Actually, I do believe that the views of someone making a fallacious argument can automatically be rejected.

I say nothing about how complex the creator or creators are, because I simply don't know.  Furthermore, I say nothing about who or what created it or them, if anyone or anything, because again I don't know.

If evolutionists claim that I have to explain where the designer came from (I don't), then yes, I turn their own argument around and tell them that they have to explain where the first life came from.

You see, you just can't have it both ways, and both of us can play the same games.  If I have to explain something that my theory doesn't address, then so do you.

Perhaps you missed it, so I will say it again.  His point was that we don't have all the answers.  I made the same point back at him - he doesn't either.  If it's a good argument for him, it's a good argument for me.  We are all playing by the same rules here, whether you like it or not.

But that's bullshit, because if we dug an old car up out of the crust of the earth, you'd still say it was designed, even though no one saw it designed and no one can talk to the creator.  If we found hieroglyphics on the walls of a cave on Mars, you'd say those were designed too, even though no one saw it happen.  In fact, we've found heiroglyphs and drawings in caves on earth, even though no one saw anyone do Jack.  They are attributed to cavemen, Neanderthals, whatever.

And quit saying "complex being."  No one has made any statements as to the complexity of the being involved, because no one knows.

Oh no they don't.  The people who claim most adamantly that they like facts, banging their fists on the table while doing it, are the people who like facts the least.

I never said that complexity can only arise from complexity.  I made no statements on this either way.

Nothing happens just because you say it does.  This is a bare assertion.

I made no appeal to authority.  You don't even know enough about what was said to know what my point was, even though I made it again and again throughout this discussion ad nauseum.

But I am aware of it.  So what?

What the hell are you talking about?  And who do you think you are talking to?  I do understand the "theory" of evolution (what's there to understand LOL?).  I'll put my knowledge of the theory of evolution up against anyone's.  I suggest you take some of your own advice.

Again, we all play by the same rules here.  We don't say anything about the origin of the designer or designers either.

LOL, "explains the same fact with testable mechanisms."  Boy is that rich, LOL.

Forums go boom doublepost.

edit: My apologies, I didn't realize this thread had left the global warming subject in favor of creation/evolution debate

If you assume the average of 300 watts per square meter, and the best photovoltaics right now being about 40% efficient, you get about 120 watts per sq meter

Lol that's rich, you do realize that figure is in a lab don't you?  Most units get 20-25% in the field.  Are you aware that solar panels actually produce less energy as the ambient temperature rises?  So much for building them in the desert.  You do realize I hope, that the panels are only one part of the system, and that the efficiency of the inverters are also a factor?  And what excactly do we do for power when the sun goes down?  Any idea how many batteries you'd need to store enough energy to run this country at night?  Batteries are remarkably inefficient means of storing energy, and need to be replaced over time(and what do we do with all these dead batteries eh, they're really bad for the environment).

Are you aware of the massive massive resistance of envrionmentalists to the creation on massive solar plants, because they disrupt the natural habitat.  I love the fact that enviros are their own worst enemy when it comes to green power.  Because of the innefficiency of green power sources, they have to use up vast areas of habitat to generate a usefull amount of energy.

Solar will certainly be a part of our future energy supply, as will wind, but to think we can run the world of solar?  And that Japanese Solar Satelite : http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-01a.html .  Notice its gonna cost almost 3 times as much to operate as convential power, who's paying for that I wonder(consumers, they have too much money anyway).  And it'll maybe be ready by 2040, maybe.  Oh, and the recieveing antenna will cover several kilometers(enviros are gonna have field days with this(think of all the poor animals that will have their life cycles disrupted by a structure this size)). 

The simple truth is that enviros don't want green power, they want no power and massive population reduction combined with zero population growth.  They frequently block plans for green power plants based on concerns over habitat distruction, and and other environmental impacts.  And if you think there's no wildlife/habitat concern in the desert, then my friend, you've never lived in the desert.  And I gotta say most of it ain't real pretty but gosh darn it it was there first, and we have no right to ruin its life.  Just so we're clear, I'm not an enviro, but I'm painfully aware of their opinions and activities. 

Are you an environmentalist?

Fine.  Show me one.

You certainly have to do more than just make up stories about how you think things happened (a primordial pool, lightning striking, etc).

Reread the last sentence, please.  I'm not an enviro in the sense that I think we should exist to serve nature, or subordinate ourselves to it.  I do believe however that, as the most intelligent form of life on the planet(pause for laughtrack), it doesn't make sense for us to waste our resources.  I detest inefficiency.  I believe we can learn to use our resources more wisely, without sacrificing our quality of life.

I thought this got shut down?