New Evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

[Rat Faced]

Too late anyway now

A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle312997.ece


The trouble is J2, that its not Physicists that need to be asked all the time.

Physics is not the only Science involved, and most probably know absolutely nothing about Chemistry, Biology, atmospheric science or applied meteorology, all of which come into it.

This is why they use the term "Scientist" in its broader term... they need to work together in order to build models on Climate, and its the Science Acadamies etc which have all these specialists together, that tend to do the studies.

Asking "a physicist" is pointless... he only knows part of the problem, and not the future conditions that would allow him to practice his art. He can tell u the "now", and if you give him the additional data he can give you the "that would happen".

He has no way to get the additional data himself without everyone else giving the information (and everything affects everything).

An example:

There are 2 possibilities for the UK..

Global warming will make us either semi tropical OR it will give us a the same climate as Alaska enjoys now. These are 2 very different scenarios, depending upon whether the extra fresh water in the North Atlantic effectivly switches off the North Atlantic Drift.

Up until recently, it was believed the 1st scenario would hold true by the majority of Climate Scientists.

Now there is a growing belief, due to the increasing evidence available from the Marine Scientists working in the Atlantic, that the 2nd Scenario is more likely to hold true.

Without the evidence coming from a totally unrelated field, the Physist's models are based upon incomplete data, and the opposite result is given.

[Busyman]

Wrong audience, wrong topic, wrong format.

He is writing to designists, obviously, and is not discussing the persuasiveness of the theory. If fact, this is exactly what I am pointing to. Where can you find the evidence of the designist theory? Hopefully in a court case looming...

Originally Posted by crucial62
what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

See, I believe in the beginning, God. You believe in the beginning, Dirt. Where did mass come from? now the notion that mass has the capacity to create the universe is sprung from a vivid imagination indeed.

Originally posted by Busyman
Someone already pointed out that your answers to 1 and 2 would be simply be....'oh yeah intelligent design'.

That's not science worthy, manny.

You can't have a science class and say, "Observe this devolution. See God did it" and have a science class.

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

the second is Physics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. BTW, what laws support evolution?

Barbarossa
What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

hmm, Lets see you do better...

and you are mixing Universal evolution with the perspective that God made it that way? How in the world do you make a timeline based on a relative "blink" of a "blink" of a "blink of an eye, if what you believe is true?

Busyman:
Notice he said, "As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated."

That means the conservatives will have most of the say in what's what whether right or wrong.

heh, read my words, interpretation is not needed. An "argument" being "authenticated" does not mean a tyrannical majority will say whats right and wrong...in fact its quite opposite: if it is that way, how can there be an argument?

The problem is that there's not even an argument! the evolutionists have strong-armed confrontation for a long time; maybe sooner or later it will happen.

Finally; my aim is not to convert everyone to the intelligent design theory. the aim is to have an official discussion on it.

Yes, the notion of a God in the beginning is religious. But, so is the notion of not one. See, the religion of some hang on the evolution theory as the religion of others hang on the intelligent design theory. Both have religious elements. so, if intelligent design is to ethereal for science, someone better check the evolution theory as well, especially considering that it is bad science that violates quite a few laws (yes, laws, not holes or gaps). According to the scientific method, it would be thrown out, if not for the religious sect behind it.

See this is where me and you part ways and I step up with a brain.

I believe in ID. However, ID can exist with evolution (I'm not saying evolution is proven).

You can even have a Big Bang with ID, manny.

The fact is you lot are not trying to promote ID. You are trying to promote Christianity. Real ID can be independent of religion. However, it is not science in the least.

Wrap your head around it. You've been hanging around like minded folks on and off campus and have been herded to long. Stop being a sheep.

If you are so devout in your belief then you must believe in the AntiChrist too, right?

You also then believe there will be a leader that the many will believe in so strongly that they will be blind. (not saying that leader is here yet)

[3RA1N1AC]

Yes, the notion of a God in the beginning is religious. But, so is the notion of not one.

if this is meant to imply that science is a religion because it says there is no god... i'd respond: science doesn't deny god, it just doesn't (and shouldn't) address that topic.

[j2k4]

Too late anyway now

A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle312997.ece


The trouble is J2, that its not Physicists that need to be asked all the time.

Physics is not the only Science involved, and most probably know absolutely nothing about Chemistry, Biology, atmospheric science or applied meteorology, all of which come into it.

This is why they use the term "Scientist" in its broader term... they need to work together in order to build models on Climate, and its the Science Acadamies etc which have all these specialists together, that tend to do the studies.

Asking "a physicist" is pointless... he only knows part of the problem, and not the future conditions that would allow him to practice his art. He can tell u the "now", and if you give him the additional data he can give you the "that would happen".

He has no way to get the additional data himself without everyone else giving the information (and everything affects everything).

An example:

There are 2 possibilities for the UK..

Global warming will make us either semi tropical OR it will give us a the same climate as Alaska enjoys now. These are 2 very different scenarios, depending upon whether the extra fresh water in the North Atlantic effectivly switches off the North Atlantic Drift.

Up until recently, it was believed the 1st scenario would hold true by the majority of Climate Scientists.

Now there is a growing belief, due to the increasing evidence available from the Marine Scientists working in the Atlantic, that the 2nd Scenario is more likely to hold true.

Without the evidence coming from a totally unrelated field, the Physist's models are based upon incomplete data, and the opposite result is given.

My point remains, Rat.

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Period.

I'd like someone to square what most of you now take as gospel with the scientific surety of a few decades ago that we were all supposed to freeze to death in the then-imminent Ice Age.

Any takers?

[Barbarossa]

Barbarossa
What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

hmm, Lets see you do better...

and you are mixing Universal evolution with the perspective that God made it that way? How in the world do you make a timeline based on a relative "blink" of a "blink" of a "blink of an eye, if what you believe is true?

I can't do better, but that's because I just see myself as a peculiar side-effect of a randomly natural universe...

You're the one saying the universe was designed like this, with billions of years of darkness and void ahead of it; I'm saying this is just the way it happened to be.

Other universes will work out differently. Maybe one of them contains intelligence...

Are you saying God didn't know how this universe was going to turn out? Like some celestial potter with a potters wheel, experimenting?

Is God the ultimate scientist?

[GepperRankins]

Too late anyway now



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle312997.ece


The trouble is J2, that its not Physicists that need to be asked all the time.

Physics is not the only Science involved, and most probably know absolutely nothing about Chemistry, Biology, atmospheric science or applied meteorology, all of which come into it.

This is why they use the term "Scientist" in its broader term... they need to work together in order to build models on Climate, and its the Science Acadamies etc which have all these specialists together, that tend to do the studies.

Asking "a physicist" is pointless... he only knows part of the problem, and not the future conditions that would allow him to practice his art. He can tell u the "now", and if you give him the additional data he can give you the "that would happen".

He has no way to get the additional data himself without everyone else giving the information (and everything affects everything).

An example:

There are 2 possibilities for the UK..

Global warming will make us either semi tropical OR it will give us a the same climate as Alaska enjoys now. These are 2 very different scenarios, depending upon whether the extra fresh water in the North Atlantic effectivly switches off the North Atlantic Drift.

Up until recently, it was believed the 1st scenario would hold true by the majority of Climate Scientists.

Now there is a growing belief, due to the increasing evidence available from the Marine Scientists working in the Atlantic, that the 2nd Scenario is more likely to hold true.

Without the evidence coming from a totally unrelated field, the Physist's models are based upon incomplete data, and the opposite result is given.

My point remains, Rat.

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Period.

I'd like someone to square what most of you now take as gospel with the scientific surety of a few decades ago that we were all supposed to freeze to death in the then-imminent Ice Age.

Any takers?

i suppose you could say fox was biased because they bring on oil company reps to talk about global warming

[ilw]

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

This is the entire argument summed up in a nutshell here,this isn't proof in any way shape or form of ID, it is evidence which supports the bible. This court case is about getting what kids are taught in science class to match up with what they learn in sunday school.

[GepperRankins]

SFM. if the grand canyons entrance was lower than the river it might be a miracle. the river is lower because the water eroded the rock. jeesh don't they teach simple geography where you grew up?

[Rat Faced]

Substitute whichever discipline you like, or any combination thereof-no consensus exists.

Consensus does exist.

It exists in that there is Global Warming.

Both the UN and the US scientific communities agree that it exists.

The UN and US Scientific Communities also agree that most of the increase is due to what humans are doing... and both refuse to say how much "most" is.

Research in 1987 forcast that a 1F increase in the Caribean would result in many more and much larger Hurricanes in that region. It also forcast more Tornado's on the mainland US. Both of these have happened.

Where the consensus stops, is what the results of Global Warming are.. there are so many variables that it is impossible to make a definitive model.

However, im sure that you fit a smoke alarm in case your house catches fire.

[ilw]

Is there really an increase in the number of severe hurricanes? I saw an article on BBC news and it had this chart
(NB the bottom one is only the last 4 years)
It doesn't seem to show any obvious trend to me??