John Kerry on climate change...

[Kaos]

And the fact that only 74 percent of participants knew that the Earth revolved around the sun is perhaps less alarming than the fact that only 48 percent knew that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

Can't know something that isn't true. 

I believe in evolution.  Things evolve over time.  And I don't even believe THAT crap.  There's no "knowing" that because it's just one theory that hasn't been proven by any stretch.

For the record?  It is the absolute height of ignorant arrogance to claim that people who don't believe the money-driven hyperbole of man-made climate change are "anti-science."

I'm very pro science.  I also think that science and religion go hand in hand. That has noting to do with the GOP or the other silly ass arguments you tried to equate to not believing the Al Gore lunacy of global cooling warming change whatever lie is most convenient.

Go back to the "Irony" thread and look at the chart that RWS provided showing a clear and consistent pattern of warming and cooling that continues today with little top-end or bottom-end change.  It's a pretty compelling chart that doesn't cherry pick certain dates to make an argument that doesn't exist in order to line somebody's pockets.

You clearly make the assumption that people who don't believe in the global warming change hooey aren't educated or haven't read enough.  You're wrong.  I HAVE read. I HAVE researched it -- just as I did 35 years ago when they said we were all going to freeze and I was 13 years old and terrified of dying in an ice age before I got fully laid. 

I've read it. I've read both sides.  The more rational, more compelling and less "money for research" driven results are those that tell me this is nothing but man-made hyperbole. Posting more articles by scientists whose funding depends on answering a question in such a way that it generates more funding (and many of whom have admitted to faking or cooking numbers to generate their results) aren't going to sway me.  Neither is the rambling of a saggy-faced fool like John Kerry.

[Townhallsavoy]

Can't know something that isn't true. 

I believe in evolution.  Things evolve over time.  And I don't even believe THAT crap.  There's no "knowing" that because it's just one theory that hasn't been proven by any stretch.

The current study and understanding of biology and medicine is predicated on the theory of evolution holding true.  It's not like it's just a noodle hoping to stick to the wall. 

[AUChizad]

We are here:


http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/14398-exposing-the-con-game-of-man-made-climate-change

Well, you're in luck. Apparently only 75% of people believe the earth rotates around the sun. Maybe you can keep shouting down those libtards until you get it below 50.

[Kaos]

The current study and understanding of biology and medicine is predicated on the theory of evolution holding true.  It's not like it's just a noodle hoping to stick to the wall.

No. No it's not. 

I don't disagree with the fact that species change over time.  They evolve. That's obvious.

But I can disagree with what some consider the starting point and still embrace every bit of biology and medicine there is.  The Bible and science don't have to be mutually exclusive -- and to those with an open mind they aren't.

[Kaos]

Well, you're in luck. Apparently only 75% of people believe the earth rotates around the sun. Maybe you can keep shouting down those libtards until you get it below 50.

There are times I wish I was a lawyer.

Objection, your honor. Relevance.

Sustained. I'm not going to tolerate these obvious diversions, Chizad. Try it again and I'm holding you in contempt.

*Gavel sound*

[AU_Tiger_2000]

What do you deny, specifically?

All three things I just said? Just the climate change thing? Elaborate.

Climate change I'm ambivalent on.  I have no doubt that since we have started accurately tracking climate data (patterns, temps, precipitation amounts) that stuff has been changing, but really how far back does that go?  1850's?  And I doubt that that is worldwide tracking at that point.  I hear about measurements on the polar ice caps, we made it to the north and south poles in 1909 and 1911.  Is that really long enough data sample?

I tend to go with a younger earth view.  That's my faith talking so you won't buy it and I don't really care to argue about it on a football message board.  But I will say that Carbon-14 dating isn't as accurate as we once thought.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

Evolution, obviously goes with the above re my faith, but there's too many missing pieces in the fossil record to say for certain that macroevolution is a proven fact.  Microevolution is obvious.  Plus, evolution or not, science still has come up with a satisfactory answer for how life began in the first place.  When I was a kid in my elementary school science book there was some mumbo-jumbo about lightning striking a tidal pool to give the "spark of life".  I called that the "frankenstein theory".

Edit:  Oh and I think the earth definitely goes around the sun.

[CCTAU]

Three months ago proof was evaporating. Now, we are to believe that 97.1111111% are correct.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

[Kaos]

Three months ago proof was evaporating. Now, we are to believe that 97.1111111% are correct.

It probably evaporated because it was so dang hot this winter.  Thanks Al Gore, you punk.

[Townhallsavoy]

No. No it's not. 

I don't disagree with the fact that species change over time.  They evolve. That's obvious.

But I can disagree with what some consider the starting point and still embrace every bit of biology and medicine there is.  The Bible and science don't have to be mutually exclusive -- and to those with an open mind they aren't.

What do you mean you can "disagree"?  You have your own set of results and analysis to bring to the table? 

Genetics proves that there are branches from common ancestors tracing back to the earliest roots of life as a single source. 

[Kaos]

Genetics proves that there are branches from common ancestors tracing back to the earliest roots of life as a single source.

Not remotely true.  Genetics THEORIZES based on what it knows at this point.

[CCTAU]

What do you mean you can "disagree"?  You have your own set of results and analysis to bring to the table? 

Genetics proves that there are branches from common ancestors tracing back to the earliest roots of life as a single source.

Ah the primordial sludge again.

[Saniflush]

Ah the primordial sludge again.

I think I got drunk one night and went home with her.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

What do you mean you can "disagree"?  You have your own set of results and analysis to bring to the table? 

Genetics proves that there are branches from common ancestors tracing back to the earliest roots of life as a single source.

How did the earliest life form get something as complex as DNA right off the bat?

[Kaos]

How did the earliest life form get something as complex as DNA right off the bat?

Well. see, there's SEICNECE, dammit! It put it in thar. 

[Snaggletiger]

I don't know how they do it.  I just know they have science to back it up.  See?  Wow, science.

[Townhallsavoy]

How did the earliest life form get something as complex as DNA right off the bat?

It didn't.

[AUChizad]

It didn't.

So you mean to tell me it had to adapt? Change over time in order to "get it right"?

[AU_Tiger_2000]

So you mean to tell me it had to adapt? Change over time in order to "get it right"?

So you're saying that something without intelligence or even life at the beginning spontaneously developed a structure composed of chains of thousands of very specific chemical compounds?  Completely by chance, from nothing, took chemicals and just randomly started stringing them together in a way that it would control the very blueprint of life and end up with a successful plan?  Something that with our technology today we could not replicate in a lab under controlled conditions but occurred in a tidal pool or gas vent on the ocean floor?  And after we got one chain we would combine it with another chain in a helix formations so that we could split it down the middle so the single celled creature could replicate itself?  All by chance?  Time + Nothing + Random Chance = All this?

We can just agree to disagree, but to me that sounds as nutty as anything ever come up with by anybody.  And quite frankly has not been proven out.

[Townhallsavoy]

So you're saying that something without intelligence or even life at the beginning spontaneously developed a structure composed of chains of thousands of very specific chemical compounds?  Completely by chance, from nothing, took chemicals and just randomly started stringing them together in a way that it would control the very blueprint of life and end up with a successful plan?  Something that with our technology today we could not replicate in a lab under controlled conditions but occurred in a tidal pool or gas vent on the ocean floor?  And after we got one chain we would combine it with another chain in a helix formations so that we could split it down the middle so the single celled creature could replicate itself?  All by chance?  Time + Nothing + Random Chance = All this?

We can just agree to disagree, but to me that sounds as nutty as anything ever come up with by anybody.  And quite frankly has not been proven out.

That's what the world's leading geneticists think. 

Also, year one students at universities and most high school kids who decide to trust their teachers over Pastor Jimmy Bub. 

[Snaggletiger]

So you're saying that something without intelligence or even life at the beginning spontaneously developed a structure composed of chains of thousands of very specific chemical compounds?  Completely by chance, from nothing, took chemicals and just randomly started stringing them together in a way that it would control the very blueprint of life and end up with a successful plan?  Something that with our technology today we could not replicate in a lab under controlled conditions but occurred in a tidal pool or gas vent on the ocean floor?  And after we got one chain we would combine it with another chain in a helix formations so that we could split it down the middle so the single celled creature could replicate itself?  All by chance?  Time + Nothing + Random Chance = All this?

We can just agree to disagree, but to me that sounds as nutty as anything ever come up with by anybody.  And quite frankly has not been proven out.

So says Sheldon Cooper