Global Climate Change

i think the word ur looking for dray is medium, XD

ok, u have the definition wrong, but going off of your definition, i already described how there is a molecule that is the basis for Rna, and can bring about life.

so then you accept that Hoyle was wrong?

what about vestigial structures, like bones for legs in whales, what does this tell you, and a fused tailbone in humans?

also, eventually, those species will generate into a new TYPE, like different TYPES of finches. eventually.

only ONe thing can't be both random and selective,

what you don't know is, the facts,

the random part is the errors in transcription onto Mrna, the errors that is,

later, due to natural selection.

no i meant media.

so if aard doesn't post again...

do we win? XD

Nah I'm choosing not to post again since you're not listening,

We win, now to pour salt to the wound, we win because we have refuted your every point, and now you say we aren't listening, thats crazy talk.

on evolution,


Frequently Asked Questions
and their answers

The following is a list of questions that appear frequently in the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins. Brief answers are given for each question along with a pointer to one or more relevant files. Outside links will open in new windows.








I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory.



Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?

No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.



Isn't evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology?

No. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided. See the Evolution and Philosophy FAQ.



If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?

Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.



No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you
know it's true?

Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Has Never Been Observed and 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.


Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?

Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ listing some more observed speciation events.


Doesn't the perfection of the human body prove Creation?

No. In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal characteristics. See the Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature FAQ.


According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn't that make evolution wildly improbable?

Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Proceeds by Random Chance.


Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQs and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


Didn't Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed?

The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant. A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. See the Lady Hope Story FAQ.


How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says it's young.

According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.


But radiometric dating methods rely on the assumptions of non-contamination and constant rates of decay. What if these assumptions are wrong?

Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination has occurred, while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments, and astronomical observations support the notion that decay rates are constant. See the Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of the Earth FAQ.


I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?

Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a decay in the speed of light was based on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which were taken hundreds of years ago. See the C-Decay FAQ.


If Earth is so old, doesn't that mean Earth's decaying magnetic field would have been unacceptably high at one time?

No. The Earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times throughout the planet's history. See the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field FAQ.


Isn't the fossil record a result of the global flood described in the Book of Genesis?

No. A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed in the geological record. This was recognized even prior to the proposal of evolutionary theory. See the Problems with a Global Flood FAQ, the April 2002 Post of the Month A Flood Geologist Recants and the Talk.Origins Archive's Flood Geology FAQs.


What about those fossils that cut through multiple layers?

They have natural explanations: tree-roots that grew into soft, underlying layers of clay, and fossils found in inclined strata. They can also be observed forming in modern environments. See the "Polystrate" Fossils FAQ.


What about those human footprints that appear next to dinosaur footprints?

The "man-tracks" of the Paluxy Riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas were not man tracks at all. Some were eroded dinosaur tracks, and others were human carvings. See the The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy FAQ.


Didn't they find Noah's Ark? I saw something on TV about this.

The producers of America's 1993 CBS television show, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," were hoaxed. Other ark discovery claims have not been substantiated. See the Sun Pictures and the Noah's Ark Hoax FAQ.


The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.

And irrelevant. Scientists don't claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors. See the Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs.


Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they be wrong?

The quality of an argument is not determined by the credentials of its author. Even if it was, a number of well-known creationists have questionable credentials. Furthermore, many creationists have engaged in dishonest tactics like quoting out of context or making up references. See the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ, the Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs, Quotations and Misquotations and Creationist Arguments: Misquotes


What about Immanuel Velikovsky? Didn't he show that Earth has experienced a lot of major catastrophes?

No, he simply claimed that certain written legends must have described real events. See the Talk.Origins Archive's Catastrophism FAQs and the Velikovsky FAQ.


Where can I find more material on the Creation/Evolution debate?

Contact the National Center for Science Education [off site], or see the Talk.Origins Archive and its "Other links" page. Also see the talk.origins Book Recommendations FAQ and the Creation/Evolution Organizations FAQ.


What about "intelligent design"?

"Intelligent design" (ID) advocates often use the very same arguments that the young-earth creationists have used in the past. The Archive does have some FAQs on Behe's "irreducible complexity", Jonathan Wells's "icons of evolution", and Dembski's "specified complexity" (see questions below). Further essays on "intelligent design" can be found on our sister site, TalkDesign [off site], and at TalkReason [off site]. "The Quixotic Message," or "No Free Hunch" [off site] deals with ID claims in a humorous manner.


Doesn't irreducible complexity (as described in Behe's Darwin's Black Box) shown that some biomechanical systems could not evolve gradually, but must have all their parts created at once?

Behe's "irreducible complexity" considers only an unrealistically simplistic model of evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms that Behe doesn't consider, such as functional change and coevolution, make irreducible complexity not only possible, but expected. See Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe FAQs and Irreducible Complexity Demystified [off site].


Hasn't Jonathan Wells shown that Darwinist claims about such "icons of evolution" as the peppered moth, Haeckel's embryos, and Darwin's finches have been disproven? If so, why are these claims still found in biology textbooks?

Scientists have been complaining for decades about the poor quality of science instruction in school and about the content of science textbooks. However, Dr. Wells's arguments include many false statements, many misunderstandings of the science involved, and many misunderstandings of the significance of the subjects that he pontificates on. See the Icons of Evolution FAQs and The Talented Mr. Wells [PDF format, off site].


Doesn't William Dembski's "specified complexity" mean that an intelligent designer had to be responsible for the observed complexity and diversity of living things?

The sophistication of Dembski's arguments is superficial. One of the most thorough examinations of Dembski's ideas is available on the Archive. See: Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates, A Presentation Without Arguments [off site], Mr. Dembski's Compass [off site] and The AntiEvolutionists: William A. Dembski [off site].


Isn't it true that scientists are abandoning evolution?

That is not even remotely true. See: The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism [off site], Project Steve: Humorous Testing of the Scientific Attitudes Toward "Intelligent Design," and Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates


If evolution is true, why don't you take Dr. Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge and make yourself rich?

Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge is a propaganda ploy and nothing more, rather like the "doctorate" Hovind claims from Patriot University. See: Kent Hovind FAQs: Examining "Dr. Dino."


Don't you know that the earth is round?

Yes, we do. We keep a copy of the "International Flat Earth Society" flyer here to document that real people in modern times do assert that the earth is flat, not because we think the earth is flat See: Documenting the Existence of "The International Flat Earth Society."


Where can I learn more about evolution?

You might start with the talk.origins FAQs. If, however, you want a thorough understanding of evolution, a library would be a more appropriate place to look. The following FAQs provide some good references: the Creation/Evolution Reading List, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ, the "What is Evolution?" FAQ, and the Talk.Origins Archive's Evolution FAQs.


Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.

from

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

*BOOM HEADSHOT*

No I re-stated things you ignored so you weren't listening. And very pompous FAQ, considering you don't know if it's true or not and never will. The theory is the best for scientific use at this time, but it's far from an infallible answer. True science requires you accept the possibility that you may be wrong, which was the original reason for my arguments. The minute you assume you're right, is the minute you divert from science.

From page two before we began debating:

Aardvark wrote:I don't subscribe to either Evolution or Christianity, and I admit that I don't keep a close eye on it because it's the epitome of pompousness to state what has happened

^Tru

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html


pwnzored

also, evolution has been observed, so, for you to argue that it does not happen, or that it is wrong, is exactly the same as me arguing for it.



the faq, is not, oh dear, shall i say it, pompous, because, as you can plainly see, it is qualified, and since that destroys your arguments, and the fact that everything on that website does too, every argument you brought up was REFUTED WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, on that site, WITH SOURCES.


*BOOM HEADSHOT*

every mathematical solution against evolution you bring up has fault in it, because it is simply not true^^

I stopped because you failed to answer the question of origin in a sensible manner, and I shall remain stopped because there are literally hundreds of arguments I could bring up to debate it, some of which I've seen answers on both sides that are plausible at best. I've seen explanations in evolution that use evolution to explain. This in and of itself is faulty logic.

Nihil wrote:I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact.

^pompous. The minute you assume your theory is infallible is the minute you fail as a scientist. Since you apparently don't understand this aspect you fail as well.

Now can we get back on topic. I understand you want to revel in "beating" someone who you think is a moron because he doesn't accept the reasons you put forth as plausible, but it's getting old, and sad.

Vestigial structures my friend, whales have bones that serve no purpose, why? they resemble leg structures, curious eh?

humans have a fused tailbone, resembles what used to be a protruding tail, curious eh?

also, i am plainly mopping the floor with you as i have presented every piece of real information from a non biased source that has hit home in defeating every one of your anti-evolution sources and ideas.

in addition, i have shown to you that humans are changing, remember body odor, in different regions.

So that already has nullified your argument that when i said that biological evolution happens is a fact.

also i have not brought up any information that uses evolution to explain evolution, rather than focus on ideas that are not presented in here, center your focus on the links i have given you that explain in every way why each one of your arguments is wrong.

again, if you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in science, as i have just proved using a wealth of information that has easily negated each of your positions.


The Question of Origin?

dear god, what do you mean, of life?

lol, i just explained before, in all of those passages, that it can happen, in steps, because of the natural tendencies of such molecules, and given that the earth was suitable to life, and that, as again, I SAID BEFORE, there is a molecule that is basically the forerunner to Rna that has been found in nature,

it is easily understandable that life would form on a convenient planet such as earth.

Also, if you don't put up a point in return, as you haven't yet to defy that data i presented, then we can't debate this topic and I win by default.

finally, any biologist that has a name for himself, in a good way, believes in evolution, so why not, again, trust the experts, not the frauds, phonies, and the christian nuts who vainly attempt to stop this theory, such as sarah palin, "oh i think that intelligent design and evolution should be taught side-by-side", she is a whack job that palin, because it does not agree with their religious views.

So you consider anyone who questions evolution a nut job? Fail at science.

Anywho. Like I said changing inside a species does not an evolution make. You don't seem to believe that a species can change and adjust without making the leap to evolution to an entirely new species, which I believe is a perfectly reasonable explanation considering we haven't seen an ape produce a baby of another species.

Kind of a jump to assume that since one bone resembles another it could only have been for this purpose. Kind of arrogant too. And there's also the possibility that the tail bone is just a protection of the tip of the spine to ensure that spinal damage doesn't occur by falling on your ass.

Yes you have. "You can't make life without life." "Rna can make life." "It's organic..." "Yeah and it makes life." "If it's organic it's alive." "Yeah so it creates life" *Brow twitch* Radiation kills organic matter, a solar wind hitting a planet is not going to leave organic matter behind. And you have to have organic matter to make organic matter. Is this simple enough yet?

Unlike you, I have a life. I can't spend all day researching biology that you would call crackpot anyway because by your own admission only Evolutionist biologists are credible. So what's the point? I've heard of people researching something when they believed in Evolution, found something they believe contradicts it, then they're called nut cases and the evidence is removed. I've seen it happen time and again with articles I read with no refutation and no explanation.

Fine you want to believe you beat me go ahead. I'm tired of debating this and I'm not going to continue since you won't believe any logic but your own. Fine you win, happy? You didn't change my belief, or anyone's that I've seen. But congrats you win at the internet, because you've worn my patience to the limit, and I'm tired.

Oh btw, good job. You called a woman nuts because she wants to let people hear two sides of an argument and decide which makes sense to them.

first off, that was answered in the faq, which you obviously didn't read.

secondly, why have useless structures? because they serve no purpose and don't harm the organism, THUS, meaning evolution is the answer and is displayed there.


Solar winds has already been answered on page 4 of my ridiculously long post,

i don't spend all day researching it, rather i have one site because the information that supports evolution is so abundant and accurate, because this site, WHICH I WILL GIVE U THE LINK TO AGAIN, has all the sources and junk.

THIRD, separation of church and state, PRIVATE SCHOOLS CAN'T HAVE RELIGION TAUGHT IN THEM, its the constitution silly.

yes what makes sense to you, the design of having the government teach religion, which you should be appalled by considering the very libertarian view points you take, as we discussed a LONG TIME, really long time, XD, back in the politics thread.

Unlike you, I have a life. I can't spend all day researching biology that you would call crackpot anyway because by your own admission only Evolutionist biologists are credible. So what's the point? I've heard of people researching something when they believed in Evolution, found something they believe contradicts it, then they're called nut cases and the evidence is removed. I've seen it happen time and again with articles I read with no refutation and no explanation.

example? are you saying that over 90% of biologists disregard data? thats awfully conspiratorial, or at least it has the same gist as the type of government conspiracy theories, such as george bush attacking the twin towers, bull shit there, but you know. Logic, to me demands a god, logic to me demands that scientists wouldn't over look data, logic to me demands that i listen to authorities in the field, with healthy skepticism, because i don't have a doctorate in that area.

actually, the tailbone helps break your spine.... since its protudence, it is a hard bone to break, and thus, its cinetic energy waves thru the rest of the spinal cord. its not good for stoping a fall....a good bone would be sth mroe blunt, and less sharpened, like a pillow. the fact its like that makes it more dangerous for ur spinal cord. just putting that out there.


and aard, dont defend sarah palin...dont. please.

Call me back when we get on topic again. KKTHXBAI

Dray The Fingerless wrote:actually, the tailbone helps break your spine.... since its protudence, it is a hard bone to break, and thus, its cinetic energy waves thru the rest of the spinal cord. its not good for stoping a fall....a good bone would be sth mroe blunt, and less sharpened, like a pillow. the fact its like that makes it more dangerous for ur spinal cord. just putting that out there.


and aard, dont defend sarah palin...dont. please.

i had a friend who once fell on it from a swing set and broke it, but anyways,

global climate change is surely a problem that must be dealt with, since, here is a diagram



my bad guys, you'll have to open in tab or window to see entire thing

Greenhouse gases comprise: H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, and O3. All of which are found naturally in nature and are produced by flora and fauna with the possible exception of N2O. An argument could be made that pre-industrial levels would also be high because of the higher degree of wild life, and also that simply living contaminates the atmosphere. We may not be helping it, but the planet has been resilient enough to resist it before, it would make a certain amount of sense to assume it can adjust to rising levels as well.

And I'm not defending Palin Dray. I'm defending the idea of letting people choose things for themselves and not have someone else make the choice for them. That's why America is considered stupid, we're fed everything we "need" to know so we don't feel the need to actually look things up for ourselves, or think.

well, the planet isn't alive, and last time i checked, due to the death of the Dinosaurs, the planet will survive, but we won't

unless we buy more time and prepare with science

also, O3 is actually what the atmosphere is made of, so, wouldn't O3 just be atmosphere?

Give me a break I'm using hastily looked-up terms and common sense to put an argument together. And the planet has adjusted to things before, according to either theory of origin(don't get back on the Evolution debate for this), you either believe the planet has adjust to a global flood, or an Ice Age, as has mankind. It doesn't seem something like minor radiation increases would kill off either the planet of mankind.

O3 is what the OZONE is made of, not the atmosphere. and it is produced naturally in Earth, otherwise, how could the ozone hole be getting fixed?

Guys give me a break. I had two pages on the fucking atmosphere in school in the 6th grade and I don't actually follow this. I'm debating based on logic, common sense, and alternate lines.

wha? im not even responding to you.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:O3 is what the OZONE is made of, not the atmosphere. and it is produced naturally in Earth, otherwise, how could the ozone hole be getting fixed?

lol, my bad, that was from a chapter in our chem book, apparently i didn't do too well on that exam, O.o.

it seems that we can't get away from evolution wherever we turn in this debate, because, according to my source, man was evolving during that time through the missing links or something like that XD

ok, but anyways, i don't think that man is currently in a position to survive that kind of ice age, i mean, look at us, we have trouble staying alive when it is winter and cold, so imagine if it was a bunch colder, making it hard to power electricity

if we don't prepare for that kind of event, then we will all be doomed, we need to buy time, by reducing emissions and by conserving our resources and advancing science so that we can protect as much of our world as we can.

Necessity is the mother of progress. We won't adapt until we are faced with extinction, if we will ever have the ability to adapt at all.

imagine living in Antarctica...

no one could survive that, if anything, natural selection wouldn't favor anyone, assuming that no one region of people has a gene that would help for extreme cold or heat.