Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (311947)	12/13/2006 7:39:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575761

do you believe in science? That means Darwinism is the more likely way man developed into a sentient being and not Intelligent Design? If you believe in science [as I am defining it] That's a rather odd definition (and also an odd question), but I do think that evolution by natural selection (as well as artificial selection, genetic drift etc.) explains the diversity of species. If there is an "intelligent designer" then the designer worked, at least in this area, largely though natural evolution. More generally I believe that the scientific method is a great way to bring about advances in the understanding of the world. If those beliefs mean that "I believe in science" then I suppose you could say I believe in it. If you believe in science [as I am defining it], then you know there is nothing unreasonable about what could happen to this planet and that nearly anything is possible from Venus to Mars given the right conditions. Your definition has no connection to Venus or Mars. Your definition solely deals with biology. Venus is much closer to the sun, and has other factors which make it different. Mars is further away, and smaller. Sure if conditions changed the earth would change, but even if you moved the earth to Mars or Venus' orbit (or changed the level or radiation emitted by the sun enough to get the same result) Earth wouldn't wind up being identical to Mars or Venus. Without changing the level or radiation significantly, its unlikely to even remotely resemble either planet. Never say never. Asserting "never" as a categorical absolute might not make a lot of sense. Things could change by processes we don't even understand. But if the change is unlikely enough, saying that something isn't going to happen isn't unreasonable. It generally isn't taken as representing total metaphysical certitude that something won't happen. Also the Earth will eventually be hotter then Venus is now, in billions of years as the Sun becomes a red giant it might even engulf Earth, so its not "never". Just "never" on a non-astronomical timescale. Venus gets almost twice as much solar radiation per area, has more than a million times as much CO2, and has almost no magnetic field. Venus has a lot more volcanism than earth. And it doesn't have any great amount of oxygen or life forms that produce oxygen from CO2. Burning all the fossil fuel in the world would only make a tiny dent in the CO2 difference and would do nothing about the other differences. None of which means that truly disastrous global warming isn't possible. You can get a massive disaster with far lower temperatures then you have on Venus.