Comments by "Michael RCH" (@michaelrch) on "Climate change denial a crime?" video.

FCoxUSMC, sorry, actual measurements of the temperature say otherwise. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
3
CO2 is not the only thing that changed the climate, that is true. But it is known that CO2 does warm the climate. This has been true throughout the geological record. So we can see that CO2 has risen due to humans burning fossil fuels. We can see that the temperature has risen. We have not observed any other phenomena that better explain the rise in temperature since the second half of the 20th century. So it's fair to conclude that the warning is due to CO2 level increases, and that was due to humans burning fossil fuels.
2
FCoxUSMC, i asked you to cite evidence of the cooling trend you asserted and you did not (because the global data all shows clear warning). So your answer instead is a conspiracy theory? I don’t know how old you are but personally I don’t want to live to see the world, the human population and the natural world screwed over the next 50 years over something we could have avoided. I have kids and I want them to live in a better world that I live in. I think that attitude is generally the reason why people don’t live in mud huts any more and don’t die of easily curable diseases, and have a life expectancy above 30. People with your unbelievably selfish “fuck it, I’ll be dead so who cares” attitude make that much harder. Think what you like. Just don’t kid yourself that you aren’t a scumbag for holding such an appalling opinion.
1
FCoxUSMC, are you kidding me? I said that the data shows warming and posted a link to a source shows his. Here is another. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature You then said that there is a actually cooling going on. I said, “cite your source” and then you tell me I have to do YOUR research for YOU? Why the fuck would you trust the guy who runs the weather channel over 1000s of peer reviewed papers with evidence that say he is wrong? Have you ever heard of an argument from authority? It’s a logical fallacy, something that makes your argument invalid. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority If you want to convince me that there is cooling when the evidence shows warming, not to mention tons of direct effects of that warming, like melting ice, rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, more heat waves, etc, then the least you can do is cite your own evidence that shows cooling. So go on.
1
FCoxUSMC, so I see why you are struggling. You can’t read. The graph shows data from NASA, NOAA and the Met Office. Also, hilarious how you just dismiss an entire country’s science community. The same guys that gave you most modern science up to the turn of the 20th century. A country with 2 of the top 5 universities in the world. But of course they must all be liars. I presume you think that Maggie Thatcher, that great leftist communist was also lying about global warming in the 80s. And if you can’t even find the evidence that you state is so compelling then you don’t get to tell me or anyone else who does have evidence that they are wrong. Your opinions are utterly worthless unless they are backed by evidence. Can you understand that?
1
FCoxUSMC, and if you want to be “left alone” stop posting bullshit comments in places like this. You might want to stop to think about the consequences if you are wrong, which btw all the science says you are. Our generation will leave the planet much much worse than when we were born. Much worse, the kind of damage normally only possible by massive cataclysms of nature. We humans are causing it right now. I guess I could take your attitude and say “fuck it” but I care about the planet I live on. It had been a good home to humans for the last few millennia. We are fucking that up in a huge way. You and your buddies denying it’s happening at all and arguing for more fossil fuels are MAKING IT WORSE because your greedy politicians have license to do whatever the duck they like regardless of the long term consequences. So at the least, if you know nothing about it and are going by what some dude on the Weather Channel said, which is completely contrary to the science, then just admit you don’t know that much about it and “keep your own council” to put it kindly. I don’t know shit about the history of the civil war so I don’t weigh into arguments about whether statues of General Lee should be standing in southern cities. I might have an opinion but I don’t tell people that they are wrong when they disagree with me because I really just don’t know much about it. Please, for the sake of our planet and our kids and the amazing natural world, just park your opinions on climate change, at least until you really know the argument very well from both sides. I am sure there are lots of things you know tons about, but you know shit about climate change! Sorry, that’s just what I can tell from your comments. On the other hand if you want to school me on General Lee, or why Antifa are idiots, or the best guns or whatever, then be my guest...
1
FCoxUSMC, “Google it” is s cop out and you know it. Science is not about what google says. If you knew enough to justify how opinionated your are about this, you could at least point me at evidence. But you just google “climate change hoax” and then lap up everything you read. The blogs you read assume you won’t bother to check that they aren’t lying. If you do check, guess what? They lie ALL THE TIME. Even “climategate” from Back in 2011 completely falls to bits when you actually dig into it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo You have fallen for a conspiracy theory pedalled by a cabal if fossil fuel interests, liars, bloggers wanting traffic to their sites and charlatans after speaking fees from fossil fuel interests. The scientists whose evidence supports climate change number in the 1000s, their papers in the 10s of 1000s, from dozens of countries and published in dozens of journals. There are no published papers that actually cast doubt on man made climate change that you or anyone can cite, because they pretty much don’t exist. If you want to bang on that literally an entire scientific community are lying then surely the evidence must be everywhere. So why can’t you come up with any? If you do, then great, but don’t be surprised if I demonstrate that your evidence is either flawed or fraudulent.
1
TheHealthPhysicist, I'd really like to recommend this video https://youtu.be/YezbREhH_Eg In fact you may like a lot that this guy has created. If you can spare time to watch it, I hope you find it interesting. You ought to at least find the title funny.
1
FCoxUSMC, what's the difference between doctors, engineers, physicists and chemists (whose work you do trust on a daily basis) and atmospheric physics and climate scientists that you have decided not to trust for some reason? They are all academically trained at the same institutions and develop their theories using exactly the same methods. You are using the Internet and worldwide web right now. Both of these were pretty much entirely developed in universities and academic institutions. These people aren't special or different. They just happen to enjoy studying the nature of the world around us. And I am happy for you that your kids are successful. That's cool. But you don't have to beat up on academics just because you and your kids didn't choose to be one. I don't know what your kids do but say one of them builds office buildings. If I wanted to have a office building built, I would go to your son or daughter, the expert. But if I want to know about medicine or electronics or the way our climate behaves (and why), I would go to a doctor, or an electrical engineer or a climate scientist, because that is what they have spent years studying to understand. It's only fair.
1
Zoe Phin, dude, no! https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-15/97-percent-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated 97% of papers that the group reviewed (they looked at all vaguely relevant literature) expressed a position supported man made climate change. Lots expressed no opinion, often because it was redundant as it's accepted science. When the Cook et al authors went back and polled the authors of the nearly 10000 papers that did not express a position, that only INCREASED the percentage of those that did express a position supporting man made climate change. You cannot say anything about those that did not express a position because, well, they did not express a position!
1
FCoxUSMC, LMAO. So I guess you must be an experienced climate scientist or atmospheric physicist with a PhD and several papers published in your name then right. Sorry. I had no idea. Nice to meet you Dr Cox. Listen, it's just really simple. You and I could argue this stuff all day but there is no point is discussing it unless we are citing real science that has been tested and reviewed rigorously. That is the science that is published in peer reviewed journals. It's ok to read blogs but if you are going to, then you have to do your own fact checking, rigorously. That means checking every statement is backed by evidence in a peer reviewed paper, checking that data is not being cherry picked from those papers, checking that any conclusions drawn from a paper actually agree with the paper, checking that data has not been manipulated from a paper. Bloggers are after readers. They may also have an agenda. They want to show you the most sensational compelling story they can. And the most compelling story is that the whole science community is a fraud but, they in their wisdom, can tell you the 'real' facts, they have the truth that everyone else wants to keep from you. It's usually just a massive load of bullshit. If you don't believe that what I am saying is what is going on, please please just watch this set of four videos on Lord Monckton by Potholer54 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lpMZ4EpCseM It's about an hour in total. If you don't find them even slightly interesting, then fine, have your money back. But I assure, this youtuber is not pulling facts out of his ass, he is fair and balanced, he believes in truth and his fact checking is incredibly diligent. He is also quite witty. As an example I just watched a surprising video that said that climate change will not lead to lots more hurricanes, and it might not sink atolls. The science is more complicated than people appreciate. It does not mean the AGW is not happening or that the effects won't be bad, just that sometimes the predictions are not as simple as people (including me) might at first be led to believe. That video is here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8pa8duiMiS0 I really hope you will think about my recommendation.
1
If you have a minute, please check some data. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature And if it was propaganda, that implies a gigantic global conspiracy. Do you have any evidence of such a conspiracy to hush up the truth? Any band of fearless climate scientists that have uncovered evidence of mass fabrication of data and papers by thousands of scientists? And this conspiracy must include the governments of the 194 countries that signed the Paris including such good friends as Iran and Israel, South AND North Korea, India and Pakistan. I am as ready to believe that as that I am living in the Matrix. Who knows? It might be true, but until Morpheus comes along with a red pill to actually show me, I will just go where the evidence leads. If you are going to go up against the massive weight of evidence that is freely available, you will have to have something to fire back with, not just your (so far) baseless opinion.
1
reference2me, what about the $3.2 Billion that the US alone spends subsidising fossil fuels each year?
1
OvroProductions, OMG. this is is so easy to refute. The US government funds NASA and NOAA. Both these agencies have been building a scientific case for decades including under George HW Bush, George W Bush and now under Trump. Are you telling me that these administrations were part of some HUGE leftist conspiracy? Do you think that they and all the 1000s of scientists around the world (not tho mention the 194 governments that signed the Paris accord) have been conspiring to fabricate vast quantities of data and come to conclusions that happen to support the same theory, all completely in secret with no evidence of their collision and lying discovered in all that time? Or is it perhaps more likely that this is just normal science going through its normal process and just coming to conclusions that are inconvenient to you personally so you have decided to jump on a bandwagon of people who think that by sheer force of will, you can make it all untrue?
1
robert hicks, where in this graph do you see a 30 year cycle and cooling in the last 10-20 years? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record The only cycles that involve transfers of energy to and from the oceans that I am aware of that operate on a relatively short period are the El Niño/La Niña cycles but they are about 5-10 years. Can you show me data that demonstrates what you are talking about. Sorry, but did you mean to say that you don't think CO2 causes warning? That is really basic physics due to the wavelengths of light that this absorbs. Where is your data on that please? Re NASA and NOAA, your argument was that it was that the scientists were biased due there finding sources. But their funding sources were climate sceptic Republican administrations. Aren't you trying to have it both ways?
1
robert hicks, no they really didn't. There just isn't evidence for the gigantic conspiracy you are suggesting. As for the 97% number, I will just that here again, this article explains, objectively how that was arrived at. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-15/97-percent-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated Essentially, where papers' authors expressed an opinion, ~97% agreed with the theory on manmade climate change, but please read the whole article. It's quite fair and balanced I think. You said that people who agree with climate change are part of a religion. I'm sorry, we aren't. We are going where the evidence goes, that's all. People who believe that it does not exist when all the evidence suggests that it does are the ones living on faith, not reality. Climate change denial has more in common with a religion I'm afraid.
1
robert hicks, if you can spare 20 minutes, you might find this interesting https://youtu.be/r7aZ6vqCk2E It's about Bill Whittle's rejection of climate change and why he is not correct or honest. The narrator may cover some of the reasons that you have heard that climate science is wrong and give you some reasons to give it some more thought.
1
robert hicks, thanks for your explanation. I am not sure I follow the point in full though. Are you saying that you predicted global warming in the 1970s but it would be limited to about 30-60 years? If that was the case, then, yes, you are right so far. The temperature has been increasing since the 70s, in fact at an accelerating rate. And not since the 70s but really, since the early 1900s. If you don't trust NASA for some reason, how about the Met Office in the UK? https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature The graph on this page shows The Met Office, NASA and NOAA measurements together. They all agree very closely. I strongly recommend that you read this whole page if you have time. It gives interesting additional information on what other processes are at work that cause the short term fluctuations (5-10 years). I have to say, it's a tough ask to look at the data and not conclude the temperature is trending higher, and at an accelerating rate. There is no evidence or theory that I have seen widely discussed that expects the rise to suddenly stop and go into reverse. If there is, please can you point me at it. Thanks.
1
robert hicks, thanks for your explanation. I am not sure I follow the point in full though. Are you saying that you predicted global warming in the 1970s but it would be limited to about 30-60 years? If that was the case, then, yes, you are right so far. The temperature has been increasing since the 70s, in fact at an accelerating rate. And not since the 70s but really, since the early 1900s. If you don't trust NASA for some reason, how about the Met Office in the UK? https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature The graph on this page shows The Met Office, NASA and NOAA measurements together. They all agree very closely and I don't understand why there would have been any collusion here, especially given the data goes back to well before climate change even became the subject of political debate (which, God, I wish it had not). I strongly recommend that you read this whole page if you have time. It gives interesting additional information on what other processes are at work that cause the short term fluctuations (5-10 years). I have to say, it's a tough ask to look at the data and not conclude the temperature is trending higher, and at an accelerating rate. There is no evidence or theory that I have seen widely discussed that expects the rise to suddenly stop and go into reverse. If there is, please can you point me at it. Thanks.
1
robert hicks thanks. I think I get your hypothesis now. So a couple of things. I cited temperature data from the Met Office. Do you dismiss their data as well? What is the cause of these cycles (I think you are thinking of at least 2) that are lasting centuries (or at least many decades) that are overlapping at the moment? Where is the evidence for their existence and the theory behind their cause?
1
robert hicks, sorry but where are these numbers coming from please? Is this based on Cook et al? If so I have explained how those numbers work already. What is this 56% number? I can see it's origin. if you are referring to Cook et al, then the method of coming to the 97% number was that where papers expressed a position on AGW/mmcc then 97% supported it. Many papers (65%) made no explicit statement for or against. This was usually because it was not relevant but also because it did not need to be stated as it was an accepted theory already. In any case, Cook et al contacted the teams responsible for the 65% to get an opinion. They did not get responses from everyone, but the responses they did get reinforced their earlier finding. But don't take my word for it. Read the Bloomberg article I cited above and then read the sources it cites. BTW, any chance of seeing your sources for you cyclic trends that you asserted caused warming since the 1970s and that will cause cooling in the future please?
1
robert hicks, you are making a fundamental error in understanding the results of the survey. The authors that did not express an opinion DID NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION and that is all you can say. Sorry for the caps but you are saying that even though they did not express an opinion, you can assume that they are either not convinced about climate change or they are actually against the theory. But they expressed no opinion so you can't say anything about them at all. You cannot know why they did not respond so you must ignore them. If I sent an email to everyone I knew and said I was thinking of killing my dog and I wanted to know if they agreed, and 50% did not reply and of the 50% that did reply, 90% said I should not, while 10% said I should, then by your faulty logic I would conclude that only 45% of the people actually disagreed that I should kill my dog, so I would conclude that the majority of the group thinks I should kill the dog. But that is patently wrong. 90% of the responses say I must not, so I don't. And please don't talk about people who accept peer reviewed science as solid evidence as religious. It is the people who accept poorly sourced, junk articles from inexpert commentators without checking their facts who are the ones taking things on faith in this situation.
1
robert hicks, you are still attributing a view to people who did not express one. They did NOT say "don't know". They said nothing at all. They aren't a data point. They represent no data. 97% of the "data points" agreed with AGW. Let me try this another way. If you took an opinion poll in politics and your sample size was 1000 out of 10000 total voters, and of the 1000 that you called and they answered, 90% expressed a support for the Republicans and 10% for the Democrats, what would you report as the support for the Republicans? 90% or 9%? Obviously you would report 90%. The 9000 you did not ask gave no opinion. THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT.
1
robert hicks, you know you are wrong there https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-15/97-percent-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated There were more than 35% that expressed an opinion. And of those that did, 97% supported AGW. And when the followed up with non respondents, that number went up. And counted by scientists rather than papers, the number was over 98%. As we have already discussed, non responses do not represent data. They aren’t, as you would suggest, a tacit vote against The papers just don’t express a position on AGW. Why should all papers on climate science do so? Do you think papers that have nothing to do with climate change should have some disclaimer saying “oh and by the way, while this paper has nothing to do with climate change at all, we do/don’t support the theory of man made climate change!”?
1
robert hicks, another straw man. The claim is not that 97% of ALL SCIENTISTS agree with AGW. It’s that in a survey, 97% that expressed a position agree with it. Besides, it’s not a popularity contest. The point of that survey was to point out that there is no debate among scientists in the field. There are almost no papers that contradict the theory, and certainly no recent ones, If you had a strong scientific case, where are the hundreds or thousands of papers in journals pointing out the gigantic errors in the 97% of papers that express a position and DO support AGW? God knows the fossil fuel industry would be happy to fund scientists to try and get this done. But they can’t for the simple reason that they can’t robust evidence to support their case. Like I said why would EXXON, BP AND CHEVRON and many other oil companies, and Saudi Arabia (!) formally accept AGW if there was such a strong case against it. You are trapped in a delusion. The evidence is all against you, even the fossil fuel industry has thrown in the towel (with the exception of some US coal companies). The governments of every single country in the world except the US has concluded that its real and a serious problem. indeed the US government scientists also have - it’s just the moronic and corrupt politicians that have not. Every argument you provide is easily refuted. You ignore every question challenging your assertions. It’s ironic. I often debate fundamentalist creationist Christians about their literal belief in the Bible. They behave exactly he same way as you. And yet, ironically, it’s climate change sceptics that have the barefaced cheek to characterise people who accept the scientific facts as “religious” or “brainwashed”, yet they themselves believe the most unreliable sources - shown to be wrong or lying over and over - constantly trying to find information from any source to fit their conclusions rather than following where the evidence leads. Eventually it all boils down to tin foil hats and conspiracy theories. You have exactly the same style and approach as a creationist or a flat Earther. Many books will be written about how people like you fell into this delusion and how dangerous it was for humanity and our planet.
1
robert hicks, we have been through this, your science was wrong. There were 7 papers in the late 60s and 70s that predicted cooling (later shown to be flawed and redacted or refuted), there were 44 that predicted warming. Your opponent in the debate was clueless and uninformed. The facts are the facts. We have 50 years more observations, more theory, more study, more science. When you did your debate plate tectonics weren’t an accepted theory. What happened to you in debate class 50 years ago is irrelevant.
1
robert hicks, and how many of the sample that expressed an opinion disagreed? And how many papers in well reputed peer reviewed academic journals in the last 5 years contradict the theory?
1
robert hicks, nope, wrong again. Peterson 2008 studied this. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 “during the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers.” On page 1333 Summarised here https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm Aren’t you getting bored of being wrong all the time?
1
robert hicks as to he nature of theories, I will ask again. There are 1000s of papers that support AGW. where are the 1000s of papers refuting them? And theories can be accepted very quickly. How long did it take for the theory of quantum field theory? The foundations of this utterly revolutionary theory were established in about a decade. This is a theory that turned physics on its head but most of the initial principles were established in the 1920s alone. Theories are accepted when sufficient evidence has been established to support them. That takes years or decades, not centuries. The only theory that took a while to establish in that way was probably the theory of evolution by natural selection, due to lack of fossil evidence, but even that was pretty well established among scientists within a few decades. The finer points of some theories sometimes take a while to pin down or observe. Gravitational waves were observed over a century after Einstein predicted them. Was accepting the prediction in advance of their observation a “political” choice? Of course it wasn’t.
1
robert hicks You don’t have to “recall” anything. Peterson studied it in 2008 and his findings were published in a peer reviewed journal. I just posted you the link. Why don’t you read the whole paper and actually find out the facts from a primary source for once?
1
OvroProductions, ah welcome back. I see you have not managed to get yourself dirty with any facts or evidence since you were away. Your patronising dismissal of an entire field of science with no actual evidence to back your assertions sure makes you look real smart. Definitely the rational one on the room.
1
robert hicks I seriously have no idea what you are talking about now. You have stopped making sense even in your own terms. Climate change sceptics use as one of their arguments that in the 70s “scientists were predicting cooling, and now they have totally reversed their position and are predicting warming, so their predictions can’t be trusted”. You have made this argument yourself. Peterson 2008 did a review of papers of the late 60s and 70s to see if there was such a widespread prediction. He searched ALL papers that had any relevance that he could find wrt to future temperature. 7 predicted cooling. 20 said no change, 44 said warming. And the longer time went on, the more the studies predicted warming. He has a graph showing the distribution and he has a table listing all the papers in question. So no, he did not restrict himself to papers that predicted cooling. Time Magazine might have done a shoddy job sifting through the available research at the time when it published an article about cooling due to pollution, but that is entirely irrelevant now. No one is taking their view of the current scientific theory of AGW solely from Time Magazine. They are taking it from every national national scientific academy of note and 1000s of studies in peer reviewed journals.
1
robert hicks Went through which papers? Care to cite this study?
1
Jeez. Trust Fox to roll out a scientist who is one of the tiny minority of the community that thinks that there is serious uncertainty about climate change and its effects. Her opinion is that, at most the temperature rise by 2100 will be 2 degrees at current emissions levels, but we have already had 1 degree and that rate of increase has been rising over the last 20 years. She has no grounds on which to challenge the last IPCC report and the vast majority of scientific work that went into it. She just bleats on about how uncertain everything is. Well of course the models don't make predictions with perfect accuracy, but to date that have been remarkably good, and if anything they have undershot actual levels of sea level rise and warming. And to say that climate change might be a good thing?! Of course the climate had changed in the past but if you want humans to flourish then you don't want to completely change the environment that has allowed us to flourish. We don't want warning for the same reason we dont want an ice age. Warming means several things. Here are some examples - more frequent storms with bigger more frequent floods. - Weather pattern changes that move rainfall patterns significantly, leaving previously fertile areas desertified. - sea level rise meaning coastal settlements (cities) first becoming more vulnerable to flooding during storm events and then eventually going below sea level. Surely she is not advocating for any of those is she? Fox should have the balls to get on a scientist that is actually in the mainstream of scientific opinion but that would mean watching Tucker having his lights punched out by someone willing to deploy the facts as the scientific community actually sees them. This is just echo-chamber bullshit as usual.
1
robert hicks, show me your data. I note, as usual, you are not citing any reputable source for your data or your statements. Will you this time? The data from NASA, NOAA, The Met Office and RSS shows different. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ And the data is global data from instruments all over the world over long periods of time. And you think we don’t have ways of measuring temperature to a better resolution than 1 degree? Where are you getting that nonsense? And as part of he method, the point of of having many readings is that you average out noise, fluctuations and instrumentation error. Unless of course you think that everyone’s thermometers are just measuring high systematically. Don’t you think that would be rather easy to demonstrate? In which case, why hasn’t it been?
1
robert hicks, show me your data. I note, as usual, you are not citing any reputable source for your data or your statements. Will you this time? Where is your data showing fewer, weaker storms, or significantly less that 1 degree rise in temperatures since 1850? The data from NASA, NOAA, The Met Office and RSS shows the increase clearly. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ And the data is global data from instruments all over the world over long periods of time. And you think we don’t have ways of measuring temperature to a better resolution than 1 degree? Where are you getting that nonsense? And as part of he method, the point of of having many readings is that you average out noise, fluctuations and instrumentation error. Unless of course you think that everyone’s thermometers are just measuring high systematically. Don’t you think that would be rather easy to demonstrate? In which case, why hasn’t it been?
1
Please cite your sources for this 'fact'.
1
Terrence King thanks. I googled those terms you capitalised but could not find anything about it specifically. Please could you point me at the paper or discussion that explains that hypothesis in more detail? The closest thing I could find about CO2 levels at different levels of the atmosphere was this. http://old.iaa.es/content/concentration-carbon-dioxide-rise-upper-layers-earth’s-atmosphere There are a couple of other papers on a similar topic if you google "carbon dioxide concentration altitude". FYI They describe how CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere are increasing as well and they confirm that CO2 in the lower troposphere (the first 12km where the weather is) is acting as a greenhouse gas.
1
jamsamuel1, I am sorry to tell you this, but there are scientific answers to these questions. Evolution has had 4 billion years to work on life on Earth. A lot can happen in 4 billion years. Indeed well over 99% of species that ever existed on Earth are already completely extinct. Rather wasteful of a designer wouldn't you say? Sexual reproduction evolved because it was a much faster way at generating genetic diversity. That meant that species reproducing sexually were able to evolve to fill niches more quickly. Some animals are still asexual as they fit their niche well already and did not need to evolve so quickly to survive. That is why you find some species that are very young, like dogs, and some species that are ancient like crocodiles and ferns. So the question is really, why do we need a designer in the picture? The answer is that we don't, Then the next question is, where is the evidence of a designer at work and not just natural selection over several billion years, something that evolution could not describe? And the answer is, there isn't any such evidence. Evolution is a natural theory that needs no supernatural actor, and it explains what we see beautifully. The simplest answer, that fits the fact, is more often the correct one. TBH, I don't see why you can't be awed and satisfied at the idea that you are a descendant of an unbroken line and ancestors that goes back 4 billion years. Through all the trials and tribulations that Earth has thrown at life, the ice ages, the massive volcanic events, the mass extinction events, through it all, your ancestors survived and flourished. You can thank them for being alive, they did he work. Not an invisible creator.
1
jamsamuel1, and before you get on your high horse about the judgement of your God, maybe throw out some concrete evidence that it exists before condemning everyone who does not believe. And ask yourself honestly, what kind of all-loving God (I am assuming you believe in the Judeochristian one) condemns the ones he loves to everlasting torture in Hell for taking the completely rational view that, given there is no evidence of his existence, he does not exist?
1
jamsamuel1, scripture will always let you down I'm afraid. John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - or the same from King James He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Unbelievers go to hell dude,. It's there. And for what? For not believing in a God who it appears has gone out of his way to hide his existence. Everything in the world that we see had a rational explanation. The only record that the faithful put forward are their personal feelings and some literature that is very poorly sourced and frequently inconsistent. And your main evidence for God is that I exist? Really? Where is the.causal link there? You can show using scientific observations that I evolved from more primitive apes and mammals and so on back many millions of years. And before that, we are very confidence about how the Earth and solar system formed, and the elements that formed them and so on back to the Big Bang 13.7 Billion years ago. Then science runs out of firm theories but there are quite a few hypotheses getting some traction now. But the point is, just because we can't explain the Big Bang yet, why does that mean "therefore God"? That's not evidence. That's a guess with no evidence. My guess is that another universe collapsed and ours was born out of that. I might be right but I might be wrong. I have no evidence. Your guess is God. You have no evidence either. So we should both agree that WE DONT KNOW and STOP THERE. Until you have evidence to back your hypothesis you have nothing more than an idea. You don't have any knowledge of any sort.
1
jamsamuel1, I don't choose to believe evolution. It's not a belief. It's education. I have been to museums full of fossils, I have studied biology at school, I have listened to professors explain how it worked and seen the evidence in the fossil record. I have learned about DNA and how the tree of life is mirrored in the tree of DNA variation across species. It is a theory that had so much supporting evidence that to claim it is false can only be based on wilful ignorance. Ask yourself, have you ever honestly sought to learn about evolution from actual reputable sources of scientific knowledge? There is such a wealth of this on the Internet, you just can't miss it unless you really try. If you want I can direct you at some resources where you can learn about evolution. Would you like to try that? I really hope you would try. You see learning is not a sin. If God created you, surely he did not create you to be ignorant. He surely created you to flourish. And if he did, then you must learn about the the world around you and it's your duty to truly learn all the amazing things that science has discovered in the last few centuries, no? Knowledge is not evil. The problem for religious zealots is that knowledge can lead to discovery of many contradictions between religious theories and science. So it's safer to just stay away from knowledge, so you stay ignorant, in the dark, in the clutches of unreason... That is truly damnation.
1
jamsamuel1,well "thanks" I guess. That was a pretty unenlightening time spent watching that video. I've got to tell you, it's not even slightly convincing. At every turn it just is just a voice leaping out saying "I can't believe X happened, therefore GOD!" About 20 times. It puts forward no evidence that actually contradicts evolution in any meaningful way. It puts forward a few anecdotes of people who apparently have some problem with the theory of evolution but that is just wasted breath. The problem for creationists or intelligent design people is that evolution is just such an elegant theory. It just says that living organisms inherit DNA from their parents in different combinations and sometimes with errors creeping in. And when those combinations or errors imbue the offspring with a useful trait, then those offspring are more likely to successfully breed than their cousins that did not have that useful trait. And so that trait is passed down to more offspring, and those offspring will outcompete their cousins, until the population pretty much all has that trait. It's not only near impossible to dismiss the logic of it, but we see it in action today. Populations of bacteria evolve under the microscope. Ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Guess how that happened? Bacteria reproduced with small errors on their genetic code (bacteria are actually very prone to doing this - it's part of their survival strategy you might say). Some of those errors close the weakness that just one bacteria to, say penicillin. That bacteria can reproduce at will while all the others die. Hey presto, you have a new bacteria that is penicillin. Now play that over and over again over billions of years and trillions of generations. It's not surprising that the Earth has such s variety of life on it, 99% of which remember, is already extinct.
1
jamsamuel1, here is a brief primer on how evolution works and give you some perspective on the numbers and timescales. It's maybe a bit technical but it's short. Let me know what you think. https://youtu.be/4B9IVl8IsEg
1