World trading system evolution och snedvridningar

EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter är en hörnsten i EU: s politik för att bekämpa klimatförändringar och dess nyckelverktyg för att minska utsläppen av växthusgaser kostnadseffektivt. Det är världens första stora kolmarknad och är fortfarande den största. opererar i 31 länder (alla 28 EU-länder plus Island, Liechtenstein och Norge) begränsar utsläppen från mer än 11 ​​000 anläggningar för tung energianvändning (kraftverkets starka industrianläggningar) och flygbolag som verkar mellan dessa länder täcker cirka 45 av EU: s växthusgasutsläpp. Ett keps - och handelssystem EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter fungerar på principen om handel och handel. En keps är inställd på den totala mängden vissa växthusgaser som kan utföras av anläggningar som omfattas av systemet. Kepsen sänks över tiden så att totala utsläpp faller. Inom capen får eller köper företag utsläppsrätter som de kan handla med varandra efter behov. De kan också köpa begränsade mängder internationella krediter från emissionsbesparande projekt runt om i världen. Gränsen för det totala antalet tillåtna utsläpp säkerställer att de har ett värde. Efter varje år måste ett bolag ge upp tillräckligt stora utsläppsrätter för att täcka alla sina utsläpp, annars kommer böter att åläggas. Om ett företag minskar sina utsläpp kan det hålla reservkvoten för att täcka sina framtida behov eller sälja dem till ett annat företag som saknar utsläppsrätter. Handel ger flexibilitet som säkerställer att utsläppen skärs, där det kostar minst att göra det. Ett robust koldioxidpris främjar också investeringar i ren teknik med låg koldioxidutsläpp. Huvuddragen i fas 3 (2013-2020) EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter ligger nu i sin tredje fas, väsentligt annorlunda än fas 1 och 2. De viktigaste förändringarna är: En enda EU-täckande utsläppsränta gäller i stället för det tidigare systemet med nationella caps. Auktion är standardmetoden för fördelning av utsläppsrätter (i stället för fri tilldelning) och harmoniserade fördelningsregler gäller för de utsläppsrätter som fortfarande ges bort gratis Mer sektorer och gaser inkluderade 300 miljoner utsläppsrätter avsatta i reserven för nya deltagare för att finansiera utplaceringen av innovativ förnybar energiteknik och kolavskiljning och lagring genom NER 300-programmet. Sektorer och gaser som omfattas Systemet omfattar följande sektorer och gaser med fokusera på utsläpp som kan mätas, rapporteras och verifieras med hög noggrannhet: koldioxid (CO 2) från kraft - och värmeproduktion energiintensiva industrisektorer inklusive oljeraffinaderier, stålverk och produktion av järn, aluminium, metaller, cement , kalk, glas, keramik, massa, papper, kartong, syror och bulk organiska kemikalier kommersiell luftfarts nitroxid (N 2 O) från produktion av salpetersyra, adipinsyra och glyoxylsyror och glyoxalperfluorkolväten (PFC) från aluminiumproduktion. Deltagande i EU ETS är obligatorisk för företag inom dessa sektorer. men i vissa sektorer ingår endast anläggningar över en viss storlek vissa små installationer kan uteslutas om regeringar införtar finanspolitiska eller andra åtgärder som kommer att minska sina utsläpp med motsvarande mängd inom luftfartssektorn, till och med 2016 gäller EU-utsläppsrätter endast för flygningar mellan flygplatser inom Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet (EES). Att leverera utsläppsminskningar EU: s emissionshandelsavtal har visat att pris på kol och handel med det kan fungera. Utsläppen från anläggningar i ordningen faller som avsedda med cirka 5 jämfört med början av fas 3 (2013) (se 2015-siffror). 2020. Utsläppen från de sektorer som omfattas av systemet kommer att vara 21 lägre än 2005. Utveckla kolmarknaden Upprättad 2005 är EU ETS världens första och största internationella handel med utsläppsrätter, som står för drygt tre fjärdedelar av internationell kolhandel. EU: s emissionshandelsprogram inspirerar också utvecklingen av handel med utsläppsrätter i andra länder och regioner. EU syftar till att koppla EU: s ETS till andra kompatibla system. Huvudsaklig EU ETS-lagstiftning Karbonmarknadsrapporter Revidering av EU: s system för utsläppsrätter för fas 3 Genomförande Lagstiftningshistoria för direktiv 200387EC Arbete före kommissionens förslag Kommissionens förslag från oktober 2001 Kommissionens reaktioner på behandlingen av förslaget i rådet och parlamentet (inklusive rådets gemensamma ståndpunkt) Öppen alla frågor Frågor och svar på det reviderade systemet för handel med utsläppsrätter för EU (december 2008) Vad är syftet med utsläppshandeln Syftet med EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter är att hjälpa EU: s medlemsstater att uppnå sina åtaganden att begränsa eller minska växthusgasen utsläpp på ett kostnadseffektivt sätt. Att tillåta deltagande företag att köpa eller sälja utsläppsrätter innebär att utsläppsminskningar kan uppnås till minst kostnad. EU: s ETS är hörnstenen i EU: s strategi för bekämpning av klimatförändringar. Det är det första internationella handelssystemet för koldioxidutsläpp i världen och har varit i drift sedan 2005. Från och med den 1 januari 2008 gäller det inte bara de 27 EU-medlemsstaterna utan även de övriga tre medlemmarna av Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet Norge, Island och Liechtenstein. Det täcker för närvarande över 10 000 installationer inom energi - och industrisektorerna som tillsammans står för nästan hälften av EU: s utsläpp av CO2 och 40 av dess totala utsläpp av växthusgaser. Ett ändringsförslag till EU: s emissionshandelsdirektiv som godkändes i juli 2008 kommer att medföra luftfartssektorn från 2012. Hur fungerar handel med utsläppsrätter EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter är ett system för utsläpp och handel, det vill säga att det täcker den övergripande tillåtna utsläppsnivån men , inom den gränsen, tillåter deltagare i systemet att köpa och sälja utsläppsrätter som de behöver. Dessa utsläppsrätter är den gemensamma handelsvalutan i hjärtat av systemet. Ett bidrag ger innehavaren rätt att avge ett ton CO2 eller motsvarande mängd annan växthusgas. Kepsen på det totala antalet utsläppsrätter skapar knapphet på marknaden. Under den första och andra handelsperioden enligt systemet var medlemsstaterna skyldiga att utarbeta nationella fördelningsplaner som fastställer deras totala utsläppsminskningsnivå och hur många utsläppsrätter varje anläggning i deras land mottar. Vid slutet av varje år måste anläggningar överlämna utsläppsrätter som motsvarar deras utsläpp. Företag som håller sina utsläpp under nivån på sina utsläppsrätter kan sälja sina överskjutande utsläppsrätter. De som står inför svårigheter att hålla sina utsläpp i linje med sina utsläppsrätter har valet mellan att vidta åtgärder för att minska sina egna utsläpp, såsom att investera i mer effektiv teknik eller använda mindre koldioxidintensiva energikällor eller köpa de extra utsläpp som de behöver på marknaden, eller en kombination av de två. Sådana val kommer sannolikt att bestämmas av relativa kostnader. På så sätt minskar utsläppen varhelst det är mest kostnadseffektivt att göra det. Hur länge har EU ETS fungerat EU: s ETS lanserades den 1 januari 2005. Den första handelsperioden löpte i tre år fram till slutet av 2007 och var en inlärning genom att göra en fas för att förbereda sig för den avgörande andra handelsperioden. Den andra handelsperioden började den 1 januari 2008 och löper i fem år fram till slutet av 2012. Betydelsen av den andra handelsperioden beror på att den sammanfaller med Kyotoprotokollets första åtagandeperiod, under vilken EU och andra industriländer måste uppfylla sina mål för att begränsa eller minska utsläppen av växthusgaser. För den andra handelsperioden har EU: s utsläpp av utsläpp av utsläpp varit begränsat till omkring 6,5 under 2005 års nivåer för att säkerställa att EU som helhet och medlemsstaterna individuellt levererar sina Kyoto-åtaganden. Vilka är de viktigaste lärdomarna av erfarenheten hittills EU: s ETS har satt pris på kol och visat att handeln med växthusgasutsläpp fungerar. Den första handelsperioden uppnådde framgångsrikt fri handel med utsläppsrätter i hela EU, införde den nödvändiga infrastrukturen och utvecklade en dynamisk kolmarknad. Miljömässiga fördelar i den första fasen kan vara begränsade på grund av överdriven fördelning av utsläppsrätter i vissa medlemsstater och vissa sektorer, främst beroende på att man använder sig av utsläppsprognoser innan verifierade utsläppsdata blev tillgängliga inom EU: s system för utsläppsrätter. När offentliggörandet av verifierade utsläppsdata för 2005 lyfte fram denna överallokering, reagerade marknaden som förväntat genom att sänka marknadspriset på utsläppsrätter. Tillgängligheten med verifierade utsläppsdata har gjort det möjligt för kommissionen att se till att kapaciteten på nationella anslag under andra fasen fastställs till en nivå som leder till reala utsläppsminskningar. Utöver behovet av verifierade uppgifter har erfarenheten hittills visat att större harmonisering inom EU: s system för utsläppsrätter är absolut nödvändigt för att EU ska uppnå sina mål för utsläppsminskningar åtminstone kostnad och med minsta konkurrenssnedvridning. Behovet av mer harmonisering är tydlig med hänsyn till hur kappan på de totala utsläppsrätterna fastställs. De två första handelsperioderna visar också att väldigt olika nationella metoder för fördelning av utsläppsrätter till anläggningar hotar rättvis konkurrens på den inre marknaden. Vidare behövs en större harmonisering, förtydligande och förfining i fråga om systemets omfattning, tillgången till krediter från utsläppsminskningsprojekt utanför EU, villkoren för att koppla EU: s system för utsläpp till utsläppshandeln på annat håll och övervakning, kontroll och rapporteringskrav. Vilka är de viktigaste ändringarna i EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter och när kommer de att gälla De överenskomna konstruktionsförändringarna kommer att gälla från och med den tredje handelsperioden, dvs. januari 2013. Medan förberedande arbete kommer att inledas omedelbart kommer gällande regler inte att ändras till januari 2013 för att säkerställa att statlig stabilitet upprätthålls. EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter i den tredje perioden kommer att vara ett effektivare, mer harmoniserat och rättvisare system. Ökad effektivitet uppnås genom en längre handelsperiod (8 år istället för 5 år), en robust och årligen minskande utsläppstak (21 minskning 2020 jämfört med 2005) och en betydande ökning av auktionsvolymen (från mindre än 4 i fas 2 till mer än hälften i fas 3). Mer harmonisering har kommit överens om på många områden, bland annat med avseende på cap-setting (ett EU-stort lock i stället för nationella kepsar i fas 1 och 2) och reglerna för övergångsfri tilldelning. Systemets rättvisa har ökat avsevärt genom övergången till EU-övergripande regler för fri fördelning för industrianläggningar och genom införandet av en omfördelningsmekanism som ger nya medlemsstater rätt att auktionera fler utsläppsrätter. Hur jämför den sista texten med kommissionens ursprungliga förslag Klimat - och energimålen som godkändes av Europeiska rådets vårmöte 2007 har bibehållits och den övergripande arkitekturen i kommissionens förslag om EU: s system för utsläppsrätter är fortfarande intakt. Det vill säga att det kommer att finnas ett EU-täckande lock på antalet utsläppsrätter och detta lock kommer att minska årligen längs en linjär trendlinje, som kommer att fortsätta efter utgången av den tredje handelsperioden (2013-2020). Huvudskillnaden jämfört med förslaget är att auktionering av utsläppsrätter kommer att fasas in långsammare. Vilka är de viktigaste förändringarna i förhållande till kommissionens förslag Sammanfattningsvis är de viktigaste ändringarna i förslaget följande: Vissa medlemsstater får frivilligt och tillfälligt undantag från regeln att inga utsläppsrätter ska tilldelas kostnadsfritt till elproducenter från och med 2013. Det här alternativet att göra undantag är tillgängligt för medlemsstater som uppfyller vissa villkor för anslutningen av elnätet, andel av ett enda fossilt bränsle i elproduktion och BNPkapital i förhållande till genomsnittet för EU-27. Dessutom kan mängden gratis utsläppsrätter som en medlemsstat tilldelar kraftverk begränsas till 70 koldioxidutsläpp av relevanta anläggningar i fas 1 och sänks därefter under åren. Vidare kan fri tilldelning i fas 3 endast ges till kraftverk som är i drift eller under uppbyggnad senast i slutet av 2008. Se svar på fråga 15 nedan. Det kommer att finnas mer information i direktivet om vilka kriterier som ska användas för att bestämma sektorer eller delsektorer som anses vara utsatta för en betydande risk för koldioxidläckage. och ett tidigare datum för offentliggörande av kommissionens lista över sådana sektorer (31 december 2009). Dessutom kommer anläggningar i alla exponerade industrier att få 100 gratis utsläppsrätter i den utsträckning de använder den mest effektiva tekniken, som är föremål för granskning när ett tillfredsställande internationellt avtal uppnås. Den fria tilldelningen till industrin är begränsad till andelen utsläpp av dessa industrier i de totala utsläppen 2005-2007. Det totala antalet utsläppsrätter som tilldelas gratis till anläggningar inom industrisektorerna kommer att minska årligen i takt med att utsläppstakten sjunker. Medlemsstaterna kan också kompensera vissa anläggningar för CO 2 - kostnader som överförs i elpriserna om CO 2 - kostnaderna annars skulle kunna utsätta dem för risk för koldioxidläckage. Kommissionen har åtagit sig att ändra gemenskapens riktlinjer för statligt stöd till miljöskydd i detta hänseende. Se svar på fråga 15 nedan. Auktionsnivåerna för utsläppsrätter för icke-exponerade industrier kommer att öka på linjärt sätt som kommissionen föreslagit, men snarare än att nå 100 år 2020 kommer det att uppgå till 70 för att nå 100 år 2027. Enligt kommissionens förslag 10 av utsläppsrätterna för auktionering kommer att omfördelas från medlemsstater med hög inkomst per capita till dem med låg inkomst per capita för att stärka den senare ekonomiska kapaciteten att investera i klimatvänlig teknik. En bestämmelse har lagts till för en annan omfördelningsmekanism med 2 av auktionerade utsläppsrätter för att ta hänsyn till medlemsstater som under 2005 hade uppnått en minskning av minst 20 utsläpp av växthusgaser jämfört med referensåret enligt Kyotoprotokollet. Andelen auktionsintäkter som medlemsstaterna rekommenderas att använda för att bekämpa och anpassa sig till klimatförändringar, huvudsakligen inom EU, men även i utvecklingsländer, höjdes från 20 till 50. Texten ger en tillägg till den föreslagna tillåtna nivån av användningen av JICDM-krediter i 20-scenariot för befintliga operatörer som fick de lägsta budgetarna att importera och använda sådana krediter i förhållande till tilldelningar och tillgång till krediter under perioden 2008-2012. Nya sektorer, nya aktörer i perioderna 2013-2020 och 2008-2012 kommer också att kunna använda krediter. Den totala mängden krediter som får användas kommer emellertid inte att överstiga 50 procent av minskningen mellan 2008 och 2020. På grund av en strängare utsläppsminskning i samband med ett tillfredsställande internationellt avtal skulle kommissionen kunna ge ytterligare tillgång till CER och ERU för operatörer i gemenskapssystemet. Se svar på fråga 20 nedan. Intäkterna från auktionering av 300 miljoner utsläppsrätter från reserven för nya aktörer kommer att användas för att stödja upp till 12 demonstrationsprojekt för koldioxidupptagning och lagring och demonstrera innovativ teknik för förnybar energi. Ett antal villkor är knutna till denna finansieringsmekanism. Se svar på fråga 30 nedan. Möjligheten att välja bort små förbränningsanläggningar förutsatt att de är föremål för likvärdiga åtgärder har utvidgats till att omfatta alla små anläggningar oavsett verksamhet, utsläppströskeln har ökats från 10 000 till 25 000 ton koldioxid per år och kapacitetsgränsen som Förbränningsanläggningar måste uppfylla dessutom har ökat från 25 MW till 35 MW. Med dessa ökade tröskelvärden blir andelen täckta utsläpp som potentiellt kan uteslutas från utsläppshandeln betydande och följaktligen har en avsättning lagts till för att möjliggöra en motsvarande minskning av EU-täckningen på utsläppsrätter. Kommer det fortfarande att finnas nationella tilldelningsplaner? I sina nationella handlingsplaner för de första (2005-2007) och andra (2008-2012) handelsperioderna bestämde medlemsstaterna den totala kvantiteten utsläppsrätter som ska utfärdas och hur dessa skulle tilldelas de berörda anläggningarna. Detta tillvägagångssätt har genererat betydande skillnader i fördelningsregler som skapar incitament för varje medlemsstat att gynna sin egen industri och har lett till stor komplexitet. Från och med den tredje handelsperioden kommer det att finnas en gemensam EU-täckning och utsläppsrätter kommer att fördelas på grundval av harmoniserade regler. Nationella fördelningsplaner behöver därför inte längre behövas. Hur kommer utsläppstaket i fas 3 att fastställas Reglerna för beräkning av EU-täckningen är följande: Från och med 2013 minskar det totala antalet utsläppsrätter linjärt. Utgångspunkten för denna rad är den genomsnittliga totala kvantiteten utsläppsrätter (fas 2-cap) som ska utfärdas av medlemsstaterna för perioden 2008-12, justerat för att återspegla systemets bredda räckvidd från och med 2013 samt alla små installationer som medlemmen Stater har valt att utesluta. Den linjära faktorn med vilken årsbeloppet ska minska är 1,74 i förhållande till fas 2-kapseln. Utgångspunkten för bestämning av den linjära faktorn 1,74 är den 20 generella minskningen av växthusgaser jämfört med 1990, vilket motsvarar en 14-minskning jämfört med 2005. En större minskning krävs emellertid av EU: s ETS, eftersom det är billigare att minska utsläpp i ETS-sektorerna. Divisionen som minimerar den totala reduktionskostnaden är följande: En 21 minskning av utsläppen från EU: s utsläppsrörsektorer jämfört med 2005 till 2020, en minskning med cirka 10 jämfört med 2005 för de sektorer som inte omfattas av EU: s system för utsläppsrätter. Den 21 minskningen år 2020 resulterar i en utsläppsränta i 2020 med högst 1720 miljoner utsläppsrätter och innebär en genomsnittlig fas 3-cap (2013-2020) på cirka 1846 miljoner utsläppsrätter och en minskning med 11 jämfört med fas 2-capen. Alla angivna absoluta siffror motsvarar täckningen vid början av den andra handelsperioden och tar därför inte hänsyn till luftfart som kommer att läggas till 2012 och andra sektorer som kommer att läggas till i fas 3. Slutliga siffror för de årliga utsläppstakarna i fas 3 kommer att fastställas och offentliggöras av kommissionen senast den 30 september 2010. Hur kommer utsläppstaket bortom fas 3 att bestämmas Den linjära faktorn på 1,74 som används för att bestämma fas 3-kapaciteten kommer att fortsätta att gälla efter utgången av handelsperioden i 2020 och kommer att bestämma capen för fjärde handelsperioden (2021-2028) och därefter. Den kan revideras senast 2025. Faktum är att betydande utsläppsminskningar på 60-80 jämfört med 1990 kommer att behövas senast 2050 för att nå det strategiska målet att begränsa den globala genomsnittliga temperaturhöjningen till inte mer än 2C över preindustriella nivåer. En EU-täckande utsläppsrätter på utsläppsrätter kommer att fastställas för varje enskilt år. Kommer detta att minska flexibiliteten för de berörda installationerna Nej, flexibiliteten för installationerna kommer inte att minska alls. Under året ska de behöriga myndigheterna utfärda de utsläppsrätter som ska auktioneras och distribueras senast den 28 februari. Det sista datumet för operatörerna att lämna in utsläppsrätter är den 30 april året efter det år då utsläppen ägde rum. Så operatörerna får bidrag för det aktuella året innan de måste överge utsläppsrätter för att täcka sina utsläpp för föregående år. Ersättningar är fortfarande giltiga under handelsperioden och eventuella överskottsersättningar kan nu bankas för användning i efterföljande handelsperioder. I detta avseende kommer inget att förändras. Systemet kommer att förbli baserat på handelsperioder, men den tredje handelsperioden kommer att ligga åtta år, från 2013 till 2020, i motsats till fem år för andra fasen 2008-2012. För den andra handelsperioden bestämde medlemsstaterna generellt att fördela lika totala kvantiteter utsläppsrätter för varje år. Den linjära minskningen varje år från 2013 kommer bättre att motsvara de förväntade utsläppstrenderna under perioden. Vilka är de preliminära årliga utsläppsnivåerna för perioden 2013-2020 De preliminära årliga kapitalkraven är följande: Dessa siffror är baserade på ETS: s tillämpningsområde enligt vad som gäller i fas 2 (2008-2012) och kommissionens beslut om Nationella fördelningsplanerna för fas 2, som uppgår till 2083 miljoner ton. Dessa siffror kommer att justeras av flera skäl. För det första kommer anpassningen att göras för att ta hänsyn till utvidgningarna av räckvidden i fas 2, under förutsättning att medlemsstaterna underbygger och verifierar deras utsläpp som härrör från dessa förlängningar. För det andra kommer anpassningen att göras med avseende på ytterligare förlängningar av ETS: s räckvidd under den tredje handelsperioden. För det tredje leder eventuell opt-out av små installationer till en motsvarande minskning av locket. För det fjärde beaktar siffrorna inte inslaget av luftfart eller utsläpp från norge, Island och Liechtenstein. Kommer utsläppsrätter fortfarande tilldelas gratis Ja. Industrianläggningar kommer att få övergångsfri fördelning. Och i de medlemsstater som är berättigade till det frivilliga undantaget får kraftverk, om medlemsstaten bestämmer det, också få gratis utsläppsrätter. Det beräknas att minst hälften av de tillgängliga utsläppsrätterna från och med 2013 kommer att auktioneras. Medan majoriteten av utsläppsrätterna har tilldelats kostnadsfritt till installationer under första och andra handelsperioderna föreslog kommissionen att auktionering av utsläppsrätter skulle bli grundprincipen för tilldelning. Detta beror på att auktionering bäst säkerställer systemets effektivitet, öppenhet och enkelhet och skapar det största incitamentet för investeringar i en koldioxidsnål ekonomi. Den överensstämmer bäst med principen om att förorenaren betalar och undviker att ge vanliga vinster till vissa sektorer som har gått över den teoretiska kostnaden för utsläppsrätter till sina kunder trots att de erhålls gratis. Hur kommer utsläppsrätterna att delas ut gratis Den 31 december 2010 kommer kommissionen att anta EU-omfattande regler som kommer att utvecklas under ett kommittéförfarande (kommittéförfarande). Dessa regler kommer att harmonisera allokeringarna fullt ut, och alla företag i hela EU med samma eller liknande verksamhet kommer att omfattas av samma regler. Reglerna kommer så långt som möjligt att säkerställa att tilldelningen främjar koldränta teknologier. De antagna reglerna föreskriver att i så stor utsträckning som möjligt ska fördelningen baseras på så kallade riktmärken, t. ex. ett antal utsläppsrätter per kvantitet historisk produktion. Sådana regler belönar operatörer som har vidtagit tidiga åtgärder för att minska växthusgaser, bättre återspeglar principen om att förorenaren betalar och ger starkare incitament att minska utsläppen, eftersom anslagen inte längre skulle bero på historiska utsläpp. Alla anslag ska fastställas före början av den tredje handelsperioden och inga efterhandsjusteringar kommer att tillåtas. Vilka installationer kommer att få fria anslag och som inte kommer Hur kommer negativa konsekvenser för konkurrenskraften att undvikas Med tanke på deras förmåga att vidarebefordra den ökade kostnaden för utsläppsrätter är full auktionering regeln från och med 2013 för elproducenter. Medlemsstater som uppfyller vissa villkor för deras sammankoppling eller deras andel av fossila bränslen i elproduktion och BNP per capita i förhållande till genomsnittet i EU-27 har dock möjlighet att tillfälligt avvika från denna regel med avseende på befintliga kraftverk. Auktionsräntan 2013 ska vara minst 30 i förhållande till utsläpp under den första perioden och måste öka gradvis till 100 senast 2020. Om alternativet tillämpas måste medlemsstaten åta sig att investera i förbättring och uppgradering av infrastrukturen, ren teknik och diversifiering av deras energimix och leverantörskällor för ett belopp som i möjligaste mån motsvarar marknadsvärdet av den fria tilldelningen. I andra sektorer avvecklas tilldelningarna gradvis från och med 2013, med medlemsstaterna att komma igång vid 20 auktioner 2013 och öka till 70 auktionering år 2020 i syfte att nå 100 år 2027. Ett undantag kommer dock att göras för installationer i sektorer som befinner sig utsatta för en betydande risk för koldioxidläckage. Denna risk skulle kunna uppstå om EU: s emissionshandelsprogram ökade produktionskostnaderna så mycket att företagen beslutade att flytta produktionen till områden utanför EU som inte är föremål för jämförbara utsläppsbegränsningar. Kommissionen kommer att bestämma berörda sektorer senast den 31 december 2009. För att göra detta kommer kommissionen att utvärdera bland annat huruvida de direkta och indirekta ytterligare produktionskostnader som orsakas av genomförandet av ETS-direktivet som andel av bruttovärdet läggs över 5 och huruvida Totalvärdet av dess export och import dividerat med det totala värdet av omsättning och import överstiger 10. Om resultatet för något av dessa kriterier överstiger 30, skulle sektorn också anses vara utsatt för en betydande risk för koldioxidläckage. Anläggningar inom dessa sektorer skulle få 100 av deras andel i den årligen minskade totala kvantiteten utsläppsrätter gratis. Andelen utsläpp av dessa industrier är bestämd i förhållande till totala utsläpp av utsläpp under 2005 till 2007. CO 2 - kostnader som överförs i elpriserna kan också utsätta vissa installationer för risk för koldioxidläckage. För att undvika sådan risk får medlemsstaterna bevilja ersättning för sådana kostnader. I avsaknad av ett internationellt avtal om klimatförändringar har kommissionen åtagit sig att ändra gemenskapens riktlinjer för statligt stöd till miljöskydd i detta avseende. Enligt ett internationellt avtal som säkerställer att konkurrenter i andra delar av världen bär en jämförbar kostnad kan risken för koldioxidläckage vara oväsentlig. Därför kommer kommissionen senast den 30 juni 2010 att göra en djupgående bedömning av situationen för den energiintensiva industrin och risken för koldioxidläckage mot bakgrund av resultatet av de internationella förhandlingarna och med beaktande av eventuella bindande sektorsvisa avtal som kan ha ingåtts. Rapporten kommer att åtföljas av eventuella förslag som anses lämpliga. Dessa kan eventuellt inbegripa att upprätthålla eller justera andelen utsläppsrätter som erhålls kostnadsfritt till industrianläggningar som är särskilt utsatta för global konkurrens eller inbegripet importörer av de berörda produkterna i emissionshandelssystemet. Vem ska organisera auktionerna och hur kommer de att genomföras Medlemsstaterna kommer att ansvara för att de utsläppsrätter som ges till dem auktioneras. Varje medlemsstat måste avgöra om den vill utveckla sin egen auktionsinfrastruktur och plattform eller om man vill samarbeta med andra medlemsstater för att utveckla regionala eller EU-omfattande lösningar. Fördelningen av auktionsrättigheterna till medlemsstaterna beror till stor del på utsläpp i fas 1 i EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter, men en del av rättigheterna kommer att omfördelas från rikare medlemsstater till fattigare för att ta hänsyn till lägre BNP per capita och högre utsikter för tillväxt och utsläpp bland de senare. Det är fortfarande så att 10 av rättigheterna till auktionstillägg kommer att omfördelas från medlemsstater med hög inkomst per capita till dem med låg inkomst per capita för att stärka den senare ekonomiska kapaciteten att investera i klimatvänlig teknik. En bestämmelse har emellertid lagts till för en annan omfördelningsmekanism med 2 för att ta hänsyn till medlemsstater som 2005 hade uppnått en minskning av minst 20 utsläpp av växthusgaser jämfört med referensåret enligt Kyotoprotokollet. Nio medlemsstater omfattas av denna bestämmelse. Varje auktionering måste respektera reglerna för den inre marknaden och måste därför vara öppen för alla potentiella köpare på icke-diskriminerande villkor. Senast den 30 juni 2010 kommer kommissionen att anta en förordning (genom kommittéförfarandet) som kommer att tillhandahålla lämpliga regler och villkor för att säkerställa effektiva samordnade auktioner utan att störa utsläppsmarknaden. Hur många utsläppsrätter kommer varje medlemslands auktion och hur bestäms detta belopp Alla utsläppsrätter som inte tilldelas kostnadsfritt kommer att auktioneras. Totalt 88 av utsläppsrätter som ska auktioneras av varje medlemsstat fördelas på grundval av medlemsstaternas andel av historiska utsläpp enligt EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter. För solidaritet och tillväxt fördelas 12 av den totala kvantiteten på ett sätt som tar hänsyn till BNP per capita och resultaten enligt Kyotoprotokollet. Vilka sektorer och gaser som omfattas av 2013 ETS omfattar anläggningar som utför specificerade verksamheter. Sedan starten har den täckt över vissa kapacitetsgränser, kraftverk och andra förbränningsanläggningar, oljeraffinaderier, koksugnar, järn - och stålverk och fabriker som tillverkar cement, glas, kalk, tegelsten, keramik, massa, papper och kartong. När det gäller växthusgaser täcker det för närvarande bara koldioxidutsläpp, med undantag för Nederländerna, som har valt utsläpp från kväveoxid. Från och med 2013 kommer omfattningen av ETS att utvidgas till att även omfatta andra sektorer och växthusgaser. Koldioxidutsläpp från petrokemikalier, ammoniak och aluminium kommer att inkluderas, liksom utsläpp av N2O från produktionen av salpetersyra, adipinsyra och glyokalsyra och perfluorkolväten från aluminiumsektorn. Fångst, transport och geologisk lagring av alla växthusgasutsläpp kommer också att täckas. Dessa sektorer kommer att få ersättning gratis enligt EU-omfattande regler, på samma sätt som andra industrisektorer som redan omfattas. Från och med 2012 kommer luftfart också att ingå i EU: s system för handel med utsläppsrätter. Kommer små installationer att uteslutas från omfattningen Ett stort antal installationer som emitterar relativt låga koldioxidutsläpp omfattas för närvarande av ETS, och det har uppkommit oro över hur kostnadseffektiviteten är för deras införlivande. Från och med 2013 får medlemsstaterna ta bort dessa anläggningar från ETS på vissa villkor. De berörda installationerna är de vars rapporterade utsläpp var lägre än 25 000 ton koldioxidekvivalenter i vart och ett av de tre år som föregår ansökningsåret. För förbränningsanläggningar gäller en extra kapacitetsgräns på 35 MW. Dessutom ges medlemsstaterna möjlighet att utesluta anläggningar som drivs av sjukhus. Installationerna kan uteslutas från ETS endast om de kommer att omfattas av åtgärder som ger ett motsvarande bidrag till utsläppsminskningar. Hur många utsläppskrediter från tredje land kommer att tillåtas Under den andra handelsperioden tillåter medlemsstaterna sina operatörer att använda betydande mängder krediter som genereras av utsläppsrörande projekt som genomförs i tredjeländer för att täcka en del av sina utsläpp på samma sätt som de använder ETS-utsläppsrätter. The revised Directive extends the rights to use these credits for the third trading period and allows a limited additional quantity to be used in such a way that the overall use of credits is limited to 50 of the EU-wide reductions over the period 2008-2020. For existing installations, and excluding new sectors within the scope, this will represent a total level of access of approximately 1.6 billion credits over the period 2008-2020. In practice, this means that existing operators will be able to use credits up to a minimum of 11 of their allocation during the period 2008-2012, while a top-up is foreseen for operators with the lowest sum of free allocation and allowed use of credits in the 2008-2012 period. New sectors and new entrants in the third trading period will have a guaranteed minimum access of 4.5 of their verified emissions during the period 2013-2020. For the aviation sector, the minimum access will be 1.5. The precise percentages will be determined through comitology. These projects must be officially recognised under the Kyoto Protocols Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism (covering projects carried out in countries with an emissions reduction target under the Protocol) or Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (for projects undertaken in developing countries). Credits from JI projects are known as Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) while those from CDM projects are called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). On the quality side only credits from project types eligible for use in the EU trading scheme during the period 2008-2012 will be accepted in the period 2013-2020. Furthermore, from 1 January 2013 measures may be applied to restrict the use of specific credits from project types. Such a quality control mechanism is needed to assure the environmental and economic integrity of future project types. To create greater flexibility, and in the absence of an international agreement being concluded by 31 December 2009, credits could be used in accordance with agreements concluded with third countries. The use of these credits should however not increase the overall number beyond 50 of the required reductions. Such agreements would not be required for new projects that started from 2013 onwards in Least Developed Countries. Based on a stricter emissions reduction in the context of a satisfactory international agreement . additional access to credits could be allowed, as well as the use of additional types of project credits or other mechanisms created under the international agreement. However, once an international agreement has been reached, from January 2013 onwards only credits from projects in third countries that have ratified the agreement or from additional types of project approved by the Commission will be eligible for use in the Community scheme. Will it be possible to use credits from carbon sinks like forests No. Before making its proposal, the Commission analysed the possibility of allowing credits from certain types of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) projects which absorb carbon from the atmosphere. It concluded that doing so could undermine the environmental integrity of the EU ETS, for the following reasons: LULUCF projects cannot physically deliver permanent emissions reductions. Insufficient solutions have been developed to deal with the uncertainties, non-permanence of carbon storage and potential emissions leakage problems arising from such projects. The temporary and reversible nature of such activities would pose considerable risks in a company-based trading system and impose great liability risks on Member States. The inclusion of LULUCF projects in the ETS would require a quality of monitoring and reporting comparable to the monitoring and reporting of emissions from installations currently covered by the system. This is not available at present and is likely to incur costs which would substantially reduce the attractiveness of including such projects. The simplicity, transparency and predictability of the ETS would be considerably reduced. Moreover, the sheer quantity of potential credits entering the system could undermine the functioning of the carbon market unless their role were limited, in which case their potential benefits would become marginal. The Commission, the Council and the European Parliament believe that global deforestation can be better addressed through other instruments. For example, using part of the proceeds from auctioning allowances in the EU ETS could generate additional means to invest in LULUCF activities both inside and outside the EU, and may provide a model for future expansion. In this respect the Commission has proposed to set up the Global Forest Carbon Mechanism that would be a performance-based system for financing reductions in deforestation levels in developing countries. Besides those already mentioned, are there other credits that could be used in the revised ETS Yes. Projects in EU Member States which reduce greenhouse gas emissions not covered by the ETS could issue credits. These Community projects would need to be managed according to common EU provisions set up by the Commission in order to be tradable throughout the system. Such provisions would be adopted only for projects that cannot be realised through inclusion in the ETS. The provisions will seek to ensure that credits from Community projects do not result in double-counting of emission reductions nor impede other policy measures to reduce emissions not covered by the ETS, and that they are based on simple, easily administered rules. Are there measures in place to ensure that the price of allowances wont fall sharply during the third trading period A stable and predictable regulatory framework is vital for market stability. The revised Directive makes the regulatory framework as predictable as possible in order to boost stability and rule out policy-induced volatility. Important elements in this respect are the determination of the cap on emissions in the Directive well in advance of the start of the trading period, a linear reduction factor for the cap on emissions which continues to apply also beyond 2020 and the extension of the trading period from 5 to 8 years. The sharp fall in the allowance price during the first trading period was due to over-allocation of allowances which could not be banked for use in the second trading period. For the second and subsequent trading periods, Member States are obliged to allow the banking of allowances from one period to the next and therefore the end of one trading period is not expected to have any impact on the price. A new provision will apply as of 2013 in case of excessive price fluctuations in the allowance market. If, for more than six consecutive months, the allowance price is more than three times the average price of allowances during the two preceding years on the European market, the Commission will convene a meeting with Member States. If it is found that the price evolution does not correspond to market fundamentals, the Commission may either allow Member States to bring forward the auctioning of a part of the quantity to be auctioned, or allow them to auction up to 25 of the remaining allowances in the new entrant reserve. The price of allowances is determined by supply and demand and reflects fundamental factors like economic growth, fuel prices, rainfall and wind (availability of renewable energy) and temperature (demand for heating and cooling) etc. A degree of uncertainty is inevitable for such factors. The markets, however, allow participants to hedge the risks that may result from changes in allowances prices. Are there any provisions for linking the EU ETS to other emissions trading systems Yes. One of the key means to reduce emissions more cost-effectively is to enhance and further develop the global carbon market. The Commission sees the EU ETS as an important building block for the development of a global network of emission trading systems. Linking other national or regional cap-and-trade emissions trading systems to the EU ETS can create a bigger market, potentially lowering the aggregate cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The increased liquidity and reduced price volatility that this would entail would improve the functioning of markets for emission allowances. This may lead to a global network of trading systems in which participants, including legal entities, can buy emission allowances to fulfil their respective reduction commitments. The EU is keen to work with the new US Administration to build a transatlantic and indeed global carbon market to act as the motor of a concerted international push to combat climate change. While the original Directive allows for linking the EU ETS with other industrialised countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the new rules allow for linking with any country or administrative entity (such as a state or group of states under a federal system) which has established a compatible mandatory cap-and-trade system whose design elements would not undermine the environmental integrity of the EU ETS. Where such systems cap absolute emissions, there would be mutual recognition of allowances issued by them and the EU ETS. What is a Community registry and how does it work Registries are standardised electronic databases ensuring the accurate accounting of the issuance, holding, transfer and cancellation of emission allowances. As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol in its own right, the Community is also obliged to maintain a registry. This is the Community Registry, which is distinct from the registries of Member States. Allowances issued from 1 January 2013 onwards will be held in the Community registry instead of in national registries. Will there be any changes to monitoring, reporting and verification requirements The Commission will adopt a new Regulation (through the comitology procedure) by 31 December 2011 governing the monitoring and reporting of emissions from the activities listed in Annex I of the Directive. A separate Regulation on the verification of emission reports and the accreditation of verifiers should specify conditions for accreditation, mutual recognition and cancellation of accreditation for verifiers, and for supervision and peer review as appropriate. What provision will be made for new entrants into the market Five percent of the total quantity of allowances will be put into a reserve for new installations or airlines that enter the system after 2013 (new entrants). The allocations from this reserve should mirror the allocations to corresponding existing installations. A part of the new entrant reserve, amounting to 300 million allowances, will be made available to support the investments in up to 12 demonstration projects using the carbon capture and storage technology and demonstration projects using innovative renewable energy technologies. There should be a fair geographical distribution of the projects. In principle, any allowances remaining in the reserve shall be distributed to Member States for auctioning. The distribution key shall take into account the level to which installations in Member States have benefited from this reserve. What has been agreed with respect to the financing of the 12 carbon capture and storage demonstration projects requested by a previous European Council The European Parliaments Environment Committee tabled an amendment to the EU ETS Directive requiring allowances in the new entrant reserve to be set aside in order to co-finance up to 12 demonstration projects as requested by the European Council in spring 2007. This amendment has later been extended to include also innovative renewable energy technologies that are not commercially viable yet. Projects shall be selected on the basis of objective and transparent criteria that include requirements for knowledge sharing. Support shall be given from the proceeds of these allowances via Member States and shall be complementary to substantial co-financing by the operator of the installation. No project shall receive support via this mechanism that exceeds 15 of the total number of allowances (i. e. 45 million allowances) available for this purpose. The Member State may choose to co-finance the project as well, but will in any case transfer the market value of the attributed allowances to the operator, who will not receive any allowances. A total of 300 million allowances will therefore be set aside until 2015 for this purpose. What is the role of an international agreement and its potential impact on EU ETS When an international agreement is reached, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the nature of the measures agreed upon in the international agreement and their implications, in particular with respect to the risk of carbon leakage. On the basis of this report, the Commission shall then adopt a legislative proposal amending the present Directive as appropriate. For the effects on the use of credits from Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism projects, please see the reply to question 20. What are the next steps Member States have to bring into force the legal instruments necessary to comply with certain provisions of the revised Directive by 31 December 2009. This concerns the collection of duly substantiated and verified emissions data from installations that will only be covered by the EU ETS as from 2013, and the national lists of installations and the allocation to each one. For the remaining provisions, the national laws, regulations and administrative provisions only have to be ready by 31 December 2012. The Commission has already started the work on implementation. For example, the collection and analysis of data for use in relation to carbon leakage is ongoing (list of sectors due end 2009). Work is also ongoing to prepare the Regulation on timing, administration and other aspects of auctioning (due by June 2010), the harmonised allocation rules (due end 2010) and the two Regulations on monitoring and reporting of emissions and verification of emissions and accreditation of verifiers (due end 2011).The Midas Formula: Trillion Dollar Bet The history behind perhaps the greatest formula ever created in finance: the Black-Scholes-Merton options pricing model. Två av dess skapare tilldelades Nobelpriset i ekonomi 1997. Ett år senare hade deras hedgefond Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) kollapsat med överväldigande förluster på 100 miljarder på grund av strategins betydande hävstångseffekt. The Black-Scholes Formula was derived by observing that an investor can precisely replicate the payoff to a call option by buying the underlying stock and financing part of the stock purchase by borrowing. Endast fem variabler var nödvändiga: Aktiens pris utnyttjandepriset för optionen riskfri ränta och alternativets löptid. Det enda obestridliga är volatiliteten på det underliggande aktiekursen. Huvudproblemet med ramverket (som förutsätter möjligheten att använda riskfri arbitrage och dynamisk säkring i kontinuerlig tid) är att det inte tar hänsyn till hur en förändring i marknadsdynamiken (speciellt likviditetsrisk och standard) kan påverka det övergripande marknadssynet. Det innebär att priserna på tillgångar i vissa extrema fall kan avvika från vad formeln säger ska hålla. LTCM var modig och tog en kontrarisk vy. Den lånade ännu mer mot det upplevda lönsamma resultatet. I stället hände omvänden (saker blev bara värre dag efter dag). Mer bra dokumentärer 35 Kommentarer Användarbedömningar Men den kille som arbetade med algebrajämförelserna, fastställde Live-kontinuerlig bestämning av aktieoptionsvärden verkar fortfarande ha en godtagbar livsstil minst, baserat på insidan av hans hus medan han intervjuades på slutet av Docu Bwarf Det hände bara i USA i alla fall. Men drunknar många globala investerare. Det är inte världens ände jag antar. Det betalas av de genomsnittliga amerikanska skattebetalarna. Though, who said that the USA doesnt have Communist habits. Om den genomsnittliga amerikanska medborgaren betalar för ett privat företag, vad det politiska systemet skulle kallas Bananrepubliken I slutändan undrar jag varför de här killarna, som om än detta, inte bara skickades till skolan och lär sig hur man tjänar deras brödförstärkare smör som alla De gillar verkligen att spela. Med sina medborgares pengar kan vi naturligtvis kanske säga att det var ett spel från vårt perspektiv och vår tid, men jag tror att de då inte tyckte att det var en spelning. de trodde att de hade en perfekt formel. Also, they all have ph. D so I dont think they need any school anymore. Deras intellektuella förmåga var inte problemet. Ibland händer något oväntat och det är allt. Men vad slog mig var det om vad de kunde ha all information i världen hela tiden, jag är säker på att de inte skulle gå i byst i det fallet, för att de skulle veta vad som skulle hända med Ryssland och skydda sin verksamhet i tid. varför behöver vi även handlare, gör hjälp ekonomin alls än att göra några ppl riktigt rika. någon. Ja, att Ryssland skulle göra vad de gjorde och förhindra att Men men utelämnade inte att de var Homosapiens i den meningen att när de mötte ett misslyckande reagerade de som de flesta om inte alla människor av panik och gick för att låna mer pengar som sjunkit dem även i ännu djupare problem. Fram till totalt katastrof. Det där djurets natur. De hade säkerligen kompetensen men inte visdom av en daglig praxis. Faktum är att hela tiden som de spenderade för att studera, var det avsikten att inte behöva arbeta för att få sina brödförstärkare smör. As seen on a daily basis in technology. 1930-talet skedde med sig av de som inte hade mycket verktyg för att anpassa den monetära situationen och den nuvarande beror på det faktum att vi nu har många verktyg och alla har blivit missbrukade. Så här ritar vi igen Wall Street spelare. Lektion inte lärt sig. Om historien upprepas (igen), kan vi förvänta oss en annan känsla-bra bubbla följt av investerare ångrar och skattebetalare finansierar rengöringen. Even after positive gains in middle class investments (401K) during the next bubble, there may be no net gain when it comes time to pay out to save the economy. Kanske Sealy kommer att marknadsföra en pengar påse i sina madrasser. Knud Sandbk Nielsen Att skapa en sådan formel är i sig självbunden att driva marknaden utanför balans. varje gång du uppfinnar ett nytt trick, ändrar du spelet. Följaktligen finns det en öppning för ännu ett nytt trick för detta nya och förändrade spel. Och precis som ett pyramidprogram kommer det så småningom att falla ner som den billiga magiken den är. Trodde du verkligen att du kunde tjäna pengar ut ur ingenting för alltid är den fråga som kommer att tänka på. Du kan förenkla så mycket som möjligt, inte mer. Kanske akademiker inte passar för den verkliga världen. Investeringar på aktiemarknaden är mycket värre än spelande. Med spel är spelet fastställt i form av oddsen och reglerna. I vissa fall som svart jack kan din egen skicklighet hjälpa till att förbättra dina odds (Till skillnad från roulette). Aktiemarknaden som fungerar inte på rullar och fasta odds. Det fungerar på SENTIMENT Mänskligt beteende. Det faktum att du lägger en insats påverkar sedan Sentimentpoolen och du har vetskap att läsa vidare vad känslan är om du inte är xavier från X Men. Du kan bara reagera. Det enda sättet att vinna är att spela utanför de rullar som resten av oss måste spela inom. Med andra ord behöver du korruption på din sida. Av kurser behöver investeringssamhället suger eftersom det var pengarna kommer ifrån. För att svara på din fråga tror jag att svaret skulle vara Ja. Och se var den globala ekonomin är nu Gå Figur: 0 Lärde killarna i gropen sin handel på tävlingsbanan som de bara är tic-tac-män. det verkar vara den ursprungliga formeln har förstärkaren något värde. där de errade gjorde det till en magisk matta kunde de rida in i landets mjölkförmåga ändlös honung. the fall-out from this arrogance was a perfect warning to the fed, the sec, the congress, the investment bankers - all of whom disregarded it completely, of course. se: pbs-varningen Marknaden handlar om att sälja och motverka risker. So yes, traders to perform a function. Om du skulle investera i aktiemarknadsindex och hålla i en längre tid - skulle du nästan ha gjort pengar när som helst, förutom om du ville ha pengar i nedgången. Handel är det enda sättet att tjäna pengar. Om du gör något annat är du bara en slav till en handel Detta dokument är så roligt. Groparna idag är praktiskt taget tomma. Handel sker online och blir mycket mer automatiserad. Varje bank försöker komma med en robot som blir snabbare och bättre vid handel. Gissa vad. Robotar blir så småningom förutsägbara -) Det är hur din pension fungerar. Försiktig du går inte i pension i en nedgång -) Därför kräver vi istället för demokratiskt och rationellt att bestämma vart vi vill ägna våra resurser, så vi kan fortsätta spela deras spel. Det här är inte sättet att bestämma hur man fördelar resurser. Det är åtminstone klart för mig. RR Lite grov den kommentaren, men Åh så direkt till den punkten. Varje människa på planeten jorden är jorden fast med detta. Next. Whos att pröva för förändringar Det tar tarm, hum. Lärde Amerika från denna LTCM-debacle. Ingenting. Lärde Europa från denna debatt, Nej, Alan Greenspan och andra tjänstemän borde ha fängslad de två nobelpristagarna vid den tiden själv, i stället för att låta LTCM vara så att nästa näringsidkare i Goldman, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman och Morgan Stanley skulle inte ha gjort den syntetiska proppen, Den största krisen 2008 skulle inte ha hänt, vilket tyvärr fortfarande fortsätter. Istället för att Myron Scholes säger att han kände sig dålig efter LTCM-debatten är den största underdrivningen av den mänskliga girigheten. Han skulle inte ha sagt att han hade blivit straffad. CDOs, Synthetic Derivatives and all other mathematical mumbo-jumbo would not have seen the light of the day, if those two were prosecuted. Miiljoner av investerare skulle ha sparats. Allt som TARP och annan EFSF behöver inte ha verkställts. VAD ÄR BAKGRUNDEN AV FÖRETAGET. Mänsklig grön. Ibland känner jag mig, okunnighet är salighet. Om tiden tillåter var god läs boken av Mandelbrot med titeln Mishandling av marknaderna BampS Formel är sönderdelad i bitar. Det är alltid tur, min vän, att vinna en händelse. En viss mängd tinkering med matematik kommer inte att lösa problemet eftersom det är en exakt vetenskap och marknaden är helt en subjektiv plats. Ekonomisk verksamhet är dock tvungen att passa marknaden kan visa sitt fula ansikte på lång sikt och de som är klara nog som Madoff vinner händer. Sh8t I just wrote a long comment hit the enter button and poof it didnt turn up anyway a real good website and I am not going to send you to a commerical website and try and sell you some shoes. Det heter globalresearch. ca Det är i Montreal och det har lite mycket upplysande material om alla dessa politiska och ekonomiska situationer. Verkar vi är på väg mot ww3. Efter Libyen kan jag tro på det. I alla fall är jag sjuk i min mage över mina länder medverkan i dessa imperialistiska äventyr och kan inte ta mycket mer innan jag antingen lämnar landet eller dricker mig själv i en koma varje dag. Eftersom jag redan har leversjukdom skulle det inte ta mer än sex månader att avsluta mig. Jag kan inte tro hur politiskt bakåt så många av mina kamrater är och företagsmedia gör ett sådant tal på oss jag vet inte hur heck vi ska att slå tillbaka dessa krigsmongrar. That is all I have to say for now anyway webmaster thanks for all you do here. Tack, RR lol, den här killen pratar som al pacino och tycker att han är en mästare eller något som hör till honom. Han gjorde vad. byta pengar i pengar. pf I change my words inna truth without hands In other words, anyone who earns better than yourself and understands the world better must be just a lucky crook. A common and self-fulfilling fallacy. Facts of Evolution If you want to know what the scientists know about evolution, then here it is. An enormous breadth of information, assimilated, compressed, and congealed into an easily understood, visually irresistible presentation. Facts Of Evolution (made by the Cassiopeia Project) has layer upon layer of evidence that makes common descent and macro-evolution inescapable. Universal common descent is the concept that every living thing on earth is related to every other living thing on earth genealogically, genetically related. All modern organisms are descended from one original species. And while in its simplest form, there is a genetic, linear progression that branches and forms a tree-like pattern, Common Descent is NOT restricted to this linear pattern. That is different species might recombine and generate hybrids or genetic material may cross from symbiont to host or perhaps by mans own hand, genetic material may be implanted wholesale in another species. None of this changes the fact that every living thing on earth is related to every other living thing on earth. Along the way, many will applaud and many will object. But both reactions are inappropriate. Science as a discipline does not cheer for a given outcome of its experiments and investigations. More great documentaries Good one, but i fell asleep :) I bet jono is right, the narators voice is too hypnotic. If it doesnt include a mention or give credit to god how can this be true I can accept an all powerful spirit that has no beginning and no end. that makes sense. but evolution a rational but hard to believe step by step process of natural selection, reproduction, and genetics. I just cant wrap my mind around that one. And the writers of the old or new testament NEVER EVER once mentioned bacteria, genetics, atoms, or DNA. not once. you would think if it was true and important they would have mentioned it at least once. Are you for real or are you just trolling You think that your fairy tale of a book written in the bronze age would have a clue of any type of empirical science. et al: Of course no mention, because the writers did not know they just only came out of the Earth was flat scenario That stuff you are reading, (Bibles) is not real Interesting documentary. Good for those who dont know alot about biology and evolution, like myself However, I dont understand why some documentaries insist on putting spacey x-files type music in the background. Content 3.55 Video 45 Sound 45 lol Achems. you need to hone your sarcasm detector. he was absolutely kidding. So if evolution is true then why can mules not mate If you say so, (LOL) I shoot first than ask questions later, HA, HA, Religees drive me bonkers me defensive. Yes now i dont think 1speed2racer7 is being sarcastic. i have seen another of his comments that was just mindless religious babbling. Nature has a way of keeping species separate: Most hybrid organisms, such as mules or ligers, are sterile. The mechanisms behind this were unclear, but now scientists think they may have caught the genetic culprit in action. Hoping to learn more about what keeps species apart--and how new species form--biologist Olivier Loudet of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research in Paris turned to the thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), a weed from the mustard family. Scientists sequenced the complete Arabidopsis genome in 2000, making genetic analysis relatively easy and, with many populations growing throughout the world, thale cress has a wide range of genetic variety. Loudet and colleagues sampled two populations of thale cress, from Poland and the Cape Verde Islands in the middle Atlantic Ocean. Immediately, they noticed a subtle genetic difference: One of two copies of the gene for the essential amino acid histidine is partially deleted in chromosome 5 of the island thale, and it is not expressed at all in chromosome 1 of the Polish thale. When these two genetic variants combined during breeding, 11 of the embryos died, the team reports in tomorrows issue of Science. Other genetic combinations resulted in a measly thale cress with shorter-than-normal roots. The team chalks both problems up to a reduced supply of histidine. Crossing 30 other variants of thale cress resulted in inviable offspring about one-fourth of the time. This means that evolution of a single gene can rapidly lead to differences within a species, says Loudet. Evolutionary geneticist Leonie Moyle of Indiana University, Bloomington, says the results are quite exciting because this is the first clear example of genetically incompatible lineages within the same species. Nyheter. sciencemag. orgsciencenow20090129-05. html I dont understand the nuances o genes. dna, etc, but I get the general ideaamp the fact that DAN test can positively tell you If that babythat youve been supportingis yours, its in itself, a miracle of science amp proof that this is not BS mumbo jumbo but something to take seriouslybtw, I think that Mr. Majestik was just being sarcasticif Im not mistaken Terrible Terrible Terrible 1. In general, nearly impossible for a layperson to follow. 2. Paced too quickly for meaningful comprehension and too many terms and concepts left undefined or unexplained. 3. The section on genetics is a disaster, especially since it contains only a few concrete examples presented at the usual breakneck pace. 4. The musical background is merely a hindrance. 5. Obviously, the makers of this documentary did not take their intended audience into account. 6. I picked out this documentary to learn more about a topic which greatly interests me and my efforts were awarded with bewilderment and frustration. In short, whoever who put this documentary together did not consider their intended audience AND THUS HAVE NOT DONE THEIR JOB. Epicurus religion aside, I am trying to figure out why people believe we evolved with apes from the same ancestor. You in no way helped me on this quest with your rambling about thale cress. Which I might add that your comment had nothing to do with the question. It is a simple question with a simple answer. They cant mate because. First of all, mules (and hinnies) can mate, but for the most part cannot conceive. For a clear explanation which alas this documentary failed to provide, Wikipedia has a fine article on mules which also explains how they fit into the evolutionary scheme. Its not that people believe. Its that scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that all life evolved from a common ancestor--and in this area, thats all that counts, not the ignorance of belief. Its a mystery why blind faith is treated with such admiration as opposed to the villification and opprobrium which it so deserves. This destructive predilection does not say much about mankind in general. Robert Allen, youre a party pooper, a hecklerI said that I didnt get the nuancesthe fine detailsbut theres not denying the power of the DNA testdo you agree You just want some attentionok, get close to the screen, Im hugging youhmmmnice, isnt it Lori George Alexander I have studied evolution in college and read about it on my own, but I found this documentary to be compelling because it puts everything in one very tight and precise argument backed up with easily understood terms and examples. I recommend it to everyone no matter what level of understanding and knowledge the viewer has. P. S. I did not find the voice of the narrator to be a problem at all. Maybe some people did not like it because it lacked the emotional tone that so many others have in this area. Robert Allen I appreciate the answer. I agree, humans can mate and not concieve as well. I might have to check out Wikipedia. I would just think that if a donkey and horse mate(concieve) and bring forth a mule then, by evolution, the mule, being a new species, can mate(concieve) with a horse and bring forth something like a morse or a hule. Makes me wonder what new species would evolve if a human were to mate(concieve) with an ape. Would it be called a mape Furthermore would this mape be able to reproduce a new species. You see, this evolution thing makes no sense to me. Lori George Alexander 1speed2racer7, evolution does not make sense to a lot of people but it is real. The horse and donkey thing was covered by the documentary. Did you watch it Lori no, I didnt watch the doc. Did it cover the human and ape thing as well What does make sense to me is that we began as a one-celled organism and emerged from water. The same as apes, horses, donkeys, mules, and every other animal on the planet. The water is called amniotic fluid and after we are born our bodies, till the day we die, will continue to change allowing for the adaptation of our environment. In no way, shape, or form does this involve a change in species. Therefore although similar in design to apes we are not the same. Lori George Alexander 1speed2racer7, do yourself a favor and watch the documentary and then post some comments. You will find this film easy to understand. A documentary can sound very good without a counter argument. I was ready to believe the Egyptian pyramids were ancient power houses beeming X-rays into outspace to alien spaceships the other day LOL. Well, almost. Lori George Alexander Lewis, I am in South Korea and was considering a job offer in China. I never even gave Internet censorship a consideration. What a bummer. I hope you can find another way of viewing this documentary. I was just sore I could not see Hulu outside of the States. At least I am going back to the USA in December. I wish I could help you. Thanks Lori..BTW Your website blog is also blocked in China..That means you must be famous if the govt decides to block you. gt) Lori George Alexander I am Well Ill be. Tack. Robert Allen, dont agree I thought it was an excellent primer (apert from the voice lol) 1speed2racer7 The doc pretty much explains everything, not sure if you are being obtuse or if you really are an IDer Lori George Alexander The voice wasnt because of the lack of emotion, it was the sing song effect of it that prompted my comment Epicurus Great example there. Horses and donkeys (and also humans and chimps) have different numbers of chromosomes, which are individual strands of DNA bundled up tightly. You need two copies of each chromosome, because they pair up and mix, then split during production of eggs and sperm. Horses and donkeys can each produce viable sperm, which combine to form a mule, but a mule does not have matching pairs of chromosomes and cannot make viable eggs and sperm. As for why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimps have 24, if we are so closely related (which we are) - our Chromosome 2 is extra, extra long, and for reasons difficult to explain simply without being able to show you a picture, very obviously the fusion of two of our ancestors chromosomes. Do a search for human chromosome fusion if youd like more info. Och. why are you commenting on a video you havent watched Watch the documentary. 1speed2racer7 - Sorry if Im repeating something someone else has already said, was skimming the comments. I just wanted to correct you on one point: evolution doesnt say that if you breed two different species you get a new species. Mules are hybrids, not a new species. Speciation happens through the gradual accumulation of minor changes (mutations) by members of a divided population of the same species, until enough such changes have accumulated that its no longer possible for the two populations to breed if they meet again. Which of the two is the new species and which is the continuation of the old one is of course a moot point its a matter of interpretation (its possible that either group could successfully breed with their common ancestor, which makes them still the same species as their common ancestor, but different species from each other :) ). Its interesting stuff. If youre looking for an answer as to whether we evolved from apes, heres a small steer in the right direction: we are apes. As well as being members of the species homo sapiens sapiens, we are still members of the broader group great apes. Physical evolution is such an obvious process, given so much evidence of it, that it would be simply silly to deny it. My problem is where does the Mind fit into all this. so what really boggles my mind is everything begins as a single cell that doubles and so on and so on. so what is it that makes this cell into a bird or rat or human or whatever. in the beginning earth was a ball of magma wen a massive rock collide creating the moon and eventually liquid water appeared. it makes sense to think all life is from 1 thing. but where did the first cell come from another meteor from space if so wer did the cell on that rock come from so is it radiation from space that causes evolution. mutations and so on is god a creation of life or life a creation of god is each cell a miniscule galaxy what will happen wen we find other life in the universe thats really what i wanna know, bring some alien microbes to earth and lets see wat happens Lori George Alexander Be careful what you wish for. The first Goldilocks planet has been discovered. I dont think the film said everything started from one single cell, but I understand scientists have found a meteor they think is from Mars that has fossils of a primitive sort. Maybe life is not so unique as all that. All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm. The study supports the widely held universal common ancestor theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobald calculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or domains, of life evolved from a common ancestorversus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style. The domains are bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans. The best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are just astronomically enormous, he said. The numbers so big, its kind of silly to say it1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros. Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors. The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is an absolutely horrible hypothesis, Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power. (As of publication time, requests for interviews with several creationist scientists had been either declined or unanswered.) All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins, though the proteins DNA sequencesinstructions written in the As, Cs, Gs, and Ts of DNA basesdiffer slightly among the three domains. The 23 universal proteins perform fundamental cellular activities, such as DNA replication and the translation of DNA into proteins, and are crucial to the survival of all known life-formsfrom the smallest microbes to blue whales. A universal common ancestor is generally assumed to be the reason the 23 proteins are as similar as they are, Theobald said. Thats because, if the original protein set was the same for all creatures, a relatively small number of mutations would have been needed to arrive at the modern proteins, he said. If life arose from multiple specieseach with a different set of proteinsmany more mutations would have been required. But Theobald hoped to go beyond conventional wisdom. What I wanted to do was not make the assumption that similar traits imply a shared ancestry. because we know thats not always true, Theobald said. For instance, you could get similarities that are not due to common ancestry but that are due to natural selectionthat is, when environmental forces, such as predators or climate, result in certain mutations taking hold, such as claws or thicker fur. Biologists call the independent development of similar traits in different lineages convergent evolution. The wings of bats, birds, and insects are prime examples: They perform similar functions but evolved independently of one another. But its highly unlikely that the protein groups would have independently evolved into such similar DNA sequences, according to the new study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Nature. I asked, Whats the probability that I would see a human DNA polymerase protein sequence and another protein with an E. coli DNA polymerase sequence he explained. It turns out that probability is much higher if you use the hypothesis that humans and E. coli are actually related. David Penny, an evolutionary biologist at Massey University in New Zealand, called the grand scope of Theobalds study bold. Penny had been part of a similar, but more narrowly focused, study in the 1980s. His team had looked at shared proteins in mammals and concluded that different mammalian species are likely descended from a common ancestor. Testing the theory of universal common ancestry is important, because biologists should question their major tenets just as scientists in other fields do, said Penny, who wasnt part of the new study. Evolution, he said, should not be given any special status. Nyheter. nationalgeographic. comnews201005100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor Lori George Alexander Epicurus, I dont know why I bother with you around. You are one smart person. Thank you for making it very clear. I think I goofed it up somewhat. Epic: Your obviously genious in a foolish sort of way when you say: It turns out that probability is much higher if you use the hypothesis that humans and E. coli are actually related. Before you make germs and people the distant offspring of one very ancient mold cell that came about by accidental chemical interactions, wouldnt it also be at least possible that similar DNA and its function indicates a common Creator using a winning design rather than a common ancestry The zeros after the 1 needed to verify evolution are quite high, are they not That takes a lot more faith than I have believing in the One that I choose to follow (along with a billion or so others). Roughly. I doubt well ever quite see eye to eye. I was thinking about psychology also for a masters degree. I might need to do something in education for my masters, if Im wise, but I do so also like science. Yes, Lori, Epicurus is the man, I have learned much from him. Actually, we have learned much from each other We kinda hang together because we are cool like that. (Please say that is true, Epicurus Wes pals, right) If only I could eat your young, fresh brain, thereby gaining all of your knowledge. BRAINS. (Zombies. you know Halloween is coming. ) hahahaha just briefly reading the comments before I even clicked play, I knew it had to be a CassioPlea production. that guy definitely is too monotone and hypnotic sounding. Great for sleeping to tho and thats what I plan on doing :) Thank you still CassioPlea -- if you read this. Your work is awesome and I have been a long time subscriber. What I cannot understand, is how we can understand at all The special effects are pretty hilarious and the narrator doesnt seem very comfortable with what hes doing but its still a good documentary. lori george alexander, you said they found the first goldilocks planet but sadly its probably like 100. or 1000 or 1000000 light years away right. Itll probably be like 1000 years b4 we came up with tech. to even have a chance to travel that far, humans might just get wiped out by then. so its i dont think any person will get the chance. really with all the deadly s in space its a wonder any life can survive anywhere. at any given moment even earth could get wiped out in a cuple seconds from a huge list of catastrophic events. scientists like to say were safe but they dont really no either. the vastness of space is truly the mind boggling thing. earth is just a tiny rock with a few parasites crawling around on it (us lol). Charles B. why do you always post the same sht when it comes to the docs on evolution, i guess it must be your upbringing that makes you blind to the obvious truth of evolution. we did not evolve from mold, mold and we are cousins as we share a common ancestor..go back to home schooling your kids in your bronze age fables..oh i get so mad when i read your posts, may god strike you down..oh hang on there isnt one. Lori George Alexander Mankind, you missed the whole point. If you found one, there are others. They also found it around a red dwarf sun and that was something scientists did not expect to find. You remind me of my aunt who gave me two scarfs for my birthday, a red one and a pink one. When I wore the pink one, she got mad and asked what was wrong with the red one. You arent Uncle Rex are you well clearly there is life out there ive always believed that there is im just saying its beyond our puny reach is all. and its too bad becuz u can only imagine wat we cud learn from alien civilizations. they cud cure all our diseases. new technology and so on. also yes it is i uncle rex. wear the dam red scarf. Lori George Alexander Ah yes, Uncle Rex, you never did learn to spell. Say hello to everyone but dont drink too much lemonade. Yes, I will wear the damn red scarf. Why do people have these huge rage boners over religion and faith I assume it is because people believe that it causes war and murder and such. Honestly though if the world was rid of religion, do you think that the world would be a better place I dont. If there was no religion, people would fight over money. If there was no money, people would fight over land. If there was no land people would fight over tacos. If youve failed to understand where Im going with this then what Im saying is that no matter what people believe there will always be war and murder. People are going to kill each other over stupid c until the end of time. Theres no changing it. However I also assume that this isnt the only reason people hate it. Its obvious that people feel the need to belittle the views of others because theyre stupid, unreasonable or because theres no evidence to support it. We need to stop relating science with faith. Science is a matter-of-fact way of looking at things where as faith is a personal, spiritual belief. Also science doesnt disprove a creator, nor does evolution. Arguing about whos right wont solve anything. If believing when you die nothing happens makes you feel happy, then believe that. If believing youll walk in the Kingdom of Heaven with God makes you feel happy, believe that. Or if you believe that youll reincarnate into something else, believe it. If theyre not your views why the f do you care It seems like its more about being right and proving the others wrong than it is about actually understanding why and how were here. When it gets to this: may god strike you down. oh wait there isnt one or Religees drive me bonkers it becomes ridiculous and childish. I know it sucks when people have different beliefs and values, and it especially sucks when they talk about them on a public board, but really theres no need to insult or stereotype people. Im all for talking about beliefs and why we believe them, but its impossible to do that here and in most other places because people have these predeterminations about certain faiths. Wow, you believe in god Thats gay. You should shut up now because thats not what I believe and I was told by a bunch of smart people that your way of thinking is stupid cause its not backed up by evidence I dont understand. I know that this is a bit off topic, but since the doc was about evolution it was bound to go off topic with people spewing some religious hate. If you dont agree with what Ive said here, I dont care. If youve got some sort of rebuttle Id love to hear it. However this isnt supposed to start an argument. Its just another one of those crazy beliefs people have. Either way I hope you can understand where Im coming from. Besides the obvious sarcasm sprinkled throughout this piece, I do believe it to be rational and I dont see how you could fully disagree. Mr. Majestik - said I just cant wrap my mind around that one And the writers of the old or new testament NEVER EVER once mentioned bacteria, genetics, atoms, or DNA . not once you would think if it was true and important they would have mentioned it at least once. This tells us that the writers of the bible, either lied, misunderstood what god was telling them to write, or they were writing a book of fiction to control other men. While evolution can be proven by scientific standards, it can not disprove god, so there is always the idea that god used evolution as a way to create us, and the writers of the bible got it wrong, because well. GOD THE ALMIGHTY NEVER SPOKE TO THEM. If what the bible says is true, and god created us in his image, that would mean, say bacteria really could be god perhaps and we were created in that image, since they have proved we were all created of the same stuff here on earth, and all life evolved from bacteria(as far as they can trace) Wow, yeah I see how that concept could be hard for people who put faith in the bible. I however find it hard to put my faith in some writings by men, many years after he events claimed, those of which have been altered and changed, over and over with no good reason to back it up. Open your mind that evolution does not disprove that a higher life-form exists, however it does tear down the validity of the bible and many religions. God could be any form. he may or may not exist. As the saying goes, god created man, and man created religion to control (and destroy) other men. Organisms must have an even number of chromosomes to replicate properly. 6264 gets a mule with 63. Mules can mate and produce offspring very rarely. Sometimes hybrids arent viable for a vast number of reasons. Its easy to see clear examples of natural selection, if you research some of the vegetables you eat. Its like the cukeamelon that turned up in my garden had no viable seeds, but was really yummy. Ive created hybrids on many plants, then let them do their own thing year after year, and usually they turn into a stable variety that does not even resemble the original hybrid or parent. Most plants I grow, readily hybrid together naturally, and do reproduce viable offspring. It is not until a random mutation occurs in the chromosomes that makes that variety unable to breed with its parent plant. Most hybrid seeds today, are engineered by the companies to not reproduce any offspring, and its easily done with the knowledge of dna. Lori George Alexander Scorpyan, The Bible is a great book of Hebrew mythology. It was never meant to be a book of science. Even the early writers of Christianity knew that. To Lori George Alexander Youre right--the Bible was never meant to be a book of science, but it is more than just Hebrew mythology--theres probably Babylonian, Sumerian, Greek and even Japanese mythology mixed in as well. Youre also right that the early Christian writers knew that--look at St. Augustine who, among others in the mainstream at that time (ca. 100 AD), cautioned against a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially of Genesis. And this view remained the orthodox one for 1,500 years in Christian Europe and the Near East. TODAYS BIBLICAL LITERALISM IS A PRODUCT OF MODERN TIMES AND AN AMERICAN INVENTION which as you might suspect, came out of the deep south. Lori George Alexander Robert Allen, I remember being talked into a lesson by Jehovah Witnesses to read with them, the book of Geneses. I started to read that book which I had not done for years and saw that it is actually three books or more jammed together. The Bible is great in that it is old but it is other books thrown into it. Then the scribes added a few things. I agree with your post that the Biblical literalism is basically a new train of thought. I remember reading a scholar who thought that English history should come out of Shakespeare which would be wrong too although I love Shakespeares plays. I think some people are always looking for a way to get out of thinking and so they latch onto a way of interpreting truth by religiously following one literary form or another instead of looking at history through a multifaceted lens. Lori George Alexander Yes, than kyou, that it exactly the point. So many people, present it to you as fact, and merely state, that we are instructed to take it as fact by way of faith. The fact that so many people, want to discredit or prove the way they believe or think is true, by a book based of mythology, is a whole separate science study in its own. I do agree, that certain real events can be found outlined in the bible, as science have attempted to prove that these stories could have happened and been recorded. But I find it ironic that people who put their faith in the bible often have no belief in science whatsoever, yet when they are ill, they turn to the same science they are trying to prove wrong. Lori George Alexander Scorpyan, I had a discussion with those same Jehovah Witnesses. They were trying to convince me on the reality of a future world in which the devil would be destroyed and the lamb would lie with the lion. I said that it is impossible that the earth will last forever and even the core is now beginning to cool. Then I realized that in order to believe in the fairy tales of all of these future events, they could not believe in what science has discovered. One believer said that they could not tell people just to believe in Jehovah, they had to have other things to believe in, to help them forget their troubles and not be depressed about their lives. I understood for the first time that if you believe in those stories of the rapture and other such things you could not believe in rational science. Talk about putting yourself in a box. When I was a kid, I loved Greek mythology and wish we went into that instead of Christianity. It is a lot more fun to read. When you put your faith in man-made beliefs such as a religion or a person such as the Pope or Jim Jones you are giving up your responsibility for finding out your own answers because you dont trust yourself for finding things out for yourself. These are people with very low levels of self-esteem and confidence who cant believe they know the truth. It isnt faith, its fear of oneself. scorpyan Do you think that it is good for mankind for companies to eliminate the ability for us to produce our own food Lori. (faintly) you. talked. to Jehovas Witnesses (Im fascinated by the number of JWs who get to be reborn during their Rapture, iirc its something like 144,000 or so. Which leaves out how many billions of others I wonder why they bother to proselytize any more, surely theyve met their quota by now. And yet they knock on doors.) This documentary seems to be very instructive (like something youd find in a classroom. Very clear explanations, I thought. Lori George Alexander QueenBee, I am a writer so I am open to everything well almost everything. The 144,000 people are the rulers of us mortals and the rest of us have the chance to be ruled by them in this new world. I am not sure how they got to be so special but since it flies in the face of everything I believe in I just let it go in one ear and out the other. It is in the Bible though. I am fascinated by all of the variations of Christians who are convinced they are the only ones who are not going to Hell although to be fair Jehovah Witnesses, to their credit, d o not believe in the existence of Hell. The Phelps Family now before the US Supreme Court and the subject of a documentary on the web site, The Most Hated Family in America, make that claim too. You are right in that the documentary is very clear in explaining evolution to all even the most unenlightened of us. corey..the reason i think the world would be MUCH better off without religon is twofold, first it is devisive and separates we human beings from each other by banding us into imaginary groups, do you think there would be trouble in the middle east if there was no religon, there would be no fighting over the so called promised land ( formed by the guilty allies after ww2 by stealing palestinian land) by two variations of abrahamic faiths with a third stepping in to try and stop or maybe bring about armaggedon depending on your views on american foreign policy and the infighting in islam would be gone, the systematic raping of children by roman catholic priests would not have happened, to inquisition would not have happened, need i go on..they are death cults and all cant wait to meet their maker and possibly take us all with them. the second and most important to me is that it is a lie. Lori George Alexander John, you talk as if religion exists separate from humankind but it is mankind (sexual id intended) who made it all up. Mankind is not the servant of religion but quite the opposite. Whether or not God or something beyond the senses exist really does not matter as religion was created to bash ones neighbor over the head. I know the creed says different but no one really pays much attention to that except for a few heretics. john I have to agree with lori all religions are not lies(a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive an intentional untruth). In fact at worst i can only say your offending religious texts are semi-fiction or fictions. lori How are you so sure religion was created to bash someone over the head. I have never found a study that examined any spiritual followings to be a more constructive or destructive psychological motivator. I do agree though some religions make outrageous claims but this goes back down to burden of proof where the burden of proof is required by both parts on all disputes. Creator says because it is. If your prosecuting a idea its your responsibility to find proof. This also works the other way of course. Militant Atheists Do you honestly think spirituality makes someone do bad things. If so Id be interested to see your attack against Buddhism. How are they plotting control and brainwashing of the world. Lori George Alexander The ImPoster, The proof is in the pudding, I guess but you bring up an interesting point. I have found throughout history that mankind create social institutions to give validity to the way society and culture governs or controls their group or as I said hits each other over the head if you are not a law abiding member. I know people dont like Marx and Engle but they were good social scientists and made some very good points that have been backed by many studies and books through the years. I also think that there are people out there that require in their lives something, someone to tell them what they should believe in. They are dying to give away their responsibility away to anyone or anything so they dont have to find their own answers thus religion fills this function. People as sheep is so commonplace that I would hate to find the proof of this since this has been related to by different writers for many, many years. The book Party of One by Anneli Rufus a book about loners has a picture on its cover of one sheep and most people get it that loners dont follow the dictates of the crowd. ( I am not including the existence of the Eternal or a Higher Power because I dont think it has anything to do with religion. I also dont believe if one does not have a belief in a religion one is condemned to a eternity of burning in Hell. It is a way for those who make a living in a religion to make sure they have converts and a steady supply of money in the coffers and the culture people they can manage and control. ) Yes spirituality causes bad things to happen, for several different reasons. Most often it requires faith, faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and is destructive to our existence. Why, becuase it teaches us from the time we are young to follow our misguided intuitions instead of reason. Spirituality also tends to elevate itself to be the most important thing in ones life, taking precedence over things that are less fantastic and mysteriouse but more relevant to maintaining life. Not to long ago evangelical christians(the gang i love to hate) in the United States were asked what was more important - the economy or making sure we act in accordance with thier Gods will. Of course they chose thier gods will over politics, economics, social concerns, justice - need I say more Religion also forces many to disbelieve truths that are necessary for us advancement in the fields of science and medicine. When we have tons of evidence to the contrary these people cling to thier religiouse teachings and turn thier backs on the truth, therefore crippling scientific advancement and understanding of the natural world. Yes religion is destructive in that it teaches lies and blinds people to the actuall truths we must deal with in order to advance as a species. I would have no issues with religion if it did not interfere with politics and societies conceptions of morality which in turn interfere with the rights of the individual and nation as a whole. The reason you do not hear of attacks against the Buddhist religion because it is very inclusive and does not dictate moral absolutes to the world, in fact I have heard a Buddhist monk say that he did not see anything wrong with an atheist practicing Buddhism in his monistary - he said he invited them to come in fact no matter what they believed or did not believe. Now if they begin to interfere with public or foreign policy or start jamming thier belief system down others throats at the end of a sword or rifle - I will complain about them as well. A lot of theologians do not see Buddhism as a religion at all, more like a life style. Just because you are not ready to let go of a outdated and destructive system of oppression and deciet doesnt mean the rest of the world feels the same. More and more people are seeing the damage inflicted by absolute belief systems, based on nothing but conjecture and intuition. This does not single out one religion and absolve the rest, all religion is bad in my opinion. I feel it had its uses in the beginnings of societies evolution and is evidently a product of human nature. But if we do not shed it I fear one day soon we may find its too late to lose the weight we used to need to throw around. We must understand what is, not what we want to be or think should be. We must be willing to understand and tolerate differences, not to convert or slay those that oppose us. We must accept scientifically established truths, not cling to idyllic interpretations of reality. Most of all we must realize thier will be no eternal reward for wasting the dawn. We have one chance to get it right, one chance to learn, live, love, and experience - do not pollute that one chance with ecclesiastical fear please, I beg you. billions of people made to feel dirty and sinfull without cause is more harm than any other work of fiction. its a lie ALL of it pure and simple, time for the human race to look ahead instead of back. Lori George Alexander ez2b12 If I may join in your answer to the Imposter, I dont see a problem with a belief in a Higher Power or the Tao or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. When I am pressed to name a religion, I usually say I am a Buddhist since I do read in that religion. I have a very strong belief in spiritual matters however what someone else believes is simply none of my business. I do agree with many of the things you say about religion. A while back, I tended to dislike the Christian religion until I read Thomas Merton and Joseph Campbell and others. Now I dont. I just think some use religion as a battering ram. Heavens even some Buddhists can act like Fundamentalists. The only person I have any control over is myself. I try very hard not to spread any more anger and hostility than there is out there already although being human I am sure I fail in this regard. I have my own ideas of what will happen to me once I reach the end of the line (all of the pasta I can eat)but I am not going to bore you and try and convert you to any particular point of view since we all get there in the end. Lori Yea, Marx was a brilliant political theorist. I dont support all of communisms ideas but his first line of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Pretty much sums up what the real problem in society is imo just gets misdirected at political wims. (Godwins Law demands me to stop here). I agree and think this should apply to everyones thoughts The only person I have any control over is myself. I try very hard not to spread any more anger and hostility than there is out there already although being human I am sure I fail ez2b12 You say faith is bad i say its necessary to advance. For instance i have faith The Big Bang had a period of hyper-inflation that caused hyper expansion then slowed down to a slower rate of expansion when it cooled. I have less faith that the universe was always a steady state. Are either one right. Who knows evidence points to big bang but might be steady state at a later time. its simply the amount of evidence available that makes science work. Lets muse that these figures are accurate. Christianity: 2 billion - Islam: 1.3 billion - Hinduism: 900 million - SecularNonreligiousAgnosticAtheist: 850 million - Buddhism: 360 million. For sake of discussion we must remove Hinduism too since a specific belief about God or gods is not considered one of the essentials and The ultimate goal of all Hindus is release (moksha) from the cycle of rebirth (samsara). If you have a reason to include them though please jest. This leaves Christianity and Islam. Christianity is simply at fault for taking biblical text to literally the US is to blame for the start of that. Though i contest that them being involved in political things to point of corruption of system is blasphemy unless its the next major conspiracy. Lets consider US, Europe and China being world powers(first two for GDP and third for population and economic power). Chinese are mostly Buddhist or Taoist and their scholars are better then ours to define religion as cultural practices or thought systems. So they can be unlisted and taken out since their religions dont clash into political sphere. Next Europe(self boasted secular state) where according to Eurobarometer Poll 2005 52 of the citizens of EU member states state that they believe in a god, 27 believe in spirit or life a life force while 18 do not believe. and 3 declined to answer. Im sure after Dawkins parade these numbers have shifted more. I also dont find it threatening enough to demand action since democracy is a majority based system. Islam and Christianity is dominate there since their text is almost the same and they dont take it as literally also leads me to find it nonthreatening to point of no action. Which comes to good old US where we have separation of church and state in theory it works. Until political agendas come into play this is merely a case of how can i get the most votes. Which we all know just because something is said doesnt mean it will get done. The separation of church and state though leads me to find it politically irrelevant. Unless you propose separation of religion and political election I could swing with that. Now for the socially destructive we can set a date like 1990 and cite references back and forth about good and bad effects of Christianity and Islamic incidences if you like. but i fear that would be a never ending cycle. If you wish to go here we can Buuuuut Im more interested in that distorting conceptions of morality. If you can point to the values and ethics section or at least where science has taken the time from advancing the species to define what standards we should live by as a society to reach optimal harmony with nature and each other. Or is right and wrong merely a figment of our imagination also. would explain why corporations are some of the richest countrys on earth. Im interested to read Sam Harris The Moral Landscape soon though. Dawkins backed him so yea sure it will be biased but thought provoking. john So well thought out how did you amass such a knowledge of 5.5ish billion people (religious) views of a piece of cultures influence on them. Now looking ahead instead of back i can agree on. Religions a problem for society you say. whats ahead of that since society will eventually fix that itself without interference. After all militant atheists are starting it. So i believe ethics dictates they justify the action. Course this leads into the un-militarized land of anti-realist vs realists. There you got something you can start. Since even without religion we have to decide do we decide by what we can observe only. or can we question what we cannot prove extensively yet. This dose matter to since we must figure out where science should be directed for the best outcomes which means you have to choose where labor and resources are invested. Militant Atheists The reason i defend spiritual people of all faiths is because i can understand the culture and beliefs of people i dont know I cant cherry-pick religions because a few radical people understand the Leader, Follower, and Situation model. A person could manipulate 10 local people to blow up a building in the name of democracy. Doesnt mean they should or would but they can. This is why i promote understanding over unacceptable creates less radicals i figure. Everyone Ill try to shorten posts. Articulating expansive ideas over the internet takes a lot of words to put it mildly though. Lori George Alexander The ImPoster, I dont see how your aside to me would invoke The Godwins Law, but what do I know Friedrich Engels was a great intellect on his own and is often overshadowed by Marx. Any discussion of him would never invoke Nazis or anything else. Lori I just used Godwins Law so any view i express doesnt get compared to Nazis or Hitler eventually since i said parts of communism work and agreed with the opening line of The Communist Manifesto. Subliminal text messaging if you will I figure people see that and google it if they dont know what it is. Alas though i must admit being a common US citizen i have not versed myself in the literature of Friedrichs solitary work other then a few Marx tidbits. You know cold war propaganda. down with communism. Thats earliest sociopolitical memorys of mine. If there is something i should investigate you recommend though do direct me. - D Lori George Alexander The ImPoster, I dont know where you are or what nationality you are or your educational background but you might be surprised at Friedrich Engels and his intellectual achievements. Look him up on the Internet or if you are in the States, his work might be in your local library. Alas, I am not so lucky at least not at the present moment. I have read him and he impressed me when I first read him many years ago. If you are in England, his work is well represented in the British Museum and other libraries in the UK. You said: You say faith is bad i say its necessary to advance For instance i have faith The Big Bang had a period of hyper-inflation that caused hyper expansion then slowed down to a slower rate of expansion when it cooled. Yes, faith that is left open to further evidence or questioning is not a bad thing necessarily and may be needed in order to advance to the next question. But surely you jest if you are suggesting this to be the faith religiouse people cling to. They do not leave it open to further evidence or questioning at all, the accept their belief and never look back, how can this be seen as productive. Besides if I really went into the world history of religion and how it has directly and indirectly affected politics, economics, individual freedoms and rights, nationality, wars, etc. etc. we would be here all day. Can you imagine how different the world would be if the Jewish and Palestinian peoples had not set the intire middle eastern region in a state of constant war and fear If Dark age Europe had not of persecuted the Jew. How differently the enlightenment and scientific revolutions would have taken place if not for the interferance christianity These are major factors in the east and west being what it is today, study western civics if you do not believe me. You say that science has never defined a set of morality or rules we should live by, thats right and a good thing. We do not need science or religion to tell us what is right or wrong, nor do we need some list of acceptable parameters for behavior dictated us by some imaginary god which in the end was just another politically minded group of men. Each of us knows what is wrong in our hearts, and if we do not that is what the democratically elected leaders are here for. To propose acceptable practices and behaviors and let us the citizens then ratify what we like and throw out what we do not. Whether you guys like it or not thier is much more to worry about than just what happens after we die. What about while we are alive, the only thing that really matters in the end. Like i stated earlier these religiouse ideals become the most important thing in these peoples lifes, they sit around and day dream of what thier promised land will be like once they die, and that the guy down the street that they do not like will go somewhere else - somewhere where the justice they have craved here in the present will finally get visited upon him. It is ridiculus no matter how you try and defend it. We have real problems that must be adressed in the right here and now. If you truly believe that the seperation of church and state has been effective, you are badly out of touch or not in the US at all. A candidates religion is one of the most important deciding factors when this bunch of yahoos are deciding which neo-con conservative they will elect next. Like they freely admit, what is most important to them is whether the candidate will inforce the will of thier fake God, not whether he will provide jobs and security for the country - not whether he will take us into a ridiculus war - not whether he will create lasting peace with other nations or solve our social ills. You say you support religions because you are able to understand different cultures and beliefs of people you do not know. No, i think you support it because you are not ready to let go of your views of good and evil, of poetic justice if not here and now then after death, of the romantic view that there is somehow magic in the world. Because religion does not recognize these other cultures and beliefs as valid, does it It simply says this is the way and the light and anything else is evil and destined to fail. A secular society comes much closer to being able to recognize the rights of other cultures and the validity of foreign beliefs, you know this i think. You seem much too intelligent for me to buy that you honestly think a religiouse society would be more open to other belief systems and cultures. That said I have no issue with whatever you believe. Just do not let it stand in the way of your responsibility as a citizen of a democracy. The responsibility to understand the political issues on the table from a secular point of view, to get out and vote and base that vote on actuall political reasoning not religiouse belief, to support the constitution-which says church and state should be entirely seperate. No religiouse views playing into political decisions or attempts to alienate minorities, no interference with individual rights for homosexuals or other religiousely despised peoples - like me an atheist. If you can achieve these things you are not part of the problem at least. Lori George Alexander ez2b12, you write to The ImPoster as if religion and science operates separate from human thought. It doesnt. Religion was created and maintained by humans for whatever needs some of them have. Science is also created and maintained by humans for the same reason. There is room for everyone on this planet. Unless, you live in a country that forces people to belong to a religion, you dont have to. I am aware that some cultures do require this. I am sure many have secret doubts about the existence of God in those countries as they did in the West during the reign of the Roman Catholic Church. I happen to believe there is lots of magic in this world and see it everyday. I also love science and read it as much as I can for I dont always understand it. I love the Nobel Prizes as it shows me what advances are being honored. I understand the Nobel for literature far more. Atheists dont have the key to an understanding of life anymore than anyone else for society as a whole. They just have it for themselves as individuals. We all seek to understand the world we live in and each of us finds answers for today. I dont think we disagree in many things regarding religion. I just dont think it is necessary to convince people one particular way is better than the other. My objection is when one group of people, usually an organized religion wants to hammer someone into the ground for not believing in the same things they do. It is a shame that some people need other people to find their answers, but it will always be that way. I am glad that organized religions are not in control of the countries where I am living and that I can read of scientific advances. I am glad that people like Stephen Hawkin is free to discover whatever he can discover up there in the heavens or down here on earth without being threaten by torture as Galileo was. However, I am concerned about some of the people running for office in the US and their disregard for science and human rights. Now, I am ranting and raving. Each of us has to respect and let the other have their individual differences even if we can see the error of their ways. Our pent up anger of being hammered by others during the years will just spread the karma of anger and do no one any good. i am become death i met an african american seventh day adventist that preached to me of gods love, so i told him of the pro stance god takes on slavery in the torah and NT, and that if god were truly loving he would have set the emancipation laws in his book and not leave us to prove ourselves morally superior. in rebuttal he quite fervently stated that god only intended one to be a slave for 7 years. im sorry im just horrified at how people can justify this evil banality. not to mention the several genocides in the torah held in awe by its proponents. those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. it 2 and a half men is on. i completely agree with you about most of what you say, i think i came off wrong actually. I live in the bible belt and I am sick of religion mixing into politics, thats really the root of my arguement. Past that i could care less if you see magic or not or are religiouse or what. I am not but thats me and I do not expect anything of my fellow man accept to keep religion and supernatural beliefs out of every day problems like poverty, war, the economy or the public realm in general. Let that which falls to the individual fall to the inndividual and let what concerns society be rightly judged on scientific data, reality instead of faith based solutions and psuedo scientific medicine. thats all i am asking. I get a little over zealous but the truth is once you trade magic for fact thier are no trade backs, and i swapped it in years ago for a cold hard reality, I had to. I really had no choice but that is a whole other story. All i want is that all practicle problems get dealt with in a practicle manner based on tested and confirmed scientific methods. That we stop at least promoting the belief in faith based solutions we dont have to slander it or belittle it just not promote it - that would be a welcome first step. Lori George Alexander ez2b12, at least there we can agree. I dont need my elected leaders to agree with my religious belief although I tend to think they should share my ethical concerns. I think we should look for answers toward universal health care, civil rights for all groups of people and many of the things that the current administration has pledged itself to do. I dont think we should require women to donate their wombs to the state nor any of the other silly things some in the religious right tend to believe in including the teaching of creationism in the classroom. I did see anger from past Bible bashers in your post and I can understand your anger as I did share that years ago. Maybe I still have some. A good documentary to see on how far this anger can take their followers is in a film that the BBC did that is on this site, The Most Hated Family in America. They are presently in front of the US Supreme Court arguing for the right of free speech. Their actions at the funerals of slain soldiers is despicable but I hope they win because free speech is precious and cannot be denied even to them. i have seen that doc about the west something baptist church. I could not stand those people. i agree that freedom of speech should be protected but I see no reason to allow it at a funeral against the wishes of the family that has lost someone. If they would make a law protecting the rights of those families to bury thier family member in what ever way they see fit, within reason, and to do so peacefully with no interuptions or protests allowed within so many miles - that would settle it for me. I really dont care about them protesting at other events, just not funerals. I saw another documentary about that same family and church and in this one some gay guy exposes that one of the children of the crazy mom was born out of wed-lock. of course he doesnt care about that but if she is going to scream how people that just associate with others they see as Bad are going to Hl then she has to hold herself to the same standard. The documentary ends at that point as she freaks out of course and gets rid of the guy. Just goes to show thast this is people in love with an ideal of behavior that can not even be obtained. Even the most devout and devoted christian or whatever eventually falls short, it is human nature. Now we have to question a omnipotent benevolent God that creates us with a built in flaw of character, and then threatens to burn us for eternity if we cannot somehow rise above the very flaw inherent in his design. Sounds kind of fishy to me, no pun entended. all people of faith, god is the explanation for a primitive people for what they could not yet understand, the furthering of our understanding by the sciences and the mechanics of nature have created the so called god of the gaps and thankfully the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. faith is NOT a good thing. decisions need to be made on understanding and evidence. why are believers happier than non believers is it in their genes faith is the most powerful force in the Universe Lori George Alexander ponderman, I know people who are not believers and they seem to be pretty happy to me, so I am not sure where you got your fact from. As for the most powerful force in the Universe, as a Buddhist I would have to disagree. Its karma. As a human being, I would say black holes and gravity. Your righteous point of view is what is upsetting so many of the posters here. You know that, dont you I am sitting here laughing my head off. It is so ironic. Read some text I have a degree in theology, Just a two year degree granted - and I have never done anything with it. My point is I have read many religiouse texts - The bible, the Quran, the Torah, many of the apocryphal books even. I am currently taking a study of the Old testament but centering on the pentateuch. I dont get into eastern religions much, or havent yet though I am sure I will eventually. I hold much respect for all these religiouse texts as works of literature, and together they help paint a brilliant picture of a long dead and alien culture - alien to me anyway. I do not believe in the super natural though in any form, god or demon or whatever. All i am saying is that religion should not control everything, which it does and has since time began mostly. There are other avenues for answering the questions of mankind, more reliable and practicle avenues. If people want to retain thier faith that is thier business, but lets not let it spill into the publc forum and disrupt necessary process vital to our survival. We have to worry about the here and now and take more personal responsibility. God is not the engineer of our pain nor the savior either, he is the product of ancient fear and defense mechanism deep in our brain. Could I be wrong, yes I definetly could. But I tell you this, if he is there I have a bone to pick with him. How dare he prosecute us for the flaw in our making, when he is the maker. Ill look him in the eye and say, I never lived a lie, never took a life but surely saved one.(my own) Hallaluya, its time for you to call me home. Fetch me the spirit, the son and the father, tell them thy pillar of faith has ascended. Its time now, my time now, give me my wings and if he be the omnipotent benevolent savior he is claimed to be, he will let me in. For I have only been honest to the nature he created me in, right As the cool guys say, keeping it real thats all. Look I dont want to take anything away from anyone. Far be it from me to say i have any answers, only more questions. I understand the desire to believe, I am soon to lose someone very close to me and I would love nothing more than to think somehow - someway but no - I will never see him again, and thats killing me inside. But i can not say that i have ever been moved to accept anything other than the reality that is life, often boring and repetetive while punctuated with sweet pain and suffering. Pain can be a uplifting and inspiring state of being, to feel just how alive your old bones and muscles can be. And I, like everyone, also manage to achieve some state of awe and wonder at times - though brief and fleeting it is. But for the sake of our collective well being and survival we must put away these fantasies and indulgences and get down to cold hard reality man. Our world is falling apart around our feet and we have choices to make. Choices that should not be guided by supernatural mumbo jumbo but cold hard facts, to which science is the fastest route we know. We have choices to make man, dont fool yourself into thinking some omnipotent all mighty character gives a dn about little old us. As Randy often points out we are nothing, drops of water in an endless sea. Our short riegn on this tiny rock could be blown out like the flame on a cosmic candle, and nothing would really change would it. This is not to say people can not or should not have thier own right to thier own personal beliefs. Just that we must come to some consensus and soon or the decision will be no longer important. Lori George Alexander ez2b12, I know your post is directed towards someone else, but consider that although I find books extremely important to me I would not look for spiritual answers there. I would look within and I am not writing here to tell you of THE TRUTH. I am just saying I just dont see the world as you do. I dont see the world as falling apart at our feet as you said. I think there is much we can do to improve things but that has always been the case. Everyone alive feels pain. We as a human species are born in pain. There is nothing we can do to avoid that but accept it. Some of us have more than others. I used to think I had all of the pain in the world. What can I say I was young then. I know better now. We all mature and learn. I think we are lucky to have poets in this world because they can see the magic that exists. I see it everyday. I dont think I see it because I am special. I think it is available to everyone if we just look. If you dont want to, thats OK too. I loved the documentary that started this whole discussion because it points out the magic of this world. I think it is marvelous how life began and how it was formed and still is evolving on this planet. I really feel sorry for those who cannot see this and stick to the rather narrow and sad story a book relates about how we as a species came about. I think science tells a much better story and to think it is true. Can you imagine listening to a story that your whole brain tells you just cant be true and thus cutting off discussion in your own head We have choice but those in the Dark Ages didnt. Also, can you imagine for a moment that the Higher Power or whatever one can term God looks in a book to see if he or she can do something God is so much bigger, greater and more powerful than any book humans can write ever. I know I can never understand the entire scope of what the Eternal is and I have come to accept that. I like your ideas about governing people without religious ideas. It is called the separation of church and state. Our founders, if you are an American, had the same ones. They were Deists for the most part. Many people in the Christian Right seem to forget that. I do enjoy our discussions. It is a break from work. Today, I made the mistake of getting on the scale when I got up and am feeling devastated. For me, hell on earth is a truthful scale. I am not very good at expressing myself I suppose, you seem to have misunderstood again. I write poetry myself and play music, love art in general. All i am saying is it has no place in the decisions that govern the economy or foriegn policy for instance. In my opinion the world IS falling down around our feet cyclic consumption, global warming, oil spills, fresh water becoming just another commodity, peak oil and no seriouse efforts to get into renewables, etc. etc. Yes there is alot we can do, but we cant even admit the problem and properly study it because of, among other things, religion. So I suppose I see the type of magic you referr to as well, in nature, human nature, art, and science believe it or not falls in this catagorey often for me. I dont have the imagination I used to have as a child anymore, time robbs us of our magic as we go through life trading it for first one fact and then another. Before long what little bit you do have left you are willing to fight for, i know the feeling. But as I have expressed above we must put that aside when dealing with the issues that demand our attention. In fact we must all be willing to sacrifice some of our magic for fact if need be. By the way speaking of poetry, I have just read a poem that I absolutedly love called Litany by Billy Collins. Its not a new poem at all and you have probably already read it but if you havent you should. You can google it and get plenty of readings, or just the text of course. I like to hear poetry spoken aloud, as it was designed to be. It helps reveal the subtley of the rythm and ryme, for me. The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner is also a good one by Randal Jarret, sobering indeed. Lori George Alexander I cant hear meter, never could but love poetry. My son wrote a book of poetry and got it published. I was so proud and he gave readings. I love Billy Collins and read Litany off the Poetry Magazine web site. Oh, I love that web site. I rarely listen to poetry out loud because of my hearing problem although I did hear Dylan Thomas once many years ago off my radio when I was working and fell in love with his poetry. It was on NPR. I was supposed to be working. Again, when we communicate, we are no so far apart. We are just two different human beings. Time did not rob me of the magic I felt as a kid. I learned to believe in it more than ever, I just dont let anyone talk me out of it. I am 65 years old and my time here in South Korea has certainly taught me the more thunderstorms I go through the more rainbows I seem to see. However, I have always been spiritual and gave up religion a long time ago. As I wrote a while back, when I have to declare a religion I usually put down Buddhist for a lack of a better answer although I usually include Taoist. I am not saying you are wrong. Far from it. I am right for me. I dont see the world being as bad as you do although it could use some help from human beings. I try not to add to it but I am sure I fail in this. At least I dont do road rage anymore or not here in Korea since I dont have a car. The taxis I take do though. I love to read the literature that is around when evolution was introduced by Darwin and Wallace. I love to read the literature that is around defending the science and the occasional trips to court that goes on in the US. That is why I watched the above documentary. There is a science trip that a ship does complete with lecturers and scientists that follows the same trip that the British ship, the Beagle, took with Charles Darwin around South America. It has been too expensive for me. Maybe someday. i am become death ponderman - my experience is that believers arent happy they just pretend so you join their faith and sink with them. come give in to jesus and all your worldly desires will be fulfilled. most churches ive seen are worse than AA meetings. just one church i attended the youth pastor turned out to be a paedophile the head pastor cheated on his wife 4 times and these pricks tried to tell us how to live morally. The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. - George Bernard Shaw i am become death faith is the most destructive force on the planet-if we allow ourselves to believe that our own individual thoughts are divinely bestowed as moral law, who knows how we may justify our sadistic actions towards others. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan Im sorry, but I dont see how any one of those points are contributed to religion alone. Those are all traitsproblems associated with human beings and not things derived from religion alone. Religion is just a divisive as sports teams. There have been huge riots over sports teams in Europe, people have been killed, cars flipped and lit on fire, rival team fans beaten. They may not be on the same scale as religious conflicts, but the association with the parties involved are not on the same scale either. Religion also brings people together. My mothers side of the family is religious and even though I am not, being around them during holidays is fantastic. Theres no fighting, no complaining. None of the things religion is branded as. Once again this all can be contributed to humans themselves and not religion. Religion was created by humans, we already had problems we just came up with an excuse for them. Yes there is fighting over the PromiseHoly land in the Middle-East, but you answered why yourself. It isnt because of religion its because: (formed by the guilty allies after ww2 by STEALING palestinian land). They stole the land, and the Palestinians want it back. (Well at least I suppose, Im not very familiar with Middle-Eastern affiars, such as what youre talking about). The systematic raping of children by Roman Catholic Priests. Ive never heard of a systematic raping of children. The holocaust was a SYSTEMATIC extermination of Jewish people. I think that systematic was a bit of an exaggeration. However I could be wrong, and a source would prove it so. However once again these rapes have nothing to do with religion. They happened because these people who happened to be priests were already f--ked up. Im not saying that all of those things youve said are good things. However they are all problems with humans. People fight over land who arent religious, people rape children who arent religious, etc. etc. You can blame it on religion if you wish, but to stereotype something so drastically is a bit ridiculous. Like I said earlier, half of my family is religious, yet they dont do any of the things youve talked about. Religion isnt ALL bad. There are just some s038 f who ruin it for everyone else. Religion brings people together. The presence of many may cause conflicting opinions and opposition, but it is our choice as humans to act as we do. Religion doesnt cause problems, peoples rationale does. It has been nice talking with you Lori. I read your blog quite regularly and have always found you to be a very couragouse person. Good luck in Korea - Ill keep reading, you keep writing - its very interesting stuff. Its fun to watch someone recreate themselves in a new atmosphere. Dont let that scale get you down, through reading your blog I have witnessed you over come bigger things. Im glad you have managed to hold on to your magic, few of us do. Listen, if it werent so close to Halloween, and you werent so very amart, I would not be praying to Dark Gods for the deliverance of you, to me. for food. Its all about your brains, you are really smart, therefore, I must eat your brains. it is simple, really. Just submit to the eating of you, by me. JUST DO IT Lori George Alexander ez2b12, thank you for your kind words. Randy, I was silly the other day and I guess its your time to be just as silly. Evolution - A theory developed before - computers, electron microscopes, DNA, RNA, TVs, telephones, etc. This theory takes so much faith it is ridiculous. God created everything, and though he could have used evolution to do it, He didnt. Evolution would never randomly happen - not in a zillion years, not ever. Why do we waste so much energy on this useless topic Instead of teaching 2nd graders how to read and write we are teaching them about rocks. Why Rocks are the basis of evolution. This theory will become more and more embarrassing as time passes - like blood letting and the sun orbiting the Earth. Lori George Alexander Randy, never mind. There is someone else who is more sillier than you could ever me on this post. As if belief in a supreme being does not take faith. How do you know that evolution didnt randomly happen At least scientists offer evidence. How do you know that the theory of evolution will become more embarassing as time goes on How do you know that God created everything and did not use evolution to do it How do you know that second graders study stones in place of reading As a matter of fact, how can you really study stones without being able to read In all, its hard to believe youre serious, but if you are, youre the most cogent argument against theology. Could I interest you in some brain eating You are very smart. Im just saying. a little bit of your brains. You wont even miss it. Lori George Alexander Randy, I need all that I have. Have you watched the new film on this site, What Darwin didnt Know or something like that. It is made by Nova PBS, one of my favorites. I think I watched it when it came out on Darwins birthday last year. I watched the first part while eating breakfast. It was very good and DNA plays a major part. Its Sunday here in Korea and I am going to church as the service is in English and I am a sucker for anything in English so I am getting ready. They know I am not a Christian but they dont mind. Speaking of zombies, I have you read that Jane Austin meets the zombies book I cant get any book I want here in Korea but I am curious. I thought that is what is driving you crazy with brains lately. From Joseph Campbell but it realtes to silliness. I paraphrase from memory but you know what I am talking about, with your big brains. slurp Theere is an ancient African myth of a god walking down the street. His hat is half black and half red. The people on the west side of the street say, Did you see the GOD walking with the BLACK HAT The People on the East side say, The gods hat was RED And then there is war and horror but the god laughs. The trickster god. The origin of Loki or clowns or comedians, there may be something laughing at us Seriously, can I get a little brain off of you I mean. Im telling you, have to be careful on picking and choosing brains, if you are into fast food at times, you might end up with prepackaged freeze dried brain from a species somewhat like bret: religee brains, which strikes me as brains of substandard species, might turn you off brains forever Or do you only eat fresh, free range run, type of brains Thank you for being so, concerned. Also, you are diligent to your friends that just want to eat some brains. You have a big juicy brain, in fact. Randy grins wolfishly and his yellow eyes stare at ACHEMS i am become death said my experience is that believers arent happy they just pretend so you join their faith and sink with them. come give in to jesus and all your worldly desires will be fulfilled. most churches ive seen are worse than AA meetings. just one church i attended the youth pastor turned out to be a paedophile the head pastor cheated on his wife 4 times and these pricks tried to tell us how to live morally. Believers are pretending to be happy Ok, thats a new one. Does that mean non believers are pretending to be miserable so that noone joins their faith I have never met an athiest not an agnostic, but pure athiest that was happy. They tend to be unhappy, pessismistic people with a chip on their shoulder. An agnostic, or one who doubts the existence tend to be at least a little more open to the possibility. But a true believer, one that has lettin go of worldly worship, tends to be the most happy. So is this happiness because of a real existence I dont know, but this goes back to my comment that faith is the most powerful thing in the universe. Some of you commented that its the most destructive thing. Yes it can be. But so can atomic energy, yet that same atomic energy that can destroy a city is clean, and can light up entire regions cheaply. So guess what, faith in that which can be seen or proven, is the most powerful thing available to an indidivual. If you wont allow yourself to grasp it, you are a coward and cheating yourself from fullest existence. Congratulations you have put your finger on the very first thing that told me religion was probaly not true. The fact that it, if you can buy it, will make you happier and less scared. Does this tell you anything Like maybe this whole thing was made up to help man get over his natural fear of death, to give him dualistic thought good vrs evil - which makes everything so much simpler, to help him believe in some sense of justice even if it only gets applied after death. It should but i doubt it does. My experiance is that anyone that can buy this whole religion stuff will not be swayed by reality or evidence, if they could be they never would have believed in the first place - at least not after reaching the age of reason. So yes, holding a more realistic view of the world does make one less happy and often more bored and often even biligerant - that is the price we pay for accepting the reality of the world instead of making up romantic fantasies about poetic justice, good versus evil, and oh yes that utopian exsistence believers think they will get to take part in. Does this mean we should all just fool ourselves into believing what ever it takes to feel better I dont think so. I think it means we should find away to accept the truth and live a more happy and productive life within this belief instead of continually making up things in order to be happy and then having the audacity to proclaim your superiority because you have managed this false emotion. You want to be proud, find a way to believe the truth and retain that happiness, then you have honestly achieved something. This reminds me of that question, Did I listen to sad love songs because I was lonely and sad Or was I lonely and sad because I listen to sad love songs Truth is it is a little of both I think. Certain types of people are predisposed to buy religion and once they buy it it feeds thier belief. Others are not predisposed to this, and as a result have no ecclesiatical shield against the harsh realities that are real truth. Still many atheists remain happy and productive, and to me that is more commendable than buying some fantasy and using that to remain happy. To know the truth and remain a good decent person anyway, that is noble. By the way in case you missed it, I am an atheist and a very happy one at that. This is not due to my atheism, can you say your happiness is not due to your belief According to your statements above I suppose not. Think about that, your happiness rests on belief in the supernatural abilities of some unseen unmeasured omnipotent being that supposedly created us all with a flaw(called logic or common sense) he now threatens to burn us until eternity for possesing. That doesnt bother you somehow Lori George Alexander Ponderman, I wrote to you before. Why do you persist in pushing your faith where it is not needed nor wanted If your faith makes you happy, then relish, cherish and enjoy it. Dont push it on people who dont want it. I happen to have a very strong spiritual belief but it is my personal business and to push my truth on others seems rude. No one has the handle on spiritual truth. Lori Just had to chime in and say well said Lori. You seem like a thoughtful and enlightened individual. What an amazing coincidence I often use documentaries for this too. I put on the headphones and drift off. secure in the knowledge that Ill be internalizing subliminal extra credit Im with Yuri on this one. Im not really a religious person, per say. And I realize that species can evolve. Thats why we have so many specialty breeds of dogs. They are all still dogs. No matter how many different breeds we create. I cant see how the new species are formed in evolution. unless there are intermediate species. I mean, I can see a salamander becoming a lizard as they are very much alike. Maybe the lizard is the salamander that evolved to live on land. Where is the Lalamander Or the Slizard Where is the in between species And why are their still salamanders and lizards BOTH Where is ANY evidence of an in between species. Or does a salamander suddenly give birth to a lizard one day I think there can be God and evolution. but you evolution people dont have any more evidence for your theory than the religious people do for theirs imho. we have lots of evidence of speciation. whales have remnants of hind legs, humans have a tail bone, flightless birds and so on. and then there is observed cases of speciation the one i usually quote is the long term e-coli evolution experiment. when you talk of in between species everything is transitional the human fossil record alone shows a gradual change. saying a salamander giving birth to a lizard doesnt exist has never been a claim of evolution, we and all life evolved over very long periods of time and an instant change is never claimed. even the Cambrian explosion which is cited as rapid evolution is over 70-80 million years. to expand on your statement of why are their still salamanders and lizards BOTH how a species can evolve into another species and the original still exist. if a population (group) gets isolated from the rest of the group and remains isolated then over time both groups will continue to evolve and adapt to their separate environments and eventually become two separate species. Darwins finches are a good example of this. now you are right that the theory of evolution cannot be proven 100 and religious creation cannot be disproved 100 but saying that evolution has no more evidence than religion is wrong. and by religion of the 28 000 000 gods that have been worshiped (actual best estimate) by default all but 1 have to be wrong which 1 are you claiming has as much evidence as science google this unified field of consciousness google this unified field of consciousness Why would you try and STOP people from making an argument it is the means by which ideas can be tested and solutions found, and people may find some common ground, its a healthy thing to do dont stop making arguments. Before the chicken or the egg, there was something else, and, if you want to follow it back, no doubt theres a reptilian of some sort, and before that, an egg laying fish. The big question is, how do you link that fish and reptile to modern chickens. Its impossible, the missing link could be staring you in the face and you would never make the connection, evolution is very subtle, inextricably linked to surroundings, of which no evidence may remain. There has to be a missing link, but what if there is only one, one genetic abnormality, or just a few generations, chances are it will never be found, but seashells represent the best chances of finding and showing a missing link, and therefore how evolution works. Man, what the f--k are all of you sniffin. windex. paint remover. white-out Okay, Im going to say this again science does NOT need a MISSING LINK to show evolution happens. Medical research uses evolution to make drugs, fight viruses. Just like we use the THEORY of electricity to make electronics, we use the theory of evolution for the medical field, if evolution did not happen, these things would NOT work. Evolution happens, there is more then enough evidence to show it happens with out EVER having a missing link Do you have a position to state ProundUS or are you here to say BOTH sides are sniffing windex please tell me you have more constructive to offer then childish insults. How are you Daniel. What would you like to discuss. I personally, would like to discuss the beliefs of a God. How about yourself As for the childish insults I have left them long ago. Shall we begin with why I know theres a God ProudinUS hey i personally dont care why you know there is a god. but i am really interested in any proof you have for a god. and by proof i mean something testable, tangible and not some feeling or coincidence . i would LOVE to hear how you KNOW there is a god. i really really cant wait. so i guess you dont want to discuss this particular topic Because there is no argument, and we are not the ones to make this debate correct, all we do is influence politics in situations of lack of understanding and make stupid agenda. now there is a real debate When did we get so sceptical I wish there was something I believed in and I have so much respect for anyone that does Hi Wooten. There are many interesting sites where you can see how fallible the human mind is. Its a truly fascinating area to look at. either for fun or proper study. Just think of Optical Illusions, or people who have suffered limb loss and experience Phantom Limbs. Research shows a connection between language development and colour perception. Whod have guessed just relying n their senses that if you had a twin and they were nurtured in a culture with no word for, say, green theyd be hard pressed to actually see the same shades of green as you who has been bought up speaking English and thus has a word for green. Please do a quick search for the McGurk effect on YouTube for an odd way the brain tricks itself. Then try and track down the BBC Horizon documentary on seeing colour. Its amazing The point is the brains senses, (n. b. Im surprised you missed out one of the most important. proprioception), are very easily duped and cant ever be considered as showing us fact, (n. b. Yesterday I read an article on the law that suggested that 3 out of 4 of the miscarriages of justice in the world, where people are wrongfully imprisoned, are influenced by by misidentification. where people literally swear on oath the fact that they saw the accused at the scene of a crime). I alla fall. Im surprised by your comment on the documentary. Did you watch it I watched it, and then showed it to my 10yr old daughter as it was very thorough and not too technical and easily followed by her. However, the important point was they were thorough and demonstrated how unbiased experiment, and inter-disciplinary analysis, has reached certain cross-supporting conclusions. Thus the points made can safely be called facts. whereas Human gut-feel based on is senses is simply why people thought the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth and why the ill-informed still interpret their experiences as proof of one or other of the many deities still claimed to exist. Despite enjoying this video and learning quite a bit I must warn that nothing good can come of science proselytizing people. That is the means by which religion reproduces and if science does the same then science may become just another church with its own orthodox priesthood. Let people free themselves from dogmas at their own pace and let religion give default beliefs and ethics to people not ready to think on their own as it has always done. Trying to wrench religion away from them is analogous to pulling the training wheels off a childs bike before they are ready. The results in history, seen in the French, Spanish and Russian Revolutions, have always been bloody for the masses, deprived of religion, always devolve (no pun intended) into a mob. i hate to like yer comment but unfortunatly i do. devolve hehe but actually isent there a darwinian() law(theory) against devoltion. just asking cause i watched a doc on here from a guy who talked really fast and had lotsa great info and i vaugly recall(yeah i wasdrunk) some darwinian() laws(thoerys)about that. hehe sorry for all the. s i liked yer comment is all i meant to say. also (doh sorry more. s prolly enroute) iread a bookthat said yer species(huamans)need religion for to keep yer morals and such. well like u said eitherway im gonna hit enter and watch this show. hehe gnite (really though i liked yer comment its what i always wanted to convey but instead threw stuff at people) That comment is so crazy and screwed up that I dont even know how to begin to point out all of the problems, errors, and fallacies in it. Interesting and enjoyable. However much of this is based on speculation and is at present not provable. Logic is so easily distorted by perspective. Our reasoning to understand our world is always based on our view of the world. As our view changes so does our logic. Makes one wonder if there really is logic or maybe logic is just the latest made up answer to what we think we see. One thing about the uniformed theory of common descent that disturbs me - it suggest that there is only one possible way that life could have formed. I fear that plays into the hands of the creationist. Just my opinion. I liked it better when it was countless, diversity of life. On what part of the theory of evolution is speculation, when most biologists agree, that evolution is fact its just the mechanisms of evolution that are considered theories What part of evolution is not provable Isnt the fundamental law: Life always comes from preexisting life In order for a cell to survive, we know that at least 3 different types of complex molecules must work together - DNA, RNA and proteins. Not to go too deep, but some believe that the origin of life was proteins firsts. So lets look at how proteins work. The average protein in a simple cell contains 200 amino acids. Within those cells are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that one protein containing 100 amino acids could somehow randomly get together and say form the earth has been calculated to be 1 in million billion. Also, we know that RNA is required to make proteins. So what is the likelihood that both of them appear together at the same place and time, THEN, to cooperate to form a self - replicatingsustaining life form That is what we are talking about with Evolution. Evolution beats - not just the odds, but Astronomically low odds. We talk about logic in relation to evolution. But how is it logical to conclude that a cell came about by a) beating insurmountable odds, b) non-living chemicals. please show me where the theory of evolution has anything to do with the origins of life. This documentary is so supid. Evolution is a theory It is NOT truth. But, it became so popular because it gave people an excuse to explain their existence apart from God. And not feel guilty of their sin. Evolution and scientist are only explaining what already exist. Where did the molecules and proteins come from Out of nothing And then they throw a millions years into everything to throw people off and confuse them even more. To make themselves look really smart. You need way more faith to believe in Evolution, than in all powerful, all knowing God. Evolution is a complete JOKE. i wonder if you can answer a few questions - Evolution is a theory It is NOT truth. are you claiming theories are not true please explain what you think a scientific theory is - how do you know why the theory became popular why do the majority of scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution regardless of their religious beliefs - where molecules and proteins come from is not relevant to evolution. why is i do not know (yet) not a valid answer - as for your god. please explain the specific god you are referring to - i will give you a challenge. you give me all your demonstrable evidence for your god and i will do the same for evolution. please no analogies, testimonials or claims that cannot be tested and we will see who needs faith. what do you say And not feel guilty of their sin What sin What guilt for not believing in YOUR gods you are the one who should feel guilty of perpetrating the fairy book fallacyand god of the gaps, of your bronze age myths and holding back the progress of science as most religees are wont to do. Present your argument Ill be waiting. So thats your side. nothing He said give yours, then hell give his. Du har. nothing Why am I not surprised. Straight up, you make the usual laymen mistake of what a theory is in science. Do yourself a favor and read and learn something besides your book of BS, weve learned a lot since that nonsense was written. By the way, your confessionals and asking your make-believe entity for forgiveness is your way of not feeling guilty for your wrongs. you should try asking those you wronged for forgiveness (the only ones that can forgive you). and try to right your wrongs instead of skipping your responsibility and asking some imaginary friend to cover it for you. Youre the one that tries to elude your guilt and skip the reality of the here and now. - the long term e-coli experiment. where it has been (and continues to be) observed repeated and fully documented for one species to evolve into another species. - ring species. where organisms can successfully breed with their neighboring inhabitants but cannot at the end because they have become too genetically different to produce viable offspring, - vestigial organs. where the organ (or structure) has lost its functionality or has been re-purposed while containing many of the traits of the original structure. while not being the most efficient way to perform the new function it does fit with the theory of evolution, but if a designer was working from scratch it is only proof of an incompetent designer. - the DNA evidence that fully supports evolution. that should be enough for now. i will provide links if needed but please look for yourself first. everything i have provided is completely repeatable, testable and verifiable please provide me with the same for your counter argument. your turn to provide your evidence for the all powerful, all knowing God and please let me know of the 28 000 000 gods what one you are referring to. thanks i agree but i gave mine anyway ( a fraction of mine ). i am fine with going first even if that wasnt the deal i proposed. i guess he interpreted my challenge differently to suit his preconceived goals. as long as he presents his i am fine speaking of guilt and forgiveness. you have hit on my tripping point of god(s) if they exist. and that is the biggest if i have ever spouted. if a person (especially someone i care about) wronged me and sincerely asked me to forgive them and i did. but they did not ask an invisible mass murderer to forgive them as well they will burn forever. but a believer still thinks they will have eternal bliss in heaven. what kind of a person could be blissful knowing people they care about are being tortured if i had to know people i loved were being treated that way for something I forgave them for that would be my hll. I agree mate. That is part of why I can also call myself an anti-theist. If by some miracle one of the 28 000 000 proposed gods were correct, I dont want to know that pr1ck. I love one of Jim Jefferies clips about that. (Im capped at the moment, cant look it up to link it). He says something along the lines of what is at heaven, your dead relatives. Ever spent a weekend at your grandparents. its Fing Sh1t Its eternal, which means youll get used to it, and be Fing bored. Id be dead an hour, and start thinking I wish all my friends would die. Makes me lol every time. ) lol i have seen it. as well as almost everything else of his. here is a quote from another comedian (not one of my favorites but a good quote) When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realized that The Lord doesnt work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me. Emo Phillips Lols Hes got a few good ones, thanks I liked A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Haha, a few years ago when I had some anger management issues, I introduced my then computer to my axe out the back yard. an expensive few minutes, but well worth it, I built myself a better one. ) Edit - another example of evolution..I learned a lesson in self control, and also evolved my computer knowledge and system. A mate of mine cracked it at me, said he wouldve brought it from me, I said you still can if you want. ) Where did the ring species come from Where did the vestigial organs come from And DO NOT go around the questions. Just answer them. i havent avoided any questions so far. you on the other hand have answered absolutely none of mine. as for Where did the ring species come from could you please be more specific as the answer could take a few words or miles of text without specifics i do not know what you are asking. typical religious debating skills though. you make multiple initial claims then ask others for proof without ever backing up your claims. did you not agree to my challenge do you plan on answering any of my outstanding questions if you are asking wherehow life originated that has nothing to do with evolution. and i already answered that in my first response to you. i will not answer any more of your questions until you answer mine. doesnt that seem fair to you Typical Evolution debating skills. You have so contradicted yourself. I asked you to present your argument and you did. You mentioned (the long term e-coli experiment) and you also mentioned ring species and vestigial organs. And I asked you a simple question To answer where ring species and vestigial organs come from And you couldnt answer the question. And not only did you not answer the question you go around it into your evolution jiberish Answer the question. Even if it takes a few words or a mile of text. Answer it Oh And for your information the origins of life, has EVERYTHING to with evolution. But, this is what you people do is suck people in to your shallow arguments. But, until you answer my question. You have NO argument. Thats why you keep asking me to answer your questions. Thats only way you people feel smart. You people are too funny This is what you people do What a waste of money for college This is what our universities are producing Evolution student monkeys. Until you answer my question you will always be an evolution monkey. Argument lost. where have i contradicted myself you state for your information the origins of life, has EVERYTHING to with evolution. LOL. anybody with a basic understanding of science knows that evolutionary theory concerns itself with change over time through mutations and natural selection. ABIOGENESIS is the theory that is concerned with the origins of life. okay ring species come from a common ancestor. without specifics i cannot answer any further. as for vestigial organs they are the repurposing or the gradual elimination of previous structures that are no longer used for their original purpose. again without specifics i cannot answer further. again you made the initial claims and still are refusing to or are unable to back them up. for the third time i will ask. do you agree with my initial challenge do you plan on answering any questions you end your post with Argument lost and that is sad. i comment here to maybe learn something from others or maybe teach someone else. you on the other hand seem more concerned with winning. well i hope someday you win the internet. i on the other hand will have to settle for attempting to learn something. Sorry, the burden of proof lays in your court, prove your claims, prove your invisible friendsdeities exist, we do not have to prove anything. And yes, humans are apes, human apes that is, we just came swinging down from the trees only a short while ago through the process of evolution, and sorry to say you are a religious monkey. Michael Jay Burns Mr. Serna, your method of supporting your supernatural belief system is sometimes called the god of the gaps It looks for things that are not explained and seizes on them as proof of their favorite deity. As science advances the gaps become smaller and the deists lose more and more of their mystery places. I suggest that you reexamine a system of belief than can only live in ignorance. Sorry dude, but sin, shame, guilt and fear through religion is really out of vogue. Ill stick with scientific facts and sleep soundly in the process. Rather good, but a bit too apologetic. Science is strong because it can be challenged. Religious attitudes towards scientific topics are often flawed and feeble, because theyre afraid of, and they stifle real scientific challenges. When has a religious organization ever done any real scientific research The stats near the latter part of the video are compelling and well presented. Whether evolution is a joke or not, it is believable because of the evidence, whereas your God, or any god for that matter is a real cop-out: It exists only because you and any number of people say so. There is no evidence that a god exists: NONE. Except as in your own argument Out of nothing. Oh And for your information the origins of life, has EVERYTHING to with evolution. There are an awful lot of people that would disagree with that statement, me being one of them. Being created, as you would suggest, takes a leap of faith greater than I am willing to take: whereas I dont know is a much more satisfying answer, when in fact you nor I, nor anyone else knows, it becomes the truthful answer. You Evolution monkeys, are too funny Evolution is believable Because of evidence What evidence Evolution only explains matter that already exist. You people are dumber than a door you ask What evidence how about DNA evidence, or vestigial organs maybe fossil evidence might interest you, better yet how about an observed fully documented and repeated demonstration of one species evolving into another. would any of those interest you you go on to state Evolution only explains matter that already exist correct. and your point is just because one field of science isnt fully explained does not mean that another field is the same. here are some questions for you. first off please explain your alternative (with evidence please) for the observed changes in organisms how did life get so diverse in your opinion how long has life been on earth and finally what do you say to a believer in god who also understands and accepts evolution as it is not an excuse to explain their existence apart from God. edit: i just realized we have had this discussion before. i now do not expect any kind of answer from you or anything that borders on an on topic discussion. reply if you wish but i do not expect much from this interaction with you I see that you, the religious monkey, are still (swinging) around trying to tell us that YOUR invisible friend in the sky spoke and the universe came to be. For all the good it will do, I would suggest that you view the film, as it is full of evidence. They call them facts. I wont waste my time drawing you a picture. If in fact you have already watched it, I would suggest you NOT watch it again, as the film Facts Of Evolution has zipped way over your head, and I would have to recommend Buggs Bunny and possibly the Road Runner. In case you missed it, the title of the film was Facts Of Evolution and not why is the universe here. That is a completely different movie. And for it, my Poof and here it is, is every bit as plausible as your Poof and here it is. In essence, that Poof is the substance of your argument. Science hasnt done any better than that on the origins life, but considerably better on the mass of the universe. Craig Ellis Raboteau When used in non-scientific context, the word theory implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed andor measured, and theories, which are scientists explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change. Typical Evolution debating skills. To mock and make fun of other peoples arguments. You are so shallow. That poof that your talking about is what makes Evolution NOT provable Thats the field of Science that you will never be able to explain to people and never be able to prove. Scientist can only explain what already exist, what God has already created and designed Until you prove to me a MONKEY evolving into a HUMAN BEING. Your theory is fake and unable to be proven And I know you will have a million lies and excuses on why is not happening anymore What a waste of money for your weak education. The word fact by anybody on either side is ridiculous in regards to this movie. There is zero credits, zero sources and hard to take any of this at its word. I believe I saw one of the fossils shown in regards to the bird-dinosaur transition theory that was later determined to be an absolute hoax and nothing more than 5 different dinosaurs glued together. I may as well start quoting videos from intelligentdesign. org which has about as much credibility as this. Its a serious shame that those with the means disregard finding the truth in a disgraceful effort to prove their argument. The entire point of finding our origins has been lost to the point of proving a theory from 150 years ago or a chapter from a book 2000 years ago. Both sides and people from both sides have lost their integrity due to the fact that they have narrowed their focus to their belief instead of opening the possibility to the truth. When its all said and done we know nothing and the 250,000 fossils gathered over 150 years can never explain what has happened over 4.5 billion years. Human bias and arrogance believes we are smarter than whatever has happened but time will show we arent. We damn sure aint going to find the answers in a few pages of the bible either. Ill start believing in god when they find some god fossils bones, until then Ill stick to science. Religion saw the world as flat and the earth as the center of our solar system until science discovered otherwise (actually you religious nuts locked that particular scientist in his house after his discovery until he died) FACT - religion has been proven wrong time and time again by science, so much so that its overdue for religious nuts to get a grip and move on. The garden of eden did not exist and if it did well then we were created by aliens from another planet Mary had IV fertalisation from those aliens possibly splicing our genes with alien genes EVEN THAT is even more believable than the creation theory Evolution is a FACT as is the possibility that alien life exists. and to all you poor religious people who have been brainwashed by mrons. sin was a concept created by HUMANS to make living life a nicer experience Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, but with how species change over time to be better fit to their environment To not believe in the facts of evolution is to declare yourself insane. argument with the god squad is pointless as they are intent in believing the written words of nomads over centuries I love science, but this documentary doesnt do much to advance the cause. It is poorly organized, and the illustrations are so bad that at times I think a 6th grader could have done better. What the hell was that scene showing the scientific institutions that support evolution on some kind of snot landscape of shadowed hills with 3D text boxes Its like they let the amateur computer graphics person run the show. The tree of life was hard to read, and the narration was horrible, often making pointless statements like, there are many examples of --------------, but here we will give just a couple. I could easily imagine creationists feeling triumphant at that. I only managed to watch for about 20 minutes. At the beginning the narrator says we will not talk of intelligent design, a worthy topic, but not for science thats when I shut it off. Science does not answer everything, how did language evolve Is morality real We all know molesting children is wrong. Things like this. Science has many answers but Has just as many theorys. So to continue working things out scientifically you must have faith in the theories you are trying to prove. Science is a theory, religion is also a theory. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.-Albert Einstein could you please define what you think a scientific theory is religion is also a theory why do you people always start arguing about relegion when the topic is science this video was not about wether god is real or not, and he said that in the beginning. This video is ment for non-relegious people scientists dont interupt our worships to start arguing and disagreeing with us, so dont get mad when others enjoy knowledge based on science. I am relegious, but its not my job to start arguing with strangers on the internet just because it contains articles thats clearly not ment for me. Why do you argue anyway God doesnt become less or moore real if you argue with non-beleivers, and they wont believe in god either. So why bother are we supposed to be provoced of the fact that they are disagreeing with us or is it because you dont want people to go to hell we cant prevent people from beleiving what they believe, nether can they. And its a sin to predict if people goes to hell or not, its up to god to descide that. (And by the way, science is NOT a theory, it HAS theries in it. its the best answears we have so far in many things. not everything but many things. It has its weaknesses, it cant always explain the origins of everything, but it shoore can explain the present in a better way than the bible.) something is pulling us down to the ground, scientist called it gravity. elements have certain abilities, scientist called it cemical reactions. we saw lights in the skyes at nigth, scientist called it stars, and later they built machines that took us beyond the sky and PROVED that space existed. they PROVED that our planets are spinnign around the sun in a solar system and they have PROVED that everybody have DNA, and ddeformed people has a few differences in theyr DNA than us. so thats the evidence that something that physically exist desides what we look like. scientist has called it DNA and thats a fact. remains of humans that lived a 1000 years ago are all shorter that us, so there you have the evidence that spescies changes. even HUMANS. stop wining about our relegion when we have lost theese discustions. the fact that there are things science cant prove is not an evidence that scientist are wrong about everything. you all embarres me. and one last thing: Things can be explained scientifically, but god still created it. Evolution and scientist are only explaining what already exist. Where did the molecules and proteins come from well. you admit that scientists explains everything that exists. But just because they cant explain where it all come from, why are they necessarily wrong about EVERYTHING they say And can we christians explain how god made it appear they say big bang, we say god. its the same thing, suddenly the universe just started to exist. Thats where the molecules and proteins comes from. your estatement is just filled with anger and lacks basic logic. bible-logic too wtf they have never said anything about an induvidial monkey evolving into a human its not happending anymore because it never happened. not even according to them. your arguments are based on your misunderstandings The tone and delivery were nauseating, I felt like I was watching some cult video for scientology. Why do people stylise scientific information To allow for a lazy reception Scientific information is exciting if you make sense of it and apply, but otherwise its inescapably boring. It can be made exciting vicariously through. Anothers attitude but it cannot be packaged like say a spy documentary can. Why are the most ignorant people also the loudest Im a christian and I enjoyed this film. I saw nothing that contradicts the Bible in any way. If evolution happens its because God made it that way, just as everything in the universe was created by God one way or another. Historically speaking right wing religious types are usually wrong about this sort of thing. Earth being flat Earth being the center of the solar system Us Christians should learn from the past and not use our faith as an excuse to wallow in ignorance. In my humble opinion God is not a fossil. He is the creator of the universe. Sedimentary rock layers are formed sideways by water. Look it up. Prove YOUR god is the creator of the universe how about all the other 10500 alternate universes Look it up. The monkey to man story is evolving again and again and again. The Evolution Of Evolution CMON man. Now they say we dont come from monkeys but have a common ancestor. WIMPS. oh and they say We are not talking about origins BULL. You ARE. Stop flip flopping. Evolution history is full of fraud, look it up. Lying to children..shame on you. They even have dino blood and tissue now that you pretty much BBQ on the grill but all I hear is more excuses. Even UGA is dating a bunch of dino bones at 25,000 years but nobody cares. 65 MILLION YEARS AND LETS DIE ON THIS HILL. Give it up, your busted, its over. At least the bible IS historically accurate. Look it up. Maybe Egypt secular dating differs by 700 years but so many of the people groups are confirmed in other sources besides the bible. Not just the peoples but individuals that the people came from. Cush, Japheth, Shem. look it up and stop hatin Jesus Yes sir. He spoke and the universe came to be. We are here. You love your sin more. That is why you reject God. DNA proves evolution is a myth. Every kind of organism has limits. 2 dogs made all kinds of different dogs. Observed. They are still dogs. Wow. you assume why someone rejects god Most skeptics reject things that have no positive proof, or are unfalsifiable. Keep projecting is that pleases you. please defime kind in a scientific way. if you cannot define a claim scientifically. then science has no burden to provedisprove it. while you are at it please explain scientifically DNA proves evolution is a myth Funny but sad. Colleges and schools have destroyed children. Teach them they are animals. I will not send my children to these institutions. cop out. You guys are bailing on the big bang DANG. You drilled that junk on me for decades No. Mutations dont work positively. when have I ever talked about the big bang or are you holding me responsible for the claims of others observation of whales, humans and birds is just not enough to prove evolution fact. You guys talk about scientific evidence but human tail bone NO. Salamanders and lizards are different but look alike. So what. Humans look like monkeys. So what. 27.999.999 false gods. One true God. I personally believe this. God of the king King James Bible. Jesus. God only wants faith not facts. You dont have to believe in Him. It is your choice. I encourage you guys to just give Him a chance. Just ask if you are real God, show me show me the truth. You will see that this is personal. You state . God only wants faith not facts. Jag håller med. Facts have no place in religion. Species branches. Ok look at rabbits. They have branched off so far that some rabbits on opposite sides of the USA cannot reproduce. They are still rabbits. Dont roll the dice with your life. You are very valuable to the point that someone died for you. Creationism has not constructed micro and macro evolution designation. We are just observing the evolution theory and picking it apart since society has brainwashed us with it. Macro is kind changing into different kinds. like horses to whales. Micro is change within the kind. wolf to pit bull. Just breakin it down to understand this religion. It is a system that has taken over education and look at how stupid this country is now. Look at all the racism from teaching blacks are savages, less evolved and will die out. Shame on Darwin. Dont forget how the big bang evolved into solar systems into planets into lava into cooling into primordial soup into organisms into more complex and more complex. I remember all the drawings now known as lies. Lucy. Piltdown man. embryo drawings, duck dogs to dogs, manipulating bones, dinosaur blood and tissue 65,000,000 years old. lies lies lies. Enough Okay, now you have used up your warnings One more disrespectful ad hominem like that and you are out of here On second thought you are out of here anyway, you are contributing nothing about this doc in question except your god trolling a) That is the definitive demarcation of speciation. How else would you define it b) BTW: Shame on Darwin. I get so sick of the scapegoating of Charles Darwin He was a primogenitor to evolution but science has come lightyears beyond what he knew. His broad assumptions, notwithstanding their gaps and weaknesses, have been proven again and again and again. Thus, his limited work is so much easier to be the point attack when besieged by Creation science. whereas today, the reality is hes holding down the rearguard. c) Evolutionary biology hasnt been properly taught in K-12 schools in this country for the last 50 years. Thats an outrage. If it were taught properly, idiotic notions like--- Look at all the racism from teaching blacks are savages, less evolved and will die out. Shame on Darwin--- would be laughed at. Evolution is about the grand human journey---thats homo sapiens and we are all one species. That is apologetics of the 1st rank Of course, its a somewhat Machiavellian notion that many, as well as I myself, have often put forth and even believed. Perhaps if it was done more gr-r-r-a-d-ual-ly like evolution itself. What do you think about deep time disbelief Very informative but could have done a better job with the music and emotionless narration. Its far more interesting to see how stools evolved into rocking chairs. All these idiots that say they were designed are deluded. we have all the intermediary forms Were also working on how doorbells evolved into phones but we have a bit to go on that one, but the evidence is looking conclusive. Both definitely have a common ancestor and the links are absolutely concrete. This is all of you peoples social life. verkligen.