Guess Which Two Gop Candidates Believe In Climate Change And Evolution?

[Doctor Steuss]

Evolution is science.... with some false theory mixed in (i.e. Apes became men).

Insignificant (in regards to the OP) point of clarification:

"Apes became men" isn't part of the theory of evolution.

[Mordecai]

Should we talk about whether or not the mainstream theory of Evolution has been "all but destroyed"?

If you want. Shapiro has a new book out further debunking Darwinism as the primary explanation for the origin of species. He's not an ID advocate and never has been. I haven't read it yet, but I could, if you'd like a book review. I have read Behe's Edge, though and that by itself is enough to all but destroy the myth.

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

NO they're not. That is a LIE perpetrated by the likes of FAUX News.

Ps. Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/0/YVh7z-0oo6o

It's not from Fox News, genius. It's from a few different sources, including the AP. I don't think I've ever seen that on Fox News. Also, Fox News is less biased than NBC and CBS. I promise you that. Where do you get your news? MSNBC aka Obama's propaganda machine? Or apparently, you get it from Youtube . The sun is less active than scientists predicted and some scientists are concerned that the sun is shrinking. That there is some isolated incidents of heating is not indicative of the sun's activity. The fact is, some scientists ARE looking at the reduced activity of the sun with concern toward another ice age.

So what do you make of the new study based on NASA satellite data that contradicts the alarmist computer models?

[Whiskeypete]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Does CO2 trap heat?

Is man adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

The answer is yes to both questions. Therefore AGW is real, and happening right now.

Does urine contain salt?

Do kids pee in the ocean?

The answer is yes to both questions. Therefore the cause of the ocean being salty is kids swimming without diapers and it is happening right now.

[blackstrap]

Insignificant (in regards to the OP) point of clarification:

"Apes became men" isn't part of the theory of evolution.

Ya ,we know, both apes and men had a common ancestor,maybe. Sometime in the past there was a "jaberwalky#1" which through a process of small mutations and natural selection fixing those mutations, slowly,imperceptably ,developed into what we now call apes, while "jaberwalky#2" through a process of small mutations with natural selection fixing those mutations,which were a bit different from "jaberwalky#1",developed into what we now call us.Same for cats and rats and elephants as sure as you're born.Go far enough back and there will be some"wibblewobble#1" that became a tree and a "wibblewobble#2" that became a horse.Theistic evolutionists allow for God to interfere at certain critical junctures.Others insist that there was no plan or design,just random chance mutations that were kept or discarded by survival.

[thesometimesaint]

Daddy G:

Enjoy.

http://www.not-just-recipes.com/tomato-fruit-salad.html

[thesometimesaint]

Whiskeypete:

More likely fish pee.

[blackstrap]

As for global warming,were there not eras in the not so distant past,when man had little impact on the environment compared to today, that it was much WARMER than now? And yet the polar bears seem to have survived.There were times when it was much COLDER also. The problem today is that larger populations will be affected by either warmer or colder climates.

AGW has a political agenda that requires the transfer of wealth.It is also tinged with a racist attitude which rejects the industrialization of Africa.Solar power in Africa allows them to have lights, or power to run the hospital X-ray machine ,but not both.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

I didn't say the Link was to FAUX News supergenious. Maybe in the future you actually pay attention to what is said on the Link instead of projecting your "so well informed" opinion onto it. I'm sure Joe Scarborough is delighted about what you think of MSNBC. Further it is a well established fact that the more FAUX News is watched the less in actually known.

If you'd actually paid attention to the Link you'd know that the satillite data supports Global Warming.

Something you're not going to see on FAUX News.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

[Whiskeypete]

sorry about the run to the gutter....

First analogy that came to mind.

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

I didn't say the Link was to FAUX News supergenious.

I don't recall saying you said it was, ultra genius.

Further it is a well established fact that the more FAUX News is watched the less in actually known.

Well established by what? In reality, there was a survey put together to trap conservatives, as it asked questions to measure how much people were watching CNN or MSNBC. If you're watching Fox, obviously, you can't be watching those channels. For example, one of the questions was, "True or false, Obama just continued the bail out Bush started," which CNN and MSNBC repeated over and over again. Furthermore, conservatives would be biased to criticize Obama. It's not that Fox News reported a falsehood. It's simply that the survey was meant to trap conservatives into looking ignorant. It's not a "well established fact." What IS a fact is that those who get their news from multiple sources are best informed. That would be me.

I find it sad that the best you guys have are wild claims of "well established facts" that don't exist and name calling. It's not FAUX NEWS. If they get something wrong, feel free to correct it with facts and not youtube videos and assumptions.

So why do you worship mainstream scientists so much? I mean, they did support eugenics in the 20's. Shouldn't that be a big red flag, that you should stop worshiping mainstream science immediately?

If you'd actually paid attention to the Link you'd know that the satillite data supports Global Warming.

It supports it but it doesn't support anything resembling the alarmism of the left. The most recent peer-reviewed study (as opposed to your amazingly authoritative Youtube video or Wikipedia, which is constantly censored by the far left) using the NASA data indicates that the computer models are severely flawed in favor of GW alarmism. I wonder if that's why Obama shut NASA down.

Furthermore, as I said, unless China stops what they're doing, destroying our economy to "save the world" not only won't save the world, it'll cause China to become the greatest superpower in the world. That won't turn out well.

[thesometimesaint]

Whiskeypete:

No problem. It was funny.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

Obama did not shut NASA down. It is alive and well. What did come to an end was the US manned space flights using the Shuttle(We'll continue by using the Russians heavy lift rockets)). A bird and program that is over 30 years old. See what you get for watching FAUX News supergenius.

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

Obama did not shut NASA down. It is alive a well. What did come to a end was the US manned space flights using the Shuttle(We'll continue by using the Russians heavy lift rockets)). A bird and program that is over 30 years old. See what you get for watching FAUX News supergenious.

Yeah... I figured as much. I just thought it would be a funny thing to say. By the way, I included a link to Forbes in my above post (since you hate Fox) that discusses the latest peer-reviewed study on the NASA satellite data, showing that it contradicts global warming alarmism.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

I'm not nor have I ever been an alarmist of any type. What I do see is a world warming rapidly and the science bares that out. What it is not doing is cooling.

If we take reasonable and measured steps now we can avoid many of the likely bad consequences of dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere. You and I will not live long enough to see the worst of the projected consequences, but our grandchildren will.

On a practical level what are the consequences of our actions/inactions.

If we do something now, and Global Warming doesn't pan out?

We've become more energy efficient and our electric bills go down. Our automobiles run cleaner, and we can breather easier.

What are the consequences if we do nothing and global warming doesn't pan out.

We continue to pay higher and higher electric bills, and we breathe dirtier air.

What are the consequences if we do something now and global warming does pan out.

We averted a catastrophy.

What are the consequences if we do nothing and global warming does pan out.

Welcome to the catastrophy.

Anyway you look at it. You pays your money and takes your chances. Me I'd rather error on the side of caution and breathe cleaner air, and drive cleaner cars.

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

I'm not nor have I ever been an alarmist of any type. What I do see is a world warming rapidly and the science bares that out. What it is not doing is cooling.

According to some sources, it is cooling. What's your source?

If we take reasonable and measured steps now we can avoid many of the likely bad consequences of dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere. You and I will not live long enough to see the worst of the projected consequences, but our grandchildren will.

Reasonable steps would be to do almost nothing but what we've been doing. There is no reason we should be spending billions of dollars to prevent global warming, when, for all we know, we MIGHT end up with an ice age.

If we do something now, and Global Warming doesn't pan out?

We've become more energy efficient and our electric bills go down. Our automobiles run cleaner, and we can breather easier.

Our electric bills have gone and will go way up. Our automobiles are already much more expensive thanks to EPA regulations.

What are the consequences if we do something now and global warming does pan out.

We averted a catastrophy.

Well, we'd better start ruining our economy to invest in some means to deal with a nuclear winter, because that could also happen. I find that more likely than a global warming catastrophe. Again, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of 1 part per million per year. Humans contribute 3% of that. I don't think we can do anything significant, seeing as most of that pollution is not coming from America. China and other unregulated nations will cause catastrophe, no matter what we do ASSUMING (and that's a big assumption) that pollution is having a significant effect.

Anyway you look at it. You pays your money and takes your chances. Me I'd rather error on the side of caution and breathe cleaner air, and drive cleaner cars.

If we destroy our economy, it's pretty much a fact that it will result in world poverty and famine. Millions of people will starve to death. Again, there is NOTHING we can do short of nuking China that would significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. There is a serious lack of evidence that even the Chinese are producing enough gases to cause global warming. It seems quite likely that the sun will enter a long term cooling phase in the next 1000 years and if that occurs, we'd WANT to increase green house gases. Perhaps we ought to ruin our economy preparing for that instead, since it seems just as likely as a man-caused global warming catastrophe.

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: political brawling

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff