Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:41 pm, Lawrence13 wrote:


It was some questions you were asked, but you never answer direct
questions do you? I'll ask you again, and give then if you don't
answer, it will be a confirmation of his comment that it really is a
waste of time even trying to engage with you on the most basic of
levels. With your assertion that Arctic sea ice will begin to increase
in the next decade:

I took that initial reply to me to mean that the arctic sea ice
would reach the 1972-2008 average within the coming
decade, not just begin to increase within said 10 years.

The 1972-2008 average is comfortably above any year in
that 2008-2011 series and if 2011 is considered the 'bottom'
there is going going to have to be an increase in ice over
the next 10 years similar to the rate of decline seen in those 8 years.
Something significant really has to happen in the next couple of years
for this to be romotely feasable.

In other words, it has to get it's skates on Lawrence!
Pun intended
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Sep 14, 6:53*pm, "Col" wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:41 pm, Lawrence13 wrote:

It was some questions you were asked, but you never answer direct
questions do you? I'll ask you again, and give then if you don't
answer, it will be a confirmation of his comment that it really is a
waste of time even trying to engage with you on the most basic of
levels. With your assertion that Arctic sea ice will begin to increase
in the next decade:

I took that initial reply to me to mean that the arctic sea ice
would reach the 1972-2008 average within the coming
decade, not just begin *to increase within said 10 years.

The 1972-2008 average is comfortably above any year in
that 2008-2011 series and if 2011 is considered the 'bottom'
there is going going to have to be an increase in ice over
the next 10 years similar to the rate of decline seen in those 8 years.
Something significant really has to happen in the next couple of years
for this to be romotely feasable.

In other words, it has to get it's skates on Lawrence!
Pun intended
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

Yes he did, checking back. I still think we deserve a reason why he
thinks this, as it just seems a bizarre position to take, in the face
of all the contrary predictions and the recent trend.

In message
,
Dawlish writes
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.

Indeed - but I didn't describe you as dangerous Paul. However if you
were ever elected as Prime Minister then I might have to revise that
;-))

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. *))

Well the first part I would agree with - anything that requires you to
leave your brains at the door before entering isn't something I would
wish to take part in. But some brains could definitely do with a
cleansing if our current world situation is anything to go by ...

Ah well, I suppose all these recent debates in this ng add colour if not
much light!

Cheers
James
--
James Brown

Dawlish wrote:


Yes he did, checking back. I still think we deserve a reason why he
thinks this, as it just seems a bizarre position to take, in the face
of all the contrary predictions and the recent trend.

I suspect it's the Piers Corbyn approach. By the time it's
apparent what you've predicted couldn't possibly happen,
everybody has long since forgotten about it.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

In message , James Brown
writes
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.

Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. There is a literature on the
evolution of sight. Have you read any of it?

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 ;-))

Cephalopods manage without a blind spot. They put the "wiring" (neurons)
behind the detectors (rods and cones in vertebrates; I don't know the
terminology for cephalopods), instead of in front of them.

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


--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:20:56 +0100, "Togless"
wrote:

"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 :-)



The American country singer Iris DeMent has some useful thoughts on
this in her song "Let The Mystery Be"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80

In message , Stewart Robert Hinsley
writes
In message , James Brown
writes
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.

Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. There is a literature on the
evolution of sight. Have you read any of it?

An example: If I were presented with a computer motherboard what would
be the more incredulous hypothesis do you think?


Cephalopods manage without a blind spot. They put the "wiring"
(neurons) behind the detectors (rods and cones in vertebrates; I don't
know the terminology for cephalopods), instead of in front of them.

You've lost me there Stewart - who are the they? Are you stating that
the cephalopods were cunning enough to do all that - I know I struggled
with designing frame stores from scratch some decades ago, and you
should have seen the resultant wiring!! Should I should have asked a
cephalopod for some help? ;-))

Regards,
James
--
James Brown

In message ,
writes
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:20:56 +0100, "Togless"
wrote:

"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 :-)



The American country singer Iris DeMent has some useful thoughts on
this in her song "Let The Mystery Be"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80

Thank you so much for that - a serendipity gem uncovered for me at
least.

Cheers
James
--
James Brown

On 13/09/11 23:46, Lawrence13 wrote:
You consider warnings that hurricanes can only
increase in intensity and numbers under a AGW planet are founded in
measurable reality.

My statement in another post:

"The general consensus now is that in a warmer climate, tropical cyclone
numbers globally will decrease, and there will be a small increase in
the intensity and rainfall (about 5%). In this case, natural variability
will dominate over any long term trends."

How you infer what you did from the above I have no idea whatsoever.

In article ,
says...

and
you haven' told me how the cell got photosensitive - or IR sensitive
etc.



Most cells are photosensitive to some degree or other. I would not be
surprised if virtually all cells are IR sensitive.

There has never been a need for this property to "evolve". It is innate.

--
Alan LeHun