Aren't Evolution and Global Warming contradictions?

Good points. Darwinism and Global Warming have both grown from speculation to religion. The theories have never been proven.

Darwinism - There is no still no missing link 200 years after Darwin's birth. The only explanation for the theory is "if enough time passes anything can happen". Any goofy theory can be supported by that claim.

Global Warming - it is getting colder, not warmer. Carbon Dioxide has nothing to do with weather.

In both cases, people claim to be able to predict the future, which is also false.

Global Warming is a cult, just like Darwinism.

> "According to Evolution "Theory" the natural world is so dynamic that human beings and all their seemingly infinite complexities came to exist by a random linear ascension from a puddle of chemical ooze."

This bears zero resemblance to the theory of evolution.

> "According to Global Warming "Theory" the natural world is so mindbogglingly static that smoking a cigarette will destroy the planet."

And this is nothing like Climate Change theory.

Well done on demonstrating your total failure to grasp either idea.

> "natural philosophy...the belief that the material world is an absolute <snip> The proper conclusion of natural philosophy is: everything is natural."

Actually, natural philosophy is just an older term for science. It is basically the idea that the natural world can be examined in a rational manner.

It ignores the possibility of any supernatural involvement, because such phenomena cannot be measured in its experiments. It does not say "everything is natural" or "the material world is an absolute".

Your graps of philosophy is as poor as your grasp of science.

I understand what you're asserting and get excitement from that it relatively is a generalisation and to comtinue in an analogous vein... 'Surviuval of the fittest' is a results of organic decision, the worldwide warming experienced interior the final 2 hundred years is predominantly un-organic. the effects of exacerbated worldwide warming can already be seen in nature and that's inflicting a super style of subject. Hibernation varieties have replaced, migratory paths have replaced, animals are entering into new territories and removed from contemporary ones, marine ecosystems have been disrupted, breeding seasons and conduct have replaced, insect infestation is spreading and so too are ailment vectors. those are not predictions, those are observations. There have already been many differences in nature and all warning indications are that there will be lots greater effective differences interior the destiny with far attaining effects. those differences are not the end results of organic events however the end results of human events.

You said:

According to Evolution "Theory" the natural world is so dynamic that human beings and all their seemingly infinite complexities came to exist by a random linear ascension from a puddle of chemical ooze.

That is an oversimplistist definition. The Evolution "theory" includes natural selection that helped sort those "random" mutations. You can't mis-label a theory, misdefine it, misunderstand it, and then trash it. It is a theory that has been proven beyond the minutest shadow of a doubt except for those who don't understand it.

Global waming doesn't even rise to the level of a theory. It's merely a catchy political name for a theory that humans are responsible for a small bit, some, or all warming. It isn't even clearly defined. It is for the most part, psuedo-science and politics.

Not sure how you could reconcile that. In fact, the opposite would be true.

Global warming, irregardless of how responsible man is for it, would directly effect all life on this planet. As would be natural with any significant global temperature change, habitats would change and there would be mass extinction on a global scale. However, the species that survived would be forced to adapt as necessary, and would gradually evolve as they propagated and survived in a changed environment.

Evolution is proven to be a fact by the simple definition. It is change over time. It took a while for the natural selection to be accepted but with genetic data, natural selection and the fact that we share common ancestors with other life is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

The data for global warming only exists in computer models that make assumptions that are not verified or even reasonable. They try to distort the argument by saying that it got warmer like that wouldn't be obvious to even a chimp. The climate always changes. They try to prove something by saying they don't know what caused it. The climate is too complex to model the future at least for now. The left uses distorted computer models for purely political means. There is nothing scientific about that or the models would be reflected in the real world. Then they have the nerve to call themselves scientific. They are about as scientific as late night psychics.

As Weatherman said, NOBODY claims that the climate is static. The claim is that the earth is warming MORE than it would naturally be warming because of man's activities.

You could indeed argue that AGW is a natural process based on the philosophy you describe, since humans are a part of nature.

However, "natural" does not universally mean "desirable." To put it in terms you might understand better, abortion and infanticide are extremely common in the animal world, so they are therefore "natural." Since animals routinely kill their own children in the face of environmental stress, does that mean a man should be allowed to come home and shoot his kids in the head because he lost his job and can't afford to feed them? The vast majority of people would say no. Natural, but not desirable.

The same is true of AGW. In the case of AGW, the earth itself is not the issue. The earth will survive whatever we throw at her.

The issue is the survival of humanity and our fellow creatures on this planet. Believe it or not, most proponents of AGW are kind of fond of humanity and would kind of like us to stick around, preferably without having to undergo mass famine, large scale wars over dwindling resources, and epidemics of disease.

I find it really hilarious, actually, that so many skeptics accuse AGW proponents of wanting humanity extinct, when in fact the exact opposite is true. It's the AGW skeptics who are promoting a course of (non)action that will leave humanity extinct or in serious crisis. Proponents of AGW are trying to save us.

Evolution is a fact, that is why it has a theory to explain it, if you believe that a supernatural being waved his magic wand and humanity popped into existence then you are free to believe it, reality will move on without you.

I guess you are probably right unless your left maybe.

I think you need to go back to the books and start again.

No Climatologist thinks that the planets temperature cycles are static.

AGW is based on the INCREASED WARMING, over and above those cycles, caused by mankind.

So actually they fit in nicely, plants & animals evolved to fit in with the natural cycles of the planet ..... But if we keep pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere they won't have time this time, coral is already dying in parts of the world because of increased sea temperatures.