“the Hadley CRU Director’s ‘gut’ tells him so.”

I am not even going to get started yet as the iceberg seems to go deep. Raw data was not provided to other scientist to allow of proper scientific review. Now they have some information that allows them to rebuild the charts …
;

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’

;

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

All can be confirmed in the CRU  emails which have been put online – http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ IPCC has had some scientist resign who according to discoveries in the emails may have – Well may want to seek an attorney.

Ready or not here comes 150 years of Darwinism.

Another problem for Darwinian evolution is human morality. Unlike looking at animals and trying to understand them, we have inside information on what human morality means and how it goes against selfishness.

In Darwinism the strongest wins – it survives and produces more children. When we try to apply this to human moral behavior Darwinian evolution does not fit. There is nothing in Darwinism to explain self sacrifice. Nothing to explain why fire fighters went into the twin towers in New York on 9/11 to rescue people who they did not know; and committed to continue until either every person was rescued – many sent text messages home because they realized the danger they were going into.

Self sacrifice is not instinctual, the (what we call) instinct is to get away from the danger. The morally right thing to do is often in opposition to instinct, and must be a decided choice, it is not forced.

Updated 9/21

Human Morality is much much larger than merely an individual’s conscience. But all us individually can look in our heart and understand we distinguish right or wrong we can also see this in other people. Indeed when we seek for somebody to act in a correct way – we are appealing to their knowledge of right and wrong. One would never ask a dog to do the right thing.

“Origins of the species” (online here: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/ ) puts forth that species evolve because of the aspects of certain individuals within that species. Those individuals most fit for survival are favored (in Darwinism) and their children inherit the traits of those individuals who are best fit for survival because within the species they have the most children.

Lets look at another moral law that of adultery is wrong. Again there is a problem fitting this moral law into Darwinism because those who would control such behavior would have less children than those who would not. Therefore according to the fundamental principles of Darwinism as it is accepted by the scientific community (not rebuttals of those who are concerned about religion or metascience being taught in school) – those traits against adultery would have less opportunity to be inherited and would vanish.

I could continue to innumerate moral laws of humanity which cause mental anguish to those who insist evolution is a fact. All of us can search our knowledge of right and wrong and find things that would not have been advantageous to reproduction – none should exist under Darwinism.

It would be incorrect to suggest all moral laws conflict with Darwinism. It would also be incorrect to say all chemical reactions conflict with alchemy’s ancient classic element systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element – Until the renaissance, (before Christians took seriously the search for truth), Alchemy was considered true. It explained enough during its time but failed to explain everything because it was not fact.

However, if one is to insist that Darwinism is “fact” then any error in Darwinism is a problem. One would not send somebody to jail in court if the DA presented a case and important elements – lets say DNA type – did not match the accused.

Via CinemaNow, Rentable for only $3.99

The American public’s awareness and beliefs vis-à-vis our government’s expanding role in defining the curriculum in America’s schools, universities and institutions of science.

Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.

Neo – Darwinian theory is taught in schools as if it is the only plausible scientific explanation of how life originated and developed. Yet Intelligent Design theory has recently emerged to challenge neo-Darwinian theory.

Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?

At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?
Question #1:

Knowing this – should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nation’s public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?
Question #2:

There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?
Question #3:

Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it
literally forces a re-examination of these issues.

This is not really that new, Darwin said, 150 years ago, what the theory of evolution predicted would be found is the missing link. Many have pointed out that it has not only not been found, but Darwinian evolution contradicts itself in saying that changes are gradual over millions of years and complex systems could not be produced by gradual changes.

You would not only have 1 missing link but millions of years worth of small changes or millions of missing links.

Now ET’ers have come up with their own theory. Aliens from outer space came to earth and engineered animals and humans. That is what Weekly Universe is putting forth as to why no links between different kinds of animals can be found … YOU WERE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED BY ALIENS!

Voron built his astounding scientific theory on the lack of evidence linking Cro-Magnon man to still earlier forms on the evolutionary chain. This so- called “Missing Link” implies a jump in evolution that can only be explained by a miracle — or by alien intervention!

Some scientist are unwilling to accept the possibility that there is a God – they are atheists looking to prove God does not exist but can not. Other scientists realize that science is the study of things that can show a cause and effect – leaving everything else to metaphysics that which they can not reproduce (like the creation of life).

Global Warming is going to get their day in court. Although they don’t want one. There tactics of fear by playing fast and loose with the facts or even creating facts out of thin air does not line itself up well with rules that are used in court. Where opinions can not be represented as fact and those who hold the globe is warming and the ocean will rise 3 feet in New York and 3 1/2 feet in Florida, are subject to cross examination.

While Al-Gore can go on TV and say the all scientist agree that the globe is warming, doing so after being sworn in to tell the truth is perjury. In fact with temperatures having gone down on average since 1998 can they get any scientists to testify under oath that the planet is warming?

This is clearly a fake, Although apricot trees share a lot of DNA with both chickens and people. They do not have the DNA to produce chickens; only other apricot trees.

You can not create the DNA information to build a chicken from a apricot by mutations of apricot DNA.

Although you can selectively breed apricots to vary the size of the fruit and other characteristics, You may even be able to vary it to the extent that it is different enough from other apricots to call it a different type IE (spotted apricot like we call spotted owls a different type of owl). It still is of the “kind” of apricot and can reproduce only with apricot pollen.

In the last 8 years temperature have fallen but never mind that fact. Never mind basic logic, we have sweat on our body because we have small pores that let water pass through our skin that cool our bodies; using such incomplete thought processes you could make a logical argument that a can of soda has pores because it has water on the outside but you would be wrong.

July 20,  National Academy of Sciences, study makes the argument that fish in locations used regularly by fisherman are getting smaller because of global warming. If you expect that the news media uses logical discernment when they report on global warming you would be disappointed. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aJZZoBNdKIN8

To pass for science one needs to create a control group. This is all the more important when there are numerous influences that could create the same effect. Take for example years of fishing with a policy of taking only the largest fish – would if not be expected that fish would adapt to that kind of selectivity by becoming smaller? Do farmers not allow the largest animals to reproduce to selectively breed larger animals and have they not created that effect in both animals and plants?

Are these scientists who have been paid to study global warming any different than the scientists hired by the tobacco industry to show that cigarettes are not addictive. If we look at when animals got larger and when animals got smaller, it can normally be attributed to their food supply and there may be a connection to their food supply and temperature. But, just looking at temperature in many cases shows many kinds of animals getting bigger.You can create statistics to show global warming (if it were happening) would cause fish to grow because plant life in rivers would grow faster in warmer water – warm water areas on the globe are some of the most productive fishing areas in the world.

Science reporters should use a degree of discernment when they report on science. Anything less and they open their papers up to suggesting myths are facts, open their papers up to snake oil fraud that claims to be based on science.

The basic theory many vegetarians believe is that Humans evolved from primates who were vegetarian. Here is were they begin … http://www.vet.ca

… Imagine the primordial jungle. Imagine many kinds of primates, including anthropoids (chimps, gorillas and early humans) foraging for fruits and protein-rich leaves in the canopy of the arboreal forest. This story begins more than 55 million years ago but it has been the life-long study of Dr.Katherine Milton, professor of anthropology at the University of California. Her quest for links between diet and evolution is shared by David Popovich, a doctoral student in nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, who also sees a connection between diet and human development of vision, depth perception, memory, speech, dexterity and social behavior. …

It is ironic for liberals to use “Her quest for links” in a field that is to be free from bias. Science in its un-corrupted form is the search for truth. With it purest form being a logical explanation for everything that is observed. It was not until Newton demonstrated gravity that the concepts of testing became normal in science. You may believe you know something based on the evidence  you have, and based on that you can make predictions on what may be found in the future to confirm or disprove your explanation, your hypothesis, or theory.

Now when I say predictions I am twisting the word when it come to origins. Science calls for test results to be repeatable. Theories about the origin can not exactly be repeated. Science has not been able to create matter, create life, or create a new species. All attempts to date of selective breeding to the point that a animal can no longer reproduce with the original species have left the new animal unable to reproduce at all.

It begs the question should any of the theories of origin be taught in a science class? or does the subject properly belong in a metaphysics class? or in theology classes?

It also begs the question; Are vegetarians actually looking for a missing link? Darwinist have been looking for the missing link for over 150 years and have not found one. Is PETA just taking a play out of the Darwinist’s play book – say you are looking for a link a push it forward as science that you can not prove wrong or correct because it is metaphysics.

To continue with the PETA brand of evolution … http://www.vegansa.com/veganism-diet-and-human-evolution.htm suggests these as facts …

… But looking at the facts, we can find no reason to suppose that the human digestive system was designed for the eating of flesh and we can point to the many facts that point to the human digestive system being designed for the assimilation of plant foods. So the statement “we are naturally carnivores” merely means “I and the majority of people I know regularly eat meat and think that this is the basis of a good meal”. Certainly most humans are able to digest flesh foods and gain nourishment from them, but carnivorous dogs are able to adapt and thrive on a plant based diet, so this only proves that digestive systems can adapt to different diets.

The 19th Century scientist, T.H. Huxley, who was a staunch defender of Darwin’s theories against the denunciations of Church leaders, made a special study of the physiology of carnivores compared to creatures with other diets and prepared a list showing that carnivores have completely different systems from humans. …

Vegansa completely ignores that Humans are neither carnivores or herbivores … Our digestive system is unable to completely digest grass, leaves, straw …

Genesis 1:29-30:  Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground–everything that has the breath of life in it–I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Humans are omnivores we can eat both vegetables and meats. There exists no evidence that the human digestive system was ever different. There are fossils of tall people and short people and there are tall people and short people in the world today. Skulls have been found with the same teeth structure that exists in people today. Our digestive system has not grown shorter.

It is our digestive system that makes it impossible for us to be herbivores. Cows, houses, rabbits have a digestive system that is longer than ours – If you look at the droppings of an herbivore it is clear that they eat grass and straw and completely digest it. Humans could no more get all the nutrients  out of grass and straw any more than we could produce the same droppings. In the same way our digestive system is longer than that or carnivores. Meat does not require the same amount of time to digest.

Another fact that is overlooked is taste. You can not get a cow to eat meat because they do not like the taste: But you can get a human to eat a cow because of the taste. It may sound funny to suggest if God did not want us to eat steak he would of made it taste bad; But there may be considerable amount of truth to that … most poisonous plants taste bitter … most nutritious fruits taste sweet.