Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There was nothing in the story you linked us to that provided any evidence of a rising ocean per se. Tides naturally "rise" (encroach farther inland) as land is eroded. Rising tides was mentioned in the story. That's it.

Encroach further inland is not the definition of rising tide.

[hcap]

The changing of sea level is very different than tides. Gravitational forces of the moon and sun create "high" and "low" tide and are stable over very long periods of time. The rapid sea level rise observed recently, globally is new

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

What's the difference between global and local sea level

Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

Sea level is primarily measured using tide stations and satellite laser altimeters. Tide stations around the globe tell us what is happening at a local level—the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Satellite measurements provide us with the average height of the entire ocean. Taken together, these tools tell us how our ocean sea levels are changing over time.

Your denial of AGW does not change the facts.....

YouTube (Short URL)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Encroach further inland is not the definition of rising tide.

Since when have environmentalist whackos been concerned about definitions or honest reporting?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The changing of sea level is very different than tides. Gravitational forces of the moon and sun create "high" and "low" tide and are stable over very long periods of time. The rapid sea level rise observed recently, globally is new

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

What's the difference between global and local sea level

Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

Sea level is primarily measured using tide stations and satellite laser altimeters. Tide stations around the globe tell us what is happening at a local level—the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Satellite measurements provide us with the average height of the entire ocean. Taken together, these tools tell us how our ocean sea levels are changing over time.

Your denial of AGW does not change the facts.....

https://youtu.be/dBs_K59K6GY

And even IF...IF...IF (the operative term here is "IF") is true, this doesn't prove the assumption of AGW.

Also, how can we know this sea level rise is "new"?

And one more question, could this "sea level rise" prove to be catastrophic?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And even IF...IF...IF (the operative term here is "IF") is true, this doesn't prove the assumption of AGW.

Also, how can we know this sea level rise is "new"?

And one more question, could this "sea level rise" prove to be catastrophic?

We use reason, evidence, common sense and the scientific method.

How do we know your teeny tiny god controls and knows everything from how many warts on your a**, to if and when "one sparrow will fall to the ground outside your Father's care"

...Matthew 10:29

?????????

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, how can we know this sea level rise is "new"?

There are a multitude of methods. For one, hundreds of cubic kilometers of Greenland ice are melting each year and flowing into the sea. This is "new". A hundred years ago all the Greenland ice that melted and flowed into the sea was replaced by snowfall. With a alight rise in temperature the amount of melted ice has increased many times over but the amount of snowfall has remained the same. Result: that new melt water is going somewhere. Some of it is going to Florida.

Do you want to see the math?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And one more question, could this "sea level rise" prove to be catastrophic?

Absolutely. And if nothing is done, it will. The most vulnerable state is Florida which will be under water in 50 years, except possibly part of the panhandle. I'm beginning to suspect that you are a panhandler.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And even IF...IF...IF (the operative term here is "IF") is true, this doesn't prove the assumption of AGW.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact. There is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that AGW is a hoax. All arguments to that effect come down to an argumentum ad consequentiam (appeal to consequences). I.e., "I don't like the consequences if this is true, therefore, it must be false". Apply that same line of reasoning to the news of the 9/11 attacks.

Again, do you want to see the math?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Of course such a system would be considered living. The question is whether lack of one of more of the seven automatically means it is non-living. I say it does not. Only the seventh, reproduction, is required to be considered living.

Then you are alone. All by yourself. Here is another link that agrees with Wislon and the earlier web source I provided.

https://biologywise.com/characteristics-of-life

Again you repeat yourself. Of course non-living molecules do not reproduce since reproduction defines what is living.

Hurray, we agree on something. So, tell us, how did the first free-living cell "inherit" its reproduction capability from inorganic molecules that have no such capability?

[quote]I disagree. It does not. Perhaps some biologists who consider themselves molecular biologists presuppose that, but they are wrong.[/i]

So, you disagree with Wikipedia, heh? Okay, try these on for size:

https://www.news-medical.net/life-sc...r-Biology.aspx

And,

Molecular biology is a field of science that explores and studies the structures and functions of cells on a molecular level. Molecular biologists must be proficient in numerous subjects and sciences before they can effectively conduct research or academic activity in their field.

https://www.sokanu.com/careers/molecular-biologist/

And,

https://www.britannica.com/science/molecular-biology

And,

Molecular biology is a science that focuses on the biological activities that occur within these cells at a molecular level. The chemical processes that occur on this very small scale are what makes life possible, so it’s not surprising that so many scientists are interested in it.

http://www.emblaustralia.org/about-e...ecular-biology

Wow! Even the good folks in the Down and Under are on board with the universal(or virtually so) definition of "molecular biology".

Are you feeling lonely, yet?

But I did. And you should have.

Darwin would have been proud of me because I have done some homework -- more than he has. . Natural selection doesn't occur inside a vacuum.
It is the result of various processes. If you don't like the explanation in the following link, take it up with Berkley.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...article/evo_32

Wrong again. You really should read Darwin. Then you just might know what you're talking about.

If Darwin were alive today, he would not be able to foist his great lie upon mankind -- at least in the same form he did back then. There are many evolutionists who disagree with Darwin on one or more various points.

I disagree. The smallest unit of life is a single molecule. Of course not all molecules are alive. Most are not. But it only takes one to get the ball rolling.

It appears you're alone once again. (Don't you get very lonely perched high up your lofty, self-made ivory tower as the wanna-be smartest, know-it-all guy on the planet?) The smallest unit of life is the cell!

https://www.springer.com/cda/content...115589-c2.pdf?

https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/en...-unit-of-life/

http://www.dummies.com/education/sci...units-of-life/

The cell is the structural and functional unit of living organisms.

The cell is the basic unit of life because it possesses all seven characteristics that living organisms have. In this light, when we say that a living organism undergoes respiration, the cell does this function through mitochondria; also, when an organism grows, the cell grows through mitosis, and other basic characteristics of a living organism.

Therefore, it is true that the cell is the basic unit of life. (emphasis mine)

https://socratic.org/questions/why-c...c-unit-of-life

Finally, there is this. Please read it and learn something and quit pretending you're the authoritative expert on everything under the sun:

[i]Cells are called ‘structural’ and ‘functional’ units for a reason. Yes, cells are made of molecules which are in turn made up of atoms. What we mean by “Cell is the unit of LIFE” is that a cell is the smallest living entity in a living system. If you break down a cell into it’s molecules - it becomes chemistry and if you further break it down into atoms - it becomes nuclear/atomic physics.

Biology started with the cell and once you split or break a cell down, it cannot provide structure nor function to the living being it belongs to or to its own self if unicellular.

Hence the smallest ‘living’ unit in the world is a cell. Atoms and molecules are not by definition ‘living’. (emphasis mine)

https://www.quora.com/If-cells-are-m...stead-of-cells

Wrong. A virus is a known living organism.

Read and weep:

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsno...-living-things

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/w...-be-non-living

As a self-proclaimed scientist you should know that viruses lack many of the seven properties that define life, including the ability to replicate or reproduce. So...when you say that a virus is a "known living organism", you are contradicting yourself; for you insist the only property a living organism needs is reproduction capability.

Then we have this:

Let’s first define life. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, life is “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.”

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/

No, he does not. And he is.

Why? Because you say so? Dr. Wilson has not said anything in his book that has not been corraborated independently on the web with all the various links I have posted.

Try to get over yourself, will ya? And face reality -- and not just your personal reality either!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

There are a multitude of methods. For one, hundreds of cubic kilometers of Greenland ice are melting each year and flowing into the sea. This is "new". A hundred years ago all the Greenland ice that melted and flowed into the sea was replaced by snowfall. With a alight rise in temperature the amount of melted ice has increased many times over but the amount of snowfall has remained the same. Result: that new melt water is going somewhere. Some of it is going to Florida.

Do you want to see the math?

Absolutely. And if nothing is done, it will. The most vulnerable state is Florida which will be under water in 50 years, except possibly part of the panhandle. I'm beginning to suspect that you are a panhandler.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact. There is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that AGW is a hoax. All arguments to that effect come down to an argumentum ad consequentiam (appeal to consequences). I.e., "I don't like the consequences if this is true, therefore, it must be false". Apply that same line of reasoning to the news of the 9/11 attacks.

Again, do you want to see the math?

No real scientist would ever call his science "fact". Only the high priests of scientism do that. Real scientist that practice real science are real skeptics, knowing as Einstein did that their findings are only one experiment away from being disproved.

Quit preaching scientism to me!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

We use reason, evidence, common sense and the scientific method.

How do we know your teeny tiny god controls and knows everything from how many warts on your a**, to if and when "one sparrow will fall to the ground outside your Father's care"

...Matthew 10:29

?????????

You forgot one: Very large doses of scientism.

And actually God, as revealed in the bible is much larger than you or anyone else can comprehend, since he sustains the universe right now by his power. He is the Uncaused Cause, the Ultimate Cause for why you and I are breathing and why all the laws of physics are still operating to keep this universe in existence. To deny this is to embrace infinite regress to being the ultimate sustaining cause behind the universe. In words, you have no answer as to what is ultimately sustaining the universe this very moment.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You forgot one: Very large doses of scientism.

And actually God, as revealed in the bible is much larger than you or anyone else can comprehend, since he sustains the universe right now by his power. He is the Uncaused Cause, the Ultimate Cause for why you and I are breathing and why all the laws of physics are still operating to keep this universe in existence. To deny this is to embrace infinite regress to being the ultimate sustaining cause behind the universe. In words, you have no answer as to what is ultimately sustaining the universe this very moment.

You insist on speaking about science. There is zero science in the bible. Do us all a favor and go back to school.

Logic 101 would also be advised in your case.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You insist on speaking about science. There is zero science in the bible. Do us all a favor and go back to school.

Logic 101 would also be advised in your case.

Reading comp would be strongly recommended for you. I haven't used the bible when "speaking about science". I've used extra-biblical works, and only a couple of those were written by theists. Try to keep up.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Quit preaching scientism to me!

Quit preaching Christianity to me.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then you are alone. All by yourself.

Then I'm in good company. That's what the church said to Galileo.

Most great ideas originated from someone who was alone in his/her beliefs. Newton's discovery of calculus for example.

I don't think it would be difficult to find biologists who are working along the lines I advocate.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Here is another link that agrees with Wislon and the earlier web source I provided.

https://biologywise.com/characteristics-of-lifeSo, tell us, how did the first free-living cell "inherit" its reproduction capability from inorganic molecules that have no such capability?

I've been trying to do that but I keep getting interrupted by your silly posts. Tell you what, how about I push back my March date for my exposition of logic to, say May, and spend the time instructing you in abiogenesis. Better yet, since you need some education about logic to understand anything, how about I push logic back to April (your constant interruptions with silly questions have already made the March deadline unlikely) and push abiogenesis back to June.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you disagree with Wikipedia, heh?

Seriously? Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia, on the whole internet for that matter. Your posts prove that. And none of it gets peer reviewed. I suggest that a book supports my position and you act as though that were heresy. By the way, heresy was the official charge against Galileo and the church supports its verdict to this day, an apology from the Pope notwithstanding.

So yeah, I'm standing alone, over here in the corner with Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Hypatia, Archimedes, ...

Don't disturb my circles!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Then I'm in good company. That's what the church said to Galileo.

Most great ideas originated from someone who was alone in his/her beliefs. Newton's discovery of calculus for example.

I don't think it would be difficult to find biologists who are working along the lines I advocate.

I've been trying to do that but I keep getting interrupted by your silly posts. Tell you what, how about I push back my March date for my exposition of logic to, say May, and spend the time instructing you in abiogenesis. Better yet, since you need some education about logic to understand anything, how about I push logic back to April (your constant interruptions with silly questions have already made the March deadline unlikely) and push abiogenesis back to June.

Seriously? Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia, on the whole internet for that matter. Your posts prove that. And none of it gets peer reviewed. I suggest that a book supports my position and you act as though that were heresy. By the way, heresy was the official charge against Galileo and the church supports its verdict to this day, an apology from the Pope notwithstanding.

So yeah, I'm standing alone, over here in the corner with Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Hypatia, Archimedes, ...

Don't disturb my circles!

Yeah...the only problem with your dumb analogy is Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and the rest are no longer alone. Their theories or laws are pretty well accepted. Oh yeah...I forgot...some time in the future...yours will be too, right? Your crazy ideas are just waiting to be discovered. They're right around the corner.

By the way...I assume you're planning on refuting one or more laws of logic? If so, do you plan on doing this using logic?

You're truly a piece of work.

Oh yeah...big PS

You're quite right that ANYONE can put anything on the internet. You summarily dismiss all the links and quotes I have provided to make my case and then accuse me of posting "anything" -- but you exempt your own posts? Why? Because you're so much smarter than everyone else, Mr. Know-it-All? And what you have done -- isn't this a case of SPECIAL PLEADING!? Everyone on the planet is guilty of posting "anything" (junk to you) on the internet -- but you're exempt from your foolish complaint!? Why? Because you don't post nonsense!?

And finally, is the nonsense you post, peer-reviewed!? Another case of special pleading, since you insist on a criteria for others from which you exempt yourself!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Quit preaching Christianity to me.

I don't "preach" Christianity to you. I no longer cast pearls before swine!