Islamophobia in the US

[IBCoupe]

FWIW, I am very easy to trace.

My name is directly associated with my screen name. My address is attached to every domain I own. My cars, plates, and pictures of me are all over the web.

With that said, I don't worry one bit. If someone wouldn't hire me based on what I've said here, then I don't want to work for them anyway.

That's the difference between being a man, and being a simpering, paranoid coward - Some of us would do well to learn the difference. It's very liberating.

This. Even with all my loud-mouthed abuse of other users, I stand by each and every one of my arguments. If someone doesn't like them, they're free to show me the door, if I haven't gone through it already.

[themadscientist]

Telco, I think alot of that is changing. When I was in college, which was about 8 years ago, a large portion of my school population consisted of muslims. Education increases in value when anyone enters the crisp morning air of the first world. We've commented many times on how Islam needs to let go of its theocratic nature, but I think we should acknowledge that, at least in some sense, they are listening. It may not be at the pace we hope for, but lets remember Catholicism's theocratic history. It took them a while to let go too, and in some regards Catholicism still harbors theocratic demons today.

I know but I'm just sayin

Go to Brooklyn & see Arabs Jews Muslims, Catholic, Italian, Polish, African Americans, Indian and almost every other ethnic group all living within a few blocks of each other in peace.

So why the f can't they do that in the middle east?

Perhaps the only ones living here are educated and they just got the f out of there?

Uh oh. I agree with Howie. Thats the last sign before the apocalypse.

Any religion, scratch that, any philosophy that sees the seeking and accumulation of knowledge as and adversary is not good. That's not a stab at Islam as a whole, but certain practitioners who espouse such ignorant interpretations. The Christians have their 1% as well. Ignorant is ignorant and stupid people have been messing it up for the rest of us for centuries.

[AZhitman]

Uh oh. I agree with Howie. Thats the last sign before the apocalypse.

[AZhitman]

This. Even with all my loud-mouthed abuse of other users, I stand by each and every one of my arguments. If someone doesn't like them, they're free to show me the door, if I haven't gone through it already.

You know my stance on backpedaling.

I've changed my mind maybe 3 times in this forum, based on arguments from you, Tariq, and a couple well-spoken others.

Each time, I've been very humble about my change of course, because it's not comfortable. Change my mind, and I will be your strongest ally on that topic.

[telcoman]

This. Even with all my loud-mouthed abuse of other users, I stand by each and every one of my arguments. If someone doesn't like them, they're free to show me the door, if I haven't gone through it already.

You know my stance on backpedaling.

I've changed my mind maybe 3 times in this forum, based on arguments from you, Tariq, and a couple well-spoken others.

Each time, I've been very humble about my change of course, because it's not comfortable. Change my mind, and I will be your strongest ally on that topic.

So number 4 is coming soon?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opini ... yt&emc=rss

Amazing how many have a lack of education

A mind is a terrible thing to waste

Telcoman

[mattblancarte]

I can't get over the fact that most of the GOP front-runners deny evolution. Seriously pisses me off that there are individuals in power positions that can openly deny and shape laws with that type of thinking.

Don't even get me started on climate change, either.

[stebo0728]

I can't get over the fact that most of the GOP front-runners deny evolution. Seriously pisses me off that there are individuals in power positions that can openly deny and shape laws with that type of thinking.

Don't even get me started on climate change, either.

Prove origin of life via evolution.....

I'm waiting....

Micro is cool, shows up everywhere. Theres no evidence or reproduction whatsoever for Macro, so get off your high horse. Just because your belief is secular and humanistic doesnt lend it more credibility than any other belief, until you show some evidence.

[stebo0728]

Don't even get me started on climate change, either.

Climate's changing, big deal. Its changed for millenia, and it'll change for several more.

Ah now would you be referring OUR role in the ordeal? Ya dont get me started there either, again lack of evidence.

[stebo0728]

And further more, I could just as easily proclaim that I distrust any policy maker who believes blind chance and circumstance are the only things that shape our world.

You surprise me, you are one of the most outspoken here on religious tolerance, and not wanting to project your religion onto others, yet you refuse to realize, that at its current state, Evolutionary Theory as Origin of Life IS a religion, a secular humanistic religion. So stop projecting it on others. It has the potential for becoming hard fact, when the proper evidence is found, verified, and replicated, but until then stop proclaiming it as such.

[IBCoupe]

Here's evidence, but I don't get it. What do you think is the difference between micro- and macroevolution? What magic difference in process do you think exists?

And, no, belief in evolution is not religious. If you have some remarkableevidence that shows it to be untrue, contradicting centuries of research, let's hear it. If it pans out, you'll be famous and we'll change our views. That's how science works.

Every scientist has huge incentives to show that evolution isn't real. Why haven't they been able to do it, Stebo?

[IBCoupe]

And here you go for ACC.

[stebo0728]

The biggest difference between micro and macro, is the metamorphosis of one species into another, which requires alot of unproven things to occur. For one, different species have different chromosomal counts, which are by nature, not compatible with each other. So, how does this magical step from one chromosomal count to another occur? And assuming it does occur, how is it passed on, since the change is not compatible with the unchanged. Micro you can see, its what Darwin saw. Things like bill shapes changing, losing stripes, things that dont change chromosomal counts of the species involved.

But theres much more about the current theory of origin besides evolution itself. For one, the "spark" that starts it all. It cant be replicated, or at least hasn't been yet. Even the simplest of amino acids are still beyond our genesis grasp.

And yes, by nature, the belief in anything unproven is tantamount to religious belief, it requires faith, which is the heart of religion. Just because your belief seeks to factor out the existence of a higher being does not lend it superiority. Science has a history of favoring that which removes God. Favoring with fact is fine, but favoring without fact is not.

And I'm surprised to hear you ask for proof of a negative when proof of a positive still doesn't exist. Dont ask me to prove it DOESNT work, you go prove it DOES. All I can do is shoot holes in your boat.

[stebo0728]

And dont misunderstand my post either. The point was not to get into some long drawn out debate about Evolution or Climate Change, we've been down both roads before. The point was, neither of those are trophies you can hang on your wall of settled science. You have some great ones up there, like sun centered solar system, but lets not be intolerant to others beliefs on a subject, especially when your own are almost equally unproven. Throw me links all you want, none of them contain hard fact or evidence. Dont ask me for hard evidence of creationism either, we know the score there, but I dont go around saying things like "I just cant trust anyone who is stupid enough to not believe in Creation".

[IBCoupe]

There's plenty of evidence that species change chromosomal counts. There's a number of ways it can happen, but the bottom line is that it can happen and it does happen. Furthermore, the genes can be passed on. A domestic horse has 64 chromosomes, while a wild horse has 66. They can breed and produce fertile offspring. Macroevolution happens the same way microecolution happens, it just happens over a long period of time.

And, no. That a thing isn't "proven" does not mean that it is religious. That's not what the word means, and that's not how science works. You're trying to create a false equivalence. You're free to believe whatever you want in the way of religion, but science follows procedure. Evolution has a lot of scientific support and is the best understanding, scientifically, of the universe that we have. If you would like to offer an alternative theory to that which has been tested and supported repeatedly, feel free to do so. Until you do that, your religious beliefs are not akin to the world's scientific understanding.

[IBCoupe]

I'm just saying, Stebo, there's evidence. Now you're shifting goalposts and demanding proof. I'm not going to play that game.

Letting people believe what they want is all well and good, except, Stebo, how do we want politicians to make decisions that affect the rest of us? Do we want them to look at the world in front of them or do we want them to come in with a set belief and surround themselves with "Yes" men. I doubt Matt was saying he can't trust creationists at all, just that he can't trust creationist politicians.

It's representative of a certain thought process, and while you're welcome torun your life according to your beliefs, I'm going to need that kind of thinking to stay the heck out of my government.

[AZhitman]

It's representative of a certain thought process, and while you're welcome torun your life according to your beliefs, I'm going to need that kind of thinking to stay the heck out of my government.

Agreed, and I could (and do) say the same about those who believe the opposite.

Bottom line is, if we can't govern ourselves without allowing faith to dictate decisions, then we are doomed.

[stebo0728]

I agree with that sentiment as well. I am not advocating political injection of my beliefs, or anyone elses, I just take issue with different beliefs being considered a disqualifier for office. Although it seems the secular humanistic belief does take political and social precedence, hidden behind a "scientific method". Until proven, its still just a belief, that doesnt necessarily make it religious I guess, but its still a belief just the same. And protecting a belief set is not the same as proclaiming it superior by the way.

[C-Kwik]

The biggest difference between micro and macro, is the metamorphosis of one species into another, which requires alot of unproven things to occur. For one, different species have different chromosomal counts, which are by nature, not compatible with each other. So, how does this magical step from one chromosomal count to another occur? And assuming it does occur, how is it passed on, since the change is not compatible with the unchanged. Micro you can see, its what Darwin saw. Things like bill shapes changing, losing stripes, things that dont change chromosomal counts of the species involved.

The incompatibilities of chromosome counts that are observed are more due to the fact that missing or extra chromosomes means there is fewer or more genetic coding that exists. The incompatibilities come when this "code" causes errors in the development of a being. Much of our DNA doesn't appear to do anything or doesn't do anything significant enough to be observable. And minor changes to DNA can occur all the time. But for the most part, it is undetectable or produces a normal type of response. But occasionally, we get big errors that produce undesirable defects. And in many cases, the defects may go unnoticed as the fetus becomes self-aborted because of a defect before the mother even knows she is pregnant. It may never even become attached to the uterus.

That said, differing chromosomal counts are likely to produce severe errors in the coding. The probability of a successful match in such a case is likely to be extremely low. Couple this to the probability that a sperm from one species can actually penetrate the egg of another (there is a biological mechanism for specificity between the egg and sperm), and its unlikely that such a thing would be easily observed in nature or through experiments. But anecdotal evidence certainly shows errors in chromosome count exists as a part of evolutionary theory. The chromosome counts in humans is one less than in that of chimpanzees. Looking at the structure of the DNA and it is found that 2 specific chromosomes that exist separately in chimps are fused together in humans. We also share 9 chromosomes with them as well. And surely, this is anecdotal, but when you consider the statistical odds of these types of occurrences, its not hard to make the correlation that one evolved from the other. Its the exact reason DNA evidence in criminal proceedings is so convincing.

But theres much more about the current theory of origin besides evolution itself. For one, the "spark" that starts it all. It cant be replicated, or at least hasn't been yet. Even the simplest of amino acids are still beyond our genesis grasp.

Not sure what you mean by simplest amino acids. From the microbio course I took last year, it seems like we have a pretty good grasp on them. It was a hugely complicated topic and it certainly wasn't comprehensive on the topic of DNA. Are there things we haven't come to fully understand? Of course. But we do understand quite a bit more than you would imply.

And yes, by nature, the belief in anything unproven is tantamount to religious belief, it requires faith, which is the heart of religion. Just because your belief seeks to factor out the existence of a higher being does not lend it superiority. Science has a history of favoring that which removes God. Favoring with fact is fine, but favoring without fact is not.

Science does not seek to rule out religion. Anything science has proven or ruled out comes directly from what we have discovered about nature using scientific processes. That it happens to go against religion on many instances has nothing to do with the intent of science. It was simply the result. I am not trying to argue against religion here, but if you want to throw stones, history will show religion made deliberate attempts to inhibit science. And without ANY fact I might add.

And I'm surprised to hear you ask for proof of a negative when proof of a positive still doesn't exist. Dont ask me to prove it DOESNT work, you go prove it DOES. All I can do is shoot holes in your boat.

Based on your posts, it would seem to me that you are requiring absolute undeniable proof. Its possible such proof may never exist. In regards to evolution, it can always be a moving target. Find a missing link and there will still always be some intermediate species deniers can ask for. Science has to be content, in many cases, to accept scientific probabilities.

All this said, there is no reason science and religion can't coexist. Science doesn't preclude religion specifically. It may disprove or conflict with certain aspects of scripture, but if I were a religious man, it would be easy to conceive that a bunch of words scribbled on a bunch of pages written by "fallible man" who didn't understand nature the way we do now, many many years after the incidents it describes isn't subject to some level of error or subject to interpretation of the times is unbelievable. Galileo made a great argument for such (warning: its a long but worthwhile read):

http://www.disf.org/en/documentation/03 ... istina.asp

[AZhitman]

^ This follows my personal belief, that they're inextricably intertwined.

I'd go into it, but that's another discussion for another day. Let's pull it back towards the original topic, if we could.

[IBCoupe]

But that conversation is totally depressing. Could we not?

[Cold_Zero]

Might I ask Matt (and maybe we should take this offline) what does it really matter if a Political Candidate for the President of the United States denies Evilution? What does it change? It is one of those issues that I scratch my head and wonder why people (other than biblical Christians) get bent out of shape over it. I suspect there is some ulterior motive behind the getting bent out of shape.
Look, I am not crazy about evilutionists in politics (yes I believe the biblical account of creation as it is written in Genesis) but I do not hold the view that just because a Politician is believes in evolution that somehow I am not going to get good governance. I am just perplexed that this is even an issue.

[R/T Hemi]

why would anything, that I said keep me from getting a job?

Earl Butz comes to mind. He was removed from office for suggesting the problem with a specific minority could be resolved by giving each member a;
1. loose pair of shoes,
2. warm place to poop,
3. tight p***y.

His language was more colorful and of course, he had no forum language filters.

[IBCoupe]

Speaking only for myself, it indicates a mental approach to issues for me. I want a politician to approach policy with an acknowledgment of what he understands and what he doesn't. For what he doesn't know, I want him to rely upon the input of vetted and tested experts for his decisions.

Rejection of evolution does not make one a bad person, and might not impugn one's leadership ability. But it does indicate one of two things: either you believe you have damning evidence (and you should really publish that, for the sake of public knowledge), or you reject a scientific approach to examining reality.

I want my politicians to make laws that work. If you go in with a preconceived notion of reality that can never, ever be swayed, your policies might work, but they might not. A stopped clock and all that. I believe you stand a better chance of success in your policy goals if you, y'know, actually look at the world you're trying to effect.

And it's possible that one can reject evolution and simultaneously look at the world before crafting policy, but it's not a good first impression on that count.

[Cold_Zero]

why would anything, that I said keep me from getting a job?

Earl Butz comes to mind. He was removed from office for suggesting the problem with a specific minority could be resolved by giving each member a;
1. loose pair of shoes,
2. warm place to poop,
3. tight p***y.

His language was more colorful and of course, he had no forum language filters.

R/T,
Are you imply what I said is remotely close to what this Earl Butz said? Heck or even Reggie White. I said nothing derrogatory or out of line to minorities and only implied that what I didnt say (as a conservative on the matter) was only cooked up in Howie's head. I think I was trying to drive that point home to Howie.

[Cold_Zero]

Speaking only for myself, it indicates a mental approach to issues for me. I want a politician to approach policy with an acknowledgment of what he understands and what he doesn't. For what he doesn't know, I want him to rely upon the input of vetted and tested experts for his decisions.

I think this is a fine request for things that actually matter in the body politics, say maybe Economics or National Security. But I fail to see that one person’s view on the origins of this earth, really matter when we are trying to run a government. What earth shattering (specific) policy is influenced in regards to the origins of this earth? My impression is that this issue is just a litmus test in order to divide us vs. them, to circle the wagons. A modern day way of divining who really ‘is a witch.’ And yes, please insert your obligatory Monty Python video from YouTube here, as I am at work and cannot get to that site.

Look, I disagree with Rep. Andre Carson, not because of his views on the origins of this world, but because of his political ideology and approach to where he wants to take this country (off the cliff). It is also interesting that Rick Perry’s or Michelle Bachmann’s view in this matter is important, but not that of Rep. Andre Carson or President Obama. Or is it just assumed that they believe this because they are X, Y or Z style of Democrats?

Rejection of evolution does not make one a bad person, and might not impugn one's leadership ability. But it does indicate one of two things: either you believe you have damning evidence (and you should really publish that, for the sake of public knowledge), or you reject a scientific approach to examining reality.

I find it interesting that your statement here seems to imply that there is NO evidence, publically, that supports the other side. This is one of the reasons why I get turned off from this discussion. Typically, these arguments manifest themselves in this manner: One person throws out a website(s) in defense of their view and the other person (holding the other view) throws out their website(s). Both parties just rely on what other groups say on the matter. So when I read your statement it appears that you are placing the burden of proof on the person that does not hold to ‘the prevailing’ scientific view. Yet, the other person seems not to be held to the same standard. Here is an application of what I am trying to get at. What if a political candidate for President believes in Evolution, but cannot articulate what the view stands for or how it applies the world? What if that said candidate gets it horribly wrong? Does it matter? Are we going to start adminstering science tests? No and they will never be asked any question about the issue because their confession is taken at face value. So then you could have some politicians that hold a radically different view outside of the established Evolutional Theory, yet I don’t see anyone losing sleep over it.

I want my politicians to make laws that work. If you go in with a preconceived notion of reality that can never, ever be swayed, your policies might work, but they might not. A stopped clock and all that. I believe you stand a better chance of success in your policy goals if you, y'know, actually look at the world you're trying to effect.

What politician comes in without preconceived notions? What Politician that holds to evolution is even open to the fact that they may be wrong and another view or Heaven forbid the Creation Account of Genesis is correct? None, I am afraid. So here we are, two staunch sides that make much ado about something that is, in my opinion, nothing when it comes to the national body politics. I guess in my opinion, if you want to be my Pastor, then your view matters. If you want to represent me in Congress or as the President, I don’t view this as a deal breaker. I suspect there is a bigger reason why this matters. A reason not related to one’s ability to govern well, but a personal reason for those to get upset with people who ‘deny evolution.’

[mattblancarte]

Wow, I really missed the boat on this one. Evolution is one of my favorite topics.

Prove origin of life via evolution.....

I'm waiting....

Micro is cool, shows up everywhere. Theres no evidence or reproduction whatsoever for Macro, so get off your high horse. Just because your belief is secular and humanistic doesnt lend it more credibility than any other belief, until you show some evidence.

That's quite a tall order. However, I'm happy to start with a few definitions because you clearly don't understand the basic concept of evolution.

Evolution is, specifically, the way biological organisms change over time. This happens through the process of natural selection, in which the surviving and thriving species pass on traits for future generations to inherit.

Understanding that, you can logically say that it is NOT, and has NEVER BEEN the ultimate answer to the question of life's original origins. Back to 7th grade science class with you.

Macroevolution is specifically when changes occur on a higher level in the animal, such as at the species level. It does occur, both in plants (I bet you don't even think about plants when you think of evolution) and animals. This may not be the best retort, but if you look at the entirety of the fossil record you can clearly see macroevolution.

In our earliest records there are bacteria, viruses, and other simply organisms. These are from the Precambrian era (~3.5 billion years ago). If you move forward from there, you obviously get huge macroevolutionary changes.

You want to see the process happen in live time? If so, you fail to understand evolution.

Stop with the "you have no evidence" nonsense. How about you actually do some research and try to actually understand what you so vehemently discard as a poor theory?

If you'd like another example of evolution, take a look with your own eyes. They have been evolving through many species in the animal kingdom since the Cambrian era. It's a camera that keeps getting upgrades... through evolution! What's amazing is that you'll find fish in deep waters with very primitive eyes simply because light is not available in quantities to make it a useful organ. Through the process of natural selection, they developed other traits to survive and were left with simple eyes because that's all they needed.

Evolution has nothing to do with secularism and humanism, Stebo. What a stupid thing to say.

[IBCoupe]

I think this is a fine request for things that actually matter in the body politics, say maybe Economics or National Security. But I fail to see that one person’s view on the origins of this earth, really matter when we are trying to run a government. What earth shattering (specific) policy is influenced in regards to the origins of this earth? My impression is that this issue is just a litmus test in order to divide us vs. them, to circle the wagons. A modern day way of divining who really ‘is a witch.’ And yes, please insert your obligatory Monty Python video from YouTube here, as I am at work and cannot get to that site.

I can only repeat myself: it suggests a tendency towards a certain way of thinking. Stebo and I had a drawn out debate on taxes, and the point I harped on was that Congress should construct a tax code that reflects the actual facts on the ground in the United States. Stebo preferred a tax system that was wholly based on principle. He wanted an approach that was fair in form, and I wanted one that was fair in fact.

It's possible that we both had plausible approaches to an effective tax system, but I, of course, feel that my approach was better, because it didn't try to force the world to conform to my ideology.

So when I read your statement it appears that you are placing the burden of proof on the person that does not hold to ‘the prevailing’ scientific view.

First, I trust in the scientific method. I trust that scientists employ it. I trust that their methods are clear. I trust that nothing is held up as science which cannot be reproduced. I trust that we only state with certainty what we can. I trust that every piece of scientific knowledge comes with an asterisk: "To the best of our knowledge."

I distrust theology for the same reasons. It is drawn from no method. It is not testable. The people divining it to us do not tell us how. Everything is uttered with absolute certainty. Religion is not bad, but it isn't scientific. I have no problem when it guides individual decisions, but it shouldn't be trusted to guide political decisions. A politician who rejects evolution in favor of any other theory is choosing to adhere to something which cannot be tested to be proved wrong over something that can.

If that's okay with you, then it's okay with you. All I'm trying to do is to explain why it's not okay with me.

What politician comes in without preconceived notions?

I'm sure they all do. The problem isn't the notions themselves but the adherence to it. A candidate who chooses a scientific mode of thought over a dogmatic one is more likely to abandon those preconceived notions.

I suspect there is a bigger reason why this matters. A reason not related to one’s ability to govern well, but a personal reason for those to get upset with people who ‘deny evolution.’

if nothing else, I'd like to think I've given you reason to abandon those suspicions. There are legitimate concerns with the largely anti-science stance of the current crop of Republican legislators, exhibited most disturbingly by a rejection of one of the most basic and uncontroversial areas of scientific understanding: evolution.

[mattblancarte]

Climate's changing, big deal. Its changed for millenia, and it'll change for several more.

Ah now would you be referring OUR role in the ordeal? Ya dont get me started there either, again lack of evidence.

You've got to be joking? Lack of evidence? You do realize that climate change is one of the most heavily studied subjects in science?

Do you research this stuff before you form an opinion, or do you suck on the teet of popular politicians who tell you what to believe? Sheesh.

There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is accelerating, and man can easily be seen as a contributing factor.

Certain gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, play a crucial role in determining the earth s climate. Although other factors are important as well, the composition of the atmosphere to a large extent controls our climate. Levels of so-called greenhouse gases are particularly important, because these gases determine how air absorbs and transmits radiant energy.

Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are rising rapidly, mainly because of human activity. By burning fossil fuels and deforesting the earth, mankind is increasing carbon dioxide levels. Our intensive agriculture and leaky natural-gas lines are major sources of methane. Our industry is emitting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Nitrous oxide levels are also increasing rapidly, for reasons that are less clear. Less than 200 years since we began making major emissions, greenhouse gas concent rations are rising to levels higher than any yet seen while humans have existed on this planet and they will rise much further in the years ahead.

Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations have been associated with dramatic climatic changes in the past. The last time greenhouse gas levels changed as much as they are changing now was when the earth emerged from the most recent ice-age. There is strong evidence that greenhouse gases played a significant role in that post-ice-age warming.

The current increase in greenhouse gases will affect the climate but we don t yet know exactly how. The different components of the earth climate interact on many different time-scales in complex, often chaotic ways. Many of these interactions are still poorly understood. But even if we understood the present climate much better than we do, the future could still hold surprises. We are entering into a new, hitherto unexplored, climatic regime. Because the climate is a non-linear system, we will not be completely sure of the consequences of our actions until after climate change has already occurred. Climate models indicate that one of the main effects of greenhouse gas emissions will be global warming. Assuming that no action is taken to reduce emissions, computer models of the earth s climate indicate that global average surface temperatures will rise by 1.5-4.5 C over the next 100 years. This rise is larger and probably faster than any such change over the past 9,000 years. Climate models are far from perfect, and they rely on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions that are far from certain. But, insofar as a consensus exists in the world scientific community, they are believed to provide the best estimates we have of future climate change. Emission scenarios and model predictions may overstate the risk, but they are equally likely to underestimate it. There is some evidence that this warming has already begun. Average world surface temperatures appear to have risen by 0.3-0.6 C over the past 100 years. But although many climatologists believe that this indicates a real change, the historical temperature record is poor. Moreover, the climate varies naturally, partly because of its chaotic nature, and this observed warming is still just within the range of natural variability. Nevertheless, this warming is broadly in line with what models predict should have resulted from emissions to date. The most plausible explanation is that it is due, at least in part, to mankind s greenhouse gas emissions.

Past greenhouse gas emissions have already committed us to more climate change in the future. The climate does not respond instantly to emissions. Many greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for decades after being released, continuing to influence the climate. This built-in delay increases the risks in waiting for more conclusive evidence before acting to reduce emissions.

If no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the consequences for many of the world s societies and ecosystems may be serious. Average sea-levels may rise, which would affect coastal communities through more frequent flooding and increased ground-water salinity. Changes in rainfall patterns and soil moisture levels are probable, but still difficult to predict. Both would have significant implications for agriculture. Not all climate change impacts would be negative, however, and the burden of adapting to them would be spread very unevenly over the world s societies. Those most at risk from climate change are likely to be those least able to adapt. For example, subsistence agricultural societies and many natural ecosystems have evolved over centuries to suit the present climate. Both are likely to find climate change on the scale and speed predicted for the coming decades to be traumatic.

Although uncertainties remain, we know enough to be able to say with confidence that the risk of climate change is genuine and serious.Because we are dealing with a problem without precedent in human history, there is clearly much that we still do not understand about the climate system and our impact on it. But the level of uncertainty in climate models should not be exaggerated. It is probably less than the uncertainty in the economic data and models on which equally far-reaching policy decisions must be based.

That data is a little old, and like most scientific discoveries it will be refined over time. The introductory understanding is still there.

How about some human fingerprints on climate change?

1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

2. When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).

3. This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).

4. Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).

5. So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

6. If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).

7. If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).

8. Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).

9. With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).

10. An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

[Cold_Zero]

So when Stebo asks for an example in our lifetime, you retort 'You want to see the process happen in live time? If so, you fail to understand evolution.'

Basically you are implying it takes to long (too many years) for us to see, but we should trust you or scientists on that.

I have some questions on my own. How do evolutionist explains something that troubles me about the theory.
1. How do you get around the issue that most mutations end up in the organism being sterile or in poor health? Yet it appears that natural selection implies it is a good thing.
2. How do you get around the issue that the entire species has to evolve at the same rate, over such a vast period of time? And that the mutation or evolving between multiple organisms have to keep up at least in pairs once the organism has bridged over to a species that has to have both a male and a female?
3. Here are the examples of organisms jumping from one species to another? Specifically, do/have single celled organism change to complex celled organisms?

Sorry man, I don’t have much answers.. just a ton of questions.

[mattblancarte]

So, how does this magical step from one chromosomal count to another occur?

Bro, it's not magical. This is not Harry Potter. It's through MUTATION and NATURAL SELECTION.

But theres much more about the current theory of origin besides evolution itself. For one, the "spark" that starts it all.

Again, a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Wrong theory.

Science has a history of favoring that which removes God. Favoring with fact is fine, but favoring without fact is not.

Load - of - horse - s***.

Evolution is a theory. Read up on that word.

And I'm surprised to hear you ask for proof of a negative when proof of a positive still doesn't exist. Dont ask me to prove it DOESNT work, you go prove it DOES. All I can do is shoot holes in your boat.

Even Alanis Morissette thinks that is probably the most ironic set of logic coming from a non-secular person.