Alpine glaciers 50% gone by 2050 no matter what

[Crick]

I never claimed that,,

Yes you did

a lot of it is disproving the evolution theory,,

and even if I did whats that got to do with god??

If you reject evolution, what is the origin of the world's flora and fauna?

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes you did





If you reject evolution, what is the origin of the world's flora and fauna?

at this point I dont know,,

it sure isnt from pond sludge,, thats just stupid,,

and if youre saying it did how exactly are you going to prove it??

 

[Crick]

at this point I dont know,,

it sure isnt from pond sludge,, thats just stupid,,

and if youre saying it did how exactly are you going to prove it??

Well, there is a very clear fossil record showing the appearance of humans, the appearance of mammals, the appearance and disappearance of dinosaurs, flying reptiles, mososaurs, plesiosaurs, the appearance of vertabrates, the appearance of land dwelling animals, the appearance of dicotyledons and then monocotyledons, marine reptiles, trilobites, sponges, archaens, etc, etc, etc. Going further and further back there is a gradual loss of complexity. The oldest fossils are blue green algaes and that strata show no other life forms. So there was a definite progression. What could have produced that record if not evolution? And what is this evidence refuting evolution that you claim (and then deny) has been found under melting ice?

The process by which life first appears is called abiogenesis. For quite some time it was thought, as you note, that this would have taken place in pond sludge. But the last time I read anything on the topic there was a rising thought that it could have begun with crystal formation taking place in clays. I do not know what the latest research says but I certainly have seen nothing casting the slightest doubt on evolution.

Let me make clear that evolution does not create life, but that it would begin VERY soon after the first reproducing entities formed. As soon as a resource-limited reproductive process starts, evolution necessarily begins.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well, there is a very clear fossil record showing the appearance of humans, the appearance of mammals, the appearance and disappearance of dinosaurs, flying reptiles, mososaurs, plesiosaurs, the appearance of vertabrates, the appearance of land dwelling animals, the appearance of dicotyledons and then monocotyledons, marine reptiles, trilobites, sponges, archaens, etc, etc, etc. Going further and further back there is a gradual loss of complexity. The oldest fossils are blue green algaes and that strata show no other life forms. So there was a definite progression. What could have produced that record if not evolution? And what is this evidence refuting evolution that you claim (and then deny) has been found under melting ice?

The process by which life first appears is called abiogenesis. For quite some time it was thought, as you note, that this would have taken place in pond sludge. But the last time I read anything on the topic there was a rising thought that it could have begun with crystal formation taking place in clays. I do not know what the latest research says but I certainly have seen nothing casting the slightest doubt on evolution.

Let me make clear that evolution does not create life, but that it would begin VERY soon after the first reproducing entities formed. As soon as a resource-limited reproductive process starts, evolution necessarily begins.

that fossil record means nothing other than something died and got buried,, and it also doesnt exist anywhere on earth as depicted in your pretty picture,,
it also doesnt prove chickens came from a t rex or humans from a primate,,

its all opinions based on assumptions,, not real science,,

are you saying that life just all of the sudden appeared??

that would require magic and be more supportive of the creationist theory than the evo theory,,

 

[Crick]

that fossil record means nothing other than something died and got buried,, and it also doesnt exist anywhere on earth as depicted in your pretty picture,,
it also doesnt prove chickens came from a t rex or humans from a primate,,

Oi... Do you know what was the concept that opened up archaeology and paleontology to actual scientific investigation? Extinction. Anatomist Georges Cuvier in 1796, after examination of a set of Mastodon fossils, finally realized that it was possible for a species to go extinct. Prior to his realization, it was universally believed that every species of life then on the planet had existed since the beginning and no others. When Mastodon and Brontosaurus bones were discovered, it was assumed that these monsters were still wandering around the American west or some other unexplored region. Cuviers realization that species went extinct eventually led to the concept that new species could appear and thus, evolution.

The fossil record, despite being a very thin sampling of all the life that actually existed, shows us a great deal more than that something died and got buried. Almost all fossils are buried in sedimentary material. Sedimentary minerals are stratified and that strata may be organized and, relatively, dated. The further down one goes into the sedimentary earth, the further back one goes in time. Making use of this, fossils may be placed on a timeline.

Speciation of fossils is typically accomplished via morphology. The physical characteristics of a fossil, the shape and size of the various bits and pieces of its skeleton, are studied in great detail. Based on those details, they are classified into different species. It was fairly rapidly found as paleontologsts moved through the geologic strata, that one species would disappear and another species, only very slightly different would appear in its place. This happened over and over and over again until it became obvious that species were very slowly changing. And following such lineages, we do indeed see that chickens descended from dinosaurs (though not T Rex) and that humans, one of the primate family, descended from other hominids.

Wikipedia, Human Evolution

its all opinions based on assumptions,, not real science,

Really. What sort of thing do you believe to actually BE real science?

are you saying that life just all of the sudden appeared??

This is the opening paragraph of Wikipedia's article on abiogenesis.

In biology, abiogenesis (from Greek ἀ- a- 'not' + βῐ́ος bios 'life' + γένεσις genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process, but the transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally.

that would require magic and be more supportive of the creationist theory than the evo theory,,

No, it wouldn't require magic.

 

[progressive hunter]

Oi... Do you know what was the concept that opened up archaeology and paleontology to actual scientific investigation? Extinction. Anatomist Georges Cuvier in 1796, after examination of a set of Mastodon fossils, finally realized that it was possible for a species to go extinct. Prior to his realization, it was universally believed that every species of life then on the planet had existed since the beginning and no others. When Mastodon and Brontosaurus bones were discovered, it was assumed that these monsters were still wandering around the American west or some other unexplored region. Cuviers realization that species went extinct eventually led to the concept that new species could appear and thus, evolution.

The fossil record, despite being a very thin sampling of all the life that actually existed, shows us a great deal more than that something died and got buried. Almost all fossils are buried in sedimentary material. Sedimentary minerals are stratified and that strata may be organized and, relatively, dated. The further down one goes into the sedimentary earth, the further back one goes in time. Making use of this, fossils may be placed on a timeline.

Speciation of fossils is typically accomplished via morphology. The physical characteristics of a fossil, the shape and size of the various bits and pieces of its skeleton, are studied in great detail. Based on those details, they are classified into different species. It was fairly rapidly found as paleontologsts moved through the geologic strata, that one species would disappear and another species, only very slightly different would appear in its place. This happened over and over and over again until it became obvious that species were very slowly changing. And following such lineages, we do indeed see that chickens descended from dinosaurs (though not T Rex) and that humans, one of the primate family, descended from other hominids.

View attachment 891848
Wikipedia, Human Evolution


Really. What sort of thing do you believe to actually BE real science?

This is the opening paragraph of Wikipedia's article on abiogenesis.

In biology, abiogenesis (from Greek ἀ- a- 'not' + βῐ́ος bios 'life' + γένεσις genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process, but the transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally.

No, it wouldn't require magic.

oh look,, more cute pictures that prove nothing,,
fossils prove nothing except something died,, uit doesnt prove it gave birth to a new form of life,,

wikipedia?? really??




maybe you should explain it better??

lets start with T-rex turning into a chicken,, walk me through that??

 

[Crick]

oh look,, more cute pictures that prove nothing,,
fossils prove nothing except something died,, uit doesnt prove it gave birth to a new form of life,,

wikipedia?? really??




maybe you should explain it better??

lets start with T-rex turning into a chicken,, walk me through that??

I just told you that chickens did not descend from tyrannosaurus.

You may well be intelligent enough to pick up all this stuff, but you don't seem to want to. I waste more than enough time here. Have a nice night. Enjoy your ignorance.

 

[progressive hunter]

I just told you that chickens did not descend from tyrannosaurus.

You may well be intelligent enough to pick up all this stuff, but you don't seem to want to. I waste more than enough time here. Have a nice night. Enjoy your ignorance.

I thought evo states our modern birds are decdents of dinos,,
is that not correct??

its not that I dont want to,, its when I look at the evidence and see problems, and when I ask for clarification I get attacked and told I am uneducated or as you say unwilling to accept the evidence i have problems with,,

 

[Crick]

I thought evo states our modern birds are decdents of dinos,,
is that not correct??

its not that I dont want to,, its when I look at the evidence and see problems, and when I ask for clarification I get attacked and told I am uneducated or as you say unwilling to accept the evidence i have problems with,,

You've repeatedly now and with no justification, rejected what I've attempted to tell you. If you don't want to learn anything, you won't. Have a nice night.

 

[progressive hunter]

You've repeatedly now and with no justification, rejected what I've attempted to tell you. If you don't want to learn anything, you won't. Have a nice night.

what you have offered is opinions based on assumptions,,

now what about dinos turning into birds,, has evo changed their minds on that??

 

[progressive hunter]

You've repeatedly now and with no justification, rejected what I've attempted to tell you. If you don't want to learn anything, you won't. Have a nice night.

 

[ding]

I have confidence that if it's considered true by mainstream climate science then I won't question it

And that's what makes you a climate-cuck.

 

[ding]

Big fish on, with a human passenger in its belly!

Says the guy who believes 1C of warming from the GHG effect of CO2 will produce 3.5C of warming from feedback from the 1C of warming from the GHG effect of CO2.

But the best part is that you didn't even know that that was what you were accepting because you blindly accept anything they say like a good little climate-cuck.

 

[Crick]

So, was it this video that was found under the melted ice?

Lyell's uniformatarianism refutes Genesis and thus refutes divine creation and thus refutes the existence of god. If you're going to look at science, you're going to have to get used to that sort of thing. Science and a belief in the supernatural don't get along well at all. If you don't think you can get used to that sort of thing, perhaps you should stay away from science. Or you could consider the possibility that your religion is a fantasy and its science that's gotten it right. We were watching "Lessons in Chemistry" last night and I heard a good exchange. Brie Larson, the main character, a hard nosed chemist whose estranged father was a preacher, meets a local church pastor. He says something along the lines of "Welcome to the debate between religion and science". She replies "It's not much of a debate. One side has proof while the other side has guilt".

 

[Crick]

what you have offered is opinions based on assumptions,

That is incorrect. What I have offered are empirical observations and the conclusions of peer reviewed scientific studies. Science is not opinions based on assumptions. Why don't you have a quick look at Wikipedia's article on the scientific method just to get your feet wet. Scientific method - Wikipedia.

now what about dinos turning into birds,, has evo changed their minds on that??

Avians are descended from dinosaurs. Evolutionary theory has not changed its mind on that. However, chickens are not descended from tyrannosaurus rex.

 

[EMH]

This is another fantastic example of what the Co2 FRAUD is all about.

What is melting Alpine Glaciers?


A) increased Co2 that is NOT warming the atmosphere

B) the fact that the EUROPEAN TECTONIC PLATE IS MOVING SE


It takes an IQ over 5 to get that right....

All of Europe's glaciers have been melting for millions of years.... while Greenland, on the other side of the fault causing that movement, was all green 2 million years ago...

 

[progressive hunter]

That is incorrect. What I have offered are empirical observations and the conclusions of peer reviewed scientific studies. Science is not opinions based on assumptions. Why don't you have a quick look at Wikipedia's article on the scientific method just to get your feet wet. Scientific method - Wikipedia.

Avians are descended from dinosaurs. Evolutionary theory has not changed its mind on that. However, chickens are not descended from tyrannosaurus rex.

a decendent means a T-rex changed/ into a chicken,,

now walk me through that process??

I thought all the dinos died in the meteor strike or something,,
if they all died how did they give birth to birds,,sorry lay eggs that birds hatched out of,,

 

[Donald H]

Says the guy who believes 1C of warming from the GHG effect of CO2 will produce 3.5C of warming from feedback from the 1C of warming from the GHG effect of CO2.

But the best part is that you didn't even know that that was what you were accepting because you blindly accept anything they say like a good little climate-cuck.

1C of warming could produce the runaway effect and result in a lot more warming than 3.5 degrees. We'll have to ask some climate scientists who are not paid to deny.

But really, I think the problem we're having to communicate is more to do with your sour demeanour on account of me questioning the big fish story and other supernatural nonsense. Sorry, if you keep bringing up the fairy tales, you have to own them.

 

[ding]

1C of warming could produce the runaway effect and result in a lot more warming than 3.5 degrees. We'll have to ask some climate scientists who are not paid to deny.

Which if that were true would have happened when atmospheric CO2 was over 600 ppm but instead the planet cooled. So try again.

 

[ding]

But really, I think the problem we're having to communicate is more to do with your sour demeanour on account of me questioning the big fish story and other supernatural nonsense. Sorry, if you keep bringing up the fairy tales, you have to own them.

Actually is has more to do with you knowing next to nothing about this subject, hold uninformed opinions and expect others to blindly accept them like you did.