Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-05-30T22:08:25Z

Earl100: /* Already_there */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.
::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evololution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[User:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.-

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story.

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-05-30T22:00:30Z

Earl100: /* '''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy''' */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.
::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evololution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[User:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.-

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story.

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Earl100

2007-05-20T01:51:08Z

Earl100: New page: The American Medical Association's Positions on Abortion 1859 - 2007 WHAT IS ABORTION? 1859--"The slaughter of countless children; no mere misdemeanor or no mere attempt upon the life o...

The American Medical Association's Positions on Abortion 1859 - 2007

WHAT IS ABORTION?

1859--"The slaughter of countless children; no mere misdemeanor or no mere attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of her child; such unwarrantable destruction of human life."1

1871--"The work of destruction; The wholesale destruction of unborn infants."

1967--"The interruption of an unwanted pregnancy."

2007--"Abortion is a medical procedure and should be performed . . . with standards of good medical practice."2

WHO SHOULD PERFORM ABORTIONS?

1871--"It will be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor. . . and then always with a view to the safety of the child--if that be possible."

1970--"Abortion should be performed only by a duly licensed physician and surgeon in an accredited hospital."

1992--Only physicians who want to should perform abortions.

2007--The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the laws of the community in which he practices.3

WHO ARE PHYSICIAN ABORTIONISTS?

1871--"Men who cling to a noble profession only to dishonor it; false brethren; educated assassins, an enemy to the human family, modern Herods, monsters of iniquity, the executioners." "These men who, with corrupt hearts and blood-stained hands, destroy what they cannot reinstate, corrupt souls, and destroy the fairest fabric that God has ever created . . . under the cloak of that medical profession."

1967--"Conscientious practitioners performing therapeutic abortions for reasons other than those posing a threat to the life of the mother. Equally conscientious physicians who believe that all women should be masters of their own reproductive destinies and that the interruption of an unwanted pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances, should be solely an individual matter between the patient and her doctor."

1992--Since the AMA supports abortion, it makes no comment.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO PHYSICIAN ABORTIONISTS?

1871--"The members of the profession should shrink with horror from all interaction with them professionally or otherwise; These men should be marked as Cain was marked: They should be made the outcasts of society. It becomes the duty of every physician in the United States to resort to every honorable and legal means in his power to crush out from among us this pest of society."

1871--"Resolved, That we repudiate and denounce the conduct of abortionists, and that we hold no intercourse with them professionally or otherwise and that we will, whenever an opportunity presents, guard and protect the public against the machinations of these characters by pointing out the physical and moral ruin which follows in their wake."

1970--"They should be allowed to perform abortions as long as they are done in an accredited hospital acting only after consultation with two other physicians."

1992--Since the AMA supports abortion, it makes no comment.

WHAT SHOULD THE ETHICS OF ABORTION BE?

1871--"Thou shalt not kill: This Commandment is given to all and applies to all without exception; It matters not at what stage of development his victim may have arrived. It matters not how small or how apparently insignificant it may be. It is murder. A foul, unprovoked murder, and its blood, like the blood of Abel, will cry from earth to Heaven for vengeance."

1967--"The Committee does not intend to raise the question of the rightness or wrongness of therapeutic abortion. This is a personal and moral consideration which in all cases must be faced according to the dictates of the conscience of the patient and her physician."

1992--". . . the early termination of pregnancy is a medical matter between the patient and the physician, . . ." "The AMA shall take no action which may be construed as an attempt to alter or influence the personal views of individual physicians regarding abortion procedures."

2007--". . . the issue of support or of opposition to abortion is a matter for members of the AMA to decide individually, based on personal values or beliefs."4

1. Volume 12, Transactions of the American Medical Association, pp. 75-78 (1859).
2. From American Medical Association web site, May 2007, Policy H-5.993.
The web site is www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online
3. From American Medical Association web site, May 2007, Policy E-2.01.
4. From American Medical Association web site, May 2007, Policy H-5.990.

[[The AMA says . . .]]

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-05-13T20:01:10Z

Earl100: /* No */

{{debate-science}}

== Contrary evidence ==
You all might want to take a look at [http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804 this article], which offers some highly embarrassing details on [[Albert Gore, Jr.]]'s public-policy pronouncements, his refusal to do that which he asks others to do, and other, even grosser [[Sin#Environmentalism|sin]]s against the environment.

# A number of eminent scientists are now claiming--and for publication in ''The New York Times'', no less--that Gore's reports of the planet's imminent demise from heatstroke are greatly exaggerated.
# The article reiterates the accusation of [[special pleading]] against Gore--that while his Academy Award winning film asks, "Are you prepared to change your lifestyle?", Gore has not shown himself willing to change his own. Futhermore, it gives this detail on those "carbon offsets":<blockquote>The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."</blockquote>
# And now ''The Tennesseean'' (Nashville) reports that Gore has a zinc mine that has a history of polluting a local river.

Point number one above is the most important point, though points two and three show that former Senator Gore is not the most qualified authority on the subject.

I have said before that this debate is an adversarial proceeding, with Gore advocating that everyone else fundamentally change the way they (or I should say, we) live because the planet is somehow in peril and that peril is somehow our fault. But any lawyer (and he is one) knows that when a witness tells a lie on a material point, everything else he says is automatically suspect without independent corroboration. Well, special pleading might not be lying, but that zinc-mine affair shows him guilty of monumental dissemblance, which is close. So my advice to the global-warming alarmists is to find another chief advocate, and try to content with Point One.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''The above points about Al Gore have nothing to do with global warming, and perhaps should be moved to some anti-Al Gore page.''[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
What information do we have that we can prove? We have statistics that can’t be denied, but when the statistics were presented, were they manipulated to serve the speaker’s cause. Could they be interpreted in different ways? As Evan Esar said, “Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions,” and as Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.” Also, there has not been a control experiment (not possible with today’s technology) done to see whether any assumptions that have been made are true or even possible. So how can anyone (especially Al Gore) say so confidently that humans have caused any change in the climate when there are many other possibilities? He or she cannot. Besides, this would not be the first time a politician (like Al Gore) has been terribly confused or lying through their teeth to increase the disapproval rate of a political enemy (or any other way this debate may be helping Gore).

Al Gore is giving the worse case scenario on many of the catastrophes (Al Gore mistook the oceans rising 20 feet for 23 inches, United Nations estimates for the result of the melting of the polar ice caps, or was that just more propaganda), that of course, “will happen” if the world population does not act. Of course his threatening words come from scientists who “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence.” (Al Gore) So in other words scientists “don’t know… They just don’t know.” (Al Gore) No one can base the truth or much of an opinion on “They just don’t know.”

Mr. Gore’s website for his movie ''An Inconvenient Truth'' presents very little scientifically proven fact. In fact, under the link "The Science," [(http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/)] Al Gore only says that carbon dioxide naturally keeps our planet warm and he tries to convince his readers that his assumptions that the greenhouse gases are actually affecting the climate in a negative way by saying, “The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence,” Have you ever heard of bribing, blackmailing, or scaring scientists by making them think they will lose their grant money if they disagree with Gore (I am not saying Gore is bribing or blackmailing, anonymous people could be). Instilling fear worked in Hitler’s regime (I am not making a comparison just an observation). Then he continues on and on about what he thinks will happen if global warming is not stopped (considering the innumerable mistakes he has already made in this argument there is not much science in that). What he does not say is that scientists know (they do not know) that global warming “is the result of our activities,” (Al Gore's website for his movie) or even exists. He fails to address other possibilities for the causes of catastrophes that he “believes” will occur, is occuring, or has occured as a result of global warming (droughts, hurricanes, etcetera). Like why is global warming the culprit for some natural disaster instead of… For example, the Dust Bowl in the U.S. was caused by poor farming practices, which made the soil too loose, and drought set in. It was not global warming, or anything else.

Then there is the other side of the argument. They completely deny that it is getting warmer; yet, they agree that the average temperature has gone up one degree. It could be a natural occurrence. There is not any evidence that means we should forget about this possibility.

So what side do I support? Each side has its faults (I have found more faults on the global warming is real side), but I cannot support the side that says global warming has been started by human practices. I do not support global warming mainly because there is not enough evidence; just one group’s assumptions. So I want more evidence (not statistics) in order for me to be concerned about and support the fight against global warming.--[[User:Shna|Shna]] 19:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Then your position is a total [[non sequitur]]. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when ''three conferences'' called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] and [[misleading vividness]]. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::By that same token, then, no one has shown that tomorrow the forests of Southern [[California]] are going to go up in smoke, or that [[San Francisco]] is going to slip into the sea, or that [[Key West]] is going to wash away. And before you say that "nobody ever said that," I say that they have. One point three degrees. ''So what???'' Again, it's still not as warm as some other winters we used to have in [[New Jersey]]. We got unprecedented snow in 1993-4, and before then, we hardly ever had three feet of snow to fall in one day. Global warming? Hah! Global ''cooling'' was more like it.
:::::::::And another thing: we haven't discussed a little item such as the finding of polar ice melts on [[Mars]]. Now are you going to claim that we are somehow fouling up the climate on Mars, too?
:::::::::All that's happening is that the sunspots are a little more active. This, too, shall pass. And when it does, you can ice yourself down again, just as you were used to doing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: We're almost off the page at this point, so this'll be my last response, and you can have the final word.
::::::::::1.3 degrees (by the way, are you refering to how much it has changed so far, or projected change?) may not sound like much, but it does have a big effect. Example: during the last major ice age, when glaciers covered as far south as Ohio, the temperature was only 9 degrees different than it is now. You can cite cases of people getting frostbite at the North Pole and all sorts of other [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] logical fallacies, but you still haven't attempted to come up with a coherent argument disputing the basic premises of the case for climate change: 1. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide. 2. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 16:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Unfortunately, we are at the sunspot minimum of the cycle rather than the maximum. [http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html] and [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm] for more on the sunspot count. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. [[jwcddd]]

:For one simple reason: the [[global warming]] debate is at heart an adversarial proceeding. It might as well be titled ''People of the Temple of Gaia versus All Those Who Consume More than the Allowed Amount of Energy Per Person Per Day.'' [[Albert Gore, Jr]], of course, appears as the lead counsel for the plaintiff--and a most unworthy counsel he is, because he consumes twenty times as much energy as any of the rest of us.

:In any event, Gore and his co-counsels, including people like you, are trying to argue that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:''If that be shown'', then and only then does the burden-of-proof shift to the defendant--and here on Conservapedia, I seem to be the chief advocate for the defense in this particular forum.

:Now as any lawyer knows, in order to win a judgment based on ''res ipsa loquitur'', the plaintiff must establish that the thing causing the alleged damage ''lies under the exclusive control of the defendant''.

:So all I really have to show is that mankind ''does not'' have exclusive control. But more than that, the ''plaintiff'' must show that mankind ''does'' have that exclusive control.

:You can't show that. You can't even show significant damage--but even if you could, ''you cannot establish an exclusivity of control'' by man. Not when the planet [[Mars]] is warming up in just as great a proportion as, if not a greater proportion than, is the earth.

:I have heard of a lot of "climatological models." I have not heard of one yet that has been shown to be accurate.

:Consider what a judgment for the plaintiff means. It means that the government ought to forbid people to drive an automobile without first getting the equivalent of a Certificate of Need for building a hospital. It means that the government ought to forbid people to live in single-family residences without a similar CON, and require everyone to live in dormitory-style "apartments." It means that all transportation will be public transportation--except for Al Gore's limousine. It means that everyone's electricity budget gets cut back ninety percent. It means no more individual computers, TV sets, or any other kind of "gadget."

:I can see it now: Al Gore living large in the master's house and riding around in his limousine, and [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] as the dedicated forman, living as simply as everyone else, enforcing the Gore rules as ruthlessly as is required, and never questioning their necessity, or the logical holes in them.

:Given such stakes as that, the defense has the right to insist on a very high burden of proof. Indeed the defense "moves" that the burden be set to the highest of standards: ''beyond a reasonable doubt.''

:Of course, I maintain that the plaintiff cannot even satisfy a burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. It certainly cannot satisfy the exclusive-control test required for a ''res ipsa loquitur'' verdict.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's quite an answer. But of course you have once again avoided the issue. Global warming is not a court case. It is a scientific proposition which can only be found wanting through a scientific process. Your hang-ups with Gore and Mars, have no bearing on the debate, and one would assume that your reason for not addressing the issue directly reflects your inability to do so.

Models are presented to demonstrate possibilities, as proof-of-concept representations. No model has ever been 100% correct because there are no crystal balls in real life. However, models are based on fundamental research; not mysticism or magic. These same research fundamentals gave society the Germ Theory of Medicine, home computers, and DVD's. Models are why drug companies do trials before their products go to market; and models are used to make buildings safer, and airplanes able to meet performance criteria. So unless you can dismiss out of hand, the methodology that affords progress for the health and welfare of humanity, not to mention the conveniences of civilization, you still have not given anyone reading this page a reason to doubt that global warming is a fact. [[jwcddd]]

:And you show, as is usual for liberals, that you are unable to put yourself in another person's place. I have raised another issue that you consistently ignore: that you have not yet proved that mankind is ''exclusively at fault'' in your so-called process.

:Your argument assumes that [[global warming]] is established with the same rigor and dispassionate observation with which [[Antoine Lavoisier]] disproved the phlogiston theory of combustion, or [[Benjamin Franklin]] determined that lightning was a physical phenomenon and not exclusively a mystical one. Your argument further conflates invention with the prescription of public policy.

:I say again: ''your theory requires a public policy tantamount to punishment of those who live larger than yourself or higher than some threhold that you and your co-ideologues define.'' And because of that, it is for ''you'' to show that global warming ''is'' a fact, and that mankind is ''at tortious fault'' for same.

:You are alleging the tort of negligence. Four things are required to establish negligence:

:# Duty of care.
:# Dereliction of duty.
:# Injury.
:# Damage.

:Thus far, you have not shown dereliction of duty. You have not even shown injury, much less damage--but you have definitely not shown dereliction of duty.

:I could simply observe that your arrogance, in thinking that you are my judge, amazes me, and let it go at that. But I further observe that neither you nor anyone on your side has begun to think the matter through.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terry for your four points above
::#The duty of care is ours by default, human race. We are the only ones advance enough to cause change on a global scale.
::#Our dereliction of duty is evident in that we avoid taking responsibility for our duty, keep polluting even though we know it is bad by claiming that there are other factors as well that add to the pollution.
::#Displacement of species of animals, by changing the climate many animal species are moving to newer areas. This is causing an increase in invasive species and choking out native species.
::#The destruction of ice shelves, increased destruction of forests and the accelerated extinction of species. Seems to be quiet a bit of damage.

What I can not understand is why so many people are so resistant to policies and guidelines that promote a healthy environment? Are we that greedy that we are willing to continue to pollute and cause destruction of nature?

I saw Jerry Falwell on TV last night reporting against global warming. How can any minister encourage the continuation of wasteful actions in regards to environmental resources? I would think that anyone who is a man of god would cherish the creation of god and not work to destroy it. Perhaps we should take some lessons from the Amish.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Terry, I think you and yours are the ones who have not thought things through. Your arguments are based on the assumed full culpability of man for global warming. No one has made such an assertion. What has been stated in virtually every study on the evolution of the warming phenomenon is that carbon loading of the atmosphere, which has accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, tends to exacerbate and subsequently, accelerate the warming trend.
Now you as a human may not wish to accept responsibility, and that’s fine; but you as an intellectual should appreciate the logic in making attempts at minimizing the over-all affects of climate change. You worry about how your life would be disrupted if the economic base of the world had to adjust to offset warming when, in fact, the logical apprehension should be caused by the possibility that the warming is a fact and that, if nothing is done, a major portion of the global economy might collapse. Now that’s not an idle joke. Consider that nearly one third of the human race lives within a meter or two of sea level; that most third world agricultural areas are adjacent to or within close proximity to rivers and streams. How much disruption to the human endeavor would result from a sea level rise of just half a meter?

You like to call the supporters of the warming theory alarmists. Well maybe they are; but you could just as easily be called someone who wants to bury his head in the sand. You posit that warming theory is wrong for the very reasons you should be embracing attempts to prove it and to address its issues; the affect it will have on your life, your society, and your well being. Of course, I mean that rhetorically because the worse will not happen in our, or at least in my, lifetime; but I would suspect that you are not so selfish as to wish to jeopardize the health and well being of your progeny.
Consider the effect the displacement of a billion people might have on the world economy. The wars that will be fought for shrinking resources such as water and food.

Now I don’t have to prove that to you or anyone else, the simple possibility that it may occur should be motivation enough to ask “what can be done to prevent it from happening?”

You can engage in all the smoke screening you like. If you seriously think that global warming will go away, or not occur because you don’t like Gore; or because you think that scientists are just advancing the theory to enjoy financial gain; or because it may in part, be caused by increased solar activity, then you are not as intelligent as you would have people believe. You say the proponents try to assert that res ipsa loguitur –the thing speaks for itself. In fact, that is your argument, just coming from the opposite direction.

There you have it, Terry. You can answer if you want, you can continue to cower behind your Latin clichés, and you can continue to convince yourself that you have nothing to fear. You can have the last word, TerryH. You are no longer worth my time here. You accuse me of not having thought things through; I would assert that you have thought of nothing but denial. I have no respect for people who are incapable of logical thought; who engage not in unbiased science, but rather unscientific bias. [[jwcddd]] 21:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:What you stand on is not science at all, but grant-moneyed political pabulum and [[propaganda]]. ''I'' have no respect for them who accuse me falsely--not merely of "denial," as you put it, but of an intentional tort against the environment. For that is the accusation you continue to make.
:As for granting me the last word--is that a promise?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally am very skeptical of the current "global warming" frenzy. It just doesn't appear to have much solidity to it, and even if the earth is warming, the environment is highly self-regulatory. Warmer temperatures mean increased evaporation. Now it is true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but as it condense in the atmosphere, it forms clouds, which block the suns rays, dim the surface, and effectively lower temperatures. I personally believe that the earth might warm, but only to a certain point, at which natural systems would work to cool it again. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would certainly agree with the above. Add to it that if carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, then vegetation will take it up--along with the increased rains.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I guess Terry and Aardvark that you both do not understand chemistry and radiation. Yes more water vapor means more clouds, however clouds do not block the right wavelength of light. You can receive sunburn on a cloudy day, UV penetrates many cloud masses and reaches the earth. When the light is reflected back to space however its energy is reduced and is stopped from escaping the atmosphere by the clouds thus causing convection in the atmosphere. If you do not believe what I just stated then think about Venus, the atmosphere is cloud covered all of the time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::On to water vapor. Water vapor has high heat absorption and is very effective at retaining heat. So the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere the higher the temp. Since the higher the temp the atmosphere has a greater ability to gain more water vapor. This cycle continues till equilibrium is established however by our adding of other green house gasses this equilibrium is continually offset.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aardvark, lets put this in perspective about the natural systems cooling the earth again. Paper trash breaks down over time in dirt and weather. But the more paper trash we add to the system the longer it takes to break down. If we continue to add over what the system can break down normally we end up with a build up. Same thing with the Green house gasses. The Atmosphere can breakdown certain gasses however with the continual addition of gasses we end up overwhelming the reactions that break the gasses up. If you exceed the limits of the natural system it will not work.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::TerryH, additional CO2 and deforestation renders your statement moot. We have been exceeding what vegetation can keep up with for years, if not then the hole in the Ozone would have closed or remained unchanged. We are not seeding new rainforests at the rate we are cutting them down, nor are we replacing the vegetation that we remove when expanding our living areas. Come now think about what you just said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I am a scientist who has done a study which shows that mankind is incapable of determining whether there will be global warming. My findings, the summary of which follows, knocks the foundation out from under those who predict warming.

Essentially, it shows that the warming "experts" are unable to accurately predict tomorrow's temperature. I compared predictions of the National Weather Service to actual outcomes for next-day temps, and found that the "experts" were right only 11% of the time. I also found that if, instead of using their education, experience, software, supercomputers, and satellites, they had merely said tomorrow's temp will be the same as today's, they would have been right 16% of the time-- a considerable improvement.

The conclusion of my study is that, since the "experts" can only predict tomorrow's temp with 11% accuracy, they can't predict the temp 36,000 times farther out into the future.

My study isn't published yet, so sorry, I can't provide a reference. Earl100.

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe you have a skewed understanding of how science works. What you have proposed with the scientist fudging their data would be one of the largest conspiracies in our time. A scientist's livelihood is 100% based on their ability to accurately report and research. If one is found fudging they would lose everything, the science world is very unforgiving and hard to compete within. Grant money is not just given out, a scientist's credentials and background research are judged for awarding of grants.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::While the image may be from Wikipedia, it is simply a graph of data from various weather sources and compiled into one chart. The numbers themselves are from a 10 peer reviewed papers and not something that is part of Wikipedia. You could go look up those papers and chart it yourself and come up with the exact same graph. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

:[[Global warming]] is evident, but it's neither man's fault nor any cause for alarm. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. And [[solar variation]] drives temperature. A couple of degrees of additional warmth will be good for crops and will reduce [[extreme weather]] events like [[hurricane]]s. So there's no need to stop anything. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh... Better crops? Thats nice for you US citicens, but how about in countryes near equator? How about desertification and melting polar ice? And it will reduce hurricanes? Global warming has been alleged to do just the opposite, to create more extreme weather phenomens, like hurricanes. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181]. (And damn those math questions every time i post, need to click several times to get an easy one ;) ) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Have you considered the implications for the US economy as the bread basket moves north to Canada? Or the Pentagon's report on [http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231&url=%2FUploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv%3Fid%3D28566 Abrupt Climate Change] and national security? One of the biggest dangers of a warming climate (natural or not) is that the top of the ocean becomes less salty (from melting ice sheets) and some of the ocean currents stop. This in turn makes for more extreme weather - droughts (the pentagon report goes into questions of water disputes between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico, though these would probably be minor compared to those going on in Asia - which would get worse). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-05-13T19:59:46Z

Earl100: /* References */

{{debate-science}}

== Contrary evidence ==
You all might want to take a look at [http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804 this article], which offers some highly embarrassing details on [[Albert Gore, Jr.]]'s public-policy pronouncements, his refusal to do that which he asks others to do, and other, even grosser [[Sin#Environmentalism|sin]]s against the environment.

# A number of eminent scientists are now claiming--and for publication in ''The New York Times'', no less--that Gore's reports of the planet's imminent demise from heatstroke are greatly exaggerated.
# The article reiterates the accusation of [[special pleading]] against Gore--that while his Academy Award winning film asks, "Are you prepared to change your lifestyle?", Gore has not shown himself willing to change his own. Futhermore, it gives this detail on those "carbon offsets":<blockquote>The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."</blockquote>
# And now ''The Tennesseean'' (Nashville) reports that Gore has a zinc mine that has a history of polluting a local river.

Point number one above is the most important point, though points two and three show that former Senator Gore is not the most qualified authority on the subject.

I have said before that this debate is an adversarial proceeding, with Gore advocating that everyone else fundamentally change the way they (or I should say, we) live because the planet is somehow in peril and that peril is somehow our fault. But any lawyer (and he is one) knows that when a witness tells a lie on a material point, everything else he says is automatically suspect without independent corroboration. Well, special pleading might not be lying, but that zinc-mine affair shows him guilty of monumental dissemblance, which is close. So my advice to the global-warming alarmists is to find another chief advocate, and try to content with Point One.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''The above points about Al Gore have nothing to do with global warming, and perhaps should be moved to some anti-Al Gore page.''[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
What information do we have that we can prove? We have statistics that can’t be denied, but when the statistics were presented, were they manipulated to serve the speaker’s cause. Could they be interpreted in different ways? As Evan Esar said, “Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions,” and as Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.” Also, there has not been a control experiment (not possible with today’s technology) done to see whether any assumptions that have been made are true or even possible. So how can anyone (especially Al Gore) say so confidently that humans have caused any change in the climate when there are many other possibilities? He or she cannot. Besides, this would not be the first time a politician (like Al Gore) has been terribly confused or lying through their teeth to increase the disapproval rate of a political enemy (or any other way this debate may be helping Gore).

Al Gore is giving the worse case scenario on many of the catastrophes (Al Gore mistook the oceans rising 20 feet for 23 inches, United Nations estimates for the result of the melting of the polar ice caps, or was that just more propaganda), that of course, “will happen” if the world population does not act. Of course his threatening words come from scientists who “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence.” (Al Gore) So in other words scientists “don’t know… They just don’t know.” (Al Gore) No one can base the truth or much of an opinion on “They just don’t know.”

Mr. Gore’s website for his movie ''An Inconvenient Truth'' presents very little scientifically proven fact. In fact, under the link "The Science," [(http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/)] Al Gore only says that carbon dioxide naturally keeps our planet warm and he tries to convince his readers that his assumptions that the greenhouse gases are actually affecting the climate in a negative way by saying, “The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence,” Have you ever heard of bribing, blackmailing, or scaring scientists by making them think they will lose their grant money if they disagree with Gore (I am not saying Gore is bribing or blackmailing, anonymous people could be). Instilling fear worked in Hitler’s regime (I am not making a comparison just an observation). Then he continues on and on about what he thinks will happen if global warming is not stopped (considering the innumerable mistakes he has already made in this argument there is not much science in that). What he does not say is that scientists know (they do not know) that global warming “is the result of our activities,” (Al Gore's website for his movie) or even exists. He fails to address other possibilities for the causes of catastrophes that he “believes” will occur, is occuring, or has occured as a result of global warming (droughts, hurricanes, etcetera). Like why is global warming the culprit for some natural disaster instead of… For example, the Dust Bowl in the U.S. was caused by poor farming practices, which made the soil too loose, and drought set in. It was not global warming, or anything else.

Then there is the other side of the argument. They completely deny that it is getting warmer; yet, they agree that the average temperature has gone up one degree. It could be a natural occurrence. There is not any evidence that means we should forget about this possibility.

So what side do I support? Each side has its faults (I have found more faults on the global warming is real side), but I cannot support the side that says global warming has been started by human practices. I do not support global warming mainly because there is not enough evidence; just one group’s assumptions. So I want more evidence (not statistics) in order for me to be concerned about and support the fight against global warming.--[[User:Shna|Shna]] 19:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Then your position is a total [[non sequitur]]. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when ''three conferences'' called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] and [[misleading vividness]]. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::By that same token, then, no one has shown that tomorrow the forests of Southern [[California]] are going to go up in smoke, or that [[San Francisco]] is going to slip into the sea, or that [[Key West]] is going to wash away. And before you say that "nobody ever said that," I say that they have. One point three degrees. ''So what???'' Again, it's still not as warm as some other winters we used to have in [[New Jersey]]. We got unprecedented snow in 1993-4, and before then, we hardly ever had three feet of snow to fall in one day. Global warming? Hah! Global ''cooling'' was more like it.
:::::::::And another thing: we haven't discussed a little item such as the finding of polar ice melts on [[Mars]]. Now are you going to claim that we are somehow fouling up the climate on Mars, too?
:::::::::All that's happening is that the sunspots are a little more active. This, too, shall pass. And when it does, you can ice yourself down again, just as you were used to doing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: We're almost off the page at this point, so this'll be my last response, and you can have the final word.
::::::::::1.3 degrees (by the way, are you refering to how much it has changed so far, or projected change?) may not sound like much, but it does have a big effect. Example: during the last major ice age, when glaciers covered as far south as Ohio, the temperature was only 9 degrees different than it is now. You can cite cases of people getting frostbite at the North Pole and all sorts of other [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] logical fallacies, but you still haven't attempted to come up with a coherent argument disputing the basic premises of the case for climate change: 1. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide. 2. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 16:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Unfortunately, we are at the sunspot minimum of the cycle rather than the maximum. [http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html] and [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm] for more on the sunspot count. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. [[jwcddd]]

:For one simple reason: the [[global warming]] debate is at heart an adversarial proceeding. It might as well be titled ''People of the Temple of Gaia versus All Those Who Consume More than the Allowed Amount of Energy Per Person Per Day.'' [[Albert Gore, Jr]], of course, appears as the lead counsel for the plaintiff--and a most unworthy counsel he is, because he consumes twenty times as much energy as any of the rest of us.

:In any event, Gore and his co-counsels, including people like you, are trying to argue that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:''If that be shown'', then and only then does the burden-of-proof shift to the defendant--and here on Conservapedia, I seem to be the chief advocate for the defense in this particular forum.

:Now as any lawyer knows, in order to win a judgment based on ''res ipsa loquitur'', the plaintiff must establish that the thing causing the alleged damage ''lies under the exclusive control of the defendant''.

:So all I really have to show is that mankind ''does not'' have exclusive control. But more than that, the ''plaintiff'' must show that mankind ''does'' have that exclusive control.

:You can't show that. You can't even show significant damage--but even if you could, ''you cannot establish an exclusivity of control'' by man. Not when the planet [[Mars]] is warming up in just as great a proportion as, if not a greater proportion than, is the earth.

:I have heard of a lot of "climatological models." I have not heard of one yet that has been shown to be accurate.

:Consider what a judgment for the plaintiff means. It means that the government ought to forbid people to drive an automobile without first getting the equivalent of a Certificate of Need for building a hospital. It means that the government ought to forbid people to live in single-family residences without a similar CON, and require everyone to live in dormitory-style "apartments." It means that all transportation will be public transportation--except for Al Gore's limousine. It means that everyone's electricity budget gets cut back ninety percent. It means no more individual computers, TV sets, or any other kind of "gadget."

:I can see it now: Al Gore living large in the master's house and riding around in his limousine, and [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] as the dedicated forman, living as simply as everyone else, enforcing the Gore rules as ruthlessly as is required, and never questioning their necessity, or the logical holes in them.

:Given such stakes as that, the defense has the right to insist on a very high burden of proof. Indeed the defense "moves" that the burden be set to the highest of standards: ''beyond a reasonable doubt.''

:Of course, I maintain that the plaintiff cannot even satisfy a burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. It certainly cannot satisfy the exclusive-control test required for a ''res ipsa loquitur'' verdict.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's quite an answer. But of course you have once again avoided the issue. Global warming is not a court case. It is a scientific proposition which can only be found wanting through a scientific process. Your hang-ups with Gore and Mars, have no bearing on the debate, and one would assume that your reason for not addressing the issue directly reflects your inability to do so.

Models are presented to demonstrate possibilities, as proof-of-concept representations. No model has ever been 100% correct because there are no crystal balls in real life. However, models are based on fundamental research; not mysticism or magic. These same research fundamentals gave society the Germ Theory of Medicine, home computers, and DVD's. Models are why drug companies do trials before their products go to market; and models are used to make buildings safer, and airplanes able to meet performance criteria. So unless you can dismiss out of hand, the methodology that affords progress for the health and welfare of humanity, not to mention the conveniences of civilization, you still have not given anyone reading this page a reason to doubt that global warming is a fact. [[jwcddd]]

:And you show, as is usual for liberals, that you are unable to put yourself in another person's place. I have raised another issue that you consistently ignore: that you have not yet proved that mankind is ''exclusively at fault'' in your so-called process.

:Your argument assumes that [[global warming]] is established with the same rigor and dispassionate observation with which [[Antoine Lavoisier]] disproved the phlogiston theory of combustion, or [[Benjamin Franklin]] determined that lightning was a physical phenomenon and not exclusively a mystical one. Your argument further conflates invention with the prescription of public policy.

:I say again: ''your theory requires a public policy tantamount to punishment of those who live larger than yourself or higher than some threhold that you and your co-ideologues define.'' And because of that, it is for ''you'' to show that global warming ''is'' a fact, and that mankind is ''at tortious fault'' for same.

:You are alleging the tort of negligence. Four things are required to establish negligence:

:# Duty of care.
:# Dereliction of duty.
:# Injury.
:# Damage.

:Thus far, you have not shown dereliction of duty. You have not even shown injury, much less damage--but you have definitely not shown dereliction of duty.

:I could simply observe that your arrogance, in thinking that you are my judge, amazes me, and let it go at that. But I further observe that neither you nor anyone on your side has begun to think the matter through.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terry for your four points above
::#The duty of care is ours by default, human race. We are the only ones advance enough to cause change on a global scale.
::#Our dereliction of duty is evident in that we avoid taking responsibility for our duty, keep polluting even though we know it is bad by claiming that there are other factors as well that add to the pollution.
::#Displacement of species of animals, by changing the climate many animal species are moving to newer areas. This is causing an increase in invasive species and choking out native species.
::#The destruction of ice shelves, increased destruction of forests and the accelerated extinction of species. Seems to be quiet a bit of damage.

What I can not understand is why so many people are so resistant to policies and guidelines that promote a healthy environment? Are we that greedy that we are willing to continue to pollute and cause destruction of nature?

I saw Jerry Falwell on TV last night reporting against global warming. How can any minister encourage the continuation of wasteful actions in regards to environmental resources? I would think that anyone who is a man of god would cherish the creation of god and not work to destroy it. Perhaps we should take some lessons from the Amish.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Terry, I think you and yours are the ones who have not thought things through. Your arguments are based on the assumed full culpability of man for global warming. No one has made such an assertion. What has been stated in virtually every study on the evolution of the warming phenomenon is that carbon loading of the atmosphere, which has accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, tends to exacerbate and subsequently, accelerate the warming trend.
Now you as a human may not wish to accept responsibility, and that’s fine; but you as an intellectual should appreciate the logic in making attempts at minimizing the over-all affects of climate change. You worry about how your life would be disrupted if the economic base of the world had to adjust to offset warming when, in fact, the logical apprehension should be caused by the possibility that the warming is a fact and that, if nothing is done, a major portion of the global economy might collapse. Now that’s not an idle joke. Consider that nearly one third of the human race lives within a meter or two of sea level; that most third world agricultural areas are adjacent to or within close proximity to rivers and streams. How much disruption to the human endeavor would result from a sea level rise of just half a meter?

You like to call the supporters of the warming theory alarmists. Well maybe they are; but you could just as easily be called someone who wants to bury his head in the sand. You posit that warming theory is wrong for the very reasons you should be embracing attempts to prove it and to address its issues; the affect it will have on your life, your society, and your well being. Of course, I mean that rhetorically because the worse will not happen in our, or at least in my, lifetime; but I would suspect that you are not so selfish as to wish to jeopardize the health and well being of your progeny.
Consider the effect the displacement of a billion people might have on the world economy. The wars that will be fought for shrinking resources such as water and food.

Now I don’t have to prove that to you or anyone else, the simple possibility that it may occur should be motivation enough to ask “what can be done to prevent it from happening?”

You can engage in all the smoke screening you like. If you seriously think that global warming will go away, or not occur because you don’t like Gore; or because you think that scientists are just advancing the theory to enjoy financial gain; or because it may in part, be caused by increased solar activity, then you are not as intelligent as you would have people believe. You say the proponents try to assert that res ipsa loguitur –the thing speaks for itself. In fact, that is your argument, just coming from the opposite direction.

There you have it, Terry. You can answer if you want, you can continue to cower behind your Latin clichés, and you can continue to convince yourself that you have nothing to fear. You can have the last word, TerryH. You are no longer worth my time here. You accuse me of not having thought things through; I would assert that you have thought of nothing but denial. I have no respect for people who are incapable of logical thought; who engage not in unbiased science, but rather unscientific bias. [[jwcddd]] 21:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:What you stand on is not science at all, but grant-moneyed political pabulum and [[propaganda]]. ''I'' have no respect for them who accuse me falsely--not merely of "denial," as you put it, but of an intentional tort against the environment. For that is the accusation you continue to make.
:As for granting me the last word--is that a promise?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally am very skeptical of the current "global warming" frenzy. It just doesn't appear to have much solidity to it, and even if the earth is warming, the environment is highly self-regulatory. Warmer temperatures mean increased evaporation. Now it is true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but as it condense in the atmosphere, it forms clouds, which block the suns rays, dim the surface, and effectively lower temperatures. I personally believe that the earth might warm, but only to a certain point, at which natural systems would work to cool it again. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would certainly agree with the above. Add to it that if carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, then vegetation will take it up--along with the increased rains.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I guess Terry and Aardvark that you both do not understand chemistry and radiation. Yes more water vapor means more clouds, however clouds do not block the right wavelength of light. You can receive sunburn on a cloudy day, UV penetrates many cloud masses and reaches the earth. When the light is reflected back to space however its energy is reduced and is stopped from escaping the atmosphere by the clouds thus causing convection in the atmosphere. If you do not believe what I just stated then think about Venus, the atmosphere is cloud covered all of the time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::On to water vapor. Water vapor has high heat absorption and is very effective at retaining heat. So the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere the higher the temp. Since the higher the temp the atmosphere has a greater ability to gain more water vapor. This cycle continues till equilibrium is established however by our adding of other green house gasses this equilibrium is continually offset.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aardvark, lets put this in perspective about the natural systems cooling the earth again. Paper trash breaks down over time in dirt and weather. But the more paper trash we add to the system the longer it takes to break down. If we continue to add over what the system can break down normally we end up with a build up. Same thing with the Green house gasses. The Atmosphere can breakdown certain gasses however with the continual addition of gasses we end up overwhelming the reactions that break the gasses up. If you exceed the limits of the natural system it will not work.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::TerryH, additional CO2 and deforestation renders your statement moot. We have been exceeding what vegetation can keep up with for years, if not then the hole in the Ozone would have closed or remained unchanged. We are not seeding new rainforests at the rate we are cutting them down, nor are we replacing the vegetation that we remove when expanding our living areas. Come now think about what you just said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe you have a skewed understanding of how science works. What you have proposed with the scientist fudging their data would be one of the largest conspiracies in our time. A scientist's livelihood is 100% based on their ability to accurately report and research. If one is found fudging they would lose everything, the science world is very unforgiving and hard to compete within. Grant money is not just given out, a scientist's credentials and background research are judged for awarding of grants.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::While the image may be from Wikipedia, it is simply a graph of data from various weather sources and compiled into one chart. The numbers themselves are from a 10 peer reviewed papers and not something that is part of Wikipedia. You could go look up those papers and chart it yourself and come up with the exact same graph. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

:[[Global warming]] is evident, but it's neither man's fault nor any cause for alarm. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. And [[solar variation]] drives temperature. A couple of degrees of additional warmth will be good for crops and will reduce [[extreme weather]] events like [[hurricane]]s. So there's no need to stop anything. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh... Better crops? Thats nice for you US citicens, but how about in countryes near equator? How about desertification and melting polar ice? And it will reduce hurricanes? Global warming has been alleged to do just the opposite, to create more extreme weather phenomens, like hurricanes. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181]. (And damn those math questions every time i post, need to click several times to get an easy one ;) ) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Have you considered the implications for the US economy as the bread basket moves north to Canada? Or the Pentagon's report on [http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231&url=%2FUploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv%3Fid%3D28566 Abrupt Climate Change] and national security? One of the biggest dangers of a warming climate (natural or not) is that the top of the ocean becomes less salty (from melting ice sheets) and some of the ocean currents stop. This in turn makes for more extreme weather - droughts (the pentagon report goes into questions of water disputes between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico, though these would probably be minor compared to those going on in Asia - which would get worse). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-05-13T19:58:50Z

Earl100: /* References */

{{debate-science}}

== Contrary evidence ==
You all might want to take a look at [http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804 this article], which offers some highly embarrassing details on [[Albert Gore, Jr.]]'s public-policy pronouncements, his refusal to do that which he asks others to do, and other, even grosser [[Sin#Environmentalism|sin]]s against the environment.

# A number of eminent scientists are now claiming--and for publication in ''The New York Times'', no less--that Gore's reports of the planet's imminent demise from heatstroke are greatly exaggerated.
# The article reiterates the accusation of [[special pleading]] against Gore--that while his Academy Award winning film asks, "Are you prepared to change your lifestyle?", Gore has not shown himself willing to change his own. Futhermore, it gives this detail on those "carbon offsets":<blockquote>The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."</blockquote>
# And now ''The Tennesseean'' (Nashville) reports that Gore has a zinc mine that has a history of polluting a local river.

Point number one above is the most important point, though points two and three show that former Senator Gore is not the most qualified authority on the subject.

I have said before that this debate is an adversarial proceeding, with Gore advocating that everyone else fundamentally change the way they (or I should say, we) live because the planet is somehow in peril and that peril is somehow our fault. But any lawyer (and he is one) knows that when a witness tells a lie on a material point, everything else he says is automatically suspect without independent corroboration. Well, special pleading might not be lying, but that zinc-mine affair shows him guilty of monumental dissemblance, which is close. So my advice to the global-warming alarmists is to find another chief advocate, and try to content with Point One.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''The above points about Al Gore have nothing to do with global warming, and perhaps should be moved to some anti-Al Gore page.''[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
What information do we have that we can prove? We have statistics that can’t be denied, but when the statistics were presented, were they manipulated to serve the speaker’s cause. Could they be interpreted in different ways? As Evan Esar said, “Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions,” and as Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.” Also, there has not been a control experiment (not possible with today’s technology) done to see whether any assumptions that have been made are true or even possible. So how can anyone (especially Al Gore) say so confidently that humans have caused any change in the climate when there are many other possibilities? He or she cannot. Besides, this would not be the first time a politician (like Al Gore) has been terribly confused or lying through their teeth to increase the disapproval rate of a political enemy (or any other way this debate may be helping Gore).

Al Gore is giving the worse case scenario on many of the catastrophes (Al Gore mistook the oceans rising 20 feet for 23 inches, United Nations estimates for the result of the melting of the polar ice caps, or was that just more propaganda), that of course, “will happen” if the world population does not act. Of course his threatening words come from scientists who “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence.” (Al Gore) So in other words scientists “don’t know… They just don’t know.” (Al Gore) No one can base the truth or much of an opinion on “They just don’t know.”

Mr. Gore’s website for his movie ''An Inconvenient Truth'' presents very little scientifically proven fact. In fact, under the link "The Science," [(http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/)] Al Gore only says that carbon dioxide naturally keeps our planet warm and he tries to convince his readers that his assumptions that the greenhouse gases are actually affecting the climate in a negative way by saying, “The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence,” Have you ever heard of bribing, blackmailing, or scaring scientists by making them think they will lose their grant money if they disagree with Gore (I am not saying Gore is bribing or blackmailing, anonymous people could be). Instilling fear worked in Hitler’s regime (I am not making a comparison just an observation). Then he continues on and on about what he thinks will happen if global warming is not stopped (considering the innumerable mistakes he has already made in this argument there is not much science in that). What he does not say is that scientists know (they do not know) that global warming “is the result of our activities,” (Al Gore's website for his movie) or even exists. He fails to address other possibilities for the causes of catastrophes that he “believes” will occur, is occuring, or has occured as a result of global warming (droughts, hurricanes, etcetera). Like why is global warming the culprit for some natural disaster instead of… For example, the Dust Bowl in the U.S. was caused by poor farming practices, which made the soil too loose, and drought set in. It was not global warming, or anything else.

Then there is the other side of the argument. They completely deny that it is getting warmer; yet, they agree that the average temperature has gone up one degree. It could be a natural occurrence. There is not any evidence that means we should forget about this possibility.

So what side do I support? Each side has its faults (I have found more faults on the global warming is real side), but I cannot support the side that says global warming has been started by human practices. I do not support global warming mainly because there is not enough evidence; just one group’s assumptions. So I want more evidence (not statistics) in order for me to be concerned about and support the fight against global warming.--[[User:Shna|Shna]] 19:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Then your position is a total [[non sequitur]]. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when ''three conferences'' called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] and [[misleading vividness]]. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::By that same token, then, no one has shown that tomorrow the forests of Southern [[California]] are going to go up in smoke, or that [[San Francisco]] is going to slip into the sea, or that [[Key West]] is going to wash away. And before you say that "nobody ever said that," I say that they have. One point three degrees. ''So what???'' Again, it's still not as warm as some other winters we used to have in [[New Jersey]]. We got unprecedented snow in 1993-4, and before then, we hardly ever had three feet of snow to fall in one day. Global warming? Hah! Global ''cooling'' was more like it.
:::::::::And another thing: we haven't discussed a little item such as the finding of polar ice melts on [[Mars]]. Now are you going to claim that we are somehow fouling up the climate on Mars, too?
:::::::::All that's happening is that the sunspots are a little more active. This, too, shall pass. And when it does, you can ice yourself down again, just as you were used to doing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: We're almost off the page at this point, so this'll be my last response, and you can have the final word.
::::::::::1.3 degrees (by the way, are you refering to how much it has changed so far, or projected change?) may not sound like much, but it does have a big effect. Example: during the last major ice age, when glaciers covered as far south as Ohio, the temperature was only 9 degrees different than it is now. You can cite cases of people getting frostbite at the North Pole and all sorts of other [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] logical fallacies, but you still haven't attempted to come up with a coherent argument disputing the basic premises of the case for climate change: 1. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide. 2. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 16:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Unfortunately, we are at the sunspot minimum of the cycle rather than the maximum. [http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html] and [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm] for more on the sunspot count. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. [[jwcddd]]

:For one simple reason: the [[global warming]] debate is at heart an adversarial proceeding. It might as well be titled ''People of the Temple of Gaia versus All Those Who Consume More than the Allowed Amount of Energy Per Person Per Day.'' [[Albert Gore, Jr]], of course, appears as the lead counsel for the plaintiff--and a most unworthy counsel he is, because he consumes twenty times as much energy as any of the rest of us.

:In any event, Gore and his co-counsels, including people like you, are trying to argue that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:''If that be shown'', then and only then does the burden-of-proof shift to the defendant--and here on Conservapedia, I seem to be the chief advocate for the defense in this particular forum.

:Now as any lawyer knows, in order to win a judgment based on ''res ipsa loquitur'', the plaintiff must establish that the thing causing the alleged damage ''lies under the exclusive control of the defendant''.

:So all I really have to show is that mankind ''does not'' have exclusive control. But more than that, the ''plaintiff'' must show that mankind ''does'' have that exclusive control.

:You can't show that. You can't even show significant damage--but even if you could, ''you cannot establish an exclusivity of control'' by man. Not when the planet [[Mars]] is warming up in just as great a proportion as, if not a greater proportion than, is the earth.

:I have heard of a lot of "climatological models." I have not heard of one yet that has been shown to be accurate.

:Consider what a judgment for the plaintiff means. It means that the government ought to forbid people to drive an automobile without first getting the equivalent of a Certificate of Need for building a hospital. It means that the government ought to forbid people to live in single-family residences without a similar CON, and require everyone to live in dormitory-style "apartments." It means that all transportation will be public transportation--except for Al Gore's limousine. It means that everyone's electricity budget gets cut back ninety percent. It means no more individual computers, TV sets, or any other kind of "gadget."

:I can see it now: Al Gore living large in the master's house and riding around in his limousine, and [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] as the dedicated forman, living as simply as everyone else, enforcing the Gore rules as ruthlessly as is required, and never questioning their necessity, or the logical holes in them.

:Given such stakes as that, the defense has the right to insist on a very high burden of proof. Indeed the defense "moves" that the burden be set to the highest of standards: ''beyond a reasonable doubt.''

:Of course, I maintain that the plaintiff cannot even satisfy a burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. It certainly cannot satisfy the exclusive-control test required for a ''res ipsa loquitur'' verdict.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's quite an answer. But of course you have once again avoided the issue. Global warming is not a court case. It is a scientific proposition which can only be found wanting through a scientific process. Your hang-ups with Gore and Mars, have no bearing on the debate, and one would assume that your reason for not addressing the issue directly reflects your inability to do so.

Models are presented to demonstrate possibilities, as proof-of-concept representations. No model has ever been 100% correct because there are no crystal balls in real life. However, models are based on fundamental research; not mysticism or magic. These same research fundamentals gave society the Germ Theory of Medicine, home computers, and DVD's. Models are why drug companies do trials before their products go to market; and models are used to make buildings safer, and airplanes able to meet performance criteria. So unless you can dismiss out of hand, the methodology that affords progress for the health and welfare of humanity, not to mention the conveniences of civilization, you still have not given anyone reading this page a reason to doubt that global warming is a fact. [[jwcddd]]

:And you show, as is usual for liberals, that you are unable to put yourself in another person's place. I have raised another issue that you consistently ignore: that you have not yet proved that mankind is ''exclusively at fault'' in your so-called process.

:Your argument assumes that [[global warming]] is established with the same rigor and dispassionate observation with which [[Antoine Lavoisier]] disproved the phlogiston theory of combustion, or [[Benjamin Franklin]] determined that lightning was a physical phenomenon and not exclusively a mystical one. Your argument further conflates invention with the prescription of public policy.

:I say again: ''your theory requires a public policy tantamount to punishment of those who live larger than yourself or higher than some threhold that you and your co-ideologues define.'' And because of that, it is for ''you'' to show that global warming ''is'' a fact, and that mankind is ''at tortious fault'' for same.

:You are alleging the tort of negligence. Four things are required to establish negligence:

:# Duty of care.
:# Dereliction of duty.
:# Injury.
:# Damage.

:Thus far, you have not shown dereliction of duty. You have not even shown injury, much less damage--but you have definitely not shown dereliction of duty.

:I could simply observe that your arrogance, in thinking that you are my judge, amazes me, and let it go at that. But I further observe that neither you nor anyone on your side has begun to think the matter through.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terry for your four points above
::#The duty of care is ours by default, human race. We are the only ones advance enough to cause change on a global scale.
::#Our dereliction of duty is evident in that we avoid taking responsibility for our duty, keep polluting even though we know it is bad by claiming that there are other factors as well that add to the pollution.
::#Displacement of species of animals, by changing the climate many animal species are moving to newer areas. This is causing an increase in invasive species and choking out native species.
::#The destruction of ice shelves, increased destruction of forests and the accelerated extinction of species. Seems to be quiet a bit of damage.

What I can not understand is why so many people are so resistant to policies and guidelines that promote a healthy environment? Are we that greedy that we are willing to continue to pollute and cause destruction of nature?

I saw Jerry Falwell on TV last night reporting against global warming. How can any minister encourage the continuation of wasteful actions in regards to environmental resources? I would think that anyone who is a man of god would cherish the creation of god and not work to destroy it. Perhaps we should take some lessons from the Amish.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Terry, I think you and yours are the ones who have not thought things through. Your arguments are based on the assumed full culpability of man for global warming. No one has made such an assertion. What has been stated in virtually every study on the evolution of the warming phenomenon is that carbon loading of the atmosphere, which has accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, tends to exacerbate and subsequently, accelerate the warming trend.
Now you as a human may not wish to accept responsibility, and that’s fine; but you as an intellectual should appreciate the logic in making attempts at minimizing the over-all affects of climate change. You worry about how your life would be disrupted if the economic base of the world had to adjust to offset warming when, in fact, the logical apprehension should be caused by the possibility that the warming is a fact and that, if nothing is done, a major portion of the global economy might collapse. Now that’s not an idle joke. Consider that nearly one third of the human race lives within a meter or two of sea level; that most third world agricultural areas are adjacent to or within close proximity to rivers and streams. How much disruption to the human endeavor would result from a sea level rise of just half a meter?

You like to call the supporters of the warming theory alarmists. Well maybe they are; but you could just as easily be called someone who wants to bury his head in the sand. You posit that warming theory is wrong for the very reasons you should be embracing attempts to prove it and to address its issues; the affect it will have on your life, your society, and your well being. Of course, I mean that rhetorically because the worse will not happen in our, or at least in my, lifetime; but I would suspect that you are not so selfish as to wish to jeopardize the health and well being of your progeny.
Consider the effect the displacement of a billion people might have on the world economy. The wars that will be fought for shrinking resources such as water and food.

Now I don’t have to prove that to you or anyone else, the simple possibility that it may occur should be motivation enough to ask “what can be done to prevent it from happening?”

You can engage in all the smoke screening you like. If you seriously think that global warming will go away, or not occur because you don’t like Gore; or because you think that scientists are just advancing the theory to enjoy financial gain; or because it may in part, be caused by increased solar activity, then you are not as intelligent as you would have people believe. You say the proponents try to assert that res ipsa loguitur –the thing speaks for itself. In fact, that is your argument, just coming from the opposite direction.

There you have it, Terry. You can answer if you want, you can continue to cower behind your Latin clichés, and you can continue to convince yourself that you have nothing to fear. You can have the last word, TerryH. You are no longer worth my time here. You accuse me of not having thought things through; I would assert that you have thought of nothing but denial. I have no respect for people who are incapable of logical thought; who engage not in unbiased science, but rather unscientific bias. [[jwcddd]] 21:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:What you stand on is not science at all, but grant-moneyed political pabulum and [[propaganda]]. ''I'' have no respect for them who accuse me falsely--not merely of "denial," as you put it, but of an intentional tort against the environment. For that is the accusation you continue to make.
:As for granting me the last word--is that a promise?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally am very skeptical of the current "global warming" frenzy. It just doesn't appear to have much solidity to it, and even if the earth is warming, the environment is highly self-regulatory. Warmer temperatures mean increased evaporation. Now it is true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but as it condense in the atmosphere, it forms clouds, which block the suns rays, dim the surface, and effectively lower temperatures. I personally believe that the earth might warm, but only to a certain point, at which natural systems would work to cool it again. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would certainly agree with the above. Add to it that if carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, then vegetation will take it up--along with the increased rains.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I guess Terry and Aardvark that you both do not understand chemistry and radiation. Yes more water vapor means more clouds, however clouds do not block the right wavelength of light. You can receive sunburn on a cloudy day, UV penetrates many cloud masses and reaches the earth. When the light is reflected back to space however its energy is reduced and is stopped from escaping the atmosphere by the clouds thus causing convection in the atmosphere. If you do not believe what I just stated then think about Venus, the atmosphere is cloud covered all of the time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::On to water vapor. Water vapor has high heat absorption and is very effective at retaining heat. So the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere the higher the temp. Since the higher the temp the atmosphere has a greater ability to gain more water vapor. This cycle continues till equilibrium is established however by our adding of other green house gasses this equilibrium is continually offset.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aardvark, lets put this in perspective about the natural systems cooling the earth again. Paper trash breaks down over time in dirt and weather. But the more paper trash we add to the system the longer it takes to break down. If we continue to add over what the system can break down normally we end up with a build up. Same thing with the Green house gasses. The Atmosphere can breakdown certain gasses however with the continual addition of gasses we end up overwhelming the reactions that break the gasses up. If you exceed the limits of the natural system it will not work.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::TerryH, additional CO2 and deforestation renders your statement moot. We have been exceeding what vegetation can keep up with for years, if not then the hole in the Ozone would have closed or remained unchanged. We are not seeding new rainforests at the rate we are cutting them down, nor are we replacing the vegetation that we remove when expanding our living areas. Come now think about what you just said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe you have a skewed understanding of how science works. What you have proposed with the scientist fudging their data would be one of the largest conspiracies in our time. A scientist's livelihood is 100% based on their ability to accurately report and research. If one is found fudging they would lose everything, the science world is very unforgiving and hard to compete within. Grant money is not just given out, a scientist's credentials and background research are judged for awarding of grants.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::While the image may be from Wikipedia, it is simply a graph of data from various weather sources and compiled into one chart. The numbers themselves are from a 10 peer reviewed papers and not something that is part of Wikipedia. You could go look up those papers and chart it yourself and come up with the exact same graph. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

:[[Global warming]] is evident, but it's neither man's fault nor any cause for alarm. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. And [[solar variation]] drives temperature. A couple of degrees of additional warmth will be good for crops and will reduce [[extreme weather]] events like [[hurricane]]s. So there's no need to stop anything. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh... Better crops? Thats nice for you US citicens, but how about in countryes near equator? How about desertification and melting polar ice? And it will reduce hurricanes? Global warming has been alleged to do just the opposite, to create more extreme weather phenomens, like hurricanes. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181]. (And damn those math questions every time i post, need to click several times to get an easy one ;) ) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Have you considered the implications for the US economy as the bread basket moves north to Canada? Or the Pentagon's report on [http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231&url=%2FUploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv%3Fid%3D28566 Abrupt Climate Change] and national security? One of the biggest dangers of a warming climate (natural or not) is that the top of the ocean becomes less salty (from melting ice sheets) and some of the ocean currents stop. This in turn makes for more extreme weather - droughts (the pentagon report goes into questions of water disputes between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico, though these would probably be minor compared to those going on in Asia - which would get worse). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>
I am a scientist who has done a study which shows that mankind is incapable of determining whether there will be global warming. My findings, the summary of which follows, knocks the foundation out from under those who predict warming.

Essentially, it shows that the warming "experts" are unable to accurately predict tomorrow's temperature. I compared predictions of the National Weather Service to actual outcomes for next-day temps, and found that the "experts" were right only 11% of the time. I also found that if, instead of using their education, experience, software, supercomputers, and satellites, they had merely said tomorrow's temp will be the same as today's, they would have been right 16% of the time-- a considerable improvement.

The conclusion of my study is that, since the "experts" can only predict tomorrow's temp with 11% accuracy, they can't predict the temp 36,000 times farther out into the future.

My study isn't published yet, so sorry, I can't provide a reference. Earl100.

Essay:Separate Life

2007-05-03T23:57:16Z

Earl100: Shows that a preborn baby is not a part of his or her mother's body

''' Is a Preborn Baby a Part of His Mother's Body?'''

'''The answer is NO!'''

'''Why this question is important:'''
If he's part of his mother's body, it's morally okay to kill him because you wouldn't actually be killing a baby. If he's not a part of her body, it's immoral (no matter that it's legal). Advocates of abortion insist that he is a part of his mother's body, and have often been videotaped screaming words such as, "Keep your hands off my body!" and "It's my body! It's my body!". Anti-abortion advocates claim the baby is a separate life, and that therefore to abort him is to kill him just as to kill you is to kill you.

'''How this question came to be important:'''
Incredibly, in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that a preborn baby isn't a person. Abortionists' reasoning therefore became, "If it's not a person, when a mother aborts, she's not killing anyone. She is just removing a part of her own body."

This is a key to the abortion controversy.

'''The abortionists are wrong, and here are thirteen reasons why. Here are thirteen reasons that prove THE PREBORN BABY IS A SEPARATE LIFE.'''

'''Reason #1:''' DNA testing shows that he is separate. One example of this is simply: Suppose a man murders someone and leaves traces of his body at the site of the murder. These traces are tested for DNA. The man is, in this example, convicted. The point is, it's the man who is identified, not his mother. It's the man who goes to prison, not his mother.

'''Reason #2:''' The vast majority of the world's doctors say the preborn is separate.

'''Reason #3:''' The former chief geneticist of the Mayo Clinic, perhaps the most prestigious medical clinic in the world, says it is separate.1

'''Reason #4:''' Fertilization occurs when sperm unites with egg. Then, implantation on the wall of the uterus (womb) occurs. We see, then, that when life begins the life is not physically connected to the mother, but is separate.

'''Reason #5:''' If a live, human fertilized egg is to become a part of the mother's body, then his own life would cease as he became a part of her's. We know that this doesn't happen, because nine months later, he is born alive. Therefore, he didn't become a part of his mother's body. His life was separate all the time.

'''Reason #6:''' The preborn baby has his own brain.

'''Reason #7:''' The preborn baby has his own heart.

'''Reason #8:''' The preborn baby has his separate blood supply. This can even be of a different blood type, one incompatible with his mother's blood.

'''Reason #9:''' The preborn baby always has his father's chromosomes.

'''Reason #10:''' Suppose we have a test tube, and in the test tube we fertilize an egg and the egg implants on the test tube wall. Is the fetus a part of the test tube's body? Of course not. Since the same thing happens inside a woman, then how could the fetus be a part of the woman's body?

'''Reason #11:''' Suppose we have a white woman who is impregnated by artificial insemination with an egg from a black woman, with such egg fertilized by an Oriental man. Also, suppose the baby is a boy. Does the white woman now have three races--white, black, and Oriental? Does she now have two sexes? Does she suddenly have twenty fingers, twenty toes, two brains, and two hearts?

When the baby is born, does the white woman revert back to having one race and to being only woman? Does the baby change from having three races to having two and from being girl and boy to being only boy? Do he and his mother each lose ten fingers, ten toes, one brain, and one heart?

This would have to happen if the baby was a part of his mother.

'''Reason #12:''' Medical science has proven absolutely that an preborn baby undergoes excruciating pain during his abortion. This can be seen with a sonogram. A sonogram is like an X-ray in that it can see inside a person. In addition, a sonogram permits motion pictures to be made, not just still pictures. Two movies, "The Silent Scream" and "Eclipse of Reason" were made of an actual abortion. What was recorded on tape was motion pictures of what the baby was going through in the uterus. It is horrible.

Two ways babies are aborted are to chemically burn them to death inside and outside of their bodies, and to crush their skulls and tear off their arms and legs, but women do not scream from pain when they're having an abortion.

Conclusion: The preborn baby is a separate life!

'''Reason #13:''' You know in your heart that it's a separate life. For years, perhaps, you've pushed that feeling down, but you've known. You've taken in the pro-abortion slogans and accepted them intellectually, but still, you've known.

How do we know this? Former owner of a chain of abortion clinics, Carol Everett, says that the women about to undergo abortions have to be kept calm and separated from each other. Why? Because, in spite of the pro-abortion slogans, they know what they're doing, and once in a while one of them loses control and starts screaming with grief and other emotional pain. The other women, also knowing in their hearts what they are doing is wrong, hear this and then also lose control. Soon, all of the women victims are screaming out what choice really means--death.

They knew it in their hearts all along, and so do you.

'''Citations:'''
1. Dr. Hymie Gordon, former Chairman of the Dept. of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, MN.

Potassium-argon dating

2007-04-14T19:54:38Z

Earl100: /* See also */

'''Potassium-argon dating''' is a method for estimating the age of volcanic rocks by measuring the ratio of potassium-40 to argon-40 present.

The method is based on the fact that the potassium-40 [[isotope]] of potassium [[radioactiv decay | decay]]s over time to form argon-40. The useful fact about these two substances is that at normal temperatures, potassium is a solid, but argon is a gas. Therefore, during volcanic eruptions, any argon that is present escapes from the rock. But after the rock solidifies, any potassium-40 that is present continues to decay, and the argon-40 that is produced cannot escape from the rock.

Thus, geologists use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of volcanic rocks. If the concentration of argon-40 is almost zero, then the rock was formed recently. If it is high relative to the amount of potassium-40 present, then the rock is old. Archaeologists and biologists are also sometimes able to use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of artifacts and fossils, when these have become trapped in or buried under volcanic rock.

The mathematical formula that is used to figure the age of the rock depends on the [[half-life]] of carbon-40 (the time it takes for half the potassium-40 in a given sample to decay). The half-live of potassium-40 is approximately 1.26 billion years (that is, 1.26x109 years).

Obviously, this formula depends on the laws of physics remaining constant over time. If the rate of [[radioactive decay]] has changed over time, the formula will not give correct dates. Most scientists believe that the rate of potassium-argon decay has not changed over the history of the earth. However, some creationists have argued that God increased the rate of potassium-argon decay during the first few days of Creation, thus causing the potassium-argon dating method to give erroneously old date readings.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating#RATE_Group.27s_Research</ref>

Other isotopes with shorter half-lives can also be used to date objects- however, each method has its own drawbacks. For instance, the decay of carbon-14 is often used to complement the potassium-argon dating of [[dinosaur]] [[fossils]].

==See also==

[[radiometric dating | Radiometric dating methods]]
This paragraph needs editing:
The mathematical formula that is used to figure the age of the rock depends on the half-life of carbon-40 (the time it takes for half the potassium-40 in a given sample to decay). The half-live of potassium-40 is approximately 1.26 billion years (that is, 1.26x109 years).

On the second line it says "carbon-40". It should say potassium-40".
At the end of the second line it says "half-live". It should say "half-life".

I am new to conservapedia, and so I don't know what to do or where to do it, so I'll say my piece here:

1) There is very much more to say in criticism of the accuracy of potassium-argon dating. You can find great material in the book "Adam When?" by Harold Camping. It is available for free by calling 510 568 6200, Pacific time. See page 180. This book also criticizes carbon dating, and so if your pages on carbon dating need improvement, you might improve them through this book.

Should I be doing this? Well, that's one of the things I don't understand yet. Do you have others that will if I don't? Do you have paid staff? Do you have volunteers who just can't wait to get involved editing?

2) You may have the following, but I couldn't find it: You need much much more than the story/timeline of creation. Those who read your pages will consider that they now have two sets of possible facts or two sides of the story, and they won't have any basis for deciding which is right, creationism or alleged science.

So you need to totally discredit the alleged science that shows the earth is billions of years old and man is hundreds of millions years old and evolution is whatever. And you need to make it very obvious how to find these pages.

Some subjects could be:
The inaccuracy of carbon dating.
The inaccuracy of potassium-argon dating.
Many examples of scientists' errors. Like when stratus of fossils are found where the older species are found above the younger ones. Like Nebraska man, where a whole village was created by the "scientists" from one tooth--and then the tooth was found to be a pig's. Etc. etc.
A big section with subsections on the impossibility of evolution.
So so much from the book mentioned above.

I suppose you already have a little of this, but like I said, I'm new to conservapedia. But again, it is exceedingly important that you point the reader to these points, like you didn't point me, so that he may believe.

PS: Would you like a recent article entitled "Earth's Resources will Last Indefinitely"? It covers the top ten natural resources. Exactly how would I submit it to you?

Do you want great anti-abortion material? Get it from my web site www.lri2.org

In God's service,
Lynn K. Murphy
akjunk.astound.net

==References==

Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).

Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).