Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Global Warming: Do you matter?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Global Warming: Do you matter?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 69, 70, 71 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming?

Yes

51%

[ 17 ]

48%

[ 16 ]

Total Votes : 33

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:22 pm Post subject:

re:cursive wrote:

nautilus wrote:

So do tell. What has has actually evolved? Could you give us an example?

www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

I all ready showed him that. It was at the moment of me posting that that his argument was forever, entirely, and indisputably destroyed (whatever was left of it, anyway; it had all ready pretty much been decimated). He can't accept it, which is why he's now moved on to making ethical straw-man arguments against evolutionists. In his heart of hearts he knows he laid down a challenge and was destroyed.

The core of the anti-evolutionist strategy is denial. There is nothing they're not willing to deny, no matter how ridiculous. This isn't about the truth for anti-evolutionists, it's about emotional validation.

pangaea

Joined: 20 Dec 2007

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:17 pm Post subject:

nautilus wrote:

Quote:

Also an initial genetically perfect couple and their early generations lived much longer than we do now (according to the biblical account)...so it was possible for a person to have numerous offspring in one lifetime. Thus the population would have grown very rapidly

You have absolutely no scientific evidence to back this up. You are debating people who do not believe in creationism. Circular logic will not work here. Claiming things are true, according to the "biblical" account and thinking that supports your claims is just ludicrous.

Fox wrote:

Quote:

The core of the anti-evolutionist strategy is denial. There is nothing they're not willing to deny, no matter how ridiculous. This isn't about the truth for anti-evolutionists, it's about emotional validation.

Agreed.

nautilus wrote:

Quote:

What good has evolutionism done for humans exactly . . . ?

What good has the theory of gravity done for humans? As I explained before, evolution is a scientific theory. It is neutral. It is neither good nor bad and it is not intended to do anything for anyone. However, since you asked, the theory of evolution supports the acceptance of all races on the planet being equal. We all descended from the same ancestor. We are all people, all related, all equally deserving of respect. No slaves, no masters, no "better" skin color. I'm not saying that racism is not a problem in the world today. I am simply saying that those who believe in evolutionary theory have no reason to be racist and every reason not to be. Ask any Klan member. He or she will give you a host of "biblical" reasons to hate Jews, blacks, hispanics, or any other non-white race that they care to look down upon.

frankhenry

Joined: 13 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:24 pm Post subject:

I voted no. I walk or bike most places. I try to avoid taking taxis, and such. I do my best to recycle. Most of my, and my spouse's activities, revolve around nature, such as hiking or cycling. We are careful to try and leave nature as we find it. My spouse and I are very fit, not FAT. That's right, not FAT. Therefore, we don't: buy XXL clothing. This cuts back on manufacturing. take escalators or elevators very often. Saves electricity. don't consume excess amounts of food. Saves. require extra fuel for the jet on flights. Saves. We make an effort to be environmental friendly.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:09 am Post subject:

nautilus wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

it's not "perfect" genes in parents that produce healthy offspring, but diverse ones?

I just showed you, backed with all kinds of scientific evidence from non-creationist sources...that genetic diversity increases the further back you go along our ancestral tree. That scientists know we had much greater genetic diversity before.

You posted a couple links that suggest that current lack of genetic diversity may be due to a population bottleneck 70'000 years ago of possibly as few as 15'000 people.

nautilus wrote:

Thus our original ancestors had more genetic diversity.

Holy "thus" Batman! Back to the questions you completely ignored:

Underwaterbob wrote:

What is a "full perfect set of genes"? Do you have any evidence such a condition could possibly exist? ... How does 15'000 people, 70'000 years ago become 2 people, 4000 years ago?

Why are these kind of grand, unsubstantiated leaps in logic you constantly accuse evolutionists of making, (molecules to man!!) apparently OK for you to make?

nautilus wrote:

You lose as well. bye.

How mature.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:29 am Post subject:

A la the late great MM2, let's make a list of unsubstantiated claims:

nautilus wrote:

The original created humans started out with the full perfect set of genes.
over time much of it has been lost and even what we have has accumulated mutation (genetic damage) over time.
We're a shadow of our former selves. So are flightless kiwis and everything else.

nautilus wrote:

There is more genetic variation between two south africans than there is in all people across Europe and Asia!

On two people not being able to create a stable population:

nautilus wrote:

But they could if they a) had larger genetic variety within their genes than today b) Had no harmful recessive traits, mutations or genetic damage.

A perfect original couple of humans could have had a viable population of humans which could have reached into the thousands within just a handful of generations.

nautilus wrote:

The dates are just their guesses made to fall in line with their theory. All those nice round numbers with tons of zeros added are plucked from their imaginations.

remove the fancy dates..and you're left with evidence pointing in favor of creationism.

nautilus wrote:

Surely if you trace back the human family tree you then arrive at a point where there are only two initial humans? Would seem to be basic math.

Surely if it's so simple, let's see some evidence.

nautilus wrote:

In the beginning there would have been few diseases.

nautilus wrote:

Now we have more diseases than ever before on the earth.

nautilus wrote:

People living in natural environments suffer far fewer accidents than those living in modern towns and cities with their traffic, chemicals and machines.

nautilus wrote:

if you looked at the evidence with a different initial assumption, that there might be a creator who created what you see, then suddenly all the evidence makes more sense.

nautilus wrote:

Sure, inbreeding is a problem now, because our genetic diversity has become so reduced. But the further back in time you go, the less of an issue it was.

nautilus wrote:

If you want me to take you seriously, you're gonna have to start providing some evidence for this myriad of unsubstantiated nonsense you seem to think is common sense. Rather than cherry picking posts and declaring victory.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:44 am Post subject:

nautilus wrote:

Pangaea wrote:

Two individuals cannot lead to a breeding population.

Clearly they can though. Even evolutionists claim that all humans alive today are descended from one person, the mitochondrial eve.

The idea of a mitochondrial eve in no way suggests that there were only two people on the planet at some point in the past. She is the theoretical person who lived far enough in the past such that over successive generations her genes were bred into everyone. There is a male equivalent called Y-chromosomal Adam. Current genetic evidence suggests that they lived 50 to 80 thousand years apart! They also are clearly not our only ancestors.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Skipperoo

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:19 am Post subject:

Quote:

So do tell. What has has actually evolved? Could you give us an example?

People have done so a number of times already, but you've conveniantly overlooked them as you have any other point you don't have an answer to.

Regardless, this is obviously a pointless debate. You're arguing from a position of faith rather than logic (which is fine! Everyone does it at times), which renders debate a waste of time for both parties.

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:35 am Post subject:

re:cursive wrote:

nautilus wrote:

So do tell. What has has actually evolved? Could you give us an example?

www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Is that it?
So out of over a million species living today that have all supposedly dynamically metamorphosed from a single cell, thats the best you can do?

OK.

What actually happened? the report is misleading because it gives the impression that:

Quote:

"the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use."

However this is patently false, because E. Coli was already found (in 1998) to be able to utilise citrate as an energy source.
Here is the relevant paper:

The Escherichia coli Citrate Carrier CitT: a Member of a Novel Eubacterial Transporter Family
Klaas Martinus Pos, Peter Dimroth, and Michael Bott
Mikrobiologisches Institut, Eidgen�ssische Technische Hochschule Z�rich, CH-8092 Z�rich, Switzerland. June 5, 1998

Quote:

Under anoxic conditions in the presence of an oxidizable cosubstrate such as glucose or glycerol, Escherichia coli converts citrate to acetate and succinate. Two enzymes are specifically required for the fermentation of the tricarboxylic acid, i.e., a citrate uptake system and citrate lyase. Here we report that the open reading frame (designated citT) located at 13.90 min on the E. coli chromosome between rna and the citrate lyase genes encodes a citrate carrier. E. coli transformed with a plasmid expressing citT was capable of aerobic growth on citrate, which provides convincing evidence for a function of CitT as a citrate carrier.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC107412/

Fox wrote:

I all ready showed him that. It was at the moment of me posting that that his argument was forever, entirely, and indisputably destroyed..blah blah

Do come back when you have something more challenging to offer. Laughing

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:54 am Post subject:

machinoman wrote:

life, that kind that arose first, was simply a self replicating thing: Insanely small, as of yet unexplained,

In other words...an imaginary fairy tale.

Quote:

Humans, for example. Asians, Africans, Americans, Islanders and Europeans all evolved in different environments. That is why we all look different.

Your understanding (misunderstanding) is so basic, but I'll bear with you. Various populations of humans have selected pre-existing genetic information and expressed it, while losing (selecting out) other unneeded pre-existing genetic information. No new information has been magically acquired.
This is not the type of hypothesized information-gaining change that could transform a single cell into millions of massively more complex species, as evolutionists speculate. Your original cell would have to gain a vast amount of new and novel DNA to become a blue whale, for example.
In other words the ancestors of all these peoples had much more genetic information to choose from. Which I have already proven with links to scientific papers posted earlier in the thread. Go back a few pages.

Quote:

You believe Adam and Eve had perfect, DNA... capable of producing humans in any shape and color.

yep...

Quote:

and yet their children had non-perfect DNA...

Because as the account tells us, before Adam and Eve reproduced, sin entered the creation. The fall of creation. Thus everything started to become flawed from that point onwards. A slow and gradual progression. At first there were very little flaws, but they accumulated over time. Scientists confirm that humans accumulate genetic mistakes..mutations over time. but it wouldn't have been enough of a problem until many generations after Adam and Eve.

Quote:

Creationists dwindle in numbers, and eventually disappear. Humanity realizes there is no longer a reason to assume global warming is false,

I don't really get your rationale here. I don't assume global warming is false, I believe it.

pangaea

Joined: 20 Dec 2007

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:22 am Post subject:

nautilus wrote:

Quote:

In other words the ancestors of all these peoples had much more genetic information to choose from. Which I have already proven with links to scientific papers posted earlier in the thread. Go back a few pages.

The scientific papers you are posting continue to disprove the theory of creationism. You pull out information you like, claiming that you have scientific proof. Yet in the very same article, sometimes in the same sentence there are dates or timespans that directly contradict the creationist claim that the earth is 5,000 years old. Timespans of 6 million and 70,000 thousand years quite obviously directly contradict creationist theory. When this is pointed out to you, you say that the scientists were wrong or lying about the dates. Yet you claim the parts that you agree with are true. You can't have it both ways. The article is either correct or it is not. I have tried to point this out as clearly and rationally as I possibly can. Your technique in this debate so far has been to quote the scientific information that you like, deny the information that you don't, make grand claims with no evidence, and ignore all of the issues that you don't have an answer to.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:31 am Post subject:

Isn't suggesting that science will prove the existence of a creator harmful to the very nature of faith itself?

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:41 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

let's make a list of unsubstantiated claims:

nautilus wrote:

There is more genetic variation between two south africans than there is in all people across Europe and Asia!

Africa's genetic diversity revealed by study
February 2010
Despite the fact that the four Bushmen come from neighbouring parts of the Kalahari, their genetic diversity is astounding. Pick any two and peer into their genomes and you'd see more variety than you would between a European and an Asian.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/sequencing_the_bishop_-_scientists_present_full_genomes_of_a.php

Desmond Tutu's genome sequenced as part of genetic diversity study
february 17th 2010
The study, published in the journal Nature (vol 463, p 943), reveals stark differences between the genetic make-up of southern Africans and the genomes of Europeans, Asians and west Africans.

"On average there are more genetic differences between any two bushmen in our study than between a European and an Asian," said Webb Miller, a professor of biology at Penn State and co-author of the study.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/17/desmond-tutu-genome-genetic-diversity

pangaea

Joined: 20 Dec 2007

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:53 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Quote:

Isn't suggesting that science will prove the existence of a creator harmful to the very nature of faith itself?

I asked the same question on page 8. He ignored it then and I wouldn't be surprised if he ignored it this time.

pangaea wrote:

Quote:

Faith itself is defined as belief in something for which there is no proof. Certainly everyone has a right to his own beliefs. But if you accept something on faith, why argue with other people and scramble to find scientific evidence for it? Isn't that disparaging to your faith? Isn't that admitting that faith really isn't enough?

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:12 am Post subject:

pangaea wrote:

nautilus wrote:

Quote:

You have absolutely no scientific evidence to back this up.

The bible records the first generations of humans in detail, with births, deaths, ages and so on. From generations 1-8, lifespans averaged 926 years. In generations 9-22, lifespans averaged 147 years. By the time of generation 47, lifespans are down to 55 years only.

Creationism, informed by biblical account, predicts that human longevity would have declined along with a general genetic decline, symptomatic of the fall and general degeneration of what was originally created. This is the narrative.

its hardly any surprise to me then that science has found longevity to be genetically determined.

Researchers Find a Genetic Clue to a Long and Healthy Life
Kelley Colihan
WebMD Health News Sept. 2, 2008
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20080902/genetic-key-to-longevity

neither is it surprising that gene loss is the primary cause of ageing.
http://www.chem-tox.com/DNA/aging.htm

Studies of fruit flies show that mutation results in a decrease in longevity.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6J-47RJ0T3-91&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1979&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1402598399&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=62df381626e3922cfa6cd54b304312a1

So obviously there is plenty of scientific support for the idea that originally people with a greater genetic variety and less mutations/genetic damage, would have indeed, lived longer.

nautilus

Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:22 am Post subject:

pangaea wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Quote:

Isn't suggesting that science will prove the existence of a creator harmful to the very nature of faith itself?

I asked the same question on page 8. He ignored it then and I wouldn't be surprised if he ignored it this time.

I'm not ignoring anyone.. it just takes a while to respond to each post individually.

Sure,UWBob, that is correct.
If believing in God required no faith.. then such a belief would be worthless. It is only belief by faith that is acceptable to God.

So when the day comes that it is very clear and obvious that God exists, it will be too late to avoid judgement by suddenly believing in him.That is my understanding. Would you love or reward a person who demonstrated zero faith in you?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 69, 70, 71 Next
Page 17 of 71

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe