Don’t Count On Magic

Yes there is clean coal. Please look at the New earth .com

man made global warming is a farce intended to usher in marxism(democrat party)..remember the freon hoax??? junk science and liberlism will destroy my country.

I'm impressed I must say Floridave. Yes, most emphatically they are ultimately both matters of faith, although the scientific community usually shrinks back from admitting that idea that humans can know reality through observation and reason is as much a faith proposition as anything the world's religions offer. That's why I'm just as adamantly opposed to the declarations of scientists like Richard Dawkins and John Wheeler when they declare God nonexistent. They are just as dishonest in this as anything I've laid at the feet of "Creation scientists" in the thread. They lend their standing in the scientific community to give an aura of authority to statements that fall completely outside the abilities of science to decide.

Yeah I'll say it. I told you genetics was a powerful tool, but apparently your sources are pretty much ignoring it. Our closest relatives in the primate world have DNA that is anywhere from 97% to 99% identical to human DNA, depending the source consulted. Now lets be real straight up here, the minute I say here's the evidence, you're going to say "oh that falls short of proof." Well yes, of course it does, there are no "proofs" in science, only and mathematics and formal logic. There are no proofs, things that are universally and invariably true, in any science, including physics or chemistry. All "facts" in science are only more or less probable. Some probabilities are so low as to be totally ignored, and safety so, but still the probability is not zero. So a scientific "fact" that is absolute and universal simply can't exist. That flows from the very philosophy of science.

The evidence suggests (and yes that is the right word since demonstrates or proves is incorrect as explained above) that either humans descended from bonobo's or bonobo's descended from humans. I'll leave it to you to decide which. It is a fact in the observable, replicable sense that the DNA affinity exists. Undoubtedly somebody over at the good old Discovery Institute will come up with a Supernatural explanation for the affinity, but that won't be a scientific explanation, it will be a theistic one. Sorry, the supernatural is not allowed as a scientific explanation. Science is the study of the material world and its observable processes, period.

Here is a paper that counts possible examples of speciation in the literature:

http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I've seen others, if you're really interested in the truth you can dig them out, but somehow I have doubts that that will happen.

So, at this point you are tossing out little Creationist chestnuts like nobody has ever seen speciation, yet plenty of scientists have seen evidence of speciation strong enough to convince them, taken with geology and cosmology, the Creationist account of origins is just plain wrong. Its pretty much a waste of time going any further with a one sided discussion here where you change topics and ignore critiques of your positions so you don't have to defend them. You're basically playing at "I'll never say die." Well, in my sight, Creationism was dead as a scientific explanation of origins before you ever typed your first sentence, so I'll waste no further time on this thread.

Micro-Evolution is well documented ( adaptations and changes within a species )
Macro-Evolution has ZERO evidence. ( the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species )
I would love to hear you say we have evidence of Macro-Evolution. got the guts...?

Just what i thought, you won't look at anything that disagrees with your "wants" Here is another i've read.
Check out the credentials below for Dr. A.E. Wilder Smith and read his book if you dare.
The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith
A..E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at Reading University, England, 1941. During World War II, he joined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war, he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith was appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy and Pharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Geneva for which position he received his "habitation" (the senior examination required for professorial appointments to European continental universities). At Geneva, he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zurich.

There is plenty here for you "Republican be gone" Get off moveon.org, stop watching National Geographic and quit listening to Al Gore interviews and your gonna be fine.

"The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., V.50, p.35.
Niles Eldridge, American Museum Of Natural History:
"He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ...it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard:
"We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ...I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Natural History, 2/82, p.2
D.S. Woodroff, University of CA, San Diego:
"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716.
Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University:
"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.95.

Sorry it's so long, yet "Republican be gone" lives in a box... quotes from the evolutionists themselves that show how much they doubt their own theory and Charles Darwin:
"...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin Of The Species, Facsimile of First Edition, 1964, p.172
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard:
Continued...

When the cold wind blows, the water in your backyard pool will get colder, but it will stay warmer if you cover it up with a tarp. On that same day, if you immerse a heating coil in your pool, you won't notice any increase in water temperature. If you cover up the pool with a tarp, and leave the heating coil in the pool for a couple of days, water temperature will rise.

At night time air cools down significantly. On a cloudy night air does not cool down any more than four or five degrees F. Similarly, earth will not cool down at night if you cover the earth with a thick layer of heat trapping CO2. This is the same logic as you use in pulling a blanket over yourself every night you go to sleep. Do I need to nake it any simpler for anyone?

Al Gore, the man who invented the internet, the man who is inventing a theory about global warming. 30 years ago the pundits were saying that tthe earth was getting colder. For the past 10 years or so, the pundits are saying that the earth is getting warmer. According to pundits the earth is 4 billion years old. Since experts have just began recording world climate patterns 150 years ago, does'nt it seem a little far fetched that anybody could possibly be an expert with so little information from the last 4 billion years? Al Gore does not have any records older than 150 years to refer to. How does this qualify him any more than my next door neighbor who has the same accesss to the climate information that Al Gore has? About 7 years ago, the Green Peace organization sent out mailers to scientists all over the world asking them about their opinions on global warming. The received about 1,800 responses from scientist who actuall believed in golbal warming, and used this at that time to prove global warming is real. But, what they failed to tell us is that there were more than 43,000 registered scientists all over the world at that time. That means that as a percentage, less than 5% of all the scientists believe that there is actuall global warming taking place. What qualifies Al Gore, to contradict them? What occupational positions has Al Gore served in the science industry? Meteorology? Outside of politics? I rest my case. Al Gore is a political wantabee that made a lot of money off the tax payers when he was a politician and is still making money off the patsies who believe in him.

"When I came in as vice president in 1993, I proposed a very large CO2 tax that would be offset completely by reductions in payroll taxes and an increase in the earned income tax credit. In terms of the total [government] revenue raised, it would be neutral. It wasn't a tax increase."

Hmm, and how many people qualify every year for the tax credit? Yeah, that's called a tax increase along with a pay deduction, moron, there's only so many ways that you can spin it before you just come off sounding, yet again, like a complete fool who thinks that Americans are idiots, obviously rich idiots who can afford to humor people like him. This dumb comment from a man who says that you should pay money to be able to pollute. Maybe if he focused on at least a few facts instead of changing the words of the very same scientists he claims to respect (using the lines that scientists show that man causes global warming, and then ignoring all of the words after the comma that follow, "along with all of these other reasons that we need to devote time to prepare for." He's called an environmental leader, and yet he has led the world to focus only on mankind's contribution, forcing nations to fail to prepare for the change that is caused outside of human influence. This has made him one of the most harmful environmental representatives we have faced. Change what you can, prepare for what you can't. Something he has forced the people to ignore, and something we will suffer for. It's no wonder his movie was slammed in court so easily by the very same scientists he pretended to represent. A "very large CO2 tax...," is this the type of person we're really willing to call a representative of anything? Forcing people to pay more for something is NOT an effective way to force a reduction in dependence. You don't just make something that people need expensive so that we try and use it less, that's the single worst strategy that's ever been employed. The changes it brings reduces the ability to produce new technologies to reduce dependency. Doing without isn't reducing dependency, it simply makes lives harder, when we could be keeping things affordable and actually working to produce change instead of just screwing everyone over. If this guy wasn't such a snake oil salesman, no news agency would give him the time of day.