Perdagangan-sepak bola-strategi-v3 Mbfx-trading-system-indicators Stock-options-calculator-black-scholes Pune-forex-trader Online-broker-untuk-trading Optionshouse-150-free-trade
Sistem Perdagangan Emisi UE (EU ETS) Sistem perdagangan emisi UE (EU ETS) adalah landasan kebijakan UE untuk memerangi perubahan iklim dan alat utamanya untuk mengurangi emisi gas rumah kaca secara efektif. Ini adalah pasar karbon utama pertama di dunia dan tetap menjadi pasar terbesar. Beroperasi di 31 negara (semua 28 negara Uni Eropa ditambah Islandia, Liechtenstein dan Norwegia) membatasi emisi dari lebih dari 11.000 instalasi penggunaan energi berat (pembangkit listrik pabrik industri) dan perusahaan penerbangan yang beroperasi di antara negara-negara ini mencakup sekitar 45 dari emisi gas rumah kaca Uni Eropa. Sistem cap dan trade EU ETS bekerja berdasarkan prinsip cap dan trade. Sebuah tutup diatur pada jumlah total gas rumah kaca tertentu yang dapat dipancarkan oleh instalasi yang ditutupi oleh sistem. Topi berkurang dari waktu ke waktu sehingga total emisi turun. Di dalam topi itu, perusahaan menerima atau membeli tunjangan emisi yang bisa mereka tukar satu sama lain sesuai kebutuhan. Mereka juga dapat membeli sejumlah kecil kredit internasional dari proyek hemat emisi di seluruh dunia. Batas jumlah tunjangan yang tersedia memastikan bahwa mereka memiliki nilai. Setelah setiap tahun perusahaan harus menyerahkan cukup tunjangan untuk menutupi semua emisinya, jika tidak, denda berat dikenakan. Jika sebuah perusahaan mengurangi emisinya, perusahaan dapat menyimpan tunjangan cadangan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan masa depan atau menjualnya ke perusahaan lain yang kekurangan tunjangan. Perdagangan membawa fleksibilitas yang memastikan emisi dipotong di tempat yang harganya paling sedikit untuk melakukannya. Harga karbon yang kuat juga mendorong investasi dalam teknologi bersih dan rendah karbon. Fitur utama dari fase 3 (2013-2020) EU ETS sekarang berada pada tahap ketiga yang berbeda secara signifikan dari fase 1 dan 2. Perubahan utamanya adalah: Satu, sebagian Uni Eropa mengenai emisi berlaku di tempat sistem tutup nasional sebelumnya Lelang adalah metode default untuk mengalokasikan tunjangan (bukan alokasi gratis), dan aturan alokasi yang disesuaikan berlaku untuk uang saku yang masih diberikan Secara gratis Sektor dan gas lainnya mencakup 300 juta tunjangan yang disisihkan di New Entrants Reserve untuk mendanai penyebaran teknologi energi terbarukan yang inovatif dan penangkapan dan penyimpanan karbon melalui program NER 300 Sektor dan gas yang tercakup Sistem ini mencakup sektor dan gas berikut dengan Fokus pada emisi yang dapat diukur, dilaporkan dan diverifikasi dengan tingkat akurasi yang tinggi: karbon dioksida (CO 2) dari sektor industri energi intensif dan pembangkit energi panas termasuk kilang minyak, pekerjaan baja dan produksi besi, aluminium, logam, semen , Kapur, kaca, keramik, pulp, kertas, kardus, asam dan bahan kimia organik massal penerbangan komersial nitrous oxide (N 2 O) dari produksi Asam nitrat, adipat dan glikoksilat dan perfluorokarbon glioksin (PFC) dari produksi aluminium Partisipasi di ETS UE adalah wajib bagi perusahaan di sektor ini. Tetapi di beberapa sektor hanya tanaman di atas ukuran tertentu yang termasuk instalasi kecil tertentu dapat dikecualikan jika pemerintah menerapkan langkah fiskal atau tindakan lain yang akan mengurangi emisi mereka dengan jumlah yang setara di sektor penerbangan, sampai 2016 ETS UE hanya berlaku untuk penerbangan Antara bandara yang berada di European Economic Area (EEA). Menyampaikan pengurangan emisi ETS Uni Eropa telah membuktikan bahwa menempatkan harga pada karbon dan perdagangan di dalamnya dapat berjalan dengan baik. Emisi dari instalasi dalam skema tersebut jatuh seperti yang diperkirakan sekitar 5 dibandingkan dengan awal tahap 3 (2013) (lihat angka 2015). Pada tahun 2020. Emisi dari sektor yang dicakup oleh sistem akan menjadi 21 lebih rendah dari tahun 2005. Mengembangkan pasar karbon Didirikan pada tahun 2005, EU ETS adalah sistem perdagangan emisi internasional pertama dan terbesar di dunia, terhitung selama tiga perempat perdagangan karbon internasional. EU ETS juga mengilhami pengembangan perdagangan emisi di negara dan wilayah lain. Uni Eropa bertujuan untuk menghubungkan ETS UE dengan sistem lain yang kompatibel. Peraturan EU ETS Utama Laporan pasar karbon Revisi EU ETS untuk tahap 3 Pelaksanaan Legislatif Sejarah Petunjuk 200387EC Bekerja sebelum proposal Komisi Proposal Komisi Oktober 2001 Reaksi komisi terhadap pembacaan proposal di Dewan dan Parlemen (termasuk dewan umum) Terbuka Semua pertanyaan Pertanyaan dan Jawaban mengenai Sistem Perdagangan Emisi UE yang direvisi (Desember 2008) Apa tujuan dari perdagangan emisi Tujuan Sistem Perdagangan Emisi UE (EU ETS) adalah untuk membantu Negara-negara Anggota UE mencapai komitmen mereka untuk membatasi atau mengurangi gas rumah kaca Emisi dengan biaya yang efektif. Membiarkan perusahaan yang berpartisipasi untuk membeli atau menjual tunjangan emisi berarti pemotongan emisi dapat dicapai setidaknya biaya. EU ETS adalah landasan strategi EU untuk memerangi perubahan iklim. Ini adalah sistem perdagangan internasional pertama untuk emisi CO 2 di dunia dan telah beroperasi sejak tahun 2005. Pada tanggal 1 Januari 2008, peraturan tersebut tidak hanya berlaku untuk 27 Negara Anggota UE, namun juga kepada tiga anggota dari European Economic Area Norwegia, Islandia dan Liechtenstein. Saat ini mencakup lebih dari 10.000 instalasi di sektor energi dan industri yang secara kolektif bertanggung jawab atas hampir separuh emisi UE dari CO2 dan 40 dari total emisi gas rumah kaca. Sebuah amandemen terhadap EU ETS Directive yang disepakati pada bulan Juli 2008 akan membawa sektor penerbangan masuk ke sistem dari 2012. Bagaimana cara kerja perdagangan emisi EU ETS adalah sistem perdagangan dan topi, artinya menaikkan tingkat emisi keseluruhan yang diperbolehkan namun , Dalam batas itu, memungkinkan peserta dalam sistem untuk membeli dan menjual tunjangan sesuai kebutuhan. Tunjangan ini adalah mata uang perdagangan umum di jantung sistem. Satu tunjangan memberi pemegang hak untuk memancarkan satu ton CO2 atau setara dengan gas rumah kaca lain. Batas jumlah tunjangan menciptakan kelangkaan di pasar. Pada periode perdagangan pertama dan kedua di bawah skema tersebut, Negara-negara Anggota harus menyusun rencana alokasi nasional (RAN) yang menentukan tingkat emisi ETS mereka total dan berapa banyak tunjangan emisi yang dipasang setiap instalasi di negara mereka. Pada akhir setiap tahun instalasi harus menyerahkan tunjangan setara dengan emisi mereka. Perusahaan yang mempertahankan emisinya di bawah tingkat tunjangan mereka dapat menjual kelebihan kelebihan mereka. Mereka yang menghadapi kesulitan dalam menjaga emisi mereka sesuai dengan tunjangan mereka memiliki pilihan antara mengambil tindakan untuk mengurangi emisi mereka sendiri seperti berinvestasi pada teknologi yang lebih efisien atau menggunakan sumber energi intensif karbon atau membeli tunjangan tambahan yang mereka butuhkan di pasar, atau Kombinasi keduanya. Pilihan seperti itu kemungkinan akan ditentukan oleh biaya relatif. Dengan cara ini, emisi dikurangi dimanapun biaya yang paling efektif untuk melakukannya. Sudah berapa lama ETS Uni Eropa beroperasi ETS Uni Eropa diluncurkan pada tanggal 1 Januari 2005. Periode perdagangan pertama berlangsung selama tiga tahun sampai akhir tahun 2007 dan merupakan pembelajaran dengan melakukan fase untuk mempersiapkan periode perdagangan kedua yang penting. Periode perdagangan kedua dimulai pada 1 Januari 2008 dan berlangsung selama lima tahun sampai akhir 2012. Pentingnya periode perdagangan kedua berasal dari kenyataan bahwa bersamaan dengan periode komitmen pertama Protokol Kyoto, di mana Uni Eropa dan negara-negara lain Negara industri harus memenuhi target mereka untuk membatasi atau mengurangi emisi gas rumah kaca. Untuk periode perdagangan kedua, emisi ETS UE telah dibatasi sekitar 6,5 di bawah tingkat 2005 untuk membantu memastikan bahwa UE secara keseluruhan, dan Negara-negara Anggota secara individu, menyampaikan komitmen Kyoto mereka. Apa pelajaran utama yang dipetik dari pengalaman sejauh ini ETS Uni Eropa telah menetapkan harga karbon dan membuktikan bahwa perdagangan emisi gas rumah kaca bekerja. Periode perdagangan pertama berhasil membangun perdagangan bebas tunjangan emisi di seluruh UE, menerapkan infrastruktur yang diperlukan dan mengembangkan pasar karbon dinamis. Manfaat lingkungan dari tahap pertama mungkin terbatas karena alokasi tunjangan yang berlebihan di beberapa Negara Anggota dan beberapa sektor, terutama karena ketergantungan pada proyeksi emisi sebelum data emisi terverifikasi tersedia di bawah ETS UE. Ketika publikasi data emisi terverifikasi untuk tahun 2005 menyoroti alokasi berlebihan ini, pasar bereaksi seperti yang diharapkan dengan menurunkan harga pasar tunjangan. Ketersediaan data emisi yang diverifikasi telah memungkinkan Komisi untuk memastikan bahwa pembatasan alokasi nasional di bawah tahap kedua ditetapkan pada tingkat yang menghasilkan pengurangan emisi secara nyata. Selain menggarisbawahi kebutuhan akan data yang terverifikasi, pengalaman sejauh ini telah menunjukkan bahwa harmonisasi yang lebih besar dalam EU ETS sangat penting untuk memastikan bahwa UE mencapai tujuan pengurangan emisi setidaknya biaya dan dengan distorsi kompetitif minimal. Kebutuhan akan harmonisasi lebih jelas sehubungan dengan bagaimana tutup pada tunjangan emisi secara keseluruhan ditetapkan. Dua periode perdagangan pertama juga menunjukkan bahwa metode nasional yang sangat berbeda untuk mengalokasikan tunjangan untuk instalasi mengancam persaingan yang sehat di pasar internal. Selanjutnya, harmonisasi, klarifikasi dan penyempurnaan yang lebih besar diperlukan sehubungan dengan ruang lingkup sistem, akses terhadap kredit dari proyek pengurangan emisi di luar UE, kondisi untuk menghubungkan ETS UE ke sistem perdagangan emisi di tempat lain dan pemantauan, verifikasi dan persyaratan pelaporan. Apa perubahan utama pada EU ETS dan kapan akan berlaku Perubahan disetujui akan berlaku pada periode perdagangan ketiga, yaitu Januari 2013. Sementara persiapan akan segera dimulai, peraturan yang berlaku tidak akan berubah sampai Januari 2013 Untuk memastikan stabilitas peraturan dipertahankan. ETS Uni Eropa pada periode ketiga akan menjadi sistem yang lebih efisien, lebih harmonis dan adil. Peningkatan efisiensi dicapai dengan jangka waktu perdagangan yang lebih lama (8 tahun, bukan 5 tahun), penurunan emisi yang kuat dan tahunan (21 penurunan pada tahun 2020 dibandingkan tahun 2005) dan peningkatan yang substansial dalam jumlah pelelangan (dari kurang dari 4 Pada fase 2 sampai lebih dari setengah pada fase 3). Harmonisasi yang lebih banyak telah disepakati di banyak bidang, termasuk sehubungan dengan penetapan batas (tutupan EU-lebar daripada topi nasional pada fase 1 dan 2) dan peraturan untuk alokasi bebas transisi. Keadilan sistem telah meningkat secara substansial oleh langkah menuju peraturan alokasi bebas Uni Eropa untuk instalasi industri dan dengan diperkenalkannya mekanisme redistribusi yang memberi hak kepada negara-negara anggota baru untuk melelang lebih banyak tunjangan. Bagaimana teks terakhir dibandingkan dengan proposal Komisi awal Target iklim dan energi yang disepakati oleh Dewan Eropa Musim Semi 2007 telah dipelihara dan keseluruhan arsitektur proposal Komisi mengenai ETS UE tetap utuh. Artinya, akan ada satu tutup Uni Eropa untuk jumlah tunjangan emisi dan tutup ini akan turun setiap tahunnya sepanjang garis tren linier, yang akan berlanjut melampaui akhir periode perdagangan ketiga (2013-2020). Perbedaan utama dibandingkan dengan proposal tersebut adalah bahwa pelelangan tunjangan akan bertahap secara lebih lambat. Apa saja perubahan utama dibandingkan dengan proposal Komisi Singkatnya, perubahan utama yang telah diajukan terhadap proposal tersebut adalah sebagai berikut: Negara-negara Anggota tertentu diijinkan pengurangan sementara dan sementara dari peraturan tersebut sehingga tidak ada tunjangan yang dialokasikan secara gratis. Ke generator listrik sampai 2013. Pilihan untuk mengurangi tersedia bagi Negara-negara Anggota yang memenuhi persyaratan tertentu yang berkaitan dengan interkonektivitas jaringan listrik mereka, pangsa satu bahan bakar fosil dalam produksi listrik, dan GDPcapita sehubungan dengan rata-rata EU-27. Selain itu, jumlah tunjangan gratis yang dapat dialokasikan oleh Negara Anggota ke pembangkit listrik terbatas pada 70 emisi karbon dioksida dari pabrik yang relevan pada tahap 1 dan menurun pada tahun-tahun berikutnya. Selanjutnya alokasi gratis di tahap 3 hanya bisa diberikan kepada pembangkit listrik yang sedang beroperasi atau dalam pembangunan paling lambat akhir 2008. Lihat balas pertanyaan 15 di bawah ini. Akan ada rincian lebih lanjut dalam Petunjuk mengenai kriteria yang akan digunakan untuk menentukan sektor atau sub-sektor yang dianggap terkena risiko kebocoran karbon yang signifikan. Dan tanggal publikasi awal daftar Komisi sektor tersebut (31 Desember 2009). Selain itu, untuk meninjau kapan tercapai kesepakatan internasional yang memuaskan, instalasi di semua industri yang terbuka akan menerima 100 tunjangan gratis sejauh mereka menggunakan teknologi yang paling efisien. Alokasi bebas untuk industri terbatas pada pangsa emisi industri ini dalam total emisi pada tahun 2005 sampai 2007. Jumlah total tunjangan yang dialokasikan secara gratis untuk instalasi di sektor industri akan menurun setiap tahunnya seiring dengan turunnya tutup emisi. Negara-negara Anggota juga dapat mengkompensasi instalasi tertentu untuk biaya CO2 yang diteruskan dengan harga listrik jika biaya CO2 dapat mengungkapkan risiko kebocoran karbon tersebut. Komisi telah melakukan modifikasi pedoman Komunitas bantuan negara untuk perlindungan lingkungan dalam hal ini. Lihat balasan ke pertanyaan 15 di bawah ini. Tingkat pelelangan tunjangan untuk industri yang tidak terkena dampak akan meningkat secara linier seperti yang diusulkan oleh Komisi, namun daripada mencapai 100 pada tahun 2020, akan mencapai 70, dengan tujuan mencapai 100 pada tahun 2027. Seperti yang diramalkan dalam proposal Komisi , 10 dari tunjangan pelelangan akan didistribusikan ulang dari Negara-negara Anggota dengan pendapatan per kapita yang tinggi kepada mereka yang memiliki pendapatan per kapita rendah untuk memperkuat kemampuan keuangan yang terakhir untuk berinvestasi dalam teknologi ramah iklim. Ketentuan telah ditambahkan untuk mekanisme redistributif lain dari 2 tunjangan lelang untuk memperhitungkan Negara-negara Anggota yang pada tahun 2005 telah mencapai pengurangan paling sedikit 20 emisi gas rumah kaca dibandingkan dengan tahun referensi yang ditetapkan oleh Protokol Kyoto. Bagian dari pendapatan lelang yang direkomendasikan oleh Negara-negara Anggota untuk bertarung dan beradaptasi terhadap perubahan iklim terutama di dalam UE, tetapi juga di negara-negara berkembang, meningkat dari 20 menjadi 50. Teks tersebut memberikan sebuah top-up ke tingkat yang diizinkan yang diusulkan Penggunaan kredit JICDM dalam 20 skenario untuk operator yang ada yang menerima anggaran terendah untuk mengimpor dan menggunakan kredit tersebut sehubungan dengan alokasi dan akses terhadap kredit pada periode 2008-2012. Sektor baru, pendatang baru di periode 2013-2020 dan 2008-2012 juga akan bisa menggunakan kredit. Jumlah total kredit yang mungkin digunakan akan, bagaimanapun, tidak melebihi 50 dari pengurangan antara tahun 2008 dan 2020. Berdasarkan pengurangan emisi yang lebih ketat dalam konteks kesepakatan internasional yang memuaskan, Komisi dapat mengizinkan akses tambahan ke CER dan ERU untuk Operator dalam skema Komunitas. Lihat balasan ke pertanyaan 20 di bawah ini. Hasil pelelangan 300 juta tunjangan dari cadangan pendatang baru akan digunakan untuk mendukung hingga 12 proyek dan proyek demonstrasi penangkapan dan penyimpanan karbon yang menunjukkan teknologi energi terbarukan yang inovatif. Sejumlah kondisi melekat pada mekanisme pembiayaan ini. Lihat balasan ke pertanyaan 30 di bawah ini. Kemungkinan untuk memilih keluar instalasi pembakaran kecil asalkan mereka tunduk pada langkah-langkah ekuivalen telah diperluas untuk mencakup semua instalasi kecil terlepas dari aktivitasnya, ambang emisi telah meningkat dari 10.000 menjadi 25.000 ton CO2 per tahun, dan ambang kapasitas yang Instalasi pembakaran harus dipenuhi selain telah dinaikkan dari 25MW menjadi 35MW. Dengan peningkatan ambang batas ini, porsi emisi tertutup yang berpotensi dikeluarkan dari sistem perdagangan emisi menjadi signifikan, dan akibatnya ketentuan telah ditambahkan untuk memungkinkan pengurangan yang sesuai dari tutup Uni Eropa mengenai tunjangan. Akankah masih ada rencana alokasi nasional (NAP) No. Dalam NAP mereka untuk periode perdagangan pertama (2005-2007) dan kedua (2008-2012), Negara-negara Anggota menetapkan jumlah total tunjangan yang harus dikeluarkan dan bagaimana hal tersebut Akan dialokasikan untuk instalasi yang bersangkutan. Pendekatan ini telah menghasilkan perbedaan yang signifikan dalam aturan alokasi, menciptakan insentif bagi setiap Negara Anggota untuk mendukung industri mereka sendiri, dan telah menyebabkan kompleksitas yang tinggi. Dari periode perdagangan ketiga, akan ada satu tutup dan tunjangan EU-wide yang dialokasikan berdasarkan peraturan yang harmonis. Oleh karena itu, rencana alokasi nasional tidak diperlukan lagi. Bagaimana cap emisi pada tahap 3 ditentukan Aturan untuk menghitung tutup Uni Eropa adalah sebagai berikut: Dari tahun 2013, jumlah total tunjangan akan menurun setiap tahun secara linier. Titik awal dari baris ini adalah jumlah total tunjangan rata-rata (batas 2 fasa) yang akan dikeluarkan oleh Negara-negara Anggota untuk periode 2008-12, disesuaikan untuk mencerminkan cakupan sistem yang diperluas dari tahun 2013 dan juga instalasi kecil mana pun Negara telah memilih untuk dikecualikan. Faktor linier dimana jumlah tahunan akan menurun adalah 1,74 dalam kaitannya dengan tutupan fasa 2. Titik awal untuk menentukan faktor linier 1,74 adalah pengurangan 20 keseluruhan gas rumah kaca dibandingkan tahun 1990, yang setara dengan penurunan 14 dibandingkan tahun 2005. Namun, pengurangan yang lebih besar diperlukan dari ETS UE karena lebih murah untuk mengurangi Emisi di sektor ETS. Pembagian yang meminimalkan pengurangan biaya keseluruhan adalah: pengurangan 21 emisi sektor ETS UE dibandingkan tahun 2005 pada tahun 2020 merupakan pengurangan sekitar 10 dibandingkan tahun 2005 untuk sektor-sektor yang tidak tercakup dalam EU ETS. Penurunan 2120 pada 2020 menghasilkan cap ETS pada tahun 2020 dari jumlah maksimum 1720 juta tunjangan dan menyiratkan cap tahap 3 rata-rata (2013 sampai 2020) dari sekitar 1846 juta tunjangan dan pengurangan 11 dibandingkan dengan cap tahap 2. Semua angka mutlak ditunjukkan sesuai dengan cakupan pada awal periode perdagangan kedua dan oleh karena itu jangan memperhitungkan penerbangan, yang akan ditambahkan pada tahun 2012, dan sektor lain yang akan ditambahkan pada tahap 3. Angka terakhir untuk kenaikan emisi tahunan Pada tahap 3 akan ditentukan dan diterbitkan oleh Komisi pada tanggal 30 September 2010. Bagaimana cap emisi di luar fase 3 ditentukan Faktor linier 1,74 yang digunakan untuk menentukan tutupan tahap 3 akan terus berlanjut melampaui akhir periode perdagangan di 2020 dan akan menentukan tutup untuk periode perdagangan keempat (2021 sampai 2028) dan seterusnya. Hal ini dapat direvisi paling lambat 2025. Sebenarnya, pengurangan emisi yang signifikan sebesar 60-80 dibandingkan tahun 1990 akan diperlukan pada tahun 2050 untuk mencapai tujuan strategis untuk membatasi kenaikan suhu rata-rata global hingga tidak lebih dari 2C di atas tingkat pra-industri. Tutupan tunjangan emisi EU-lebar akan ditentukan untuk setiap tahun. Apakah ini mengurangi fleksibilitas untuk instalasi yang bersangkutan Tidak, fleksibilitas untuk instalasi tidak akan berkurang sama sekali. Setiap tahun, tunjangan yang dilelang dan didistribusikan harus dikeluarkan oleh pihak yang berwenang pada tanggal 28 Februari. Tanggal terakhir bagi operator untuk menyerahkan tunjangan adalah 30 April tahun setelah tahun di mana emisi terjadi. Jadi operator menerima tunjangan untuk tahun berjalan sebelum mereka harus menyerahkan tunjangan untuk menutupi emisi mereka untuk tahun sebelumnya. Tunjangan tetap berlaku selama periode perdagangan dan tunjangan surplus sekarang dapat digunakan untuk digunakan pada periode perdagangan berikutnya. Dalam hal ini, tidak ada yang akan berubah. Sistem ini akan tetap berbasis pada periode perdagangan, namun periode perdagangan ketiga akan bertahan delapan tahun, dari tahun 2013 sampai 2020, berlawanan dengan lima tahun untuk tahap kedua dari tahun 2008 sampai 2012. Untuk periode perdagangan kedua, Negara-negara Anggota pada umumnya memutuskan untuk mengalokasikan yang sama Jumlah total tunjangan untuk setiap tahun. Penurunan linier setiap tahun dari tahun 2013 akan sesuai dengan tren emisi yang diharapkan selama periode tersebut. Berapakah angka cap ETS tahunan tentatif untuk periode 2013 sampai 2020 Angka kenaikan tahunan tentatif adalah sebagai berikut: Angka-angka ini didasarkan pada cakupan ETS sebagaimana berlaku pada tahap 2 (2008 sampai 2012), dan keputusan Komisi mengenai Rencana alokasi nasional untuk tahap 2, sebesar 2083 juta ton. Angka-angka ini akan disesuaikan karena beberapa alasan. Pertama, penyesuaian akan dilakukan untuk mempertimbangkan perluasan cakupan pada fase 2, dengan syarat Negara-negara Anggota menyetujui dan memverifikasi emisi yang diperoleh dari perpanjangan ini. Kedua, penyesuaian akan dilakukan sehubungan dengan perluasan lebih lanjut lingkup ETS pada periode perdagangan ketiga. Ketiga, setiap penyisihan instalasi kecil akan menghasilkan pengurangan tutup yang sesuai. Keempat, angka tersebut tidak memperhitungkan masuknya penerbangan, atau emisi dari Norwegia, Islandia dan Liechtenstein. Akankah tunjangan masih dialokasikan secara gratis Ya. Instalasi industri akan menerima alokasi bebas transisi. Dan di Negara-negara Anggota yang memenuhi syarat untuk penghindaran opsional, pembangkit listrik dapat, jika Negara Anggota memutuskan demikian, juga menerima tunjangan gratis. Diperkirakan setidaknya setengah dari tunjangan yang tersedia pada 2013 akan dilelang. Meskipun sebagian besar tunjangan telah dialokasikan secara cuma-cuma untuk instalasi pada periode perdagangan pertama dan kedua, Komisi mengusulkan agar pelelangan tunjangan harus menjadi asas dasar untuk alokasi. Hal ini karena pelelangan terbaik memastikan efisiensi, transparansi dan kesederhanaan sistem dan menciptakan insentif terbesar untuk investasi dalam ekonomi rendah karbon. Ini paling sesuai dengan prinsip polluter pays dan menghindari memberi keuntungan windfall ke sektor-sektor tertentu yang telah melewati biaya nosional dari tunjangan kepada pelanggan mereka meskipun menerima secara gratis. Bagaimana tunjangan diberikan secara gratis Pada tanggal 31 Desember 2010, Komisi akan mengadopsi peraturan EU-wide, yang akan dikembangkan berdasarkan prosedur komite (Comitology). Aturan-aturan ini akan menyelaraskan sepenuhnya alokasi dan dengan demikian semua perusahaan di seluruh UE dengan kegiatan yang sama atau serupa akan tunduk pada peraturan yang sama. Aturan tersebut akan memastikan sejauh mungkin bahwa alokasi tersebut mempromosikan teknologi hemat karbon. Aturan yang diadopsi menetapkan bahwa sejauh memungkinkan, alokasi didasarkan pada apa yang disebut tolok ukur, mis. Sejumlah tunjangan per jumlah output historis. Aturan seperti itu memberi penghargaan kepada operator yang telah melakukan tindakan awal untuk mengurangi gas rumah kaca, lebih baik mencerminkan prinsip pencemar membayar dan memberi insentif lebih kuat untuk mengurangi emisi, karena alokasi tidak lagi bergantung pada emisi historis. Semua alokasi harus ditentukan sebelum dimulainya periode perdagangan ketiga dan tidak ada penyesuaian ex-post yang diizinkan. Instalasi mana yang akan menerima alokasi gratis dan tidak akan Bagaimana dampak negatif terhadap daya saing dihindari Dengan mempertimbangkan kemampuan mereka untuk meneruskan kenaikan biaya tunjangan emisi, pelelangan penuh adalah peraturan mulai 2013 dan seterusnya untuk pembangkit listrik. Namun, Negara-negara Anggota yang memenuhi persyaratan tertentu yang berkaitan dengan interkonektivitas atau bagian mereka dari bahan bakar fosil dalam produksi listrik dan PDB per kapita sehubungan dengan rata-rata EU-27, memiliki opsi untuk sementara menyimpang dari peraturan ini sehubungan dengan pembangkit listrik yang ada. Tingkat pelelangan pada tahun 2013 setidaknya 30 dalam kaitannya dengan emisi pada periode pertama dan harus meningkat secara progresif menjadi 100 paling lambat tahun 2020. Jika opsi tersebut diterapkan, Negara Anggota harus melakukan investasi dalam memperbaiki dan meningkatkan Infrastruktur, teknologi bersih dan diversifikasi bauran energi dan sumber pasokannya sebanding mungkin sama dengan nilai pasar dari alokasi bebas. Di sektor lain, alokasi secara gratis akan dihapus secara bertahap mulai tahun 2013, dengan Negara-negara Anggota yang menyetujui untuk memulai dari 20 lelang pada tahun 2013, meningkat menjadi 70 lelang pada tahun 2020 dengan tujuan mencapai 100 di tahun 2027. Namun, pengecualian akan dibuat untuk Instalasi di sektor yang ditemukan terkena risiko kebocoran karbon yang signifikan. Risiko ini bisa terjadi jika ETS UE meningkatkan biaya produksi sehingga perusahaan memutuskan untuk memindahkan produksinya ke daerah-daerah di luar UE yang tidak dikenai batasan emisi yang sebanding. Komisi akan menentukan sektor-sektor yang bersangkutan pada tanggal 31 Desember 2009. Untuk melakukan ini, Komisi akan menilai antara lain apakah biaya produksi tambahan langsung dan tidak langsung yang disebabkan oleh penerapan Petunjuk ETS sebagai proporsi nilai tambah bruto melebihi 5 dan apakah Nilai total ekspor dan impor dibagi dengan nilai total omset dan impornya melebihi 10. Jika hasil untuk salah satu dari kriteria ini melebihi 30, sektor ini juga akan dianggap berisiko tinggi terhadap kebocoran karbon. Instalasi di sektor ini akan menerima 100 dari saham mereka dalam jumlah tunjangan total yang menurun setiap tahunnya secara gratis. Bagian dari emisi industri ini ditentukan sehubungan dengan emisi ETS total pada tahun 2005 sampai 2007. Biaya CO2 yang diteruskan dengan harga listrik juga dapat mengungkapkan instalasi tertentu terhadap risiko kebocoran karbon. Untuk menghindari risiko tersebut, Negara-negara Anggota dapat memberikan kompensasi sehubungan dengan biaya tersebut. Dengan tidak adanya kesepakatan internasional mengenai perubahan iklim, Komisi telah melakukan modifikasi pedoman Komunitas tentang bantuan negara untuk perlindungan lingkungan dalam hal ini. Berdasarkan kesepakatan internasional yang memastikan bahwa pesaing di belahan dunia lain menanggung biaya yang sebanding, risiko kebocoran karbon mungkin diabaikan. Oleh karena itu, pada tanggal 30 Juni 2010, Komisi akan melakukan penilaian mendalam mengenai situasi industri energi intensif dan risiko kebocoran karbon, sehubungan dengan hasil negosiasi internasional dan juga memperhitungkan sektor yang mengikat Kesepakatan yang mungkin telah disimpulkan. Laporan tersebut akan disertai dengan usulan yang dianggap tepat. Ini berpotensi mencakup pemeliharaan atau penyesuaian proporsi tunjangan yang diterima secara gratis untuk instalasi industri yang secara khusus terpapar persaingan global atau termasuk importir produk yang terkait dalam ETS. Siapa yang akan mengatur pelelangan dan bagaimana mereka akan dilakukan Negara-negara Anggota akan bertanggung jawab untuk memastikan bahwa tunjangan yang diberikan kepada mereka dilelang. Setiap Negara Anggota harus memutuskan apakah mereka ingin mengembangkan infrastruktur dan platform pelelangan sendiri atau apakah ia ingin bekerja sama dengan Negara-negara Anggota lainnya untuk mengembangkan solusi regional atau EU. Distribusi hak pelelangan kepada Negara-negara Anggota sebagian besar didasarkan pada emisi di tahap 1 dari ETS UE, namun sebagian hak akan didistribusikan kembali dari Negara-negara Anggota yang lebih kaya ke yang lebih miskin untuk memperhitungkan tingkat PDB yang lebih rendah per kapita dan prospek yang lebih tinggi. Untuk pertumbuhan dan emisi di antara yang terakhir. Masih dalam kasus bahwa 10 hak untuk mendapatkan uang lelang akan didistribusikan ulang dari Negara-negara Anggota dengan pendapatan per kapita yang tinggi kepada mereka yang memiliki pendapatan per kapita rendah untuk memperkuat kemampuan keuangan yang terakhir untuk berinvestasi pada teknologi ramah iklim. Namun, sebuah ketentuan telah ditambahkan untuk mekanisme redistributif lain dari 2 untuk memperhitungkan Negara-negara Anggota yang pada tahun 2005 telah mencapai pengurangan paling sedikit 20 emisi gas rumah kaca dibandingkan dengan tahun referensi yang ditetapkan oleh Protokol Kyoto. Sembilan Negara Anggota mendapatkan keuntungan dari ketentuan ini. Setiap pelelangan harus menghormati peraturan pasar internal dan karenanya harus terbuka terhadap pembeli potensial di bawah kondisi yang tidak diskriminatif. Pada tanggal 30 Juni 2010, Komisi akan mengadopsi sebuah Peraturan (melalui prosedur komitologi) yang akan memberikan peraturan dan ketentuan yang sesuai untuk memastikan pelelangan yang efisien dan terkoordinasi tanpa mengganggu pasar uang saku. Berapa banyak tunjangan yang akan dilelang setiap Negara Anggota dan berapa jumlahnya ditentukan Semua tunjangan yang tidak dialokasikan secara gratis akan dilelang. Sebanyak 88 tunjangan yang akan dilelang oleh masing-masing Negara Anggota didistribusikan berdasarkan pangsa Negara-negara Anggota emisi bersejarah di bawah EU ETS. Untuk tujuan solidaritas dan pertumbuhan, 12 dari total kuantitas didistribusikan dengan cara yang memperhitungkan PDB per kapita dan pencapaian berdasarkan Protokol Kyoto. Sektor dan gas mana yang tercakup pada 2013 ETS mencakup instalasi yang melakukan aktivitas tertentu. Sejak awal telah ditutup, di atas ambang kapasitas tertentu, pembangkit listrik dan pabrik pembakaran lainnya, kilang minyak, oven kokas, pabrik besi dan baja dan pabrik pembuatan semen, kaca, kapur, batu bata, keramik, pulp, kertas dan karton. Sedangkan untuk gas rumah kaca, saat ini hanya mencakup emisi karbon dioksida, kecuali Belanda, yang telah memilih emisi dari nitrous oxide. Sejak 2013, ruang lingkup ETS akan diperluas juga mencakup sektor lain dan gas rumah kaca. Emisi CO 2 dari petrokimia, amonia dan aluminium akan disertakan, seperti juga emisi N2O dari produksi produksi asam nitrat, adipat dan asam glikokalik dan perfluorokarbon dari sektor aluminium. Penangkapan, pengangkutan dan penyimpanan geologi dari semua emisi gas rumah kaca juga akan dibahas. Sektor-sektor ini akan menerima tunjangan gratis sesuai peraturan EU-wide, sama seperti sektor industri lainnya yang sudah tercakup. Pada 2012, penerbangan juga akan disertakan dalam EU ETS. Akankah instalasi kecil dikeluarkan dari ruang lingkup Sejumlah besar instalasi yang memancarkan CO 2 yang relatif rendah saat ini tercakup dalam ETS dan kekhawatiran telah diangkat mengenai efektivitas biaya inklusi mereka. Sejak 2013, Negara-negara Anggota akan diizinkan untuk menghapus instalasi ini dari ETS dalam kondisi tertentu. Instalasi yang bersangkutan adalah emisi yang dilaporkan lebih rendah dari 25.000 ton ekuivalen CO2 untuk masing-masing 3 tahun sebelum tahun penerapan. Untuk instalasi pembakaran, ambang kapasitas tambahan 35MW berlaku. Selain itu, Negara-negara Anggota diberi kemungkinan untuk mengecualikan instalasi yang dioperasikan oleh rumah sakit. Instalasi dapat dikecualikan dari ETS hanya jika akan ditutupi oleh tindakan yang akan mencapai kontribusi yang setara terhadap pengurangan emisi. Berapa banyak kredit emisi dari negara-negara ketiga akan diizinkan Untuk periode perdagangan kedua, Negara-negara Anggota mengizinkan operator mereka menggunakan sejumlah kredit yang signifikan yang dihasilkan oleh proyek hemat emisi yang dilakukan di negara-negara ketiga untuk menutupi sebagian emisi mereka dengan cara yang sama seperti yang mereka gunakan. Tunjangan ETS 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. Two of its creators were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1997. A year later their hedge fund Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) had collapsed with staggering losses of 100 billion due to significant leverage of the strategy. 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. Only five variables were needed: the price of the stock the exercise price of the option the risk-free interest rate and the time to maturity of the option. The only unobservable is the volatility of the underlying stock price. The main problem with the framework (which assumes the ability to use risk-free arbitrage and dynamic hedging in continuous time) is that it doesnt consider how a change in market dynamics (specifically liquidity risk and default) can affect overall market sentiment. This means the prices of assets can in some extreme cases depart from what the formula says should hold. LTCM was brave and took a contrarian view. It borrowed even more in the face of the perceived profitable outcome. Instead the reverse happened (things just kept getting worse day after day). More great documentaries 35 Comments User Reviews But the guy who workedcreated the algebra equations, established the Live continuous determination of stock option values appears to still have An acceptable way of life For the least, based on the inside of his house while he was interviewed at the end of the docu Bwarf That occured only in the USA anyhow. But drown many worldwide investors. It aint the end of the world I guess. Itll be paid by the average USA tax payers. Though, who said that the USA doesnt have Communist habits. If the average USA citizen pays for the mess of a private business, whats that political system supposed to be called Banana republic In the end, I wonder why these guys who though of this, were not simply sent to standar school and learn how to earn their bread amp butter like everyone They sure like to gamble. With their fellow citizens money, of course Maybe we can say it was a gamble from our perspective and our time, but I think that at that time they didnt think it was a gamble. they thought that they had a PERFECT formula. Also, they all have ph.D so I dont think they need any school anymore. Their intellectual ability wasnt the problem. Sometimes in life something unexpected happens and thats all. However, what struck me was that what if they could have all the information in the world all the time I m sure that they wouldnt go bust in that case, because they would know what would happen to Russia and protect their business on time. why do we even need traders, do the help the economy at all other than making a few ppl really rich. anyone. Yeah that Russia would do what they did and prevent having But dont omit that they remained Homosapiens in the sense that once they were faced with a failure, they reacted just like most if not all human beings by a panic and went to borrow more money that sunk them even in even deeper problems. Until total disaster. That isthe nature of the beast. They sure had the competency but not the wisdom of an every day practice. In fact, all the time they spent to study, it was on the purpose of not having to work for earing their bread amp butter. As seen on a daily basis in technology. The 1930s mess occurred coz the govts at that that did not had much tools to adjust the monetary situation and the current one is due to the fact that now we have many tools and all of them have been abused So, here we are again bailing out the Wall Street gamblers. Lesson not learned. If history repeats(again), we can expect another feel-good bubble followed by investors regret and tax payers funding the clean-up. 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. Maybe Sealy will market a money pouch in their mattresses. Knud Sandbk Nielsen Creating such a formula is in it self bound to push the market out of balance. every time you invent a new trick, you change the game. Consequently there is an opening for yet another new trick for this new and changed game. And just like a pyramid scheme, this will eventually fall down as the cheap magic it is. Did you really think you could make money out of nothing for ever is the question that comes to mind. You can simplify as much as possible, not more. Maybe academics are not fit for the real world. Investing in the stock market is far worse than gambling. With gambling, the game is fixed in terms of the odds and rules. In some cases like black jack your own skill can help improve your odds (Unlike roulette). The stock market That doesnt work on rulles and fixed odds. It works on SENTIMENT Human behaviour. The fact that you place a bet then effects the Sentiment pool and you have know way of reading ahead what the sentiment is unless you are xavier from the X Men. You can only react. The only way to win is to play outside of the rulles that the rest of us have to play within. in other words you need corruption on your side. Of cours the investment community need suckers because thats were the money comes from. To answer your question I believe the answer would be Yes. And look where the global economy is now Go Figure :0 Did the guys in the pit learn their trade on the race course theyre just tic-tac men. it appears the original formula did amp does have some value. where they erred was turning it into a magic carpet they could ride into the land of milk amp endless honey. 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. see: pbs- the warning The market is about selling and offsetting risk. So yes, traders to perform a function. If you were to invest in the stock market index and hold for an extended period of time - you would have almost made money at any point except if you wanted to cash out in the downturns. Trading is the only way to make money. If you are doing anything else you are just a slave to a trade This doc is so funny. The pits today are practically empty. Trading happens online and is becoming much more automated. Every bank is trying to come up with a robot that will be quicker and better at trading. Guess what. Robots eventually become predictable -) Thats how your pension works. Careful you dont retire on a downturn -) This is why instead of democratically and rationally determining where we want to dedicate our resources they demand that we leave it up to the market-so they can continue to play their games. This is not the way to determine how to allocate resources. That is clear to me at least. RR A bit rough that comment but Oh so direct to the point. Every human being on planet earth is earth is stucked with this. Next. Whos to prime to changes It takes guts, hum . Did America learn from this LTCM debacle. Tidak ada. Did Europe learn from this debacle, No. Alan Greenspan and other officials should have jailed those two Nobel Laureates at that time itself, instead of bailing out LTCM, so that the next trader in Goldman,Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman and Morgan Stanley would not have done the Synthetic Propping,The biggest crisis in 2008, would not have happened, which unfortunately still continues. Instead of that Myron Scholes saying that he felt bad after the LTCM debacle is the grossest understatement of the human greed. He would not have said it had he been punished. CDOs,Synthetic Derivatives and all other mathematical mumbo-jumbo would not have seen the light of the day, if those two were prosecuted. Miilions of investors would have been saved. All that TARP and other EFSF need not have been enforced. WHAT IS THE BOTTOMLINE OF THE STORY. HUMAN GREED. Sometimes I feel, ignorance is bliss.If time permits please read the book by Mandelbrot titled Misbehavior of the markets BampS Formula is torn to pieces. It is always luck, my friend, to win an event. Any amount of tinkering with mathematics will not solve the problem as it is an exact science and market is totally a subjective place. Economic activities though are tweaked to suit the market can show its ugly face in the long run and those who are smart enough like Madoff win hands down. 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. It is called globalresearch.ca It is in Montreal and it has some very enlightening material about all of these political and economic situations. Seems we are heading towards ww3. After Libya I can believe it. In any case I am sick to my stomach over my countries participation in these imperialist adventures and cant take to much more before I either leave the country or drink myself into a coma everyday. Since I already have liver disease it wouldnt take more than six months to finish me off.I cannot beleive how politically backward so many of my fellows are and the corporate media is doing such a number on us I dont know how the heck we are going to beat back these war mongers. That is all I have to say for now anyway webmaster thanks for all you do here. Yours, RR lol, this guy talks as al pacino and thinks he his a master or something belongs to him He did what. change money in money. 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. berita. 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. Terima kasih. 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. Dan. 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. berita. 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). Bagaimanapun. 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. Hanya pendapat saya 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. You have. 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. Itu adalah pilihanmu 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. Saya setuju. 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. sangat.