Re: creation science vs. evolution
Is this the basis for the problems you see Creationists having with cloning, or were you thinking of something else?
Canuck25 what I meant to suggest was that cloning may or may not be a problem for the theory of evolution, depending on how you choose to look at it
or rather, what facts you choose to ignore. Either way, it is meaningless to the ideal of creationism. There is some rattling within Christianity about the morals/ethics of cloning but it does not challenge their belief structure.<br /><br />
A little late to chime in but IMHO, children should receive an education in biology.
Ladyfish what is biology?
welcome to the debate. Biology without a why? is like coming into the middle of a movie. It has some value but no since of what it is about
an ending with no beginning.<br /><br />
Welcome to global warming.
Toad2001 Global warming?
or not! Or maybe
I dont know.
I dont want global warming to be taught in schools as if it were fact , either. Like evolution, its not without its controversy.<br /><br />A big, 30-year study done by one of the ivy legal unis (Cambridge?) on global atmospheric variation was just concluded. The results: about a 10-degF drop in global atmosphere temp from the time the study started to when it just finished.<br /><br />I have read it both ways. There is now less ice in the artic
but more ice globally.<br /><br />There is no independent climatologic group of that will sign on to global warming. Everything you hear about it comes from a source that depends on govt grants
but thats probably just a coincidence.<br /><br />A couple of years ago an investigative reporter decided to track down the origins of the global warning claim. It comes from a UN meeting (why am I not surprised?) in the late 80s with about 300 climatolgists on the list. The paper in support of global warming was to be distributed to about 1/3 of them. They were interviewed. Less than ½ received the paper. About a doze actually read it. Three signed on
and global warming was born.<br /><br />The only countries that signed on to the Kyoto Protocol are those that stand to gain financially from it. Japan, the host country, will not sign on. Is the KP really ecological? Or is it political? Or the politics of ecology? I dunno!<br /><br />Chlorofluorocarbons take 35+ years to migrate up to the ozone. A few years back, someone I know personally was working for 6-mos in Antarctica, the SETI program. On day, without warning, NASA suddenly piled into the research stations. The naturally occurring hole in the ozone over Antarctica closed unexpectedly. Measurements of the CFCs that had migrated into the upper atmosphere above that region yielded the highest readings ever. So much for the theory that CFCs were eroding the ozone and causing global warming. The mass of CFCs that were released in the 80s hasnt reached the ozone yet. We really cant know their full effect for sometime still.<br /><br />Now, greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. Never mind the single greatest source of those emissions is the naturally occurring decay in the forests of the world.<br /><br />For years, some climatologists with nothing better to do would go to a specific field in north-eastern Canada and plug the ground on the summer solstice to measure how deep the permafrost was below the surface. For several years now, that field has been under more than a meter of permanent ice.<br /><br />A couple of years ago Moscow experienced the coldest winter ever recorded. The eastern seaboard (U.S.) has been smacked with devastating, cold winters for the last 3 years in a row. Overall, the length of winter is growing. In the last ½ century, England has lost about 2-weeks of its growing season.<br /><br />In the 70s the big scare was the ice age that was rapidly approaching. In the 90s global warming. Now we are back to the ice age. Fwiw, a small group of climatologists is starting to make a lot of noise about very, very rapid advancements in the earths cooling. Theyre projecting 12-15 years out for serious, global problems. Does this sound familiar?<br /><br />This is something that really bothers me: after the collapse of communism in the USSR, the US gave billions in international aid to help feed the people. The new Russia then started a project, hollowed out an entire mountain range and built a city in it. The cost?
about equal to the financial aid. I remember reading in the 70s about a German scientist that was saying the only way to survive the coming ice age was to forget about political boarders and head underground. Dont know if there is any connection, if not, one hell of a coincidence. Maybe it has to do with hiding from nuclear blasts, I dont know.<br /><br />I really dont know what to believe. I wish I could trust my government. I remember global cooling was mentioned in the news in the 70s with the same casualness that global warming is today. If we were cooling in the 70s and warming in the 00s
why would we not believe the trend wont be to start cooling again? Measuring and recording atm temps is less than 100-years old. We dont have a firm record to go by. Also, part of the velocity of sound is determined by temperature. Current studys (still young and incomplete) of measuring sound in the oceans suggests the water is warming
at least in the area the study is done in. I know there is an attempt to do this study globally. Well see.<br /><br />Heres a Newsweek article from April 28, 1975
it aint global warming.<br /><br />
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
. I now leave the discussion(clap, clap, cheer). This is a wrap.
