People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[sakinago]

And knowing what we "know" now...that doesn't seem like a scare tactic to you? How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?

" How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?"

Simple... by gathering more data, given the benefit of time. Just as the part of a model of a hurricane's path over a location in the middle of the model becomes more narrow and accurate, as the hurricane approaches. How can you not puzzle this out for yourself?

A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model.
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.

You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

Again -- please pay attention -- I am not going to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with internet hacks. Sorry. I am perfectly content in ridiculing you for your insignificance and for the absurd implications of your claims as they relate to the global scientific community. If you are pining for that debate, then go perform mountains of scientific research and present your results for review by the major journals and scientific societies of the world.

No, you have not presented any real challenge to any accepted theory by squawking on the internet.

"Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board."

I promise you that nobody cares.

If it's as true as you say, it should not require an appeal to ignorance. Which is what you've once again offered. I've been looking for the past 5 (probably more) years to reason why we cannot use satellite weather data as opposed to the current weather data. The only thing I've read is from the NOAA, in a power point, that cited the atmosphere as a source of inaccuracy. Which makes sense at face value. But not to the planet as a whole, if there's a warming trend, it should be showing up on satellite data, whether satellite data is + or - what the actual value is, there should be a warming trend. It's much easier to cherry pick certain areas of warming on a local scale than an entire planetary system. How do you manipulate data on a planetary scale? Does he atmosphere just automatically manipulate the scale in favor of the sceptic?

Again I'm open. Don't present me an appeal to ignorance.

 

[sakinago]

" How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?"

Simple... by gathering more data, given the benefit of time. Just as the part of a model of a hurricane's path over a location in the middle of the model becomes more narrow and accurate, as the hurricane approaches. How can you not puzzle this out for yourself?

A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model.
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.

You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

Again -- please pay attention -- I am not going to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with internet hacks. Sorry. I am perfectly content in ridiculing you for your insignificance and for the absurd implications of your claims as they relate to the global scientific community. If you are pining for that debate, then go perform mountains of scientific research and present your results for review by the major journals and scientific societies of the world.

No, you have not presented any real challenge to any accepted theory by squawking on the internet.

"Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board."

I promise you that nobody cares.

If it's as true as you say, it should not require an appeal to ignorance. Which is what you've once again offered. I've been looking for the past 5 (probably more) years to reason why we cannot use satellite weather data as opposed to the current weather data. The only thing I've read is from the NOAA, in a power point, that cited the atmosphere as a source of inaccuracy. Which makes sense at face value. But not to the planet as a whole, if there's a warming trend, it should be showing up on satellite data, whether satellite data is + or - what the actual value is, there should be a warming trend. It's much easier to cherry pick certain areas of warming on a local scale than an entire planetary system. How do you manipulate data on a planetary scale? Does he atmosphere just automatically manipulate the scale in favor of the sceptic?

Again I'm open. Don't present me an appeal to ignorance.

Again I'm 100% open. Forgive me if I'm a sceptic when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong. Let's go back to the hurricane metaphore. Let's say ninety some percent of them were saying a hurricane would end up somewhere between Houston and New Orleans. That's a fair range. But then the hurricane wound up hitting east Florida (which is more than fair for most climate models proposed). Should I not question those ninety some percent of models telling me to expect the inner Mexican gulf...more than a fair representation of what we have been presented since 2008. Not to mention the impending doom suggested in the previous 10 years which never came...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Clearly something is wrong with your brain, if you actually believe that the world's scientists are all lying about AGW. That, of course, explains why you know-nothing deniers are all squawking on internet forums, instead of publishing science. You are not presenting a challenge to a robust theory by throwing your little hissy fit. You are just embarrassing yourself.

So, from your perspective as an uneducated and ignorant dolt, those who fail to follow the moronic religion that you promote are not only heretics, but indeed mentally ill? Precisely the way Stalin dealt with those who dare challenge Lysenko. You Stalinists never change in your methods.

Here is a hint Comrade, real science is not based on consensus to dogma, the way your religion is.

"but indeed mentally ill? "

Not most of you, no. Mostly you are just embarrassing little liars who pick and choose which science to shit on based only on your pathetic superstitions.

Says the moron worshiping Gaia in the most primitive cult since the Aztecs. It's only a matter of time until you mindless monkeys start tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease your fucking god, lest she destroy the earth due to our carbon sins.

 

[BreezeWood]

A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model.
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.

You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

Again -- please pay attention -- I am not going to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with internet hacks. Sorry. I am perfectly content in ridiculing you for your insignificance and for the absurd implications of your claims as they relate to the global scientific community. If you are pining for that debate, then go perform mountains of scientific research and present your results for review by the major journals and scientific societies of the world.

No, you have not presented any real challenge to any accepted theory by squawking on the internet.

"Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board."

I promise you that nobody cares.

If it's as true as you say, it should not require an appeal to ignorance. Which is what you've once again offered. I've been looking for the past 5 (probably more) years to reason why we cannot use satellite weather data as opposed to the current weather data. The only thing I've read is from the NOAA, in a power point, that cited the atmosphere as a source of inaccuracy. Which makes sense at face value. But not to the planet as a whole, if there's a warming trend, it should be showing up on satellite data, whether satellite data is + or - what the actual value is, there should be a warming trend. It's much easier to cherry pick certain areas of warming on a local scale than an entire planetary system. How do you manipulate data on a planetary scale? Does he atmosphere just automatically manipulate the scale in favor of the sceptic?

Again I'm open. Don't present me an appeal to ignorance.

Again I'm 100% open. Forgive me if I'm a sceptic when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong. Let's go back to the hurricane metaphore. Let's say ninety some percent of them were saying a hurricane would end up somewhere between Houston and New Orleans. That's a fair range. But then the hurricane wound up hitting east Florida (which is more than fair for most climate models proposed). Should I not question those ninety some percent of models telling me to expect the inner Mexican gulf...more than a fair representation of what we have been presented since 2008. Not to mention the impending doom suggested in the previous 10 years which never came...

.

Again I'm 100% open. Forgive me if I'm a sceptic when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong.

- when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong.

link ...

 

[Uncensored2008]

"So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. "

No, you shameless, embarrassing little liar, i said nothing like that. I said gore said that the models now predicted the possibility that the Northern sea ice could melt away completely at some point during the year by 2014. And saying so was accurate on his part, as this was an outlier in the models. Just take a hike, I have no use for your crazy or for your lies.

And knowing what we "know" now...that doesn't seem like a scare tactic to you? How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?

" How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?"

Simple... by gathering more data, given the benefit of time. Just as the part of a model of a hurricane's path over a location in the middle of the model becomes more narrow and accurate, as the hurricane approaches. How can you not puzzle this out for yourself?

A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model.
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.

You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

The one and only constant to the climate of the Earth over the past 4.7 billion years is change. No one denies that a warming trend started at the end of the Little Ice Age and continued into the mid 1990's.

What rational people acknowledge is there isn't a shred of evidence supporting the absurd myth that man has a damned thing to do with the change, much less that the fucking church of AGW can change things if we just give up liberty and our standard of living. The AGW kunts are identical to the bishops of the Dark Ages. Greedy frauds who fleece the stupid while spinning fantastical fairy tales and demanding sacrifice lest their god become angry and destroy the earth with warming.

Mystics and shamans have pulled this shit since the first caveman saw a volcano smoking and feared it. The shaman told him that if he gave his virgin daughters to be raped and murdered by him, he would save not only the caveman, but the entire village. Oh, the volcano was real, but the shaman had no power over the volcano nor any clue what was really going on. This is the AGW kunts today, frauds and crooks trying to leverage fear to their own profit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

Again -- please pay attention -- I am not going to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with internet hacks. Sorry. I am perfectly content in ridiculing you for your insignificance and for the absurd implications of your claims as they relate to the global scientific community. If you are pining for that debate, then go perform mountains of scientific research and present your results for review by the major journals and scientific societies of the world.

No, you have not presented any real challenge to any accepted theory by squawking on the internet.

"Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board."

I promise you that nobody cares.

If it's as true as you say, it should not require an appeal to ignorance. Which is what you've once again offered. I've been looking for the past 5 (probably more) years to reason why we cannot use satellite weather data as opposed to the current weather data. The only thing I've read is from the NOAA, in a power point, that cited the atmosphere as a source of inaccuracy. Which makes sense at face value. But not to the planet as a whole, if there's a warming trend, it should be showing up on satellite data, whether satellite data is + or - what the actual value is, there should be a warming trend. It's much easier to cherry pick certain areas of warming on a local scale than an entire planetary system. How do you manipulate data on a planetary scale? Does he atmosphere just automatically manipulate the scale in favor of the sceptic?

Again I'm open. Don't present me an appeal to ignorance.

Again I'm 100% open. Forgive me if I'm a sceptic when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong. Let's go back to the hurricane metaphore. Let's say ninety some percent of them were saying a hurricane would end up somewhere between Houston and New Orleans. That's a fair range. But then the hurricane wound up hitting east Florida (which is more than fair for most climate models proposed). Should I not question those ninety some percent of models telling me to expect the inner Mexican gulf...more than a fair representation of what we have been presented since 2008. Not to mention the impending doom suggested in the previous 10 years which never came...

.

Again I'm 100% open. Forgive me if I'm a sceptic when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong.

- when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong.

link ...

Don't be a retard, cult boi.

(The hockey stick was produced using tree ring data for temperature proxy up to recent times and then grafting on thermometer measurements. The tree ring data was flat for a thousand years in spite of known climate variations. The obvious reason is that temperature does not determine width of tree rings. Growth rate of plants is almost never temperature limited. Usually, it is either light limited or moisture limited. The famous decline after 1960 was probably due to increased overcast limiting light availability for photosynthesis. Physicist may not know this, but ignorance is no excuse for corruption of science.

The unspeakable fraud of it is that the purpose was to detect a 0.6°C global average temperature increase, as if they were using a laboratory instrument. With tree ring width? Four thousand thermometers have been shown to be inadequate for the purpose. See Temperature Fraud.}

Fake Data&#151How the Hockey Stick Graph Was Contrived.

You AGW kunts are the Catholic Church of the dark ages, a bunch of frauds and fools preying on the ignorant with your absurd magic words and pictures.

You are an embarrassment to legitimate science.

 

[sakinago]

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

Again -- please pay attention -- I am not going to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with internet hacks. Sorry. I am perfectly content in ridiculing you for your insignificance and for the absurd implications of your claims as they relate to the global scientific community. If you are pining for that debate, then go perform mountains of scientific research and present your results for review by the major journals and scientific societies of the world.

No, you have not presented any real challenge to any accepted theory by squawking on the internet.

"Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board."

I promise you that nobody cares.

If it's as true as you say, it should not require an appeal to ignorance. Which is what you've once again offered. I've been looking for the past 5 (probably more) years to reason why we cannot use satellite weather data as opposed to the current weather data. The only thing I've read is from the NOAA, in a power point, that cited the atmosphere as a source of inaccuracy. Which makes sense at face value. But not to the planet as a whole, if there's a warming trend, it should be showing up on satellite data, whether satellite data is + or - what the actual value is, there should be a warming trend. It's much easier to cherry pick certain areas of warming on a local scale than an entire planetary system. How do you manipulate data on a planetary scale? Does he atmosphere just automatically manipulate the scale in favor of the sceptic?

Again I'm open. Don't present me an appeal to ignorance.

Again I'm 100% open. Forgive me if I'm a sceptic when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong. Let's go back to the hurricane metaphore. Let's say ninety some percent of them were saying a hurricane would end up somewhere between Houston and New Orleans. That's a fair range. But then the hurricane wound up hitting east Florida (which is more than fair for most climate models proposed). Should I not question those ninety some percent of models telling me to expect the inner Mexican gulf...more than a fair representation of what we have been presented since 2008. Not to mention the impending doom suggested in the previous 10 years which never came...

.

Again I'm 100% open. Forgive me if I'm a sceptic when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong.

- when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong.

link ...

Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD

Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren't.

Report: 95 Percent Of Global Warming Models Are Wrong

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Marathon Pundit: Climate scientist: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong

Let's say all climate models are accurate...all AGW we should be worried about. What exactly do we do about it? Obviously we should move our cars and transportation into hydrogen combustion, which produces zero emissions. Well, we've been able to do that for AT LEAST 15 years (hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, as well as planet), but our government has shut that down (during the obama administration). People would love only having to pay pennies on a Jackson to fill their tank, it's actually cheaper to drive this than a Prius. But government (whose very worried about AGW, shut this down in 2008).

Fine we'll talk about energy. Do we need coal energy? At this stage in technology, NO. But we haven't allowed many other forms of energy, at least not practicle energy. We're using over 60 year old nuclear energy, despite having conceived better forms of nuclear energy 80 years ago... energy that would produce hydrogen as a byproduct (great for hydrogen cars) 5) that we don't use. Instead we just resort to heating river water with radiation at a central location....it's like we have an almost infinite source of heat from an oven that we use to toast bread...

That's just talking about nuclear energy. We're not even moving in to kenetic energy sources that we could be doing.

 

[sakinago]

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

Again -- please pay attention -- I am not going to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with internet hacks. Sorry. I am perfectly content in ridiculing you for your insignificance and for the absurd implications of your claims as they relate to the global scientific community. If you are pining for that debate, then go perform mountains of scientific research and present your results for review by the major journals and scientific societies of the world.

No, you have not presented any real challenge to any accepted theory by squawking on the internet.

"Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board."

I promise you that nobody cares.

If it's as true as you say, it should not require an appeal to ignorance. Which is what you've once again offered. I've been looking for the past 5 (probably more) years to reason why we cannot use satellite weather data as opposed to the current weather data. The only thing I've read is from the NOAA, in a power point, that cited the atmosphere as a source of inaccuracy. Which makes sense at face value. But not to the planet as a whole, if there's a warming trend, it should be showing up on satellite data, whether satellite data is + or - what the actual value is, there should be a warming trend. It's much easier to cherry pick certain areas of warming on a local scale than an entire planetary system. How do you manipulate data on a planetary scale? Does he atmosphere just automatically manipulate the scale in favor of the sceptic?

Again I'm open. Don't present me an appeal to ignorance.

Again I'm 100% open. Forgive me if I'm a sceptic when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong. Let's go back to the hurricane metaphore. Let's say ninety some percent of them were saying a hurricane would end up somewhere between Houston and New Orleans. That's a fair range. But then the hurricane wound up hitting east Florida (which is more than fair for most climate models proposed). Should I not question those ninety some percent of models telling me to expect the inner Mexican gulf...more than a fair representation of what we have been presented since 2008. Not to mention the impending doom suggested in the previous 10 years which never came...

.

Again I'm 100% open. Forgive me if I'm a sceptic when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong.

- when ninety some percent of climate models have been wrong.

link ...

Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD

Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren't.

Report: 95 Percent Of Global Warming Models Are Wrong

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Marathon Pundit: Climate scientist: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong

Let's say all climate models are accurate...all AGW we should be worried about. What exactly do we do about it? Obviously we should move our cars and transportation into hydrogen combustion, which produces zero emissions. Well, we've been able to do that for AT LEAST 15 years (hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, as well as planet), but our government has shut that down (during the obama administration). People would love only having to pay pennies on a Jackson to fill their tank, it's actually cheaper to drive this than a Prius. But government (whose very worried about AGW, shut this down in 2008).

Fine we'll talk about energy. Do we need coal energy? At this stage in technology, NO. But we haven't allowed many other forms of energy, at least not practicle energy. We're using over 60 year old nuclear energy, despite having conceived better forms of nuclear energy 80 years ago... energy that would produce hydrogen as a byproduct (great for hydrogen cars) 5) that we don't use. Instead we just resort to heating river water with radiation at a central location....it's like we have an almost infinite source of heat from an oven that we use to toast bread...

That's just talking about nuclear energy. We're not even moving in to kenetic energy sources that we could be doing.

 

[sakinago]

And knowing what we "know" now...that doesn't seem like a scare tactic to you? How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?

" How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?"

Simple... by gathering more data, given the benefit of time. Just as the part of a model of a hurricane's path over a location in the middle of the model becomes more narrow and accurate, as the hurricane approaches. How can you not puzzle this out for yourself?

A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model.
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.

You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.

I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.

Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.

you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman

Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.

Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.

Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.

Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.

The one and only constant to the climate of the Earth over the past 4.7 billion years is change. No one denies that a warming trend started at the end of the Little Ice Age and continued into the mid 1990's.

What rational people acknowledge is there isn't a shred of evidence supporting the absurd myth that man has a damned thing to do with the change, much less that the fucking church of AGW can change things if we just give up liberty and our standard of living. The AGW kunts are identical to the bishops of the Dark Ages. Greedy frauds who fleece the stupid while spinning fantastical fairy tales and demanding sacrifice lest their god become angry and destroy the earth with warming.

Mystics and shamans have pulled this shit since the first caveman saw a volcano smoking and feared it. The shaman told him that if he gave his virgin daughters to be raped and murdered by him, he would save not only the caveman, but the entire village. Oh, the volcano was real, but the shaman had no power over the volcano nor any clue what was really going on. This is the AGW kunts today, frauds and crooks trying to leverage fear to their own profit.

But I will accept that there is some man made form of climate change...no one has shown me what that actually means yet. Furthermore those who believe in "climate change" don't realize WERE ALREADY FUBAR, if that's the case. We're completely screwed, and anything outside of the entire planet going Amish couldn't stop it. Here's the thing though. Governments across the board aren't doing squat to try to fix it. At best they're offering to tax carbon emissions, what's really happening is they have been encouraging it, and allowing nothing practical (much is possible and more affordable to the average joe which is you and me) to fix it. Instead they push the impractical (funded by the "big energy" that they hate) to "fix" what already cannot be fixed....explain to me why I can't have a hydrogen fueled car (already was ready for production in 2007 by GMC) and a why a micro hydro plant someone like me and my neighbors couldn't be installed (government shut that down) for relatively cheap, that'd provide more than enough energy that we need (I'd throw in 15 grand for me and my two neighbors for this, without them paying). Zero emissions on that. I would probably loose money on that deal since if I sold my house now I'd make more than that, and never see the profits...but I'd still take that deal since it adds to propert value, and above all principle....why the hell cant I do that if we're in such dire straights?

 

[Boss]

Ahh.. So a molecule of oxygen decides it wants to select two hydrogen molecules to bond with and form water? Rocks decide to select their formation? Perhaps there is actual PURPOSE in my continuous arguing with rock heads like you on the Internet?

No, physical laws select for those molecules and structures. It is clear that you do not understand selection. Do not ask me to explain it again. Go look it up yourself and educate yourself. It's embarrassing for to even enter into a discussion of this topic with such an abject ignorance of its fundamental principles

Okay, so you've answered my question. Nature (physical laws) selects. Now, the next question to ask is WHY? What causes physical nature to make the selections it makes? I'm clear on HOW things work, I am interested in discovering WHY.

". Now, the next question to ask is WHY?"

Which is to ask, "why are the laws of physics what they are in our universe?" I have no idea.

Exactly! You have NO idea! That's the crux of the matter here. You want to run around pretending like you have an idea... indeed, you think you have the only unassailable idea and no one dare challenge it. But here I am challenging it and so do many others. No one knows why physical nature works as it does but it appears to be very precise and finely tuned to work predictably and reliably. As I stated before, there are two distinct possibilities... Just Because™ and God Did It™. I happen to believe there is a reason and you believe there is no reason. Both of us have faith in what we believe.

I don't know what your faith is based on. I've never been able to accept that randomness and chance produced a universe with such beautiful precision, structure and functionality of physics. I find it even harder to believe it all created itself when that simply defies everything we understand as logic. Then, to contemplate it created itself from absolute nothingness as well? It just seems more fathomable to me that something else is at work here. We may not understand what that is... maybe it's not Spiritual Nature? But if not, it's got to be something even more profound and enigmatic.

"Exactly! You have NO idea! That's the crux of the matter here. "

Haha, no it isn't. I don't have to know why we have the specific physical laws we have to know how they work. What a ridiculous, last-ditch attempt. And I never ruled out the idea that "God did it". Not one single time. In fact, i explicitly said that I think maybe "God did it".

To characterize the pages upon pages of your absolute, ever-changing bullshit as somehow a campaign to show "Maybe God did it" is as dishonest as it gets. You have wasted everyone's time misunderstanding and misrepresenting basic, fundamental principles of scientific theories, only to change lanes to some new con after your falsehoods were corrected. it's gotta be 30 times now,at least. Nothing about truth or falsity of this simple principle ("God did it") would require you to say the ridiculous things you have said about scientific theories and basic principles, like selection, nor would it require you to engage is this completely failed attempt to undermine accepted scientific theories. I'm not sure who you think you are fooling...

"I don't have to know why we have the specific physical laws we have to know how they work."

I didn't say you had to know.

"And I never ruled out the idea that "God did it"."

Well, good for you! But look at the thread title, Einstein... If God's not a reality it seems a bit impossible God did it, does it not? So where are your posts calling out the OP for making such a shallow-minded statement?

"You have wasted everyone's time misunderstanding and misrepresenting basic, fundamental principles of scientific theories, only to change lanes to some new con after your falsehoods were corrected. it's gotta be 30 times now,at least."

I have no idea of what you think I've said that is a "con" of any kind. I've not "changed lanes" at all in this thread or any other thread. I've corrected you several times on your comprehension of things I've said, is that what you're counting? I don't have a problem with scientific theories or principles. Newsflash: I have a major in a field of Science... you kinda have to like and respect Science to major in one of it's fields.

"...this completely failed attempt to undermine accepted scientific theories."

See,,, it's THIS kind of shit that sets me off. What the fuck do you mean "undermine accepted scientific theories"? Was Newton undermining the accepted scientific theories of Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity when he proposed his Laws of Motion? How about Einstein? Was he undermining Newton with his Theory of General and Special Relativity? How about Neils Bohr challenging Einstein? Or Hawking challenging Bohr?

Science is FULL of examples of people challenging accepted scientific theories... and successfully changing the world forever. Challenging accepted theories is what every great scientist is called to do. For all practical purposes, that IS Science!

What Science certainly DOESN'T do is rest on it's laurels and proclaim that we've proven things as fact and truth-- beyond question-- unequivocal. Those are judgments made by man and based on faith. And let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with that. We can rely on faith and reasoning.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

Billions of years of history stretching over the cosmos.....

And you (a twelve year old stuck on a puny single planet who probably has never been anywhere even on that planet) say "This is reality".

You are pathetic.

 

[BreezeWood]

the growth for the multicellular organism is a subdivision of one single cell, all organisms on planet Earth have only one core cell no matter whatever other configuration may be involved. the single cell simply becomes more advanced, becoming something else is only semantic.

the manifestation by the metaphysical involved for the advent multicellular organism is an enormous advance in evolution, clearly demonstrative to the evolutionary timeline that gives pause for if there was not a corresponding development of the metaphysical to bring about the physical change and how they interact. the metaphysical as the lead component must / may itself evolve

No, it's just not. You're absolutely wrong on this.

.

No, it's just not. You're absolutely wrong on this.

all cells the same = (the same as) one cell

at any rate maybe you could restate why from single cell to multicellular is not a natural progression, or where homo erectus became unique spiritually as you claim if they did not evolve from the original template from the beginning - are they aliens from space ... or all beings are spiritual simply by being alive expressed differently or not at all as irrelevant in final analysis. though all aspire life in the Everlasting.

 

[Boss]

all cells the same

Maybe if it were 1859.

Fact is, all cells are NOT the same. Completely different systems of development, homeostasis and chemistry.

...where homo erectus became unique spiritually as you claim if they did not evolve from the original template from the beginning

Homo erectus didn't become spiritual. Homo sapien became spiritually connected. I believe, through some kind of divine interaction. I've always felt the creation story in the Bible isn't describing the original creation of man but rather, the creation of spiritually-inspired man. There were already men roaming the Earth before Adam and Eve.

The thing you often refer to as "The Almighty" revealed itself to man and thus began the procession of humanity.

 

[Boss]

...why from single cell to multicellular is not a natural progression...

Because it hasn't been observed happening naturally. Unicellular organisms have a completely different "OS" (for lack of a better term.) It's like trying to say a television is the natural progression of a telegraph. While they may share some similar attributes and they may seem to follow a natural pattern of progress in technology, the systems are entirely unique and unrelated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD”

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

 

[BreezeWood]

all cells the same

Maybe if it were 1859.

Fact is, all cells are NOT the same. Completely different systems of development, homeostasis and chemistry.

...where homo erectus became unique spiritually as you claim if they did not evolve from the original template from the beginning

Homo erectus didn't become spiritual. Homo sapien became spiritually connected. I believe, through some kind of divine interaction. I've always felt the creation story in the Bible isn't describing the original creation of man but rather, the creation of spiritually-inspired man. There were already men roaming the Earth before Adam and Eve.

The thing you often refer to as "The Almighty" revealed itself to man and thus began the procession of humanity.

.
all cells the same

Maybe if it were 1859.

Fact is, all cells are NOT the same. Completely different systems of development, homeostasis and chemistry.

Fact is, all cells are NOT the same ...

homeostasis - the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.

the multicellular organism's cells all have the same identical DNA and are derived from the original single cell, mirror images that then have the ability through evolution to perform independent functions - is a natural progression.

Homo erectus didn't become spiritual. Homo sapien became spiritually connected.

that does not preclude all beings are spiritual is correct.


Homo sapien became spiritually connected.

all beings are connected*, the difference seems to be Homo sapiens connect their connection with other Homo sapiens may describe their state of spirituality as being unique.

I've always felt the creation story in the Bible isn't describing the original creation of man but rather, the creation of spiritually-inspired man. There were already men roaming the Earth before Adam and Eve.

Spirituality the driving force of evolution from the original template, from tool to recognized administrator ...

The thing you often refer to as "The Almighty" revealed itself to man and thus began the procession of humanity.

not sure there is something that reveals itself as much as what exists, the driving force of evolution as you have suggested simply became recognized Adam & Eve that certain properties - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - may separate the spiritual to exist without the physiology it developed for whatever reason it had to develop it. the Almighty is the determining factor that evil will not become physical. so does exist defeated evil and will intervene. there is no such thing as born in sin.

Because it hasn't been observed happening naturally. Unicellular organisms have a completely different "OS" (for lack of a better term.) It's like trying to say a television is the natural progression of a telegraph. While they may share some similar attributes and they may seem to follow a natural pattern of progress in technology, the systems are entirely unique and unrelated.

Unicellular organisms have a completely different "OS" .. / .. the systems are entirely unique and unrelated.

"No, it's just not. You're absolutely wrong on this" - the progression is observable and repeatable and is done so by all multicellular organisms from its beginning to the present time both use the same OS. there are no muticellular organism with cells of any dissimilar DNA, the single cell to produce organs evolved to do so by splitting itself and using the "OS" to program those cells for that purpose - dissimilar DNA could be the next step if for some reason that would accomplish anything, by the metaphysical over time and without intermediary steps for the final outcome that would leave no trace.

 

[Taz]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

It is not possible for now to know what is outside this universe, nor do we know why this universe came to be and how. Making a god theoretically still possible, but certainly not yet proven.

 

[Boss]

Fact is, all cells are NOT the same ...

homeostasis - the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.

the multicellular organism's cells all have the same identical DNA and are derived from the original single cell, mirror images that then have the ability through evolution to perform independent functions - is a natural progression.

Oh but they didn't derive anything from an original single cell. It took a male and female gamete cell to provide the necessary chromosomes. Unicellular life doesn't require this.

Not only is it NOT a "natural progression," we have zero evidence that it has ever happened naturally. We've got THEORIES... plenty of those! The presumption is, it has to have happened at some point because multi-cellular life exists. But just because you've rationalized a theory must be true because it couldn't have been done by God, doesn't make your theory proven or true.

 

[BreezeWood]

Fact is, all cells are NOT the same ...

homeostasis - the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.

the multicellular organism's cells all have the same identical DNA and are derived from the original single cell, mirror images that then have the ability through evolution to perform independent functions - is a natural progression.

Oh but they didn't derive anything from an original single cell. It took a male and female gamete cell to provide the necessary chromosomes. Unicellular life doesn't require this.

Not only is it NOT a "natural progression," we have zero evidence that it has ever happened naturally. We've got THEORIES... plenty of those! The presumption is, it has to have happened at some point because multi-cellular life exists. But just because you've rationalized a theory must be true because it couldn't have been done by God, doesn't make your theory proven or true.

.

Oh but they didn't derive anything from an original single cell. It took a male and female gamete cell to provide the necessary chromosomes. Unicellular life doesn't require this.

Unicellular life doesn't require this ...

that's because it remains a single cell, no matter the smoke and mirrors all beings are / begin as a single cell, the multicellular are subdivisions of the initial cell each subdivision having the identical OS as the first and so on till the end. it's not a theory, it is a natural progression that is readily observed and verified from a microscope.

But just because you've rationalized a theory must be true because it couldn't have been done by God, doesn't make your theory proven or true.

that is simplistic, the original template all life evolved from in the overall progression of evolution backdating before even the first life template all can be considered a master plan directed if not created by an Almighty where their commandments are the determining factor for an outcome that is either predetermined or guided where there is either success or a termination of any offending elements. the metaphysical that is true life in some way need appease something to exist in the Everlasting without its physiology or there would be no need for it to begin with. physiology is proof of the metaphysical that represents life.

 

[Boss]

Unicellular life doesn't require this ...

that's because it remains a single cell, no matter the smoke and mirrors all beings are / begin as a single cell, the multicellular are subdivisions of the initial cell each subdivision having the identical OS as the first and so on till the end. it's not a theory, it is a natural progression that is readily observed and verified from a microscope.

Again, you'd absolutely FAIL a 7th grade biology exam.

No. all beings DO NOT begin as a single cell. Unicellular beings begin, live and end as a single cell because that's what they are. Multi-cellular beings begin with a male and female gamete and reproduce multiple cells from the very beginning. YOU are the one employing smoke and mirrors here. You want to grab the technicality that initial reproduction begins in the fertilized egg cell (a single cell) and claim this means it's a "single cell" organism. It's NOT! It never will be or can be! That's just YOU being completely ignorant of biology and reproduction of multi-cellular organisms.

There is a natural progression for unicellular life as well as multi-cellular life. The "OS" is completely different for each type of organism. IF multi-cellular life reproduced the same as unicellular life, your kidney cells would be indistinguishable from your skin cells. Your body would be totally unable to function if all of it's cells were identical. You are not a bacteria... you have various component parts as a multi-cellular organism. This is just plain silly and childlike. I've wasted enough time with you on this... if you want to keep on thinking your special needs viewpoint of organisms is more valid than actual biological scientists, that's up to you. I can't help you. All I can say is, you need a refresher course in 7th grade biology so you can learn the differences in uni and multi-cellular life.