On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:53:29 -0700, Stephen Davenport wrote:

So Adam you don't feel the IPCC's prediction of a 20 cm sea level rise
by 2030 was delusional. You consider warnings that hurricanes can only
increase in intensity and Â*numbers under a AGW planet are founded in
measurable reality. Â*Can you in you sane rational world show me where
these things have happened. How are the polar bears apparently they're
on the verge of extinction in AGW la la land Whose delusional? Â*It aint
me pal.

Were all these things they supposed to have happened by 2011, then?

As he says the sea-level rise was predicted to happen by 2030, I can only
assume he thinks the current year is at least 2031.



--
Graham Davis, Bracknell
Whilst it's true that money can't buy you happiness, at least you can
be miserable in comfort.
Newsreader for Windows, Mac, Unix family: http://pan.rebelbase.com/

On Sep 14, 8:52*am, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:41*pm, Lawrence13 wrote:



Meanwhile back at the ranch: some idiots chided Roy Spencer for his
Christian beliefs

I believe that he was derided for creationist beliefs (however
accurate those claims may be), not Christian beliefs. A very different
thing.

Stephen.

It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

"As I investigated religions other than Christianity, I became aware
that many of them assume evolution to be true. The Bible was the only
'holy book' in which I could find a record of God's creating the
material universe from nothing! Next, the work of many historians
revealed to me that the Bible is by far the most accurate and best-
substantiated ancient book known to man. It truthfully portrays actual
historical events and has been faithfully copied by scribes over the
centuries so that what we have today in the Bible is, to a very high
degree (within a percentage point or two), known beyond a shadow of a
doubt to be the same as was originally written down by the authors.
Furthermore, nothing in that two percent affects any of the major
Bible teachings or events."

These really are Spencer's words. You make your own mind up; I've made
my decisions about his views and I am not "open minded" enough to
accept creationism. I think most would agree with me.

I have no concerns about scientists holding religious views and many
of my scientific freinds and muslim or christian. None are
creationists and promote intelligent design, or they simply would not
be friends of mine. I have all sorts of concerns about a scientist who
promotes a particular, very anti-mainstream science view of climate
science and believes so strongly in intelligent design that he writes
very fundamantalist and anti-science views about evolution. He would
certainly support your children being taught that intelligent design
is the equivalent of evolution in classrooms, with those clear views.

These people really are dangerous and fortunately their views are so
extreme these days that they are mainly ignored, or derided. If you
support the views of someone like Roy Spencer, You have to take his
views about creationism into account as well.

Bit off-topic and apologies for that, but I'm not the one that
introduced it and but I'm not keen on someone expressing views about
what I've said wrongly. An apology from Lawrence would go down well.

On Sep 10, 11:43*am, James Brown
wrote:
See:

http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084...mum2011-en.pdf

James
--
James Brown

Back to the science and the topic title..................

Update from NOAA: ice nears it's lowest extent for 2011. Close to a
record. There is also commentary on the monitoring of Arctic sea ice
from other agencies, including the Univ of Bremen.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:


Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it
would take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming
in any case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let
alone be part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find
that a leap of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor
at the level of personal belief.

Paul of course you can and no doubt will continue to exclude people from
your list of friends who hold an alternative view, though I find this
selectiveness strange - almost as if you have become prematurely
narrow-minded. But to call people who hold a different and to my mind a
more rational understanding of the origins of life 'dangerous' is more
typical of the mind-set of someone who is alarmingly an extremist and
totalitarian in outlook. The world has enough of those already who say
'don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind'.

No cheers
James
--
James Brown

On 14/09/2011 15:35, James Brown wrote:

It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:


Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it
would take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming
in any case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let
alone be part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find
that a leap of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor
at the level of personal belief.

You have been tricked by the Intelligence Design fraternity - a thinly
disguised alternative bunch of science deniers in the USA who think
Bishop Ushers 6000 year old Earth is true because the Bible says so.

Evolution is not strictly unguided. It is guided by survival of the
fittest that then get to reproduce. In an environment before there are
any photosensors the first organism to develop the slightest capability
of phototropism has an enormous advantage over everything else.

The human eyeball is an odd design with a blind spot right in the centre
of the field of view. So you are left with either a God that is a lousy
design engineer or evolution as the mechanism. I think on balance I
prefer the latter interpretation. YMMV

Pit vipers and a few other snakes still have simple pit sensor "eyes"
for thermal IR to see warm blooded prey. A major advantage to them.

The ID brigade insist that because they don't understand science
Goddidit is the only possible explanation for everything.

Thankfully we don't have too much of this fish rot in the UK although
Tony B liar helped set up a private academy owned by a used car salesman
in Middlesbrough to promote it.

Paul of course you can and no doubt will continue to exclude people from
your list of friends who hold an alternative view, though I find this
selectiveness strange - almost as if you have become prematurely
narrow-minded. But to call people who hold a different and to my mind a
more rational understanding of the origins of life 'dangerous' is more
typical of the mind-set of someone who is alarmingly an extremist and
totalitarian in outlook. The world has enough of those already who say
'don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind'.

No cheers
James

It isn't more rational to invoke a deity to make the universe you just
push the creation problem back one level. Who created the deity?

In the days before science the explanation for everything was either
"because the God(s) are angry/pleased*" * delete as appropriate.

Science doesn't seek to answer the question is there a God.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"James Brown" wrote:

Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it would
take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming in any
case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let alone be
part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find that a leap
of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor at the level of
personal belief.

The way I look at it is that the suggested alternatives are even less
satisfying - *much* less satisfying, in fact, since they all require
something infinitely more unlikely than evolution - i.e. the prior existence
of an uncaused, uncreated intelligent entity (a 'creator'). If we find it
hard to believe that something as complex as a multicellular organism can
exist with entirely natural origins, then we should probably regard it as
completely impossible that an intelligent entity could exist with no origin
whatsoever.

In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 14/09/2011 15:35, James Brown wrote:

It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:


Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it
would take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming
in any case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let
alone be part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find
that a leap of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor
at the level of personal belief.

You have been tricked by the Intelligence Design fraternity - a thinly
disguised alternative bunch of science deniers in the USA who think
Bishop Ushers 6000 year old Earth is true because the Bible says so.

I don't think for one moment that I have Martin. I cannot imagine how
you think an organism with a single working photosensitive cell but
without ALL the necessary brain already in place to process the data
could possibly have an advantage in the survival of the fittest - and
you haven' told me how the cell got photosensitive - or IR sensitive
etc.

Evolution is not strictly unguided. It is guided by survival of the
fittest that then get to reproduce. In an environment before there are
any photosensors the first organism to develop the slightest capability
of phototropism has an enormous advantage over everything else.

The human eyeball is an odd design with a blind spot right in the
centre of the field of view. So you are left with either a God that is
a lousy design engineer or evolution as the mechanism. I think on
balance I prefer the latter interpretation. YMMV

You may - with your amazing stereoscopic orbs consider that you would
have done a better exit route for the optic nerve etc. But I wonder if
you haven't just got a bigger blind spot somewhere ;-))

Science doesn't seek to answer the question is there a God.

I would hope not. Nor try to answer the question - why?

Regards,
James

Regards,
Martin Brown

--
James Brown

On Sep 14, 3:35*pm, James Brown
wrote:
It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:

Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it
would take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming
in any case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let
alone be part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find
that a leap of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor
at the level of personal belief.

Paul of course you can and no doubt will continue to exclude people from
your list of friends who hold an alternative view, though I find this
selectiveness strange - almost as if you have become prematurely
narrow-minded. But to call people who hold a different and to my mind a
more rational understanding of the origins of life 'dangerous' is more
typical of the mind-set of someone who is alarmingly an extremist and
totalitarian in outlook. The world has enough of those already who say
'don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind'.

No cheers
James
--
James Brown

Creationism is; "To my mind a more rational understanding of the
origins of life" and an opponent of this is described as "alarmingly
an extremist and totalitarian in outlook"............................
good grief.

The best desrcription of an open mind that I've seen is the one that
says; "I have an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall
out".................or in this case have been washed out. *))

In message , Togless
writes
"James Brown" wrote:

Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it would
take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming in any
case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let alone be
part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find that a leap
of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor at the level of
personal belief.

The way I look at it is that the suggested alternatives are even less
satisfying - *much* less satisfying, in fact, since they all require
something infinitely more unlikely than evolution - i.e. the prior existence
of an uncaused, uncreated intelligent entity (a 'creator'). If we find it
hard to believe that something as complex as a multicellular organism can
exist with entirely natural origins, then we should probably regard it as
completely impossible that an intelligent entity could exist with no origin
whatsoever.


I don't know about you Togless - but whenever I try to think about why
ANYTHING exists - I find my mind getting sucked into a kind of
fathomless pit - 'tis all a mystery at the end of the day.

Regards,
James

--
James Brown

"James Brown" wrote:

I don't know about you Togless - but whenever I try to think about why
ANYTHING exists - I find my mind getting sucked into a kind of fathomless
pit - 'tis all a mystery at the end of the day.

Indeed :-)