Less traffic accidents = less injuries and car repairs.
Less injuries and car repairs = cheaper insurance.
Cheaper insurance = lower insurance company profits.
Lower profits = insurance co’s raise rates to compensate…..
Crap. Never mind.
Ashpenazsays
The perfect adaptation of the eye–evolution did it. The appearance of a useless appendix–evolution did it. The appearance of all major lifeforms in the Cambrian explosion–evolution did it. The lack of a fossil record for most transitional forms–evolution did it. The ability of a malaria-bearing mosquito to evolve and adapt in just a few generations–evolution did it. The inability of a mosquito to become a plum–evolution did it. The desire men have for lots of sexual partners–evolution did it. The ability to sacrifice oneself to create the Sistine Chapel–evolution did it.
Is there anything evolution can’t do?
My point is, why do you distrust the data on global warming and then say it is simply moronic to distrust the data on evolution? Is it possible that science is pushing its own agenda in both cases?
Ash, I’ve seen you’ve posted variations of this “logic” in other comments, and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’re just being silly. This is an “affirmation of the consequent” fallacy.
Evolution is science and is widely accepted. Global warming is also science. Therefore it must also be accepted.
How many papers promoting evolution were blocked from publishing by anti-evolution forces within the scientific community? How many papers promoting evolution contain data and methodologies that have been either hidden from view by the authors, or lost. Did the theory of evolution and its proponents ever have to use statistical tricks or “hide” an inconvenient fact in order to bolster the theory? The only times that has happened in the evolutionary field of science, was when the science in question turned out to be fraudulent.
Piltdown Man is as good an example as any.
Does that one example mean that evolution has suddenly become invalid? Of course not. Why, because all the science that proves evolution is open to all comers for challenge and rebuttal, and the data to support it is freely shared with anyone who wishes to look at it, regardless of whether the person is an evolutionary scientist or not. Climate science? As those who have been following this over the years can attest to…. Not so much.
Does that mean that climate science is not science… Again, of course not. But when you have scientists hiding data, losing data, presenting worse case scenarios as the likely outcome and hiding evidence that things are not as bad as they have been portrayed – see the latest on the IPCC deceptions on Antarctic ice extent increases… All of these things are absolutely unacceptable in any other scientific field. But in Climate Science, well….
ThatGayConservativesays
Remember, Dan, it’s responsible for everything from acne to Yellow Fever.
I hope you will watch Ben Stein’s movie Expelled for an account of how much of the evidence for intelligent design has been blocked by the academic community. Scientists have an agenda, whether it comes to global warming or evolution. They decide what they want to believe, and then they refuse to publish or refuse tenure to those who won’t tow the party line.
plutosdadsays
ID does not belong in schools, ID is not science. Teachers already teach what we know and don’t know about evolution and how it happened, that is called science. You can also teach what we know and don’t know about carbon’s effect on the atmosphere, both of those are science. But intelligent design is not science, it is called “argument from incredulity” which is a logical fallacy. It is equivalent to saying “I don’t believe you” over and over. That is not science.
And there were quite a few lies in that movie, like one professor who claimed to be fired for his views.
The perfect adaptation of the eye–evolution did it The appearance of all major lifeforms in the Cambrian explosion–evolution did it. The lack of a fossil record for most transitional forms–evolution did it.
There is the Nautilus and other creatures in the sea that have half an eye, eyes without lenses, eyes with partial lenses.
There was no cambrian explosion, there were creatures that lived before that did not lend themselves to be fossilized (bacteria can be fossilized but it doesn’t really happen often), and more and more fossils are turning up to prove there was plenty of life.
Yeah transitional forms, sorry that is BS. You have two fossils, A and B, then we find a C which seems to be in the middle, then you ID types say “aha! but what about between C and B! See there is a gap!” whatever
Well I don’t know about evolution (I look at life through a hybrid lens) but I do know whenever Ash gets going about ID it causes a mass extinction of whatever the topic of the post originally was.
Ashpenazsays
The topic of this thread was how we all seem to distrust science when it is pushing its global warming agenda. What I find interesting is that when it comes to evolution, everyone jumps to the defense of science. I’m still not sure why you distrust science’s liberal agenda when it comes to global warming and trust science’s liberal agenda when it comes to evolution.
I love that idea that there was no Cambrian explosion because the creatures before that couldn’t be fossilized. So if there ARE fossils, evolution is true, and if there ARE NO fossils, evolution is true–and this kind of logic is coming from people who think that Anselm’s proof for the existence of God is moronic.
ThatGayConservativesays
All’s I’ll say is that global warming isn’t science. Religion, yes. Political scheme to screw the people into submission, oh hell yeah.
Patsays
Ashpenaz, many critics of AGW are using data to support their conclusions, and using the fact that many proponents of AGW are using shenanigans to support their claims.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. If you and other critics want to believe otherwise, it is up to you to come up with evidence to support your contention. This is not to say that God did not mastermind evolution. What scientists are interested in (whether God did this or not), is how this happened. And so far, none of what evolutionists say is inconsistent with physical laws. What you are trying to do is come with an argument that defies physical laws. As such, you have the burden to prove this.
Ashpenazsays
I think that the cell is proof of intelligent design. I don’t think that something as complex as a cell can come into being through natural selection in the time alotted using the materials available. Show me evidence that natural selection produced the first cell.
If you don’t have evidence, if you simply say, “There’s no way to know but I believe in the power of natural selection to do this,” then you are simply making a leap of faith in natural selection and attributing powers to natural selection which it hasn’t been shown to have. How is that different or smarter than faith in God?
The_Livewiresays
Global warming has kept all the trolls away from the thread.
But then if all the trolls do start commenting… well… that is of course a “sure sign” of Global Warming!
Stone Ksays
What do you expect from a paper based in san fran? One article in the chron said lack of fog would endanger the redwoods. but from the areas they mentioned in the article there were no redwoods.
This is also the paper that advocated legalizing pot and banning cigarettes and promotes the idea that illegal immigrants are the good guys and cops are the bad guys.
They don’t know their @$$ from their mouth.
Patsays
13.I think that the cell is proof of intelligent design. I don’t think that something as complex as a cell can come into being through natural selection in the time alotted using the materials available. Show me evidence that natural selection produced the first cell.
Ashpenaz, my understanding is that cells today, which are rather complex, as you say, evolved from simpler and much cruder cell prototypes. I personally don’t have proof of that, but will leave it to the scientists as to whether there is proof of that. In the meantime, just using common sense. I didn’t notice your proof of intelligent design either, except other than your conclusion of “It’s complex, therefore it couldn’t have happened from any other mechanism other than intelligent design.”
Mark W awsays
There was a big storm in DC recently. Al Gore was told to make an igloo there and that was proof that warming is a hoax. Case closed.
It is mid February and the temperature in DC is over 40. In a few days the forecast is that it will be 48 degrees. Does that prove that it is no longer a hoax?
Or is it a teensy bit more complicated than that?
By the way, what is the difference between “climate” and “weather” ? They are not interchangeable terms.
The_Livewiresays
No Mark,
It’s still below average. *and* it doesn’t change the faulty data. Like here.
But since you won’t accept any data that would disprove global warming, I doubt this will persuade you.
This is great news.
Less fog = less traffic accidents.
Less traffic accidents = less injuries and car repairs.
Less injuries and car repairs = cheaper insurance.
Cheaper insurance = lower insurance company profits.
Lower profits = insurance co’s raise rates to compensate…..
Crap. Never mind.
The perfect adaptation of the eye–evolution did it. The appearance of a useless appendix–evolution did it. The appearance of all major lifeforms in the Cambrian explosion–evolution did it. The lack of a fossil record for most transitional forms–evolution did it. The ability of a malaria-bearing mosquito to evolve and adapt in just a few generations–evolution did it. The inability of a mosquito to become a plum–evolution did it. The desire men have for lots of sexual partners–evolution did it. The ability to sacrifice oneself to create the Sistine Chapel–evolution did it.
Is there anything evolution can’t do?
My point is, why do you distrust the data on global warming and then say it is simply moronic to distrust the data on evolution? Is it possible that science is pushing its own agenda in both cases?
Ash, I’ve seen you’ve posted variations of this “logic” in other comments, and I’m not sure if you realize it, but you’re just being silly. This is an “affirmation of the consequent” fallacy.
Evolution is science and is widely accepted. Global warming is also science. Therefore it must also be accepted.
How many papers promoting evolution were blocked from publishing by anti-evolution forces within the scientific community? How many papers promoting evolution contain data and methodologies that have been either hidden from view by the authors, or lost. Did the theory of evolution and its proponents ever have to use statistical tricks or “hide” an inconvenient fact in order to bolster the theory? The only times that has happened in the evolutionary field of science, was when the science in question turned out to be fraudulent.
Piltdown Man is as good an example as any.
Does that one example mean that evolution has suddenly become invalid? Of course not. Why, because all the science that proves evolution is open to all comers for challenge and rebuttal, and the data to support it is freely shared with anyone who wishes to look at it, regardless of whether the person is an evolutionary scientist or not. Climate science? As those who have been following this over the years can attest to…. Not so much.
Does that mean that climate science is not science… Again, of course not. But when you have scientists hiding data, losing data, presenting worse case scenarios as the likely outcome and hiding evidence that things are not as bad as they have been portrayed – see the latest on the IPCC deceptions on Antarctic ice extent increases… All of these things are absolutely unacceptable in any other scientific field. But in Climate Science, well….
Remember, Dan, it’s responsible for everything from acne to Yellow Fever.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Unless George Bush is!!
I hope you will watch Ben Stein’s movie Expelled for an account of how much of the evidence for intelligent design has been blocked by the academic community. Scientists have an agenda, whether it comes to global warming or evolution. They decide what they want to believe, and then they refuse to publish or refuse tenure to those who won’t tow the party line.
ID does not belong in schools, ID is not science. Teachers already teach what we know and don’t know about evolution and how it happened, that is called science. You can also teach what we know and don’t know about carbon’s effect on the atmosphere, both of those are science. But intelligent design is not science, it is called “argument from incredulity” which is a logical fallacy. It is equivalent to saying “I don’t believe you” over and over. That is not science.
And there were quite a few lies in that movie, like one professor who claimed to be fired for his views.
The perfect adaptation of the eye–evolution did it The appearance of all major lifeforms in the Cambrian explosion–evolution did it. The lack of a fossil record for most transitional forms–evolution did it.
There is the Nautilus and other creatures in the sea that have half an eye, eyes without lenses, eyes with partial lenses.
There was no cambrian explosion, there were creatures that lived before that did not lend themselves to be fossilized (bacteria can be fossilized but it doesn’t really happen often), and more and more fossils are turning up to prove there was plenty of life.
Yeah transitional forms, sorry that is BS. You have two fossils, A and B, then we find a C which seems to be in the middle, then you ID types say “aha! but what about between C and B! See there is a gap!” whatever
Ash, did you watch the Ben Stein thing?
Well I don’t know about evolution (I look at life through a hybrid lens) but I do know whenever Ash gets going about ID it causes a mass extinction of whatever the topic of the post originally was.
The topic of this thread was how we all seem to distrust science when it is pushing its global warming agenda. What I find interesting is that when it comes to evolution, everyone jumps to the defense of science. I’m still not sure why you distrust science’s liberal agenda when it comes to global warming and trust science’s liberal agenda when it comes to evolution.
I love that idea that there was no Cambrian explosion because the creatures before that couldn’t be fossilized. So if there ARE fossils, evolution is true, and if there ARE NO fossils, evolution is true–and this kind of logic is coming from people who think that Anselm’s proof for the existence of God is moronic.
All’s I’ll say is that global warming isn’t science. Religion, yes. Political scheme to screw the people into submission, oh hell yeah.
Ashpenaz, many critics of AGW are using data to support their conclusions, and using the fact that many proponents of AGW are using shenanigans to support their claims.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. If you and other critics want to believe otherwise, it is up to you to come up with evidence to support your contention. This is not to say that God did not mastermind evolution. What scientists are interested in (whether God did this or not), is how this happened. And so far, none of what evolutionists say is inconsistent with physical laws. What you are trying to do is come with an argument that defies physical laws. As such, you have the burden to prove this.
I think that the cell is proof of intelligent design. I don’t think that something as complex as a cell can come into being through natural selection in the time alotted using the materials available. Show me evidence that natural selection produced the first cell.
If you don’t have evidence, if you simply say, “There’s no way to know but I believe in the power of natural selection to do this,” then you are simply making a leap of faith in natural selection and attributing powers to natural selection which it hasn’t been shown to have. How is that different or smarter than faith in God?
Global warming has kept all the trolls away from the thread.
But then if all the trolls do start commenting… well… that is of course a “sure sign” of Global Warming!
What do you expect from a paper based in san fran? One article in the chron said lack of fog would endanger the redwoods. but from the areas they mentioned in the article there were no redwoods.
This is also the paper that advocated legalizing pot and banning cigarettes and promotes the idea that illegal immigrants are the good guys and cops are the bad guys.
They don’t know their @$$ from their mouth.
13.I think that the cell is proof of intelligent design. I don’t think that something as complex as a cell can come into being through natural selection in the time alotted using the materials available. Show me evidence that natural selection produced the first cell.
Ashpenaz, my understanding is that cells today, which are rather complex, as you say, evolved from simpler and much cruder cell prototypes. I personally don’t have proof of that, but will leave it to the scientists as to whether there is proof of that. In the meantime, just using common sense. I didn’t notice your proof of intelligent design either, except other than your conclusion of “It’s complex, therefore it couldn’t have happened from any other mechanism other than intelligent design.”
There was a big storm in DC recently. Al Gore was told to make an igloo there and that was proof that warming is a hoax. Case closed.
It is mid February and the temperature in DC is over 40. In a few days the forecast is that it will be 48 degrees. Does that prove that it is no longer a hoax?
Or is it a teensy bit more complicated than that?
By the way, what is the difference between “climate” and “weather” ? They are not interchangeable terms.
No Mark,
It’s still below average. *and* it doesn’t change the faulty data. Like here.
But since you won’t accept any data that would disprove global warming, I doubt this will persuade you.