backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 176 comment(s) - last by Emryse.. on Nov 28 at 6:22 PM

Britain has pledge to assist China is looking to implement carbon capture vision

While the U.S. was the leader in CO2 emissions for a single nation for the better part of a century, China recently surpassed the world in emissions.  In fact, between now and 2030, Chinese emissions are expected to double as the country continues its path of rampant industrialization.

China chiefly uses coal as its fuel source as it has rich coal resources.  It burns the coal in power plants, in a process that typically emits massive amounts of carbon dioxide.  U.S. plants have various scrubbers and filters to take out other carbon based compounds, such as phenols, many of which are carcinogenic.  Many of China's plants lack these technologies, leading to a two-fold problem -- rising emissions and rising airborne toxins.

Britain, who has had a long and tumultuous relationship with China over the years, now is turning to this familiar land to try to aid a helping hand.  Engineers with British Geological Survey (BGS) attended the launch of the Near Zero Emissions Coal (NZEC) Phase 1 study in Beijing, China last week, a study which aims to implement explore new technologies to capture virtually all the carbon pollution from coal burning plants in China.

The process used is called carbon capture and storage (CCS), and with it China looks to make good on the pledge it made at an EU-China Summit in September 2005.  China has pledged to develop and implement a large scale Near Zero Emissions Coal demonstration.  In order to achieve this goal, China is teaming up with the British scientists of the BGS.

Dr. Nick Riley MBE, Head of Science for Energy at BGS, was enthusiastic about the work commenting, "CCS offers the opportunity to reduce emissions per unit of electricity by 85 - 90%. Large-scale deployment of CCS in China has potential to significantly reduce future greenhouse gas emissions".

The Chinese will utilize the BGS's specialties to help find and map strategically sedimentary basins that could possibly be used as CO2 storage grounds.  These regions will undergo geocapacity testing (assessments of how much can be stored).  The next step is to pick the best locations and put them through an even more thorough analysis and then utilize these sites in the demonstration system.

China's NZEC program is funded by Britain, through Defra, Britain's agriculture and food department, and DBERR, Britain's business regulatory department. It is coordinated by AEA Energy & Environment (UK) and ACCA21 (China).

Perhaps the BGS and China should look at storing the CO2 not on land, but in the sea.  New American research from Harvard University, detailed at DailyTech looks to use sand in a CCS process which stores CO2 highly effectively in the sea

The problem of industrial pollution and carbon emissions certainly remains a thorny issue, but many will be pleased to see China make serious efforts to work towards meeting or even beating international pollution standards.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

funded by the U.K.?
By Moishe on 11/27/2007 10:47:27 AM , Rating: 5
I find it odd that this is funded by the U.K when China is rolling in dough and is the culprit.

Very nice of the Brits!




RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: funded by the U.K.?
By darkblueslider on 11/27/2007 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
Are You seriously blaming one country for "Most" of global discussion currently surrounding Global Warming?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 11:21:27 AM , Rating: 1
Im not saying they are the only ones-

But it goes without saying that the UK and UN are the primary subjects that are exploiting the global warming dooms day talk (outside of Al Gore).


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By theoflow on 11/27/2007 12:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
I am curious when you say the UK and UN are exploiting global warming. I am not being sarcastic, it is a serious question.

As for how people think Global warming is a lie, I think there was a fair amount of people during the industrial revolution that thought pollution was a lie as well. People believe in pollution, but don't believe in global warming and there is a pretty big gap, or leap of faith, to get the idea.

If you think about pollution, throwing a food wrapper out the window by itself is pretty much harmless. But if everyone did it (and alot of people do) we'd get pollution. That pollution would then lead to various heath issues. Same thing pretty much goes for global warming, although the results are much harder to visualize because we're all not atmospheric scientists.

This leads to the theory of global warming because in reality it is a theory. However, there are many accepted theories that still just theories and not absolute fact.

One major theory of this was that the earth was round. We had tons of data and observations proving that the world was round, but until we actually went into space and looked at the earth with our own eyes, we didn't know for sure that the world was actually round.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By theapparition on 11/27/2007 12:52:52 PM , Rating: 5
For "Global Warming", I don't think there is much scientific debate on whether the earth is warming up. It is. Unfortunately, the term has now taken on a media fueled negative connotation.

No, the debate centers on the question of whether the warming is the result of man-made effects, or is it natural. The second hot scientific topic is the question of whether global warming is even bad. Definitive answers are not in, but most reasonable scientific research has concluded that most effects are negligible and that the results of global warming could be beneficial. Last is whether it is temporary or permanent.

The Earth is certainly warming, as are other planets in the Solar System, sugesting a Solar event. Another fact, is that the Earth has been much warmer than it is today in the recent past. Greenland was aptly named because it was far more temperate than it is now. A single erupting volcano can spew out more "pollutants" than over 100 years of human activity. And certainly everyone has heard of the "ice ages" where periods of the earth were at different temperatures. So you can believe that the Earth goes through regular temperature cycles, or you can believe that the Dinosaurs died out because they couldn't control the pollution in their dino-factories. Maybe it was the aliens who caused previous global warming in the past, but one thing is certain, it wasn't man.

It is certainly wise to reduce our pollution, I'm all for that. What I'd like to see is that we do it responsibly. Does it make more sense now to switch to electric cars, where the overall higher ecological footprint offsets any gains over conventional gasoline. No, not right now. Maybe in the future, it will become a resonable option. Let's all just not panic at the sound of "global warming". OK?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By OrSin on 11/27/2007 1:22:42 PM , Rating: 1
Greenland was not name that becuase it full of plant life. It was named, that becuase how the Sun reflected off the ice and sea water made the whole land mass look green. Green was never explored for 100's of years after it was named.

Second global warming is not bad for the planet or even human life. The problem is if the ice caps melt, they the sea level rises. And since 80% of the industrialize world live within 20 miles of an mojor boby of water people are worried. The warming itself is not a big deal.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
Greenland was warmer in the 10th-12th century than it is now. This is indisputable. A cooling Greenland is what drove off the Viking settlements in the 13th century, as the temperature was no longer warm enough to support agriculture.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mcnabney on 11/27/2007 3:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
That is actually a myth. People have been there, but they fished and hunted whales for oil. In the "summer" grasses and lichens will grow, but there are no native trees or food crops. It is entirely too rocky.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 4
Incorrect. Some references:

quote:
...Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle...pigs, and sheep and goats...Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer...
By the year 1300...cool weather caused poor harvests in an already fragile climate. Because of the poor harvests there was less food for the livestock...
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_du...

quote:
From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably...the British Isles, Scandinavia, Greenland, and Iceland were considerably warmer than at present...
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html

quote:
Ice-core data from Crête, central Greenland, suggests a considerable and rapid warming late in the 9th century...The name of Greenland, when this country was in turn settled by Eiríkr rauði ("the red") around 985, may have described reality...
http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/SWEDEN/Climate.html

While Greenland certainly held a harsh climate even during the time of the Viking settlements, the fact remains that it was most certainly warmer than it is today.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By JustTom on 11/28/2007 1:34:06 AM , Rating: 1
Interesting links, however the quotes associated from the first deal with Iceland not Greenland
quote:
Animal bones and other materials collected from archaeological sites reveal Icelandic Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle (a source of meat), pigs, and sheep and goats (for wool, hair, milk, and meat.) Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer and these farms were located near bird cliffs (providing meat, eggs, and eiderdown) and inshore fishing grounds

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_du...
And I can't find reference in that link for the following quote
quote:
By the year 1300...cool weather caused poor harvests in an already fragile climate. Because of the poor harvests there was less food for the livestock...


The correct link should have been: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/end_of_vik...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By sinful on 11/27/2007 7:18:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Earth is certainly warming, as are other planets in the Solar System, sugesting a Solar event. Another fact, is that the Earth has been much warmer than it is today in the recent past. Greenland was aptly named because it was far more temperate than it is now. A single erupting volcano can spew out more "pollutants" than over 100 years of human activity. And certainly everyone has heard of the "ice ages" where periods of the earth were at different temperatures. So you can believe that the Earth goes through regular temperature cycles, or you can believe that the Dinosaurs died out because they couldn't control the pollution in their dino-factories. Maybe it was the aliens who caused previous global warming in the past, but one thing is certain, it wasn't man.


I'm entertained by your idea that we know enough about other planet's climates to even *begin* to throw this idea out there as even a remotely plausible option - especially when there's so much debate about OUR climate on EARTH.

quote:
So you can believe that the Earth goes through regular temperature cycles, or you can believe that the Dinosaurs died out because they couldn't control the pollution in their dino-factories.


What a great line of thinking. Let's apply it to other ideas... Hrm, species went extinct before man was around... and species are going extinct now, therefore man has no impact on the extinction of species in the present. Brilliant! Let's abolish the endangered species list!

quote:
A single erupting volcano can spew out more "pollutants" than over 100 years of human activity.

Well, in that case, why bother not trying to pollute, and let's just dump all our pollution in your backyard....


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By CascadingDarkness on 11/28/2007 1:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I've got to reply on this.
quote:
Hrm, species went extinct before man was around... and species are going extinct now, therefore man has no impact on the extinction of species in the present. Brilliant! Let's abolish the endangered species list!


Most people who aren't extreme alarmists would generally attribute most of the Holocene extinctions of present to the fact we are leaving an ice age. Only a small amount of those extinctions should be attributed to man. Just because they happened as humanity was flourishing doesn't mean we caused it all. You’re trying to make a direct cause out of a correlation.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Screwballl on 11/28/2007 3:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
or just dump our trash into volcanoes...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By JonnyDough on 11/27/2007 7:30:00 PM , Rating: 1
The debate isn't whether or not global warming is natural or man-made, the debate is how MUCH of it is man-made. If the earth is warming, and I light a fire, I am contributing. I don't know why people are insanely arguing over who is to blame. ALL human beings are to blame. Every time someone cuts down a plant they're changing the earth. We need to quit fighting among ourselves already as we've been doing since the dawn of man and start THINKING or we're all going to be living at the foot of the mountain when the mudslide begins. Unless I'm mistaken, some of us have already survived a few large natural events.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 12:53:32 PM , Rating: 4
> "although the results are much harder to visualize because we're all not atmospheric scientists"

But a large number of atmospheric physicists don't believe that mankind is negatively affecting climate. Now, if you ask your average biologist, most will profess a belief in global warming, but they're not exactly in a position to know.

> "but until we actually went into space and looked at the earth with our own eyes, we didn't know for sure that the world was actually round. "

Err, we know without a doubt the earth was round when Magellan circumnavigated it in the 16th century.

And while its a nice try to link global warming skeptics to flat earthers, the two situations are not comparable. Countless thousands of environmental doomsday theories have been shown to be false in the past. Many had as much or more popular support than global warming does today.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Amiga500 on 11/28/2007 9:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
But a large number of atmospheric physicists don't believe that mankind is negatively affecting climate.

Now that I will take issue with.

I will say that alot of people studying the atmosphere disagree over the extent of human activity driving the change, but the majority will broadly agree the change is not for the better (as regards the effects on most of the planet's population).

Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation, climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible ecological catastrophes, a United Nations report says on Tuesday.The U.N. Human Development Report issues one of the strongest warnings yet of the lasting impact of climate change on living standards and a strong call for urgent collective action.

“We could be on the verge of seeing human development reverse for the first time in 30 years,” Kevin Watkins, lead author of the report, told Reuters.

The report, to be presented in Brasilia on Tuesday, sets targets and a road map to reduce carbon emissions before a U.N. climate summit next month in Bali, Indonesia.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2007 11:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
> "Now that I will take issue with."

Feel free...but you need to back that up with more than just your opinion. I've posted several atmospheric scientists who disagree. Why not try to find some of this "vast majority" who agree? (hint: biologists and psychologists don't count).

> "...Kevin Watkins, lead author of the report, told Reuters"

Oops. Dr Kevin Watkins has a degree in modern Indian history. Not exactly the best person to choose for detailing the causes of climate change, eh?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Samus on 11/27/2007 5:39:45 PM , Rating: 1
Because the UK has the only intelligent, powerful governing backbone left in the world.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By jadeskye on 11/27/2007 7:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
As a british citizen living in london i whole-heartedly disagree with that. our government is corrupt, ignorant and stupid.

but i guess thats my opinion.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Scrogneugneu on 11/27/2007 8:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
our government is corrupt, ignorant and stupid.


Put yourself in the head of someone that lives in any country around the globe. Go for the most known, one by one. Try and find one where this doesn't hold true.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Rookierookie on 11/27/2007 11:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, global warming is a global problem.

If China would not reduce emissions themselves, it's better to pay them to reduce it than to let it go unchecked.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 11:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it may or may not be a problem at all. From China's perspective, however, this is a wise move. They get free technology at zero cost to themselves. If soft-headed Europeans want to engage in such shenanigans, why should China say no?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 11:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming itself may or may not be a problem, but reducing CO2 emissions and other pollutants is a good thing either way.

I am glad there are at least some "softheads" out there to counter balance all the hard heads that think we can just continue to pollute unchecked and there will never be any consequences.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 11:41:41 AM , Rating: 1
> "but reducing CO2 emissions and other pollutants is a good thing either way."

This is a factoid oft-repeated but never supported. Actually, a body of evidence exists that increasing CO2 emissions may in fact be a wise move for humanity. CO2 is nothing but airborne plant food, essential for all life on earth. Higher levels means increased growth of trees, food crops, and plant of all sort, and increased biodiversity for animal kingdom which depends on plant growth for food.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 12:03:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Am I the only one that often finds your anti environment rhetoric insulting?

I dont mind it - it really depends on whether you believe all the Global Warming & pollution dooms day hype. How about those of us who feel that your environmentalist buddies rhetoric is insulting - the ones who beleive that the world is better without humans living, the ones who believe that having kids is selfish becuase of the pollution they cause to the earth.
quote:
Don't mess with mother nature. Nature has survived for 4.5 billion years, evolving from nothing to a vast network of life on all parts of the planet without "the most intellegent lifeform" helping it along by adding CO2 and many many many other pollutants to the mix.

We've been here for thousands of years, were still here today, and we'll still be here tomorrow. You people need to quit believing everything you see in the Hollywood movies, and quit listening to the environmentalists who talk all these theories.
quote:
To say anti pollution is not a good thing, or not supported is a giant cop-out.

The point is that he is no more wrong that your beloved scientists. Everything involving pollution & its destruction & global warming are all theories. None of it is proven fact. So for you to call what he says a cop out makes you just as bad.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 12:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
I dont mind it - it really depends on whether you believe all the Global Warming & pollution dooms day hype. How about those of us who feel that your environmentalist buddies rhetoric is insulting - the ones who beleive that the world is better without humans living, the ones who believe that having kids is selfish becuase of the pollution they cause to the earth.

wow... out of left field with this one... Nowhere did I say anything about doomsday, end of the world, or that anything major or drastic will happen, just that reducing pollutants is a good thing. can you at least agree with that small fact?

We've been here for thousands of years, were still here today, and we'll still be here tomorrow. You people need to quit believing everything you see in the Hollywood movies, and quit listening to the environmentalists who talk all these theories.

another out of left field. Nowhere did I say anything about any of that, nor do I believe anything out of Hollywood or Washington for that matter. Humans will survive just about anything, we are crafty, intelligent and have strong will to live. Now quality of life for future generations may or may not be so rosy, but humanity will survive.

The point is that he is no more wrong that your beloved scientists. Everything involving pollution & its destruction & global warming are all theories. None of it is proven fact. So for you to call what he says a cop out makes you just as bad.


Yes, my beloved scientists, what could they possibly know about science /rolls eyes.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:30:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "Yes, my beloved scientists, what could they possibly know about science"

A few of the beloved scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming:

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Dr. Willian Gray, professor Atmospheric Science, Colorado State.
Dr. Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatology and Geology, Carleton University.
Dr. John Christy, Professor Atmospheric Science, UA Huntsville, director Earth System Science Center.
Dr. Claude Allegre, Geochemisty, Institute of Geophysics.
Dr. Reid Bryson, Atmospheric Scientist and Meteorology
Professor, U. Wisconsin. (the most cited meteorologist in the world).
Frederick Seitz, physicist, former president National Academy of Sciences
Dr. Freeman Dyson, Physicist, Cornell, Institute for Advanced Studies.
Dr. Frederic Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, U. of Virginia
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Physicist and Climatologist, Danish National Space Center
Climatologist Roger Pielke, NOAA, past chairman American Meteorological Society.
Willy Soon,Astrophysicist, Harvard Center for Astrophysics.
Dr. Nir Shaviv, Astrophysicist.
Dr. George Kukla, Climatologist, Columbia University.
Dr. Lubos Motl, Physicist, Harvard.
Dr. Jan Viezer, geochemistry, U. of Ottawa.
Dr. Vincent Gray, IPCC expert reviewer
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorology, IPCC expert reviewer.

I could name quite a few others, but time and space doesn't permit.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
Try and focus, you're getting replies mixed up... I am not the one who said global warming is a proven problem, I was only saying that reducing pollutants (CO2 and all others) can only be a good thing.

Do you think a single one of these scientists would disagree with that?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is you're using improper terminology. CO2 is not a pollutant. Its required by all life on earth, and is generated by Mother Nature in quantities far and above what mankind releases. One might as well start a program to eliminate oxygen from the planet. Would you consider that wise as well?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 2:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
No, the problem is that you cant admit you are wrong, ever...

True CO2 occurs naturally and itself is not a pollutant. When its produced in mass quantities artificially by burning far too many fossil fuels it is a pollutant. See the difference? No, I am sure you don't.

"One might as well start a program to eliminate oxygen from the planet. Would you consider that wise as well?"

Yes, lets do that... Very good point masher, your best work yet - bravo. A standing ovation from all.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 2:27:43 PM , Rating: 4
> "True CO2 occurs naturally and itself is not a pollutant"

So the 97% of CO2 emissions that are produced naturally are "good", but the 3% produced by mankind are "bad"? I think you'll have a hard time proving that assertion.

I'd be curious what chemical or physical difference you find betwen "true" CO2 and the "false" kind produced by man.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 3:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
"So the 97% of CO2 emissions that are produced naturally are "good", but the 3% produced by mankind are "bad"? I think you'll have a hard time proving that assertion."

yes exactly. Nature is a perfect balance. Too much oxygen, plants cant deal, too much CO2, animals cant deal. 3% is not going to kill us or anything, but again (and again and again) all I am saying is that lowering CO2 emissions and other pollutants can only be a good thing. I am not sure why you are so hard against that simple positive point.

"I'd be curious what chemical or physical difference you find betwen "true" CO2 and the "false" kind produced by man."

Typo on my part, I meant "it is true, that CO2 occurs naturally and itself is not a pollutant" but that too much created artifically it becomes a pollutant.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nature is a perfect balance"

Nature is no such thing. That explains why CO2 levels have varied between 50% lower and 1000% (10X) higher than they are today. The variance in what nature emits is far larger than the sum total of mankind's emissions.

And no matter how many times you attempt to lump CO2 in with real pollutants, its still incorrect. Its an essential component of all life on earth.

Finally, you've again failed to address the fact that rising CO2 is increasing plant growth and may in fact be averting the next ice age. These are positive things, wouldn't you agree?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mcnabney on 11/27/2007 3:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
If higher CO2 is increasing plant growth, where are those plants growing?

Also, since 0.5% CO2 air content is considered unhealthy to breath - your example of atmospheric CO2 being 10x higher than now (currently about 0.06%) than you are looking forward to breathing toxic air?

And the word pollution is a legal term. Kind of like a weed, it is just something that you don't want right now. Fertilizers in runoff are certainly considered pollutants.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Runiteshark on 11/28/2007 1:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
Oooh .5%. So what about those places on earth that naturally have a .6% CO2 percentage? Does everything die in fire and brimstone? Nope. Besides, it obviously isn't near that level, and one of the other things that's interesting to note, do you even know when this happened in our history? Did you know there was a time on earth when almost all life went extinct? (Permian) Can you guess why? Not enough CO2.

Also another interesting note:
So what if the earth warms up a couple degrees. More farm land, longer warm seasons and a general change to a slightly warmer climate, and increased plant growth (obviously putting out that poisonous gas known as Oxygen).

The one thing I never understand though, is why everyone always cries about the polar caps melting. Since its the north pole doing the melting, I'd like to say this:

What happens when you freeze water?

1. Its volume increases
2. Its density summarily decreases
3. Its great with a bloody mary
4. ITS STILL THE SAME CHEMICAL

If you put an ice cube into a cup of water, and measure its volume, then leave and let it melt, and come back, what do you see?
The ice has melted but for some odd reason its the same level. The ice turned into water which caused it to lose some volume but gain density. Last time I checked the proportions that this occurs at doesn't magically change.

What about that horribly toxic gas Nitrogen? Theres all sorts of other crap in our atmosphere, like Argon, Neon, helium, and nitrous oxide to name a few.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2007 11:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
Both your math and your facts are incorrect:

> "Also, since 0.5% CO2 air content is considered unhealthy to breath..."

Current CO2 levels are in the 380ppm range. They have at times been as high as 3,500ppm. That's 0.35% level....or about half of what you'll see in a poorly ventilated room with people inside. It is in no way "toxic".

CO2 isn't dangerous until concentrations reach 5% or so...that's 50,000 ppm. We could burn every bit of coal and oil on the planet, and not reach a tenth of that level.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mcnabney on 11/27/2007 3:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Except for volcanic outgassing, most CO2 emissions are cyclical in nature. A tree burns down. The carbon goes into the air. Another tree grows, absorbing that CO2. That carbon is not a problem. However there are two things that defy the natural carbon cycle:

Turning carbon-heavy forests/tundras into carbon-light cropland.
Burning previously entombed fossil fuels and returning the previously sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.

Those two things do not have a balancing force and result in increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. That increase will slightly increase the thermal absorption of the atmosphere.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "Except for volcanic outgassing, most CO2 emissions are cyclical in nature"

The problem is we don't understand the natural sources of CO2 emissions. We keep identifying new sources, which continually forces the human percentage downward, and we don't fully understand why CO2 levels varied so drastically in the past, up to 10X higher than they are today.

As for the belief that most natural CO2 sources are biogenic in nature, this is incorrect as well. In addition to volcanic sources, processes such as ocean-atmospheric exchange, mineral weathering, etc, are large contributors, and in total exceed the biogenic contribution by a large margin.

> "Turning carbon-heavy forests/tundras into carbon-light cropland..."

Recent research has shown that forests in Temperature and Subarctic zones are actually net sources of carbon emissions, not sinks.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
wow... out of left field with this one... Nowhere did I say anything about doomsday, end of the world, or that anything major or drastic will happen, just that reducing pollutants is a good thing. can you at least agree with that small fact?

Reducing pollutants is a good thing to do, sure - but it depends on what you consider a pollutant. C02 is not a pollutant. And reducing CO2 emmissions (notice i did not say pollutants) while damaging our economy & our already shrinking manufacturing industry is ridiculous. But the point was you were complaining that someones anti-environmentalist talk was insulting....care you comment on how insulting the environmentalist talk is?

quote:
another out of left field. Nowhere did I say anything about any of that, nor do I believe anything out of Hollywood or Washington for that matter. Humans will survive just about anything, we are crafty, intelligent and have strong will to live. Now quality of life for future generations may or may not be so rosy, but humanity will survive.

So what is your rush to damage our economy and change our way of life for a "may or may not" future.

quote:
Yes, my beloved scientists, what could they possibly know about science /rolls eyes.

Well - what do they KNOW? Nothing about global warming or mans effect on it actually. What do they THINK? Lots - from the next ice age, to global typhoons, to every other ridiculous dooms day scenario they can come up with.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By sinful on 11/27/2007 7:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what is your rush to damage our economy and change our way of life for a "may or may not" future.


Yeah, it's about as silly as building dams and levees just because it "might" flood. Why spend millions of dollars now just because some scientists say there "might" be billions in damages if we don't build them?

Oh wait...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 8:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "it's about as silly as building dams and levees just because it "might" flood"

We built dams based on real, verifiable past flooding events. No one ever approved a dam based on a computer simulation of a hypothetical flooding event a century in the future.

> "because some scientists say there "might" be billions in damages if we don't build them?"

The problem is that the costs of reducing CO2 emissions -- as implemented in Kyoto-like cap-and-trade programs -- are greater than the worst-case costs from global warming. The costs from the Lieberman-Warner bill alone are estimated to be up to six trilion dollars...and thats just for one nation.

This is why many scientists and economists have compared Kyoto to a car insurance policy with a $50K max payout, but premiums of $100K/year.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 12:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "Will you feel the same if you or a loved one gets some sort of cancer?"

The Earth is not a living being capable of getting cancer. I realize how much environmental types wish to deify "Mother Gaia", but the fact remains its a planet, not a lifeform.

> "To say anti pollution is not a good thing"

The point is that CO2 is *not* pollution. It's an essential ingredient for all life on earth. Mother Nature generates far more CO2 than man does...and its a good thing it does, too, or else life would cease.

> "Nature has survived for 4.5 billion years..."

So why are you so willing to believe its going to vanish overnight, based on the trivial amount of CO2 man is adding? Especially when all that CO2 was already in the atmosphere once before? (Where do you think the carbon in coal and petroleum came from originally?)


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just your M.O. to badly misinterpret anyone who disagrees with you and then argue with that straw man you've set up rather than address the issue that was brought to you?

quote:
The Earth is not a living being capable of getting cancer. I realize how much environmental types wish to deify "Mother Gaia", but the fact remains its a planet, not a lifeform.


That was just so uncalled for and condescending. Any thinking person would understand that he was referring to cancer causing pollutants. Even if it was a genuine misunderstanding, there's no need for that kind of talk. It's very unprofessional.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "Any thinking person would understand that he was referring to cancer causing pollutants"

Given the entire thread is devoted to CO2, and CO2 doesn't cause cancer, I don't think my response was out of line. The fact remains that, regardless of the OP's own opinion, current environmental thinking does deify the earth into a Gaia figure, a living organism that, in may cases, is worshipped as demigod:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 2:23:17 PM , Rating: 1
"Is it just your (masher's) M.O. to badly misinterpret anyone who disagrees with you and then argue with that straw man you've set up rather than address the issue that was brought to you?"

Actually if you have been around AT/DT for a while you would know that is pretty much his MO. More concerned with being right at all costs than having an actual debate.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By porkpie on 11/27/2007 2:50:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
More concerned with being right at all costs than having an actual debate.
Well he's using facts, figures and links to support his argument. You're just tossing insults. If thats your opinion of how to "have an actual debate", I feel sorry for you.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 2:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
actually if you re-read the posts between him and I you will see that the only thing I am saying is that reducing emissions and pollutants is a good thing - he is (or was) placing the whole global warming, enviro-paranoid point of view thing onto me, which was someone else's point, not mine.

I don't think that we are doomed and I don't think that global warming is a big issue (unless you own beachfront property - LOL)... We will survive, as will life, but reducing pullutants to a minimum is a good idea... Not becasue of global warming, but because of health reasons. Pollutants are bad.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "I don't think that global warming is a big issue ..."

Glad you agree!

> "...unless you own beachfront property."

With even the alarmist IPCC only predicting a 23cm rise in sea level over the next 100 years, why do you consider this unwise?

> "Not becasue of global warming, but because of health reasons"

There are no "health reasons" for reducing CO2 levels. The gas is safe, indeed essential.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Emryse on 11/27/2007 4:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Am I the only one that often finds your anti environment rhetoric insulting?


retrospooty - you did say that, right? You said that in your first post, right? So then, certainly, you're contradicting yourself when you say:

quote:
actually if you re-read the posts between him and I you will see that the only thing I am saying is that reducing emissions and pollutants is a good thing


Because certainly that was NOT the ONLY thing you said in your posts.

Also, your inherent concept of the entire topic is flawed, based upon your saying this:

quote:
Nature has survived for 4.5 billion years, evolving from nothing to a vast network of life on all parts of the planet


You, or any other scientist for that matter, cannot prove for a fact that nature has existed for 4.5 billion years, and there are certain "laws" of science stating things like "matter can't be created nor destroyed" that would disagree with the part about nature evolving from nothing (which also cannot be proven for a fact).

Now - to agree with you on one point: yes, reducing pollutants to a minimum is a good idea. What we need most is to create ways to be eco-friendly that are cheaper than the non-eco-friendly alternatives.

Unfortunately, if you ever go watch the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?" you will see that there are way too many greedy people out there for environmental policy or the typically more expensive cost of eco-friendly solutions to dramatically change any time soon.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 5:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You, or any other scientist for that matter, cannot prove for a fact that nature has existed for 4.5 billion years, and there are certain "laws" of science stating things like "matter can't be created nor destroyed" that would disagree with the part about nature evolving from nothing (which also cannot be proven for a fact).


Out of curiosity, are you a "young earth creationist?"


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 5:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
Uh-Oh - someone is questioning evolution?

Science has proven that the Earth was created by collisions of massive asteroids appx 4.5 billion years ago, single cell plant life evolved shortly after it cooled down from the heat of collision. For over 2 billion years these single celled plants spread and prospered taking in CO2 and giving out Oxygen, creating the atmosphere we breath today. Animal life then evolved into what we see today. You and I evolved from Apes which evolved from Lemurs which evolved from earlier rodents, whether your bible knew it or not, Science has proven that.

yours and my DNA, and every other white, black, asian, native american, and any other race's DNA is 99.9% exactly the same.

Human and Chimpanzee DNA is 97% exactly the same (by this, it is literally identical except for the last 3% to evolve)

Human and dog DNA is 92% exactly the same, yes, you and I are very nearly dogs.

Human and insect DNA is somewhere in the 60 percentile the same, yes, we are more like an insect than unlike and insect.

Science has mapped DNA from all creatures and has absolutly proven without doubt that we evolved. The religious question is not whether or not life evolved on Earth, but a question of how the laws that govern nature came to be.

A religious person is one that believes God created nature and therefore a place for us to evolve (I would like to think this is true). An athiest believes its all random occurance, but only an uneducated, delusional, ignorant bible thumper would think God just zapped us into existence.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 5:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that everything you are saying regarding proof of evolutionism is false right? It has not been proven, and is a Theory. Darwinism has more unfilled holes in its theory than it does facts.

They are also learning that DNA matching is false. Go read some stories about how identical twins have non matching DNAs, and how the DNA of some children cannot even be linked to their parents.

If you want to believe the falsification that we can from Apes, go ahead. But it doesnt prove that its true.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 5:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
"If you want to believe the falsification that we can from Apes, go ahead. But it doesnt prove that its true."

Is that what your church tells you? sorry, but we did, and Science HAS proven that. Any church based stories to the contrary that you may be told are false, and created to keep the faith. Like I said... A religious person is one that believes God created nature and therefore a place for us to evolve (I would like to think this is true). An athiest believes its all random occurance, but only an uneducated, delusional, ignorant bible thumper would think God just zapped us into existence.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 6:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
It doesnt matter what you beleive to be true, its what has been proven to be true. Religion is faith based, and so is the THEORY of evolution. Science has not proven either of them.

If you beleive that evolution is such a fact, then please explain to me the easiest question in the evolutionary book which you should be able to do with scientific facts:

If we evolved from apes - then why is that apes still exist today in the same form they did in the past? Goes to prove that there was no reason for evolution of the ape, and we did not come from apes.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 6:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "If we evolved from apes - then why is that apes still exist today "

Easy one! Because man didn't evolve from contemporary apes. Man and apes both evolved from the same homonids.

But Even if we HAD evolved from contemporary apes, that wouldn't disprove the theory. There are quite a few instances of a new species diverging, with the original remaining extant. It happens whenever a subpopulation moves into a new ecological niche, and experiences evolutionary pressures that the population as a whole does not.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 6:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
And how exactly are they coming up with the "facts" for this theory....lining up a bunch of skulls and jotting down notes about how they look more alike over time? Cmon man. Im not going to sit here and say that faith based religion's creationism is fact....but i sure as heck will not sit and here and say that scientists have unlocked the big question of where we came from by looking at a bunch of skulls and saying that we came from another animal that ceases to exist.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 7:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
well, they have, through fossil evidence, geological evidence and DNA evidence. All facts prove we evolved. Read my post below - all facts, and if you can't go back to a modern school to learn, at least flip on the science channel once in a while.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 7:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
" It doesnt matter what you beleive to be true, its what has been proven to be true. Religion is faith based, and so is the THEORY of evolution. Science has not proven either of them.

Where have you been for the past 150 years? The "theory of evolution" was called that prior to it being proven, now that it has long since been proven, it is just called evolution, also called scientific fact.

If you beleive that evolution is such a fact, then please explain to me the easiest question in the evolutionary book which you should be able to do with scientific facts: If we evolved from apes - then why is that apes still exist today in the same form they did in the past? Goes to prove that there was no reason for evolution of the ape, and we did not come from apes."

That is a funny one, and propagated by people that know zero about evolution. Members of a species don't all evolve together at the same pace different places, diets and catastrophe's created different needs which creates different evolutionary paths. This is why there are 100's of breeds of dogs, not just one dog.

Let me give you a quick run down of what science has proven on human evolution.

millions of years ago the Indian plate began pushing into Asia pushing the himalayans upward, disrupting global wather patterns and making much of Africa's jungles into savannas over many millions of years.

Eventually the apes that were living in trees in some areas had little trees left so they had to leave the safety of the trees to go onto land, and these apes developed the ability to walk upright. Not all apes were in this situation - and not all evolved the same

Food became more and more scarce and our plant eating ancestors had to improvise and start scavenging meat. The addition of the high protein content from meat made their brains grow (again over hundreds of thousands of years) and they got smarter and smarter and learned to hunt and make crude weapons out of stone.

Later still, fire was invented (or I should say they learned to harness fire) and they went from huddling scared and cold in the dark to being warm and safe, as animals that hunted them are afraid of the fire... and soon enough became the head of the food chain. Now that primitive ape-man was no longer spending 100% of his time surviving, and huddling in the dark, he had time to relax, and dream, and imagine, giving rise to even larger brains and smarter hominids that we are today.

Modern man appeared on the scene appx 150,000 years ago and began to prosper. Earlier versions of apelike man died off. Appx 70,000 years ago there was a global event, most scientists beleive to be the massive supervolcano in Toba disrupted global wather patterns and killed off many species. Man was down to about 10,000 people. Easily on the endangered species list if one existed. Of those 10,000, we are all descendants, some left africa and went into the middle east, then india, south asia, australia and north asia, some went into Europe and met up with Neanderthol, another humanoid species that was dying out. Some even crossed the bering straight from Asia to Alaska and thier descendants became what we call native americans. The human genome project analyzed DNA from people all over the world from all races and it proved that we all came from about 10,000 african people that survived 70,000 years ago. Some left africa, and thier descendantspopulated the rest of the globe

This is all proven science, not a theory. As ignorant as it is to ask why are there still apes is, another ignorant comment from uneducated people is "well if they found the missing link I'd believe it"... The missing link was what it was called when it was missing, 100 years ago. It has long since been found and mapped out. A good example below.

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 7:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
oops. I meant to add that you should scroll down a page or two to see the human evolutionary chart

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/27/2007 10:09:20 PM , Rating: 3
Man, I don't even know where to start. You're general aim is right, but your post is filled with misinformation and gross assumptions, and yet you're throwing around insults about how ignorant everyone is.

1) The "theory of evolution" is still called the "theory of evolution."

2) Overwhelmingly, the hundreds of breeds of dogs exist because of selective breeding by human beings.

3) We have no idea when or why our ancestors started eating meat. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply postulating what they "think" happened.

That's just scratching the surface. Your narrative towards the end may or may not be true, but is hardly a "scientific fact" no matter how badly you want it to be.

The fact is that little fossil evidence exists to give us insight as to the details of how evolution played out to bring us where we are today. Illustrations that start with a monkey and end in a human being are fanciful renderings by artists, not science, although I suspect that they aren't too far from the mark.

It seems like people spend a lot of time on this site arguing about "proof." Just because something is called a "theory" or a "law" doesn't make it any less true. Rarely is a scientific principle made into a "Law" and with evolution it likely never will be because things such as survival of the fittest and apes evolving into humans aren't exactly repeatable in a laboratory.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By jhinoz on 11/27/2007 10:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because something is called a "theory"


If it was proven, it would be a Theorem not a theory, wouldn't it? 8P


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 11:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
1) The "theory of evolution" is still called the "theory of evolution."

OK, whatever my point was it has been proven.

2) Overwhelmingly, the hundreds of breeds of dogs exist because of selective breeding by human beings.


Again, whatever, it was a long post and I couldnt overly explain every single detail. My point was that there are not just one breed of hominid, or dog. Hominids happened naturally, and dogs are both natural and selective breeding. A great way to point out how evolution works and explain why there is still apes I thought. for example, if we bread all wolves into dogs, why are there still wolves? Get it?

3) We have no idea when or why our ancestors started eating meat. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply postulating what they "think" happened.

The rough outline above is generally accepted by scientists that study the field, believe me I didn't just come up with all of that.

ack!... The point here is that we evolved, evolution happened, I don't suppose you would dispute that fact.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Emryse on 11/28/2007 1:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
retrospooty - I can appreciate your position; I can't agree for the following reasons:

1. If evolution was proven, it no longer needs to bear the preceding title of "Theory". In and of itself, this means without any doubt or uncertainty that the THEORY of Evolution has NOT been proven, EVER.

2. Theories, no matter how widely accepted, are merely a POSSIBLE explanation for something that is witnessed. There are many studies, tests, and papers which have been written to support the explanation Evolution provides - there is no need for you to provide this to me or assume I'm not aware.

3. Quite frankly, the idea of "something" evolving from "nothing" is as improbable to me as if I take some dirt, throw it into a cave, wait a million years, and POOF; out comes a brand-new Rolex watch. There's a certain law in science that states everything is moving from a state of order to disorder, right? So are you saying evolution is the exception, where things somehow go from worse to better?

4. Consider that science has NEVER created ANYTHING. We've just always discovered or explored or attempted to understand what is already here.

5. You're as arrogant in your assumption that evolution is proven true as the folks of Pasteur's day were that meat can grow flies, or that the earth was flat, or that the atom was the smallest building block of life. Even Darwin had a very, very underestimated understanding of the incredible intricacy and detail found in micro-biology. Are you really so sure that you're right and your point is proven?

6. If matter can neither be created, nor destroyed, then you have a real problem. You talked about the meteoric collisions; where did they come, and where did whatever they came from come from, and on, and on, and on... You get the point. The bottom line is - it had to start from somewhere, which is actually a leading requirement of a Theory to become Law - you need to know its start. Evolution has never been able to do this.

7. Faith is not purely based upon emotion, nor is science purely based upon logic - to think otherwise is only to fool yourself. Any scientist has a reputation to perserve, or no one will listen. Any believer in faith has their sanity to perserve, or they lose hope. I don't have to explain my position to you - I didn't raise the "Creation" or "Intelligent Design" theory; I don't need to. It's much more interesting just to focus on the theory of Evolution and its self-contained fatal flaws.

I won't convince you here and don't need to; but if truth really is important to you, then certainly you'll go deeper into exploring the validity of evolution as an explanation to the origin of life.

If truth isn't important to you, then why care at all?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2007 1:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
Emryse, To respond individually to each of your points:

1. Nothing in science is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nothing. Everything in science remains "just a theory" forever. The fact remains that evolution is more solidly verified that even the theory of gravity or Newton's laws of motions.

2. See #1 above.

3. Evolution doesn't disobey the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. entropy must increase). An evolving species does move to a more ordered state. But the system as a whole (which includes the living creatures plus their environment) has increasing entropy. Creatures require energy to live. In the process of consuming that energy, they increase entropy.

Objection 2. If one objects to evolution on the "something from nothing" grounds, that objection applies even more seriously to the "created by god" explanation. After all, if a simple organism cannot evolve on its own, how could a god be created from nothingness? This is the reason the "teleological argument" for the existence of god fails. If "A" is too complex to exist without intelligent creation, and "B" is even more complex than "A", then "B" requires a creator also. But what created the creator?

4. Science hasn't enabled man to create anything? Do you think the computer you type this on evolved on its own?

5. If the question is, "are we really so sure that evolution is correct?", then the answer is yes.

6. You're simply restating the teleological argument. See #3(b), above.

7. You cannot simply attack one theory without advancing another. Quite obviously we exist. If you disbelieve in evolution, you have to offer a more plausible alternative. Quite obviously, you don't want to put creationism on the table for fear of what close examination will reveal.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Parhel on 11/28/2007 2:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
You are doing what Richard Dawkins does - mixing the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God into an argument that no theist would support.

Basically, the cause does not need to be more complex than than the effect. No one ever suggested that it did. It needs to be greater than the effect. Yes, there needs to be a first cause - an unmoved mover. That's the cosmological argument. But all mainstream Christian understandings of God since time immemorial have viewed God as a simple being, not a complex one.

Likewise, the teleological argument (probably the weakest of Aquinas' three) states that the universe is complex, thus it must have been designed, because complexity, according to the argument, requires a designer.

Now, you and I know that evolution can produce complexity. So, you can make what you want of the teleological argument in regards to evolution. But, consider that the universe as a whole is also complex and isn't subject to "survival of the fittest" or competing with other universes for survival.

I firmly believe that God exists, but I wouldn't claim that hat we could logically deduce or empirically prove his existence. But, Dawkins' argument is weak. It is arguing against a nonsensical (and intentional) mish-mash of the primary arguments for the existence of God.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Emryse on 11/28/2007 5:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
I have to start by saying I'm a bit honored you've responded - I voted up almost every post I could that you made here... despite the fact on the point of evolution I disagree with you, you always present sound arguments backed by good data.

Unfortunately I'm not quite on your level - so read or disregard at your leisure. Nevertheless, I do not agree (respectfully), and I'll respond to your responses in kind.

1. Clearly an argument dependent on the definition of proof, and what supporting elements would qualify something to be proof. Evolution is certainly NOT more solidly verified than gravity, but simply accepted just the same as gravity. Unfortunately, modern science has never witnessed the complete evolution of one species to another in a "monkey to man" sense - anything we have seen is adaptation or micro-evolution, which is completely different and not proof at all for macro-evolution.

3. Given the amount of time supposedly necessary for evolution on a macro scale to occur, it most certainly does. Furthermore, any species currently in existence even slightly less adapted than they currently are now could be wiped out in 25 years, let alone the 100k plus years a macro-scale evolution within that species might take (and that seems like a pretty rapid and optimistic timeframe given the typical millions we assign to most evolutionary changes taking place in).

4. If there was a Creator, that Creator would certainly have to exist outside of something so constraining as time or space - you couldn't say the same for space dust and cosmic collisions, which are bound by time and space. Therefore, in the Creator theory if you went down that road you would logically conclude there could not be a point at which the Creator did not exist, in or out of time, and therefore the Creator would have to always exist, infinitely.

5. You're sure evolotion is correct; my next question is: which of the hundreds of theories proposed and refuted for evolution since its beginning do you believe to be the correct one? Perhaps it just matters more that we have faith in the concept of evolution, and it isn't quite as important exactly "how" evolution actually works (or in fact doesn't work)? In fact, ever since evolution became a widely accepted alternative, we've really never again questioned its validity as a scientific community, so long as there was at least some form of an explanation not-already-blown-full-of-holes out there that kept it going. Would you seriously ID which specific one you ascribe to, and I would be very sincerely interested in learning more about the research and work done for that specific version.

7. You certainly can, and I find focusing on the theory of evolution to be appropriate, since it was the basis for much of the original discussion of this article. Clearly you don't believe in, and aren't willing to accept the theory of creation as an alternative, and I'm not aware of many other widely accepted explanations for the origin of life (there are others, but not widely accepted) - so it makes no sense for me to offer it up to you.

If you want to start from the origin = God and creation, or space dust and evolution, and then follow each theory down its respective path using logic and reason:

Evolution does not make sense. It does not make sense mathematically, or logically. In fact, evolution defies mathematics, and it defies reason. The probability of enouch living cells forming to create 1 single organism in even 1 billion years, with the right environmental conditions in place is the equivalent of working with 1 chance in 80 with 60 zeroes behind it. It's the illustrated example of you finding the specific grain of sand that I marked with red dye in the middle of the Sahara, while blindfolded. It is impossible, mathematically speaking.

But if you start with intelligent design - suddenly the mathematics, while still very staggering, become a whole lot more probable than when compared to evolution. Just like my computer, which wasn't created by evolution, but was created by intelligent design. And we didn't invent metal... we didn't invent minerals... we didn't invent electricity - we discovered those things, so my initial point remains correct. But a computer, left to its own devices, with no human intervention, does not evolve to something better; it goes the way of all things, from order to chaos.

Even if you look at if from a socialogical or anthropological perspective; the more "advanced" (modern, or technological) we become as the human race, the more of a danger we are to ourselves, and everything around us.

Whether we build a fire, or turn on the gas stove, or dial up the thermostat - we still require heat, and we have not evolved to not require heat. We will always require heat, as it is a condition of being human; we can't evolve from this, any more than we couldn't have stopped needing gills and substituted them for lungs. Fish will be fish, dogs will be dogs, apes will be apes, and I am a relative of none of them.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 5:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
Here, I wanted to post the cosmic calendar for you. It was created by Carl Sagan to easily explain the universal timeline in a relational way that's easy to understand...

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventu...

The universe is 13.7 billion years old (appx). If you look at that 13.7 billion years, as if it were one calendar year you will see that the Earth and Sun formed in August, single celled life evolved in September, multi celled organism's (microscopic animals) in November and Apes didn’t come along until 10:15 AM on December 31st. Modern Humans appeared at 11:54PM on Dec 31st, and the Pyramids were built at 11:59 and 50 seconds on Dec 31st. This puts the many books of the bible being decided upon and collected together as "the Bible" at about 11:59 and 53 seconds on Dec 31st (midnight being modern day - today)

This is all proven science.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 5:57:09 PM , Rating: 3
Evolutionism is one of the most proven theories in science. But arguing logic against a creationist is even more futile than using logic on an environmentalist. Faith-driven beliefs are motivated by emotion, rather than reason.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 6:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you are correct there. Still, sometimes I feel that if I dont at least try, I am letting ignorance win.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 6:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "sometimes I feel that if I dont at least try, I am letting ignorance win. "

That is the very reason I devote so much time to my environmental blogs.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Andy35W on 11/28/2007 2:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
>Evolutionism is one of the most proven theories in science. But arguing logic against a creationist is even more futile than using logic on an environmentalist. Faith-driven beliefs are motivated by emotion, rather than reason.

It's not totally proven, like man made climate change is not, however you are happy to pick one as true and not the other. I could do your trick here and list a set of scientists who have called into question some evolutionary points, the minority, in similar fashion to how you do for manmade climate change!

You have an inbuilt "faith" that man is not causing climate chage, so you ignore the vast mass of evidence and great numebr of scientists, and cherry pick information off the web that backs your belief. That is the very way science is not supposed to work.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By clovell on