful misrepresentation. I vote number two. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve seen, heard and read enough to know the religious undertones of ID and the unbridled motivation to discredit evolution because of it. (3) Mantra? I'm telling you the way it is. I'm not telling you science = right and everything else = wrong (no, that's most definately not the way I see things - as I said, science can most definately be wrong and other ideas may well be right, but other ideas are irrelevant to me when discussing issues of science), I'm telling you why ID is not science, because it's always proffered as science when it's not. If you thought I'd just keel over without mentioning it when it's such a relevant issue given the nature of the beast then you thought wrong. I'll say it again, the idea that ID explains life better than evolution is not science, but your opinion, but, I don't suppose you should have any problem with that seeing as you question the validity of sciene in the first place, presumably in favour of your chosen belief (presumably only when something contradicts it). By the way, the fact that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not science is miniscule compared to the fact that it explains nothing and ignores masses of evidence, and is essentially wrong. (4) Yes, the compatability issue is your problem, not evolution's problem. If you think it's somehow noble to ignore a mass of evidence which your god made and clearly points to evolution as the only explanation then that's your prerogative. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve trifled through the papers for hours, trust me. This is no passing fad or appeal to science. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve studied biology on the cell and molecular level. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve seen how unbelievably well evolution explains the genome and how it leaves ID looking like one of the most foolish ideas ever. The whole notion that some supreme intelligence made the genome is blown out of the water with one word: pseudogene. Thus, you're down to being of the opinion that "not so intelligent design" is a better expanation than evolution, which in itself is a somewhat "not so intelligent design", driven by the restraints of nature and restricted to the genes that came before.

Great song.

Nice use of language. "itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s weak" and "we should cling to it". How did you manage to get that from "degrees of uncertainty" "favored" and "it can change"? I suppose then, firstly, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll apply this firmly at Crick and his unevidenced and invoked alien intelligence? Again, on this point, you seem to neglect how science works. It dosenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter in the slightest if a theory is weak ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ the weight of evidence is always the judge. By going with abiogenesis, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying to you itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s true or strong. Science dosenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t deal in absolutes nor do I. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m saying, as is science, that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the strongest theory we have. ThereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s no need to cling to anything; science is accountable and will "cling to" whatever other theory comes along and happens to be stronger by way of a greater weight of evidence. Again, this is of course your opinion and intelligent supernatural causes arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t science. Added to that, your definition of ID, indeed the whole ID movement, is based on this fallacious and dishonest definition. Natural selection is the antithesis of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâundirectedÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. The fact that youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d espouse this view is (a) a joke, slapping a whole field of science in the face by way of a grossly dishonest misrepresentation, and, (B) shows how little you know about science and/or how little you care about its integrity. Point one is that science is restricted in a methodologically naturalistic paradigm which streams into point two, that being that this basis allows for verifiability or falsifiability via test, a critical pillar of science. "God did X" or any variant thereof is not testable and fails to comply with the crucial pillar of testability. To claim any theory whose basis is on a supernatural untestable "intelligence" as science is being ignorant of what science is. And again, invoking this intelligence spits all over parsimony. So, on this point, weÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re down to ID being your opinion of the best explanation of life. As paperclips said, in accepting ID youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re neglecting the science. You could just as easily be a theistic evolutionist and see god as working through evolution, which would answer my question by way of intelligence doing nothing to change evolution. But IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not holding my breath.

Evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories, I'm not denying that. I also don't think that you undermine evolution just by saying that abiogenesis is improbable. (A) The issue is whether you should always talk about theories as if they were isolated from the rest of science. (B) If you don't mind lining them up, then I'm not sure what we're debating anymore. I just don't see the point to prohibit all talk about evolution just because it's an alien thread. © That wasn't really my point. I'm saying that sometimes we discover that theories aren't true just because we look at the big picture. (D) I'd say that it's important to consider it as long as it's still rather uncertain how life began. (E) I never said that I wanted to say something about evolution, I just didn't want to be denied the possibility. It was PaperClipsYaaaar who first mentioned evolution on this thread. I know what you were addressing, I just didn't think it made too much sense. If all books had common decent and were just more or less evolved, I would say that there is a contradiction when I claim that a specific book is supposed to rule all other books. Yes, that's true but that's not what I was saying. The point was that we should make sure that theories are compatible with each other. Evolution tells us how life evolved and abiogenesis tells us how life began. They complete each other. (F) If there is an intelligence behind the origin of life, perhaps we need to reconsider the theory of evolution as well. (A) I think you should remain topical at all times. If that means talking about both, so be it. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mind. (B) When did I prohibit talking about evolution? I've suggested time and again an invitation for something to debate yet we're still chatting about essentially nothing. © What is this point relevant to? (D) Right, so even after presenting mechanisms for self replication, symbiotic relationships and self polymerization of inanimate matter and the fact the Crick himself stated the ideas of non-intelligent panspermia weren't strong thus there is a need to invoke a non-evidenced intelligence you see it as fair to consider his opinion on par with what I cited? Science is not a democracy - it goes with the weight of evidence. Claiming uncertainty doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make it any better either. There are always degrees of uncertainty in science yet we still go with the weight of evidence. The thing about science is that it can change, so any theory, no matter how weak it is seen to be at the time, can be favored based on the weight of evidence only to be overtaken by another theory in the future if necessary. Sorry, on this point I just thoroughly disagree with you. (E) See (B). I can't help but comment why on earth this is an issue for you if you have nothing to say about what it is you don't want to be 'restricted' from saying. Firstly, no one's going to stop you. Secondly, you've got nothing to say, so why are you talking about this? Sorry I just don't get it. If you've got something to say about it, make a topic, PM me if you want, anything. It's your perogative. You do realise most of what we're talking about on this point is meaningless jibber, don't you? If you had something in mind that's topical now would be the time to save this conversation. (F) How would an intelligence change evolution?

edit

(1) I think that science should try to deliver a more extensive model of the world. (2) Instead it seems as if you want to separate theories so that they become independent of each other. (3) Theories should be like pieces of a puzzle so that they fit in with the whole picture. (4) It's like Newton versus Einstein. Newton's physics is correct if we're under normal scenarios. But it's not correct if we look at the big picture and different scenarios. (5) If there is no scientific consensus on how life began, then how do we decide which theories are the better ones? I'd say that the authority of certain highly acclaimed scientists must be significant when there is no general consensus. (1) That's the aim of the game. (2) I want to seperate these theories? They are seperate. They came about independantly of each other and deal with different phenomena. You should read the way Darwin thought it up. He didn't say "well then, how did the matter turn into life and then how did it get to the way it is today?", he observed finches on the Galapagos and saw thier beaks were suited to the food they ate and postulated that they shared common ancestry. As I've already said, The theory of evolution deals with there being life and it's change over time and our conclusions of it's extent are a logical outworking of these two premises. The truth of evolution isn't reliant on abiogenesis because we've evidenced how far back life went and it's nature at each time period. It's like telling someone studying aerodynamics to tell you where air came from. You know it's there, and you know what makes it tick. (3) And abiogenesis does. It's just lacking in experimental meat. The fact that evolution is seperate to abiogenesis dosen't stop us lining the two up, which seems to be what you want, for whatever reason. So what exactly is the problem here? (4) It looks like we've got an insinuation... make the next step... how and under what circumstances does abiogenesis fail. (5) I disagree. You should always go with literature, not scientific opinion and a fallacious appeal to authority. Here's some ideas lending support to abiogenesis: TalkOrigins - [1] Self Replication - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Symbiosis in self replicating systems - [7] Self Polymerization - [8] [9] [10] Now, for Crick's paper: [11] Sorry, I'm going with option A for the time being. Crick's opinion, based on his prose in this abstract, has just gone down for me. An 'Intelligent Design' solution with no evidence is not a solution. It's untested, unevidenced and spits all over parsimony. All this and still, no mention of evolution.

I'm not denying that global warming is happening, I'm not sure its the fault of humans that's causing it. Mars is also warming up as one example; and if you can't look from both perspectives on the argument then you look like the ignorant fool. (1) I dearly hope you aren't basing your opinion of the scientific mainstream that global warming is in the majority caused by humans on people like in the OP. This is exactly my point, you should NEVER base your opinion of it on alarmist morons, most notably any media source as they're prone to spew at you whatever sells and not a balanced literature based account. @ The bold, allow me to rehash: It's amazing what you can learn with a little research. General Reading: [1] [2] [3] [4] EPICA Ice Core data aligns with previous Vostok Ice Core data to reconstruct CO2 concentration and align it with temperature changes over the past 700,000+ years. Articles: [1] See figure 1 in detail. Notice the strong correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta D' - a temperature proxy. Also notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta O-18 (isotope of oxygen)' - a proxy of ice volume. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 260,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm. [2] See figure 3. Again, notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 400,000 year period was found to be around 290-300ppm. [3] See figure 4 in detail. Again, notice the strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Again, notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 200,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm. See figure 3 in detail. Notice the rise in CO2 concentration up to around 340ppm prior to the year 2000, uncharted territory for hundreds of thousands of years. [4] Notice the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are in excess of 380ppm. [5] Notice this summation of CO2 concentrations, in ppm, over the past 400,000 years, in line with the data already presented. Now, notice the huge deviation from the trend of CO2 concentration from around the year 1800 on; the time of the industrial revolution where masses of CO2 were being pumped into the atmosphere. Connect the dots. I conclude, from this little data gathering exercise, that it is ignorant to claim that CO2 concentration increases have nothing to do with modern warming trends and that human activity has nothing to do with these concentration increases. Ergo, we are contributing to global warming. This is nothing new. The consensus is that human contributed climate change is supported by the evidence. [6][7] So what of the argument that Mars is experiencing global warming, therefore it must be the sun and thus the sun is making earth heat up too? [8] [9] [10] So, according to these sources, albedo variations, which are the determinant of sunlight reflection back into space, are changing due to dust storms which act somewhat analogously to CO2 and the greenhouse effect - trapping solar radiation within the atmosphere. No excess solar output required. [11] Here, another suggestion for the changing climate on Mars is put forth - periodical planetary orbital wobbles and tilts akin to Milankovitch cycles on earth - the orbital and tilt shifts which are suggested control the ice ages. Now, for the idea that the sun alone causes climate change or that it's not humans that are the main contributors: [12] [13] [14] [15]

He means the Grand Unification Theory and the Theory Of Everything in physics. But I don't know enough about it to give an answer. Edit: There may be some truth in this: [1] So perhaps GUT incorporates all but gravity and TOE incorporates everything. As for paradigm shifts being infinite, it's theoretically possible given the nature of science but given we know many things and have a large working framework for how the universe and everything in it functions, I'd hazard a guess most of them are behind us (in my most modern "we know it all" biased view). I suppose what you should take out of this is that many past cultures thought they knew alot and every subsequent culture undoubtedly found out new things and proved old things wrong leading to a paradigm shift here and there. Perhaps the most honest answer is we never know what bit of revolutionary knowledge is around the corner...

What a load of opinionated alarmist BS. Don't base your opinion of climate change from alarmist morons or any media source. Read the literature. http://stke.sciencemag.org/ http://www.nature.com/index.html http://www.pnas.org/

(1) All I'm saying is that it's not necessary to separate abiogenesis and evolution so that we can't talk about evolution (which is the next step after abiogenesis) on this thread. The problem with abiogenesis is that it's highly improbable and we don't really know much about it. Abiogenesis and alien life almost falls under the category of faith, with the exception that it's natural theories and not supernatural. To me abiogenesis seems like an assumption based on the theory of evolution and that life obviously exists today. I also find it strange that a guy like Francis Crick would consider directed panspermia as a better alternative than abiogenesis. If there's anything that doesn't belong on this thread it's this question: (1) You mean so you can attack an obviously hypothetically based and less robust abiogenesis to make you feel like you've obliterated evolution? I see this kind of psychology all the time. The telling part of your post is the fact that you said nothing about evolution, when I invited you to suggest a point to debate and when you gestured not to separate the two thus removing evolution from the debate. So on that point I'm still waiting. Yes, abiogenesis is quite obviously hypothetical and highly improbable (in my ignorant opinion) but improbabale is not impossible and science is not based on the authority of names, however great they are, like Crick, or even Darwin. I hear people all the time quoting Darwin as if his Origin of Species is still highly relevant and the judge's mallet when it comes to evolution as if to say science dosen't go anywhere in 150 years and as if Darwin has some sort of ownership over an entire field of science. The same goes for Crick. If you want to woo me with names, make them names like science or nature. As for the language like 'assumption' and 'faith', it's called a (somewhat) untested hypothesis and I treat it as such. Not quite the same zing but you get that.

Just wait until you go to university and study 40+ hours a week \ university..studying? I'm at uni and haven't studied once lol. I've gotta get into into a better study habit. I've got 4 tests starting on the 7th Nov finishing on the 13th. :ohnoes: So yeah... I'm going to go study now. But I can share your bemusement - uni is just way too layed back for me to be motivated to study.

#-o Problem fixed for me.

A shark :P I wouldn't be suprised...anything on tip. it Haha, not quite. It's a barramundi. Currently 30ish cm but can easily get over 1m long. The tank is obviously no where near big enough to properly house such a monster so it's going in a dam when it gets too big. A few more years before it gets near that size, though. Feeding time can get pretty entertaining. Blink and you'll miss it.

So are you saying that evolution is irrelevant in an abiogenesis debate? Sure, abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution but they kind of go hand in hand. I don't see why we need or even should exclude evolution from the debate. If you want to debate it, suggest something to debate. As I said, abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. You can have evolution without even considering abiogenesis and we have evidence of that. You can have a group of organisms and suggest that the evidence tells us that they share some sort of common ancestry relationship. The theory of evolution has merely incorporated all the evidence and concluded all life shares common ancestry. And yes, I'm suggesting evolution is irrelevant in an abiogenesis debate because abiogenesis dosen't depend on evolution to be true, nor does evolution depend on abiogenesis; it depends on there being life and it's ability to change over time. Our conclusions of the extent of evolution's occurance in the past are merely a logical outworking of these two premises.

I have a fish that eats goldfish. Seriously.

I'd say that it's relevant to the alien debate: Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution deals with change in life over time.

Vioxx Rouge by Hospital The Musical

Liberal? You got that backwards. In a completely free market unions are an integral part of keeping everything nice. We aren't in a completely free market though so I don't really have an opinion. It's the Liberals, here in Australia, who spread anti-union propoganda so antaonwhy got it the right way around :P Hmmm. I'm deeply disturbed. A new convincing and revealing advertisement run by the Liberals on the Chaser's War on Everything warned of 100% of union officials being union officials under a Labor government!!! Rudd is a union whore devil!! :ohnoes: I swear Howard makes it seem as though the essence of existance will collapse under Rudds "70% front bench".

In Death - Is Life by Meshuggah. Killer intro/outro riff.

Kneel by Ion Disonance

I just gave cocaine a red hot go. Either I did it wrong or it's good if you want to have a quick meditation/nap. I'm assuming (never done the real thing) that the effects were miniscule or minimal at best. I'll need to try something harder (oh no, I've done it now, I'm going through I doser gateways to get my hard fix :lol: ).

(1) I think he would have. You don't make nuclear weapons for [cabbage]s and giggles. (2) I'd hasten a guess that gas would be cheaper than the large scale research and construction of a nuclear weapon. More effective too. You'd be able to document each death maticulously (as they did) and avoid any nuclear fallout or other undesirables. As for having nukes in the first place, I don't agree with anyone having them. As people have said, this is idealistic, not realistic.

I agree. It's like learning to drive. You don't just give your kid a car as soon as they can get thier licence and say "go nuts", you coach them through it, give them tips and get them lessons so they don't crash or become a problem driver.

That's downright decent of you. I'd just let you know (you've probably thought of this) not to advertise yourself as "designated dave" openly or you might get people getting smashed only to assume that you'll be there to take them home but when you don't turn up or there are too many to taxi around, they end up driving anyway.