Gravity is Bringing Me Down

_{Barry Arrington

December 10, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Al Gore in Slate responding to climategate:

“The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat is as well-established as gravity, for God’s sakes. It’s not some mystery.…”

Now where have I heard the “as well established as gravity” mantra before? Hmm. It’ll come to me in a moment.

Comments

A bit (way) off topic, request for a new thread. PhysOrg has a very intreguing article relative to ID. http://www.physorg.com/news179664799.html
The scientists say introns are inserted into the genome far more frequently than current models predict. ... And surprisingly, the vast majority of intron DNA sequences the scientists examined were of unknown origin. "The thinking has been that these insertion events are very rare because they always have bad effects," said postdoctoral fellow Abraham Tucker.
Does this not look like evidence of design? The more precise the intronic data must be, the less likely that evolution did it.bFast_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Gore may be right. It depends what is covered by The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat It is accepted by all climate scientists (mainstream and sceptic) that CO2 and other GHG molecules reflect heat (IR radiation) back to the earth and thus reduce heat loss due to radiation. It is also accepted that if there were no GHGs in the atmosphere the earth would be about 60 degrees F colder. This follows from the laws of black body radiation which is about as well established as any law of physics. The dispute is about how much additional warming will additional CO2 cause. If it were only the universally accepted greenhouse effect the additional warming would be very small. The real dispute is about positive feedback effects and their importance.Mark Frank_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Hi Barry: I'm surprised that Al Gore didn't compare AGW to Darwin's theory, claiming that AGW is as well established as it. Consider that in the nineteenth century the geosynclinal theory was proposed to account for how mountain ranges originate. This theory hypothesized that large trough-like depressions, known as geosynclines filled with sediment, gradually became unstable, and then when crushed and heated by the earth elevated to form mountain ranges. Geologists as late as 1960 confidently asserted that the geosynclinal theory provided the answer. Thus in the 1960 edition of Clark and Stearn's _Geological Evolution of North America_, the status of the geosynclinal theory was compared favorably with Darwin's theory of natural selection: "The geosynclinal theory is one of the great unifying principles in geology. In many ways its role in geology is similar to that of the theory of evolution, which serves to integrate the many branches of the biological sciences.... Just as the doctrine of evolution is universally accepted among biologists, so also the geosynclinal origin of the major mountain systems is an established principle in geology." (p. 43) Whatever became of the geosynclinal theory? Within ten years following this statement the theory of plate tectonics, which explained mountain formation through continental drift and sea-floor spreading, had decisively replaced the geosynclinal theory. Forget about gravity. Evolution is the gold standard of scientific certainty!William Dembski_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply