>>Evolutionism is based on a theory<<
Evolution is both a fact (i.e., the fossil record) and a theory. In fact, it may be the most powerful theory in all of science. It is the biological equivalent of the unifying theory sought by physicists.
>>Most (if not all) Evolutionists believe in Global Warming, yet they also go against the Evolution Theory when they believe in the "Global Warming Theory" which happened through Evolution.<<
People who understand science accept both evolution and AGW. The rest of your statement makes no sense.
>>Let's start with Creationism and work from there.<<
OK. Creationism represents the mythological beliefs of quasi-historic, semi-nomadic tribes of illiterate Semitic sheep herders. That is where it starts and that is where it ends. It is not science and has no supporting evidence in the real world.
>>when people did evolve through the "Big Bang Theory"<<
The Big Bang has nothing to do with either the origin of life or biological evolution (similarly, the origins of life and biological evolution are completely different things)..
>>and the Planet maintains a certain temperature through that theory<<
The planet does not “maintain” temperature – global temperature is a function of multiple variables and has nothing to do with the Big Bang (other that the fact that is where matter and physics came from).
>>a natural process based on an idea that we were "born" from chaos?<<
There is no idea that either the universe or life were born of chaos.
=====
Mike –
>>If you look through the Climategate emails, one biologist complained about tree-ring paleoclimatologists. They were not using evolutionary theory.<<
That is a complete pile of Horseshlt.
Either produce the alleged email or confess that you are a liar as well as an idiot.
No scientist in the history of the human race has ever claimed that tree-ring research had any bearing on the theory of evolution. Tree-ring research is temporally limited to the Holocene – and, therefore, has no contribution to make to evolutionary theory. Neither does it ever explicitly reference evolution. Its only connection to evolution is the fact that everything biological is a product of evolution.
It is possible that the emails reference evolutionary spectra – however, that is a type of mathematical time series analysis and has nothing to do with biological evolution. Of course, a person would have to be unbelievably stupid to confuse the two – but, then, being stupid is the one skill that Deniers of AGW and all science have in common.
<
Define 'traditional creationism'.
In the Real World creationism (whether 'traditional', 'modern' or even 'post-modern') is a load of BS, a faith in a deity who did and does inexplicable things and for which a pseudo-science was invented to give the whole thing some false scientific legitimacy.
<
Global Warming Theory happened through evolution? Wow!
I have the idea that you do not understand neither evolution nor Global Warming. That is no surprise really given your abysmal understanding of Science as a whole.
<
Only someone who does not understand Science would say that. The Oxford Dictionary defines Science as
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:"
and this is done via the Scientific Method which the same Oxford Dictionary describes as
"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses:"
And when finally, after decades or even centuries of careful and methodological research and studies some aspect of the natural world has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation, then it becomes a Scientific Theory. There is nothing 'to hide behind' as you argue as everything has been looked at meticulously by thousands of scientists, all incredibly eager to find a fault and that option is still available (yet extremely unlikely as times passes).
If someone is evasive in their scientific reasoning, then surely it is the creationists who sooner or later will argue that their deity did X without explaining exactly how (very unscientific) and when pushed to explain why their deity created the most deadly viruses and bacteria which kill millions of infants each year, they believe that saying "God moves in mysterious ways" is a scientifically acceptable answer.
It is not. Not in the Real World.
Well, Creationism is flat-out wrong. Anyone who believes that the world is 6000 years old or that Adam and Eve were, literally, the first human beings is wrong. Not just conceptually wrong, but demonstrably, scientifically, mathematically, evidentially wrong. Such people are as wrong about the origins of humanity as I would be saying the Earth is flat, the Moon is made of cheese, and dragons drag the stars around the heavens. How we *actually* got here is a far more awe-inspiring story than the utter crap peddled by those literal-interpretation religious nut-jobs.
The implication I would draw is that if someone is Creationist, I would be instantly suspect of their opinions on 'global warming' simply from the point of view of basic scientific understanding and inability to separate ideas based on evidence and personal opinion based on dogma.
Which science textbook, scientific journal article, or website run by bonafide scientists directed you to this video?
Why is this video not mentioned on the detailed WIkipedia page of physicist Michio Kaku?
What in the universe does this bizarre cut-and-pasted video fragment have to do with global warming?
When are you going to drop the smokescreens and tell us what you really believe?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
You might try deleting this question and re-writing it so that it makes sense.
EDIT: No, I really have no idea what you're asking. I skipped around in the video, but I'm guessing that the gist of it is that the physics has problems when it tries to quantize gravity. This is true, but physics has overcome lost of difficulties and I expect it will overcome this one, too. It does appear that string theory offers a way out.
As for the theory of relativity giving us the second law of thermodynamics, I don't believe that. Clearly the second law pre-dates relativity and relativity does not yield the second law, although a version of the second law seems to exist in general relativity, thanks to Hawking, Unruh and others.
None of this seems related to evolution.
Another EDIT: Just for you, I went back and watched the entire video. I didn't learn anything, so it was mostly a waste of my time. Everything I wrote above still stands.
And Another EDIT: Again, your latest additional detail makes no sense. Try re-writing your question for mere mortals to understand.
This is not a good question, they are two separate issues, this similar to S Lewandowsky and his linking AGW skeptics to conspiracy theory believers, it is not ethical.
Well your supposition is wrong to start with, I am a evolutionist and I dont believe in global warming, nice video but doesn't show that science is falling apart, just we have more to learn.
Yes they are. Warmists and (macro) evolution believers are statist blind followers of authority. This is what you have to be in order to believe either of these theories. You put your 'faith' in them without a scintilla of hard evidence to show they are true.
Where do we see one kind of animal turning into another --- even it the fossil record? --- nowhere.
Where do we find evidence the CO2 drives temperatures? --- nowhere.
Where do we find evidence that the Earth is billions of years old? --- nowhere.
The human condition is to rebel against the truth. Lots of people had rather embrace the lie, even knowing it's a lie than face the truth. In the end, it won't help them.
-----------------------
OMG I want a bag of whatever you've been smoking. Evolution and AGW have nothing to do with each other. However many of the dodo deniers are religious fanatics who don't accept evolution either. Maybe because they are de-evolving
Wow a comedic video which proves nothing. It did make me smile though
It is only natural that they would. They have no belief in a Creator. They think that somehow they can control the temperature. They also think that so many of them were conceived by accident, that the whole of mankind was conceived the same way.
Evolutionism is based on a theory that doesn't co-exist or coincide with traditional Creationism.
How serious can 'one' be when mathematics doesn't bear the fruit of scientific mathematics? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY
Most (if not all) Evolutionists believe in Global Warming, yet they also go against the Evolution Theory when they believe in the "Global Warming Theory" which happened through Evolution.
Does this mean that traditional Creationists don't like a "clean house" and environmentalists understand more than Creationists?
So much stupidity, almost sad
