we are F--ed

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
There is no substantial data to show that global warming is an issue. The best measurements we've been able to take show that earth's "composite temperature" hasn't varied by more than 2 degrees C in the last hundred years or so, and that varience is not all increasing temperature, the chart looks more like "/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/" than anything.

Sure, we might all burn, freeze, or drown. Anything's possible. In reality, though, good arguments have shown that the root of "global warming" lies in greedy scientists looking for research grants. That's right, feed the media a doomsday story and you win yourself a cushy job.

And as far as CFC's destroying the ozone layer; total myth. The CFC's we produce are a worthlessly small percentage compared to the amount of CFC's that occur naturally. Natural wind patterns cause updrafts near the south pole. That wind caries CFC's (mostly naturally occurring) with it and so the updraft causes a hole in the ozone layer over the south pole. How many of your good friends live near the south pole? The truth is that only about 400 artic people are at risk because of the hole. Meanwhile refrigeration, firefighting, and surgical sterilization takes a hit because we aren't allowed to produce CFC's to do the job. You can thank more greedy researchers for this hoax as well.

All the evidence has a grain of truth, but it's all really obscured to ensure more and more multi-million dollar research grants.

P.S. Please don't attempt to point out flaws in all this by pointing to a quote or figure originating from a well paid, and corrupt, scientist.

okay then. by default, you are correct, since you are immune to any response.


logamus- no because the deep deep blue doesn't get any sunlight whatsoever.

[Trigger_Happy]

That's only half true. There is plenty of data dug up by legit scientists who failed to get cushy jobs and seem to be intent on blowing the wistle. Unfortunately there are no non-bought scientists who report a definate negative when it come to global warming.

So, when only scientists who are making big bucks to study the problem seem to be finding the problem, what does that say to you?

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
That's only half true. There is plenty of data dug up by legit scientists who failed to get cushy jobs and seem to be intent on blowing the wistle. Unfortunately there are no non-bought scientists who report a definate negative when it come to global warming.

So, when only scientists who are making big bucks to study the problem seem to be finding the problem, what does that say to you?

it says that the money is being put to good use? cmon, if you're gonna be that paranoid, you really should apply it to the government...imo.

[RT pRo AuToMaG]

Super volcanoes, global warming, ozone layer, pollution, oil shortage, screw it all. If it is as big of a problem as everyone says it is, then they probably are already working on alternative methods to do things. You can't live worrying about stuff like this, something will kill you eventually. You may walk outside and get shot, or you house may explode from an electrical short causing a spark and burning your house down. My point is, if you worry about every little thing that could kill you, you will die trying to save yourself. Live your life to the fullest and you will have nothing to worry about.

[PyRo]

Well the earth is here to stay for the next few billion years untill the sun dies, and whatever is left on the planet burns to death.
Now as far as humans go, its questionable. Most likely we will still be around billions of years from now, society will definatly be differant, but humans will almost certainly still exist. There isn't much severe enough to wipe out the entire human race. We have lived through ice ages before ya know?

[impostal22]

Originally posted by PyRo
Well the earth is here to stay for the next few billion years untill the sun dies, and whatever is left on the planet burns to death.
Now as far as humans go, its questionable. Most likely we will still be around billions of years from now, society will definatly be differant, but humans will almost certainly still exist. There isn't much severe enough to wipe out the entire human race. We have lived through ice ages before ya know?

that is..if the universe doesn't go into the big crunch before then...muahahhahaha!

[bunkermaster10]

Imagine what we will look like........

HUGE tall people that are tan and all look similar?

Small tiny people that are ugly lil' creatures that talk a weird language?

Man I wish I could see the future.

[RRfireblade]

Originally posted by impostal22


and then we look at all the other planets that are still around, and have been just as long as earth

We're not talking about the elimination on the planet,duh.

The "end of the world" is a common phrase refering to "life on the panet".

But you do help make my point,based on how much life is still found on other planets (Mars)and the number of times life has been destroyed on earth (dinosarus for one)in the past.

[PyRo]

Life wasn't destoryed, there are still animals from that era, or atleast having evolved from animals of that era.

[RRfireblade]

I should know better.

If the dominating life on a Planet is destroyed,or in our case,the highest form of life,most would consider that an Apocolypse.

But if it makes you feel better that after your gone there will likely be lower forms of life left,then that's fine too.

[dansim]

as long as kitties are still around who cares

[Barfly]

actually there are creatures from 200 million years ago that are still pretty much the same. One sharks have not chnaged that much, crocadiles got smaller, dragonflies got smaller, certain dinasours turned into birds, and just look also there is a lot of different sealife that hasn't changed a whole lot.

[PyRo]

Anyone else up for looting when this happens?

[Trigger_Happy]

What is with this evolution crap? Evolution is false. It was a theory formulated by a scientist who thought it sounded possible. He observed genetics and how traits were passed to allow animals to adapt. He deicided maybe, just maybe, over eons an animal might adapt so much that it would be a different animal. He spent over half of his book explaining the evidence against his theory, bu concluded by stating that he thought more evidence might be found in favor of his theory in the future, thus proving him correct.

Since Darwin's time, we've found more evidence against evolution, thus proving him wrong. I will not get into an in-depth discussion, but I will scratch the surface.

First of all, in Darwin's time scientists were stupid. They believed in spontaineous generation, the immutability of species, and had no idea that microorganisms existed. The "immutability of species" stated that God created each creature a certain way, and it could never change. Well, when darwin proved that cross breeding could succeed (seems common sense now, but hey) they were all gasping for air and scratching their heads. Science as they knew it was shattered. Since then, the science of genetics has been studied, but at that time nobody knew about it but a dead monk. Because Darwin shook current thinking so much, everybody decided he must be right about his entire theory (extrapolating microevolution into macroevolution).

THE FOSSIL RECORD

First of all, 95% of fossils found are clams. Because only 5% of a sample can be studied, nothing in the fossil record should ever be used at determining proof of anything. Still, we'd assume that if layers of earth formed slowly over eons of time, you'd see simple stuff at the bottom, and complex organisms near the top with slight changes being show all the way through. This is not found. Eveything is pretty random, and there are no apparent intermediate links (labeled "missing links" because none have been found)
If darwin was correct, there would be far more "missing links" than modern looking fossils. This is a big blow to evolution.
Although some "chains" of evolved creatures (such as the horse) have been put on exhibit, they are misleading at best. The samples were found on different continents, and the simplest creatures are not shown to pre-date their complicated relatives. Thus, this is not admissable evidence.

STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY

This is the thought that because many mammels have similar basic characteristics, we may have come from the same root ancestor. Many mammels have one bone in the "upper arm", a joint, two bones, a wrist joint, and then five "fingers".
This was thought to be evidence by scientists in Darwin's time. We now know of genetics and how DNA may be passed from parent to offspring. If we all came from a root organism, we would all have similar DNA segments dictating that we'd have 5 fingers. Thus, a human, bird, bat, and porpoise would have to have similar DNA segments because the bone structures are simlilar. In reality, the DNA segments are not related at all.

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

The most blatent evidence against evolution comes in the field of molecular biology. It can't be denied.
This science deals with amino acids (the building blocks of protein) and how they order to create organisms.
Long story short, the way a specific section of an ape's amino acids order themselves should be more similar to the way a human's amino acids order themselves than, say, a speck of yeast's or a tuna fish's. However, upon close study, there is no trend found to indicate this to be true!
Basically, if you grab the same strand of amino acids out of six different organisms and yourself and compare them, you'll find that there is no relation. You're (within 5% points) as similar to a horse as to a pigeon as to a silkworm, as to wheat!

Although all this is true, macroevolution is widespead today! I personally believe in the theory of Creation, but since there are nearly as many scientific holes int hat as there are in macroevolution, I won't even attempt to "prove" it. I will only disprove evolution so you can educate yourselfs and stop sounding like idiots talking about science that has been proven to be false.

I should throw in, just so I don't have to do it later, that Darwin's theory has been revised. Once genetic were discovered, scientists begain claiming that organisms could still "evolve" outside thier genetic structure through the process called "mutation". Too bad no "helpful" mutation has ever been witnessed. Any mutation (alteration from the parent caused by something other than genes) has always shortened life-span, decreased quality of life, and more often that not, made reproduction impossible (so much for survival of the mutated fittest)

Well, this "solved" that little genetic problem, but thos darnded "missing links" were still getting flamed by critics. This is when the theory of "puctuated equalibrium" was introduced. Punctuated equalibrium states that evolution does not constantly take place, it happen every so often during times of intense toxic chemical or radiation exposure. Suring those times, the exposure speed mutation (aka evolution) so that "missing links" only occur over the space of a couple generations. That's what there are "so few" *coughnonecough* found.

Yes, that's correct. Current evolution theory requires intense radiation in order to create the fabled but unseen "good" mutation so that things evolve. All this, of course, while ignoring molecular biology.

Although all this is true, macroevolution is widespead today! I personally believe in the theory of Creation, but since there are nearly as many scientific holes in that as there are in macroevolution, I won't even attempt to "prove" it. I will only disprove evolution so you can educate yourselves and stop sounding like idiots talking about science that has been proven to be false.

Please do us all a favor and start back at square one in your minds. We have no idea where we came from, and have no known way of finding out.

[Tyger]

ummm...

okay...

If you say so.

-Tyger

("I'm ahead I'm a man
I'm the first mammal to wear pants yeah
I'm at peace with my lust
I can kill 'cause in God I trust yeah
It's evolution baby "
Pearl Jam : "Do the Evolution")