Solar Energy

Claudine Schneider, the winner of the EPA’s Global Climate Protection Award medal for 2007, sits on the National Board of Advisors for a NGO called The Carrying Capacity Network, an organisation which wants to section off large areas of America from people as wilderness before:[QUOTE]

""it’s developed, overrun, consumed, and polluted by runaway population growth. It’s not too late, and we hope that you will join us in this effort.""

Claudine Schnieder, who also sits on the board of trustees of American Solar Energy Society, the Climate Institute, TERI (led by IPCC head, Rajendra Pachuari), and the Center for Resource Solutions was the former member of the house of representatives from Rhode Island who in the early days of the climate change debate said:

"Scientists may disagree [about climate change] but we can hear mother earth and she is crying"

- She now sits on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Do you agree with Claudine Schneider that immigration must be effectively halted and population stabilised and then reduced to help prevent climate change and ensure we don’t exceed "carrying capacity"?

http://www.carryingcapacity.org/whatis.html
http://www.claudineschneider.com/

Well, it’s the 64 thousand dollar question.

I haven’t read those articles yet, but I will do.

The answer must lie with whether Climate Change is real or not, and if it is, whether man is adding to the problem.

If they’re real, then her point is valid, even if unpopular.

Even if you remove Climate Change from the equation, it still seems to me that we are overpopulating the planet. Again, if that’s also true, then it’s not just a question of immigration, it’s also a question of birth control. The more people on the planet, the more land is needed to sustain their needs, wherever they are.

Although the majority of the population explosion happens in underdeveloped countries, it’s people in the developed countries who place the most drain on world resources. Most of those are crammed into the cities, but we still require bio productive land to sustain our needs.

Take the population figures for the UK: http://puttheworldright.com/climate_change.html#ukpf

From the air it might look like we have plenty of space, but the figures say otherwise. It’s claimed if we never imported our requirements from elsewhere in the world, we would only have enough food for about three days.

Technology may reduce the problems to some extent, but the planet’s resources are still finite.

1) Does the battery ever need replacing?
2) How often do you have to recharge it?
3) If it’s left out in the sun for long periods can that be harmful?
4) I want to be able to use a laptop in the middle of nowhere away from society. Is there any way I can recharge it like with solar energy or something, so I don’t have to go back into society every time I want to charge it?
5) Laptop or ipad, which do you think is better?
ty

1-yes
2- 1 to 4 hours
3-the sun will damage it
4-yes
5- ipad’s suck

Does it look like there is no debate?

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth’s warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists’ main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh it gets better from there! How badly will the MMGW crowd cripple our economy and damage our national security over AN UNPROVEN THEORY?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
"One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up."
I hear ya folks. Looks like Al needs a new scam!
Great answers thanks. Here’s an interesting flashback…

1633, In April, the Inquisition formally interrogates Galileo, who has been detained in the building of the Inquisition for several weeks. Galileo agrees to plead guilty in order to receive a lenient sentence, and on April 30 he confesses that he advocated Copernican theory too vigorously in the Dialogue. He agrees to modify his opinions in his next work.

In June, the Pope orders Galileo imprisoned indefinitely under house arrest. Galileo makes his way back to his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, where he spends the remainder of his life under house arrest…end
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/life.html

Flash forward to *Pope Albert of The Blessed Church of MMGW* ~ LOL!
"The Copernican heliocentric model, with the sun at the center of the universe, demonstrated that the observed motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the center of the universe."

couple this with the fact that the AGW crowd lost another "in the pocket" german scientist by the name of Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute who by the way is a "peer reviewed" scientist that the AGW crowd likes to throw in our faces….who said,
"that we are entering a period in which the earth is likely to cool for a period of one to two decades."

also…"Dr. Mojib Latif, a prize-winning climate and ocean scientist from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel, wrote a paper last year positing that cyclical shifts in the oceans were aligning in a way that could keep the next decade or so relatively cool, even as the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming continue to increase."

but here’s something interesting…

"But Dr. Latif, who gives around 200 talks to the public, business leaders and officials each year, {{said he had been met with confusion and even anger when he tried to describe this normal variation in climate while at the same time conveying the long-term threat of global warming.}}"

but the best is here….

"Still, those projections are based on models, interpretations of tree ring variations and other indirect assessments of past temperatures that, while persuasive to most climate scientists, are not infallible."

and we all thought and have been told…"there is no debate", this is settled science….one more thing to add insult to injury, the antartic is thickening to unprecidented levels and recent satillite photos show the artic ice expanding….i wonder, how much longer before the AGW crowd finally understands that "the wolf can only cry for so long" !!!

There are many people who love America for its free enterprise system, but we have entered a day of age where free enterprise seems to do more harm than good. We are facing environmental problems that are degrading water supplies, the ground, polluting the air, and contributing to climate change. We as a society need to consume less, by implementing controls on industry that require them to either switch to a different source of energy, or cut pollution by at least 75%. It will be costly, but it is worth every penny if it means securing the future of America, and breaking the need for oil dependence. Solar, wind, and other renewable energy technology needs to be improved. I would like to hear some input from you people.

The hidden problem of your idea is called the Kutznets curve. It appears that when a country like the United States creates regulations like that, the firms just move to places with lower regulation not only permitting continued production and pollution, but higher pollution than had been occurring in the United States. Any regulation which is not mandatory on all countries will not work. The ideas are good, but the data appears to imply that you end up adding global pollution not reducing it.

Now government can help by switching ITS inputs to renewable forms. That would create sustainable demand, but the political problems would require a grass roots movement to enact.

I need a Nice scienctic title for my high school science fair project..My Project is this….

When people think of deserts, they picture a barren wasteland devoid of all water. Through this experiment I will show how water can be generated, cleanly and affordably from the atmosphere. The application of this generator can benefit our society both commercially and financially. If people can generate their own water they will save money on their water bill and put less strain on our current water supply. This generator can be easily converter to satisfy any energy source, from solar and wind to traditional energy sources.

And if you have any ideas, tips or comments on improving my project, please help

Well, water can be extracted from air. Your air conditioner is a device which accomplishes this task. If you use your air conditioner in a humid region, you will see a flow of condensate draining from the device. In the case an air conditioner operating in humid regions, you usually discard the condensate. Here you are looking for a system which will save and use the condensate as domestic water.

Will it work in a dry region? It will, but it will be much more difficult. And its economics may not be as ideal as you may think. I’ll give you some typical data and show you just how expensive the water will be. At your request, I will e-mail you how I did my calculation if you are interested.

Condition of naturally existing air in a dry region:
Temperature: T1 = 30 C
Relative humidity: phi1 = 25%
Air pressure: P1 = 100 kPa

System of extracting water:
You limit the refrigeration device from cooling air below T2=2 C (to prevent formation of ice).
COP of ideal vapor-compression refrigeration operating between T1 and T2 with refrigerant R134a: COP = 8.5
Price of electricity: 4 ¢/Megajoule. This is equivalent to about 15 ¢/kw-hr.

——————–

Results of interest (all per kilogram or liter of water desired, unless otherwise stated):
Mass of incoming air required: m[1] = 447.5 kg
Minimal Refrigeration load: Qnet = 15.13 MegaJoules
Electrical energy required: Wreq = 1.781 MegaJoules
Price per liter of water: CPL = 7.124¢
Price for about four liters of daily drinking water (likely needed in dry climate): 30¢
Price for about 350 liters, typical daily use for all purposes: $25

Comments:
I think $25 every day is a lot of money to pay for my daily water use. Also, we cannot use this air directly in our homes, because it will be too dry to for human comfort once it is warmed. We will need to route it in ducts around our house (to cool our house without accepting the air’s mass) and then exhaust it to the background.

Another practical consideration is that a lot of non-water build-ups occur on the outside of evaporator coils. We will need a good design of filtration to prevent dirt and mold from become part of our water supply.

Firstly.. Capitalism will be deemed a failure and socialism re-installed with a controlled form of capitalism.

The socialistic aspect will bode perfectly for the times we live and the tasks at hand.. CLEANING THE PLANET!!

Regenerating our waterways and bringing ot life our arrible farmland so food becomes abundant for all as it should be..

The reliance on fossil fuels will also cease or be scaled down to a minor protion of life’s needs..

mostly solar and kinetic forms of energy such as wind and wave generation will be adopted.. this will take massive pressure off key rivers and moutainous agricultural lands used for mining and forestry..

I’m not sure beyond that.. still working on it..

But essentially it will be along the lines that every man will be worth his worth by the effort and contribution he makes to society..

Wealth can only be accumulated by acheiving such goals.. no more upper class!

a good life needs to be earnt!

is this is a fair system??

Your vision is flawed. Socialism doesn’t work. How do you propose to scale down the use of fossil fuels? You talk about using wind, solar and wave energy but how do you plan to fund this massive overhaul of the worlds energy supply? There will always be an upper class, no matter what system of government is in place. "every man will be worth his worth by the effort and contribution he makes to society" First, what does that mean? and second how is that any different than what is going on today? if you work hard you will be wealthy, and how will that eliminate an upper class? Lastly, earnt is not a word, you mean Earned. no this system is not fair and it will not work.

What will we do when we use up all of our natural resources, over populate, and completely pollute our planet? Of course we will try to develop renewable fuels, keep building new homes, and recycle more trash. But what if we have lead our world to complete chaos, what if we have no place to go? Our next way out is moving out, in other words, building colonies in space. Developing housing in unknown areas can be risky but there would be endless space for shelter. So the sooner we start the more beneficial it will be for not only us, but for future generations.
If we start developing technology in space that can end up as a mass transit network then we need to start development now. We can start renewing energy by using massive solar panels as big as entire cities, making enormous generators that will float literally in the middle of nowhere, and hydrogen powered vehicles and buildings. The reason why we should use solar panels the size of cites is because in space, no matter what might happen, there will always be sunlight in space. Large floating generators can be powered by themselves by using low powered motors to spin the turbines, using only a fraction of the energy they produce on reproduction of electricity. Using hydrogen is another way of renewability because hydrogen is found in water, and Earth has an overabundance of water. If we can extract hydrogen from water at low costs and at a high rate, that will be considered a renewable resource for decades, if not centuries. Using renewable resources will keep us from polluting Earth even more, and in space, we don’t know what pollution can do in space, so it would be best to keep emissions down and keep income at a high rate.
What will happen if we overpopulate Earth? We will either have to live in apartments while neighborhoods with lots of land will be destroyed and turned into cities. If we stay on Earth long enough, we will end up living with our neighbors in our faces. No matter how rich someone may be they will have to live with or near a highly prolific family with children crying at night and with criminals lurking in the shadows. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in an isolated place with peaceful neighbors, a perfect view of the stars above, below and around? Of course it will, when we slowly and unsuccessfully turn Earth into a colossal slum. Highly ranked people in our society or just people who love peace will have to move to a peaceful place or they will turn into the slum itself. With the enormous size of the planet it may seem like a while until people will overpopulate Earth, but it is closer than we might think or even want to think, because new families will always be established, and the population will constantly increase. We will need to move out into space, build colonies there and perhaps make cities out of space stations. Homes in space might be built on land like the moon or they might be like satellites, orbiting planets and other larger objects.
At this rate we will burn a hole in our atmosphere and we will need to escape Earth before we die of inhalation of smoke and other airborne bacteria, as well as get fried by the sun’s UV rays. We will kill all of our natural materials by polluting them, if we keep filling up dumps, throwing away toxic chemicals into rivers, and puffing away smoke into the atmosphere we will eventually kill Earth and it will kill us. We will have to pollute other planets or just build big reservoirs that can store all solid waste, we can build large pressurized tanks that can keep all harmful gasses out of our atmosphere, and we can try to purify all liquid waste by using filtering facilities. Sending hazardous materials into space can lead into unknown situations, like explosions that might affect our colonies, and the citizens of those colonies. Polluting space can lead to unforeseen consequences, like asteroids directing towards Earth, chemicals eating through our atmosphere from the outside, and loose baggage like trash just floating around and damaging equipment.
The point of establishing space travel is that if we start traveling now we can still discover ways to keep on living and thriving but not necessarily on Earth, because we can and will eventually burn up all of our fuels, we will overpopulate and crowd Earth, and we will damage the environment by polluting every natural, living thing. So if humanity is to prosper, let it take a huge step outside, into the new frontier, into space.

What will we do when we use up all of our natural resources? Over populate? Completely pollute our planet?

Of course we will try to develop renewable fuels, keep building new homes, and recycle more trash, but what if we have lead our world to complete chaos? What if we have no place to go?

Our next step is moving out. Building colonies in space. Housing developments in unknown areas can be risky but there would be endless space for shelter. The sooner we start the more beneficial it will be for not only us, but for future generations.
If we start developing technology in space that will one day end up being used as a mass transit network then we need to start development now.
We can start renewing energy by using massive solar panels as big as entire cities, making enormous generators that will float literally in the middle of nowhere, and hydrogen powered vehicles and buildings.
The reason for solar panels the size of cities? Because in space, no matter what might happen, there will always be sunlight. Large floating generators can be powered by light by using low powered motors to spin the turbines, using only a fraction of the energy they would need to produce on reproduction of electricity.
Using hydrogen is another way of renewability because hydrogen is found in water, and Earth has an overabundance of water. If we can extract hydrogen from water at low costs and at a high rate, that will be considered a renewable resource for decades, if not centuries.
Using renewable resources will keep us from polluting the Earth even more. We don’t know what pollution can do in space, so it would be best to keep emissions down and keep income at a high rate.
What will happen if we overpopulate Earth? We will either have to live in apartments and neighborhoods with lots of land will be destroyed and turned into cities.
If we stay on Earth long enough, we will end up living with our neighbours in our faces. No matter how wealthy someone may be they will have to live with, or near a highly prolific family with children crying at night and with criminals lurking in the shadows.
Wouldn’t it be nice to live in an isolated place with peaceful neighbours, a perfect view of the stars above, below and around? Of course it would. Highly ranked people in our society, or just people who love peace will have to move to a peaceful place or they will turn into the slum itself.
With the enormous size of the planet it may seem like a while until people will overpopulate Earth, but it is closer than we might think, or even want to think. New families will always be established, and the population will constantly and consistently increase. We will need to move out into space, build colonies and perhaps make cities out of space stations. Homes in space might be built on land like the moon or they might be like satellites, orbiting planets and other larger objects.
At this rate we will burn a hole in our atmosphere and we will need to escape Earth before we die of inhalation of smoke and other airborne bacteria, as well as get fried by the sun’s UV rays. We will kill all of our natural materials by polluting them. If we keep filling up dumps, throwing away toxic chemicals into rivers, and puffing away smoke into the atmosphere we will eventually kill Earth and it will kill us. We will have to pollute other planets or just build big reservoirs that can store all solid waste, we can build large pressurized tanks that can keep all harmful gasses out of our atmosphere, and we can try to purify all liquid waste by using filtering facilities. Sending hazardous materials into space can lead into unknown situations, like explosions that might affect our colonies, and the citizens of those colonies. Polluting space can lead to unforeseen consequences, like asteroids directing towards Earth, chemicals eating through our atmosphere from the outside, and loose baggage like trash just floating around and damaging equipment.
The point of establishing space travel is that if we start traveling now we can still discover ways to keep on living and thriving but not necessarily on Earth, because we can and will eventually burn up all of our fuels, we will overpopulate and crowd Earth, and we will damage the environment by polluting every natural, living thing. So if humanity is to prosper, let it take a huge step outside, into the new frontier, into space.

Ok… So the theory goes that DEC. (exact day is debateable) 2012 is the time where the world will end. Not to say that it will be the end of all life, but just the end of the world "as we know it". So, what do think about my theory?
- So I think what they mean is that it will be the end of modern society as we know it. Computers, technology… etc. Well, I was reading that in 2012, we are scheduled to be in the path of the SUN’s sunspot… This is the area where most of the Sun’s most powerful and violent storms and eletro-magnetic activity occurs. With some explosions, plasma and electro-magnetic energy from the sun is shot out with tremendous force from the sun’s surface, riding the solar flare. In some cases, this energy will reach Earth. In late 1800’s this phenomenon had occurred. This energy acts like an EMP device, destroying all electrical machines. Luckily, in the 1800’s technological advances were only limited to the telegraph. So what will happen in 2012???

We have a lot to Learn from that Big Ball of Fire out there!

We’ll Probably Short-Out!!!

We did not come from monkeys. My degree was science/chemistry. Some scientist believe this junk theology…but many do not! It’s a theory….in other words…an idea which has never been proven or disproven…therefore it remains a theory.

Now a few examples of why I do not believe this theory:

Any animal that has evolved does not remain….yet the monkey is still with us…the average day monkey has not evolved into a man!

I believe many animals have adapted to their environment and thus their features change to meet their surrounding needs…thus adaptation! However, to evolve into something totally more advance such as monkey into man would mean that the monkey would no longer exist because man would take his place…why does the monkey still exist????

The same can be said for apes and all other animals someone could possibly say man evolved from! Why do they all still exist today?

Charles Darwin was a very smart man. His adaptation theory is quite genius and his studies were revolutionary and also opened the eyes of the scientific community…however his evolution theory lacks common sense from such a pioneer!

Even if you disagree with the above…how do you explain how any life began on earth? Life cannot just spring up…and Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Consider the following:

Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils–creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000’s of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms….

Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

1st law of thermodynamics states the energy(in this case life) cannot be created or destroyed! In other words life cannot just form…some form of energy must have been present! This is not a theory, it’s a law.

Law of biogenesis. People once believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the flesh of dead animals. They thought life could come from non-life. Louis Pasteur proved beyond doubt that life cannot arise from non-life. This is not a scientific theory, but a law. Proponents of evolution contend that life did arise spontaneously from non-life at least once in the past, in other words, that this particular natural law was broken or nonexistent sometime in the past. Again this cannot happen as energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!

Darwin himself wrote:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Darwin wrote:To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

The ability to fly supposedly evolved spontaneously by chance at least four times: for insects, birds, mammals (bats) and reptiles. Yet intelligent man did not figure out the principles of flight until the past century.

Many of what Darwin considered to be transitional species have been discredited. Even Archaeopteryx, once thought to be transitional between reptiles and birds, is not. Modern birds have been found deeper in the fossil record. For the most part nature’s divisions are not blurred and indistinct, currently or in the fossil record. The phyla appear in the fossil record almost instantaneously in what is known as the Cambrian explosion, with no apparent connections.

Evolution teaches that fish evolved from lower animals. How did they get fins? No evolutionist claims that fins came in one generation, but rather in many generations. In other words, the development of fins was a GRADUAL development. And from where did birds get their wings? No evolutionist claims that wings came in one generation, but rather in many generations. They claim that the development of wings was through a very slow, gradual process. Now when the process, let us say, was half way complete, the "fin" or the "wing," as the case may be, would be useless — good for nothing — for a fish cannot swim with a part-fin nor can a bird fly with a part-wing! A part-fin or a part-wing, would be a monstrosity, not a perfect adaptation such as we see everywhere in nature. NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY CAN ONE FIND PARTLY DEVELOPED APPENDAGES OR ORGANS, but, rather, everywhere there is perfect adaptation, perfect development for its intended purpose. That fact proves that EACH CREATURE, IN ALL ESSENTIAL FEATURES, HAS BEEN EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW, and was so created in the beginning.

Hugo de Vries aptly said, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."

Science has proven that chaos does not naturally and normally turn into order. Life can only come from life (law of biogenesis). Things dont improve naturally as a matter of course (entropy). Things improve because of intelligent input. For example, the technology we enjoy in the present age is a result of human intelligence, not random chance. Science has given us a great deal, but not everything that exists can be explained scientifically.

Prof. Fleischman, modern zoologist of Erlangen after repudiating Darwinism, said, "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."

Dr. Clark (recognized as one of the world’s greatest biologists) was biologist of the United States National Museum, he stated bluntly that Darwin, Lamarck and all their followers were wrong "on almost all vital points." "So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups, arose from any other. Each is a special animal-complex. . . .Appearing as a distinct creation."

Prof. T. H. Morgan said, "Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another." (p. 43. "Evolution and Adaptation;" McMillan, 1903).

Another thought: If there is not supreme being that created heaven and earth and all creatures, then explain how the Earth and world is so organized and designed for life? How did our planet adapt to us???? If the oxygen mixture were more than it is we would die…proof of this is hospitals in earlier years were giving a little too much to preemie babies….they died! In the rest of the universe both WATER and OXYGEN are very scarce; in fact, hydrogen and helium make up 99% of all matter in the universe, yet our earth is designed for life…unexplained or superior design????

There are scores of other "laws" in the universe that are perfect and necessary to make up this vast universe. All students of astronomy are familiar with Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion. There are "laws" of motion, laws of heat, laws of light, laws of sound — and all are PERFECT, never-changing, never-failing. Rear Admiral D. V. Gallery (USN; writing in the Saturday Evening Post), said, "The stars. . . .in their orbits and velocities through the heavens faithfully obey a great code of LAW. Earth’s scientists can quote and explain this code in great detail, until you ask, "Where came these laws?"

Edwin B. Frost, at one time astronomer with the Yerkes Observatory, wrote: "Everything that we learn from the observational point of view in the study of astronomy seems to me to point precisely and always toward a purposeful operation in nature. . . . "I cannot imagine planets getting together and deciding under what law they should operate. NOR DO WE FIND ANYWHERE IN THE SOLAR OR STELLAR SYSTEM THE DEBRIS THAT WOULD NECESSARILY ACCUMULATE IF THE UNIVERSE HAD BEEN OPERATING AT RANDOM. . . .

Proof that the Universe had a Beginning "to assume that the universe had no beginning . . . fails to account for the CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF RADIOACTIVITY." (Scientific American).

Animals breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; green plants (in sunlight) take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Without plants in the world the time would soon come when all animals and all men would use up the available oxygen in the air and would perish." * Who designed such a complex system??? * "Give the plants a free hand and the water would in time become so alkaline as to destroy them. Give the animals a free hand and they, in the end, would be killed by the acidity they themselves produced; but the two working against one another insure the maintenance of conditions vital to both. All life is like that: a thousand interacting and balanced forces, like the flying buttresses of a towering Gothic Cathedral; destroy one and the whole graceful fabric comes down in irreparable ruin." (Creation’s Amazing Architect).

Flowers supply bees with nectar; bees in turn transfer pollen from one flower to another, thus preserving the life of the species. HMMMM??? These species formed a treaty all on their own?????? Is this their own plan or of a superior design?

IF THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WERE INCREASED, THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WOULD SOON BE RUINED BY MOLDS! Who keeps these in check???? By chance they sustain??? Not probable!!!

The atmosphere gives us a protective covering from the harmful effects of the ultra-violet rays from the sun. Dr. Florence E. Miller, scientist connected with the Smithsonian Institute, says that we live "miraculously" on this planet, protected from eight "killer rays" from the sun, by a thin layer of ozone high up in our atmosphere. "If that little belt of ozone, approximately forty miles up and only one-eighth of an inch thick (if compressed), should suddenly drift into space, all life on earth would perish." The whole subject of "ozone" in the air is so unusual, it seems almost incredible. "There are two kinds of ultra-violet rays — long and short. The long are deadly, and are absorbed and neutralized by that ozone belt. If permitted to come through, they would blnd and blister the human race, and would soon destroy all life on earth. The short violet rays, on the other hand, are necessary to life. If that belt of protective ozone were too thick, so that the short rays could not come through, we would all die of rickets. "the most deadly of the ‘eight killers’ comes through in quantities just sufficient to render great service, without destroying us. It keeps down the growth of green algae, one-celled plants that grow in streams. Unrestricted, they would multiply so rapidly that they would clog all the streams of the world, and lead to endless flooding of the world. On the other hand, it is fortunate for the earth as we know it that the algae were allowed to develop in moderation."

The earth is just THE RIGHT DISTANCE from the sun, relative to the amount of heat and light the sun pours into space. If the earth were much closer, it would be too hot; If it were much farther away, it would be too cold. Dr. William J. Humphreys, formerly with the United States weather bureau told the American Meteorological Society that if the average temperature of the earth were raised but two or three degrees "you could bid goodbye to all the big cities of the earth,"

Blind evolution is helpless to produce such endless intricacies of design and adaptation. Why – how -could chance evolution, by "random changes," produce an intricate, living, workable mechanism like the examples described above?

Our world was designed for us to live in…everything designed for a reason. The food chain for example is a complex design of energy passed on…who designed such a plan???

reproduction of new life is complex! Who designed such this plan?

All things organic and non organic were designed and have specific function in the universe! These did not randomly decide to do their part…it was a superior design created by a higher being!
We did not come from monkeys. My degree was science/chemistry. Some scientist believe this junk theology…but many do not! It’s a theory….in other words…an idea which has never been proven or disproven…therefore it remains a theory.

Now a few examples of why I do not believe this theory:

Any animal that has evolved does not remain….yet the monkey is still with us…the average day monkey has not evolved into a man!

I believe many animals have adapted to their environment and thus their features change to meet their surrounding needs…thus adaptation! However, to evolve into something totally more advance such as monkey into man would mean that the monkey would no longer exist because man would take his place…why does the monkey still exist????

The same can be said for apes and all other animals someone could possibly say man evolved from! Why do they all still exist today?
Charles Darwin was a very smart man. His adaptation theory is quite genius and his studies were revolutionary and also opened the eyes of the scientific community…however his evolution theory lacks common sense from such a pioneer!

Even if you disagree with the above…how do you explain how any life began on earth? Life cannot just spring up…and Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Consider the following:

Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils–creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000’s of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms….

Recent discoveries prove that even
Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

1st law of thermodynamics states the energy(in this case life) cannot be created or destroyed! In other words life cannot just form…some form of energy must have been present! This is not a theory, it’s a law.

Law of biogenesis. People once believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the flesh of dead animals. They thought life could come from non-life. Louis Pasteur proved beyond doubt that life cannot arise from non-life. This is not a scientific theory, but a law. Proponents of evolution contend that life did arise spontaneously from non-life at least once in the past, in other words, that this particular natural law was broken or nonexistent sometime in the past. Again this cannot happen as energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!
Evolution teaches that fish evolved from lower animals. How did they get fins? No evolutionist claims that fins came in one generation, but rather in many generations. In other words, the development of fins was a GRADUAL development. And from where did birds get their wings? No evolutionist claims that wings came in one generation, but rather in many generations. They claim that the development of wings was through a very slow, gradual process. Now when the process, let us say, was half way complete, the "fin" or the "wing," as the case may be, would be useless — good for nothing — for a fish cannot swim with a part-fin nor can a bird fly with a part-wing! A part-fin or a part-wing, would be a monstrosity, not a perfect adaptation such as we see everywhere in nature. NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY CAN ONE FIND PARTLY DEVELOPED APPENDAGES OR ORGANS, but, rather, everywhere there is perfect adaptation, perfect development for its intended purpose.
NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY CAN ONE FIND PARTLY DEVELOPED APPENDAGES OR ORGANS, but, rather, everywhere there is perfect adaptation, perfect development for its intended purpose. That fact proves that EACH CREATURE, IN ALL ESSENTIAL FEATURES, HAS BEEN EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW, and was so created in the beginning.
Hugo de Vries aptly said, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."
Science has proven that chaos does not naturally and normally turn into order. Life can only come from life (law of biogenesis). Things dont improve naturally as a matter of course (entropy). Things improve because of intelligent input. For example, the technology we enjoy in the present age is a result of human intelligence, not random chance. Science has given us a great deal, but not everything that exists can be explained scientifically.
Prof. T. H. Morgan said, "Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another." (p. 43. "Evolution and Adaptation;" McMillan, 1903).
Another thought: If there is not supreme being that created heaven and earth and all creatures, then explain how the Earth and world is so organized and designed for life? How did our planet adapt to us???? If the oxygen mixture were more than it is we would die…proof of this is hospitals in earlier years were giving a little too much to preemie babies….they died! In the rest of the universe both WATER and OXYGEN are very scarce; in fact, hydrogen and helium make up 99% of all matter in the universe, yet our earth is designed for life…unexplained or superior design????
I realize what a theory is…this is all to start a debate!
And yes I do have a degree in Science/Chimistry…and I realize there would be those who go nuts of the mention that evolution is nonsense…thus my debate!!!
There are scores of other "laws" in the universe that are perfect and necessary to make up this vast universe. All students of astronomy are familiar with Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion. There are "laws" of motion, laws of heat, laws of light, laws of sound — and all are PERFECT, never-changing, never-failing. Rear Admiral D. V. Gallery (USN; writing in the Saturday Evening Post), said, "The stars. . . .in their orbits and velocities through the heavens faithfully obey a great code of LAW. Earth’s scientists can quote and explain this code in great detail, until you ask, "Where came these laws?"
Edwin B. Frost, at one time astronomer with the Yerkes Observatory, wrote: "Everything that we learn from the observational point of view in the study of astronomy seems to me to point precisely and always toward a purposeful operation in nature. . . . "I cannot imagine planets getting together and deciding under what law they should operate. NOR DO WE FIND ANYWHERE IN THE SOLAR OR STELLAR SYSTEM THE DEBRIS THAT WOULD NECESSARILY ACCUMULATE IF THE UNIVERSE HAD BEEN OPERATING AT RANDOM. . .
Proof that the Universe had a Beginning "to assume that the universe had no beginning . . . fails to account for the CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF RADIOACTIVITY." (Scientific American).
Animals breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; green plants (in sunlight) take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Without plants in the world the time would soon come when all animals and all men would use up the available oxygen in the air and would perish." * Who designed such a complex system??? * "Give the plants a free hand and the water would in time become so alkaline as to destroy them. Give the animals a free hand and they, in the end, would be killed by the acidity they themselves produced; but the two working against one another insure the maintenance of conditions vital to both. All life is like that: a thousand interacting and balanced forces, like the flying buttresses of a towering Gothic Cathedral; destroy one and the whole graceful fabric comes down in irreparable ruin." (Creation’s Amazing Architect).
Flowers supply bees with nectar; bees in turn transfer pollen from one flower to another, thus preserving the life of the species. HMMMM??? These species formed a treaty all on their own?????? Is this their own plan or of a superior design?

IF THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WERE INCREASED, THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WOULD SOON BE RUINED BY MOLDS! Who keeps these in check???? By chance they sustain??? Not probable!!!
The earth is just THE RIGHT DISTANCE from the sun, relative to the amount of heat and light the sun pours into space. If the earth were much closer, it would be too hot; If it were much farther away, it would be too cold. Dr. William J. Humphreys, formerly with the United States weather bureau told the American Meteorological Society that if the average temperature of the earth were raised but two or three degrees "you could bid goodbye to all the big cities of the earth,"
Blind evolution is helpless to produce such endless intricacies of design and adaptation. Why – how -could chance evolution, by "random changes," produce an intricate, living, workable mechanism like the examples described above?

Our world was designed for us to live in…everything designed for a reason. The food chain for example is a complex design of energy passed on…who designed such a plan???
I Got my Degree from The University of KY if you must know!

I knew I’d get a stir from everyone on this topic. People get so cruel when it comes to such a subject as evolution! I don’t mind people bashing me! I only put this together to start a debate…and that’s what I accomplished!

If you throw in a few off beat phrases or words it’s nice to see who catches the bait. I’m giving the 10 points to the one who catches the biggest wrong in this thread!! Let’s see who is really a science expert?

Dear Libby

I noticed from your profile that you are a recent newcomer to "Yahoo Answers". Your question has been posed many times before. I will say that your logic is sound, but will be attacked harshly by those that are evolutionary diehards. You will be called stupid, ignorant or a moron. They will cite the ACLU’s website. This website goes as far as to tell people how to debate Creationists.

They will also bring in "every body knows" statements such as one answerer did when he talked about transitional fossils, and that there were many that have been discovered. Notice he gave no source. Another belittled you by asking if you were ignorant of "Nature". Now I will use an "everybody knows" statement. Everybody knows that "Nature" is a publication that has a strong evolutionary bias.

Others will either ignore or play down issues that do not support their point of view. I noticed that nobody explained how DNA, RNA, cell walls, amino acids, proteins and all the other things that are needed to maintain a cell all came together at one time and then lasted long enough to reproduce asexually. Tack on to this the whole process of sexual reproduction, and you have a huge hurdle for those that believe in evolution to overcome.

Another thing that you will find is that they will put you and I and anybody else that challenges them in the same category as those that they say are absolute idiots such as those that believe in a flat earth, (Richard Dawkin is famous for this technique.) and that the craters on the moon were made by Satan as he struggled against God. (The ACLU website indicates that a prominant Christian preacher said this.) As you would see if you examined the ACLU web site they set out the religious doctrine of atheism. (They call it Scientific.) And then tell their leaders and disciples how to win converts by undermining all other religious teachings.

Once you understand that evolution is an atheistic religion passing itself off as science you will have a better chance of going toe to toe with them in debate.

My daughter is a Chiropractor. Recently she indicated to me that those apes that are supposed to be closest to us genetically have a different number of vertebrae than humans. I recently looked at an article in the National Geographical Society. “Everybody knows” that they are extremely pro evolution. They indicated that they had found fossil remains of the oldest human baby at 3 million years. However most of its vertebrae were missing. In the same article they used fossils that had been shown to be fakes, as genuine finds. I find it interesting that another discovery of fossiled human remains are not mentioned in their article. The reason. These fossils, (Ten humans in all, five males, four females, and one child) were found in the same strata layer as the dinosaur graveyard in New Mexico. “Everybody knows” that dinosaurs went extinct about 100 million years ago. Humans have only been around for 3 million years. Therefore the find is fraudulent. That’s how evolution works. (See below for the source.)

Remember Libby, that the ACLU spends millions upon millions to advance their religion. I think that the main reason for this is that they are too proud to admit that there may be a God. (If there was a God, that God might require something from them.)

Here are some web sites that you will find interesting.

www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.
This is the website of Geologist Don Patton. He has several evidences that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Interesting.

Another is:
www.evolution-facts.com
This is a website that looks at hundreds of different difficulties with evolution.

A third is:
www.darwinismrefuted.com
This is a look at evolution from an Islamic point of view. (Christians are not the only ones that have problems with evolution.) I found this site both large and well thought out.

I hope this helps,

God bless

Bryan

I study Tourism in school
Tell me what you think
I need to tweek
__________________________________________________________
Tourism in the Caribbean has grown rapidly since 1978, when families from all over the world enjoy traveling to the beautiful, tranquil Caribbean islands for a warm, fun holiday. Many Caribbean islands experienced a boom in tourism ‘by accident’ meaning that many Caribbean countries were not prepared for a rapid increase in food, water, electricity and land consumption.

Tourism in the Caribbean had began to damage local ecosystems, the increased demand for electricity, seafood and water had caused prices for these resources to reach record high levels of price. The countries of Antigua, St. Kitts, Barbuda, St. Nevis and Barbados have been listed as “water scarce” due to the large consumptions due mainly to tourist resorts, which use approximately five to ten times more water than the Caribbean’s residential areas.
Tourism has also caused a large increase in pollution, hotels in Jamaica and The Bahamas have recently been fined by Uebersax due to producing ‘high fecal pollution’ and now, as a result of this, the countries are being encouraged to discourage tourism for a short while until pollution levels decrease.

‘Power tourism’ in the Caribbean has caused hotel groups to have a higher authority than councils and environmental organizations in some Caribbean countries. For example, Urban Development Corporation wished to build a new 500 rooms complex in Negril, Jamaica, and although several organizations including the local Chamber of Commerce and the Negril Coral Reef Preservation Society wished to delay the construction; until the local sewage plant was upgraded, and the marine area was protected and given park status, work went ahead promptly ignoring these organizations concerns.

Caribbean countries are now finding ways to help preserve there environments. Barbados now has began using a ‘reverse osmosis’ technique which produces freshwater from seawater which ultimately should drop the demand on wells and natural coral freshwater resources. Other countries are now using solar, wind, and biomass energy to reduce their there levels of imported oils from abroad

‘Caribbean Action For Sustainable Tourism’ has created a plan of action for the tourism industry which contains ten important areas, waste minimization, energy efficiency, conservation and management, management of fresh water resources, waste water management, hazardous substances transport, land-use planning and management, design for sustainable tourism. It is the organizations hope that this plan will be applied to all resorts in the Caribbean and will help preserve the delicate ecosystem that has been destroyed by tourists.

Tourism in the Caribbean has also affected, and destroyed wildlife. Mainly due to new creatures being introduced to the countries and competing for food and habitat. Jamaica has the largest number of endangered animals in the Caribbean at 254, in
1872 Indian mongoose where imported to Jamaica to help control the number of rats in local sugarcane fields, the mongoose is now accountable for the extinction of five species. Soon after the mongoose’s arrival to Jamaica, it spread to other Caribbean islands and has also affected and endangered the wildlife in these countries.

A major part of the Caribbean tourism industry is through cruise ships. Cruise ships leave large amounts of pollution in the Caribbean ecosystem every year, ships also dump large amounts a waste, sometimes illegally, into the Caribbean Sea to which has damaging effects to coral reefs and marine wildlife.

The Caribbean had made several lawsuits towards cruise lines for ‘illegal, environmentally unsafe actions’, for example, Princess Cruises was fined millions of dollars in the 1990’s when passengers videotaped ‘plastic garbage bags being dumped into the sea’ and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines was fined $27 million when a Coast Guard took videotapes of oil pouring out of a Sovereign of the Seas ship in Puerto Rico.
Cruise ship pollution is now currently being monitored and regulated by the MARPOL to ensure all waste is disposed of properly; thereby protecting the local environment.

tourism is good, they depenately destroy the ecosystem ofcourse when unregulated. i feel we should develop a stratagy: fix number of people should be allowed as much as the place can sustain, to raise the revenu we can auction these fixed number of beds.