Penn & Teller and a Petition to Ban that Evil DiHydrogen Monoxide...

[homersapien 12,172]

........Ex: i dont know but maybe <5% of Christianity that really thinks that Creation happened in just 144 hours. i know i dont, and i know most here surely dont either.

Interesting comment.

Which leads me to ask, what exactly is it about evolution that so many Christians find so difficult to accept?

If you are willing to accept the literal story of Genesis as allegory (correct me if that is a mischaracterization), why is it so hard to accept that evolution can be and is valid?

There is nothing to keep you from accepting evolution as the process used by God to create biology (for example). Nothing about evolution demands a Godless universe.

I think most of the Rational Professing Christians will back me up on this, but we dont think Evolution is an exclusive separation with Creation. There are fundies on both sides that have decided that it does.

Some Christian Fundies insist on the 144 Hour Creation no matter how many gaps in support are realized.

Some Evo-Fundies insist that any evidence of Evolution Theory, no matter how many gaps still remain, totally disproves Creation and therefore God.

Extremists on both sides almost need to be institutionalized.

Do you have any examples of "Evo-fundies"?

Not saying they don't exist, but I am not aware of them. No doubt there are militant atheists that use evolution as a club, but that in no way suggests that a "belief" in evolution requires religious exclusion of any sort, well, other than excluding a literal interpretation of the Bible. In other words, evolution as a "club" can only work with "literalists".

As far as the "many gaps" there will always be evidence gaps in such a huge, fundamental theory. But I even hesitate to use the word "belief" regarding evolution. At this point it requires no more "belief" than does gravity. Here's a humorous essay on that very point:

http://www.huffingto..._b_1579698.html

Somewhere on this site is a statistical review on the probability of Evolution.

It pretty bascially trashes the "logic" and inevitability of Evolution.

First, the "logic" of evolution is not based on probability. The logic is based on actual evidence based on observation and testing the theory.

Secondly, no one has claimed that evolution is inevitable. But I would postulate there is a high probability that given the same set of conditions it will, and has, occurred. If you like questions of probability, look into the probability of their being biology somewhere else in the Universe.

Here's a probability problem for you: What is the probability of my picking up a particular grain of sand on the East Coast?

Yet, I could drive to somewhere on that coast tomorrow and pick up a grain of sand that was subject to that exact probability of being picked up.

Would picking up that particular grain of sand be a miracle?

Just a taste, but the statistical probability of the double helix of DNA formation makes Evolutionary Theory AT THIS TIME ludicrous.

I am sure the entire global scientific community would be interested in your paper on this. (See grain of sand example above.)

To be able to get to Evolution, most "scientists" JUST ASSUME IT AS A GIVEN...LMAO! They dont even pretend to model the probability because it would essentially disprove their theory...

I don't know what you mean by "able to get to Evolution", but as I have pointed out, dismissing it based on probability is not a valid approach to the problem.

And no one "assumes it as a "given" based on faith. They make that conclusion after studying the history of observation and testing. In some cases they test it themselves.

Now we factor in the hurdle of 237 or 238 enzymes just miraculously appearing at the same time, in the right proportions, with NO impurities, in a swamp, or tidal pool, etc and well i am just getting ready to wet myself for this debate...lol.

How about providing evidence for scientific evidence of that "assumption". I am not aware of it.

I have already touched on the inevitable gaps of knowledge and understanding in such a theory. But one is free to insert a "miracle" to fill any hole they want. Science is content to rely on further investigation and rational postulation.

The probabilities of these two events essentially define mathematic certainty.

Mathematic certainty of what?

Did i say it would not be eventually workout? NO. i just pointed out that using scientifically accepted probability theory makes all this very hard to swallow at present.

The idea of using mathmatical probability theory to reject what has been demonstrated to be real is impossible by definition. To make such an argument simply reveals the inadequacies or misapplication of mathematical theory. Evolution is real and exists naturally. Mathematics is a tool. Mathematics can no more determine the truth of evolution than a gun can kill a person.

And thanks for being respectful and not "going infantile" with personal attacks like Weegle.

[homersapien 12,172]

It is far easier to control emissions for any given single power plant than trying to control emissions coming from a huge number of point sources (such as automobiles).

This is not necessarily true. For example, catalytic converters are great for cars, but they aren't practical for large industry. The small scale solution for various pollutants was much easier and came sooner than a large scale solution.

Plenty of technological advances start small, the difficulty is scaling them up. Sometimes implementing a small scale solution in mass is more practical than trying to scale up the solution.

However if you mean that it is easier for government to regulate a single power plant rather than a huge number of cars, I agree.

Well I meant it as a generalized engineering principle that a centralized pollution source is much easier to deal with than a decentralized source.

And catalytic converters aren't necessarily more efficient than systems designed to control emissions from a centralized source. Regardless, gas and other fuels used for transportation are not burned at a centralized source, so the comparison is not valid.

On the other hand if petrochemicals are burned at a centralized plant to produce electricity, then it should at least be theoretically easier to reduce the emissions they create compared to controlling them at millions of point sources (autos).

Now if you are an engineer you are likely doing the calculations involving total systemic and lifespan pollutants and efficiencies. Save your time. I surrender.

My Enginerd Friends swear that the losses and inefficiencies in electricity transmissions across a regional grid will negate any positive effects of Electric cars. But i am not an Eniginerd.

Ask them how efficient internal combustion engines are by comparison.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Somewhere on this site is a statistical review on the probability of Evolution.

It pretty bascially trashes the "logic" and inevitability of Evolution.

Just a taste, but the statistical probability of the double helix of DNA formation makes Evolutionary Theory AT THIS TIME ludicrous.

To be able to get to Evolution, most "scientists" JUST ASSUME IT AS A GIVEN...LMAO! They dont even pretend to model the probability because it would essentially disprove their theory...

Now we factor in the hurdle of 237 or 238 enzymes just miraculously appearing at the same time, in the right proportions, with NO impurities, in a swamp, or tidal pool, etc and well i am just getting ready to wet myself for this debate...lol.

The probabilities of these two events essentially define mathematic certainty.

Did i say it would not be eventually workout? NO. i just pointed out that using scientifically accepted probability theory makes all this very hard to swallow at present.

How does the fact that it's statistically unlikely rule it out as the best answer?

Here's a pretty decent discussion of your statistics point: http://www.science20.com/philosophical_scientist/dna_probability_and_fallacy

And those statistics also take into account the number of planets, stars, and galaxies in the KNOWN universe? 100s of trillions of likely planets out there for this to be happening constantly on over billions of years. Many of those having head starts far longer than our planet.

[Aufan59 168]

Somewhere on this site is a statistical review on the probability of Evolution.

It pretty bascially trashes the "logic" and inevitability of Evolution.

Just a taste, but the statistical probability of the double helix of DNA formation makes Evolutionary Theory AT THIS TIME ludicrous.

To be able to get to Evolution, most "scientists" JUST ASSUME IT AS A GIVEN...LMAO! They dont even pretend to model the probability because it would essentially disprove their theory...

Now we factor in the hurdle of 237 or 238 enzymes just miraculously appearing at the same time, in the right proportions, with NO impurities, in a swamp, or tidal pool, etc and well i am just getting ready to wet myself for this debate...lol.

The probabilities of these two events essentially define mathematic certainty.

Did i say it would not be eventually workout? NO. i just pointed out that using scientifically accepted probability theory makes all this very hard to swallow at present.

It is so unlikely that someone would win the lottery twice, that it is difficult to believe that it happened, even though we have evidence that it did indeed happen.

Should we claim that this person did not win the lottery twice because it is so very unlikely to win the lottery twice? Or should we follow the evidence, the evidence that shows he did indeed win the lottery twice, despite the odds?

[Aufan59 168]

Here's a pretty decent discussion of your statistics point: http://www.science20...ity_and_fallacy

And those statistics also take into account the number of planets, stars, and galaxies in the KNOWN universe? 100s of trillions of likely planets out there for this to be happening constantly on over billions of years. Many of those having head starts far longer than our planet.

The main point to take away from that article is that the probability assumes that a DNA strand randomly aligned to form the first species. This is absolutely silliness. I failed the s*** out of biochemistry and struggled in organic chemistry, but even I know that premise is silly.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Also, as the Miller-Urey and subsequent experiments have proven, it is highly likely that given the known mix of available inorganic materials we get a host of pre-biotic organic molecules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Followed by other experiments which show that many of these organics are coupled within protein shells (I forget the experiment name at the moment) naturally, and you have the conditions necessary for the beginnings of life.

[DKW 86 7,866]

It is far easier to control emissions for any given single power plant than trying to control emissions coming from a huge number of point sources (such as automobiles).

This is not necessarily true. For example, catalytic converters are great for cars, but they aren't practical for large industry. The small scale solution for various pollutants was much easier and came sooner than a large scale solution.

Plenty of technological advances start small, the difficulty is scaling them up. Sometimes implementing a small scale solution in mass is more practical than trying to scale up the solution.

However if you mean that it is easier for government to regulate a single power plant rather than a huge number of cars, I agree.

Well I meant it as a generalized engineering principle that a centralized pollution source is much easier to deal with than a decentralized source.

And catalytic converters aren't necessarily more efficient than systems designed to control emissions from a centralized source. Regardless, gas and other fuels used for transportation are not burned at a centralized source, so the comparison is not valid.

On the other hand if petrochemicals are burned at a centralized plant to produce electricity, then it should at least be theoretically easier to reduce the emissions they create compared to controlling them at millions of point sources (autos).

Now if you are an engineer you are likely doing the calculations involving total systemic and lifespan pollutants and efficiencies. Save your time. I surrender.

My Enginerd Friends swear that the losses and inefficiencies in electricity transmissions across a regional grid will negate any positive effects of Electric cars. But i am not an Eniginerd.

Ask them how efficient internal combustion engines are by comparison.

By comparison, much better.

[homersapien 12,172]

It is far easier to control emissions for any given single power plant than trying to control emissions coming from a huge number of point sources (such as automobiles).

This is not necessarily true. For example, catalytic converters are great for cars, but they aren't practical for large industry. The small scale solution for various pollutants was much easier and came sooner than a large scale solution.

Plenty of technological advances start small, the difficulty is scaling them up. Sometimes implementing a small scale solution in mass is more practical than trying to scale up the solution.

However if you mean that it is easier for government to regulate a single power plant rather than a huge number of cars, I agree.

Well I meant it as a generalized engineering principle that a centralized pollution source is much easier to deal with than a decentralized source.

And catalytic converters aren't necessarily more efficient than systems designed to control emissions from a centralized source. Regardless, gas and other fuels used for transportation are not burned at a centralized source, so the comparison is not valid.

On the other hand if petrochemicals are burned at a centralized plant to produce electricity, then it should at least be theoretically easier to reduce the emissions they create compared to controlling them at millions of point sources (autos).

Now if you are an engineer you are likely doing the calculations involving total systemic and lifespan pollutants and efficiencies. Save your time. I surrender.

My Enginerd Friends swear that the losses and inefficiencies in electricity transmissions across a regional grid will negate any positive effects of Electric cars. But i am not an Eniginerd.

Ask them how efficient internal combustion engines are by comparison.

By comparison, much better.

Ok, now go back and ask them what they mean exactly by "positive effects" and how they will be "negated". I am very interested in what they have to say.

[DKW 86 7,866]

Somewhere on this site is a statistical review on the probability of Evolution.

It pretty bascially trashes the "logic" and inevitability of Evolution.

Just a taste, but the statistical probability of the double helix of DNA formation makes Evolutionary Theory AT THIS TIME ludicrous.

To be able to get to Evolution, most "scientists" JUST ASSUME IT AS A GIVEN...LMAO! They dont even pretend to model the probability because it would essentially disprove their theory...

Now we factor in the hurdle of 237 or 238 enzymes just miraculously appearing at the same time, in the right proportions, with NO impurities, in a swamp, or tidal pool, etc and well i am just getting ready to wet myself for this debate...lol.

The probabilities of these two events essentially define mathematic certainty.

Did i say it would not be eventually workout? NO. i just pointed out that using scientifically accepted probability theory makes all this very hard to swallow at present.

How does the fact that it's statistically unlikely rule it out as the best answer?

Here's a pretty decent discussion of your statistics point: http://www.science20...ity_and_fallacy

And those statistics also take into account the number of planets, stars, and galaxies in the KNOWN universe? 100s of trillions of likely planets out there for this to be happening constantly on over billions of years. Many of those having head starts far longer than our planet.

And you still miss the entirety of it.

Really, play along for a second. Just the probability of raw, totally unsequenced DNA forming is something like 1x10^40,000 Trillions dont even make a dent in a number that big. Ok, lets say it did. 1X10^39,991 or is it 1X10 40,009...lol We havent even begun to discuss the insanely high numbers of the Double Helix problem. Okay, lets conservatively say that the number is something like 10^5,000,000. I say this because most scientists just give up and shortcut around, or more often than not simply take a shot of crack and state that it is a "given." :rofl A column i just read, BY AN ATHEIST DEFENDER OF Evolution ONLY Theory just flat said that "it is 'incalculable' but it had to happen because we know of at least 10M species we can count..." Wow, just crap all over that Scientific Methodology Thingy...

We cant play by those rules though. You cant make warm and fuzzy gross simplifications just because you are too lazy to do the math, to do the work, to do the proof, etc. You must generate the numbers and do the work. no leaps of logic allowed here.

Back to the equation: => = "must then lead to..."

Raw DNA =>Double Helix formed perfectly to give life substance => You have to get nuclear material/membrane => cell membrane => endoplasm => a food source => a temperate climate with no impurities., etc AND ALL THAT AND YOU GET ONE CELL.

You have to overcome all those grossly simplified remaining parts of a cell, with the insanely high probability for each singular event occurring. Each event then magnifies and multiplies the rest. All of this my brothers STILL only gets you to a single living cell!

It cant reproduce or split itself. It only is a living cell. That takes at a minimum, about 237+ enzymes for reproduction. That alone will give you another incredibly high, incredibly unlikely probability...THAT YOU THEN HAVE TO MULTIPLY WITH THE FIRST NUMBER.

Now. you have ONE living cell, that can barely reproduce . It looks biologically like a virus. It is not robust at all. It is weak, speaking in biology terms.

And NOW you have to worry about surviving the weather, not too hot, nor too cold. Nothing negative in the environment like, oh a volcano, or an earthquake, or a rain storm, or snow, or drought, or meteors, or etc

And then you get to fantasize about odds of Evolution and i wont even go into the statistical chances of that happening. I'll just give that to you. ;-)

Using scientifically applied probability theory you can model this theory in detail. It wont be too hard to do. The numbers you will get though, those may be hard to even comprehend. These numbers will be so huge that even applying "Trillions" of opportunities wont change them much and they are already slanted toward your side as it is. We left off many cell parts, etc.

Or you could just admit that science is not your friend here and maybe, just maybe, all of this had some help...And then it isnt so hard to believe at all. Look, you take your comfort in your man-made "GIVENS" and some of us will take comfort in our God given "GIVENS."

[Aufan59 168]

In your post you claimed that people are "too lazy to do the math", yet your figures are prefixed by "something like".

Someone who claims that the numbers are "something like" is probably someone too lazy to do the math. Never once have I encountered a math solution that results in "something like"....

If you'd like, you can give me the numbers and I will do the math. I love working a spread sheet, it turns me on.

[homersapien 12,172]

Somewhere on this site is a statistical review on the probability of Evolution.

It pretty bascially trashes the "logic" and inevitability of Evolution.

Just a taste, but the statistical probability of the double helix of DNA formation makes Evolutionary Theory AT THIS TIME ludicrous.

To be able to get to Evolution, most "scientists" JUST ASSUME IT AS A GIVEN...LMAO! They dont even pretend to model the probability because it would essentially disprove their theory...

Now we factor in the hurdle of 237 or 238 enzymes just miraculously appearing at the same time, in the right proportions, with NO impurities, in a swamp, or tidal pool, etc and well i am just getting ready to wet myself for this debate...lol.

The probabilities of these two events essentially define mathematic certainty.

Did i say it would not be eventually workout? NO. i just pointed out that using scientifically accepted probability theory makes all this very hard to swallow at present.

How does the fact that it's statistically unlikely rule it out as the best answer?

Here's a pretty decent discussion of your statistics point: http://www.science20...ity_and_fallacy

And those statistics also take into account the number of planets, stars, and galaxies in the KNOWN universe? 100s of trillions of likely planets out there for this to be happening constantly on over billions of years. Many of those having head starts far longer than our planet.

And you still miss the entirety of it.

Really, play along for a second. Just the probability of raw, totally unsequenced DNA forming is something like 1x10^40,000 Trillions dont even make a dent in a number that big. Ok, lets say it did. 1X10^39,991 or is it 1X10 40,009...lol We havent even begun to discuss the insanely high numbers of the Double Helix problem. Okay, lets conservatively say that the number is something like 10^5,000,000. I say this because most scientists just give up and shortcut around, or more often than not simply take a shot of crack and state that it is a "given." :rofl A column i just read, BY AN ATHEIST DEFENDER OF Evolution ONLY Theory just flat said that "it is 'incalculable' but it had to happen because we know of at least 10M species we can count..." Wow, just crap all over that Scientific Methodology Thingy...

You don't understand evolution if you think the first step was the formation of DNA. You might as well calculate the probability of a man being formed from a pile of dust. (Oh wait...)

We cant play by those rules though. You cant make warm and fuzzy gross simplifications just because you are too lazy to do the math, to do the work, to do the proof, etc. You must generate the numbers and do the work. no leaps of logic allowed here.

And one can't arbitrarily choose a particular level of development in the evolution of biology and then calculate it's probability of occurring independently of precursor steps.

Back to the equation: => = "must then lead to..."

Raw DNA =>Double Helix formed perfectly to give life substance => You have to get nuclear material/membrane => cell membrane => endoplasm => a food source => a temperate climate with no impurities., etc AND ALL THAT AND YOU GET ONE CELL.

How many years and stages of evolution occurred before the first cell?

You have to overcome all those grossly simplified remaining parts of a cell, with the insanely high probability for each singular event occurring. Each event then magnifies and multiplies the rest. All of this my brothers STILL only gets you to a single living cell!

It cant reproduce or split itself. It only is a living cell. That takes at a minimum, about 237+ enzymes for reproduction. That alone will give you another incredibly high, incredibly unlikely probability...THAT YOU THEN HAVE TO MULTIPLY WITH THE FIRST NUMBER.

Presumably you are aware that cells are not the lowest form of biochemistry capable of reproduction? Heck, there are proteins capable of reproduction.

Now. you have ONE living cell, that can barely reproduce . It looks biologically like a virus. It is not robust at all. It is weak, speaking in biology terms.

And NOW you have to worry about surviving the weather, not too hot, nor too cold. Nothing negative in the environment like, oh a volcano, or an earthquake, or a rain storm, or snow, or drought, or meteors, or etc

Actually, you are not necessarily limited to one, nor are they all sitting in the same place.

And then you get to fantasize about odds of Evolution and i wont even go into the statistical chances of that happening. I'll just give that to you. ;-)

Using scientifically applied probability theory you can model this theory in detail. It wont be too hard to do. The numbers you will get though, those may be hard to even comprehend. These numbers will be so huge that even applying "Trillions" of opportunities wont change them much and they are already slanted toward your side as it is. We left off many cell parts, etc.

Your "model" is dependent on arbitrary estimations of the probability of each particular "step" (well, in your case, more like a "leap" from one level of organization to a different quantum of organization). You are not considering the incremental steps, partly because you can't. Science hasn't determined all of the incremental steps. One cannot quantify the unknown.

Or you could just admit that science is not your friend here and maybe, just maybe, all of this had some help...And then it isnt so hard to believe at all. Look, you take your comfort in your man-made "GIVENS" and some of us will take comfort in our God given "GIVENS."

No one has made any claims about the ultimate origin of the elements and the chemistry required for evolution. The only thing we are insisting is that evolution is a valid theory. It actually happened. There is still room for your God somewhere at the beginning if you want one. Science hasn't yet answered all the questions.

There is no real need to try to rationalize a case for God. You can simply choose to believe. Science is content with not knowing, at least for the time being.

I just love the irony of someone claiming a scientific theory that has been indisputably shown to be correct by every relevant field of science cannot be real because of mathematical improbability, postulating a supernatural being as a more logical alternative.

Perhaps his effort would be better directed toward parsing the probability of a literal Genesis scenario. :-\

This is nothing more than the ole "irreducible complexity" objection (with a calculator).

[AUDub 11,784]

Also, as the Miller-Urey and subsequent experiments have proven, it is highly likely that given the known mix of available inorganic materials we get a host of pre-biotic organic molecules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Followed by other experiments which show that many of these organics are coupled within protein shells (I forget the experiment name at the moment) naturally, and you have the conditions necessary for the beginnings of life.

I remember this experiment, though I wasn't aware of its name. They described it on Cosmos, the old Carl Sagan special. Thanks for the links.

[Aufan59 168]

My Enginerd Friends swear that the losses and inefficiencies in electricity transmissions across a regional grid will negate any positive effects of Electric cars. But i am not an Eniginerd.

I won't go that far, but the energy losses of transmission lines often go ignored. The EPA estimating MPGe is a great example of this.

Even worse, the necessity of transmission lines can even go ignored. Texas had subsidized lots of wind farms, but they overlooked the cost of the requisite transmission lines to get the energy from the wind farms to the cities. Surprise! The wind farms will cost a lot more when you tack on the cost of transmitting the energy generated.

[Aufan59 168]

Ask them how efficient internal combustion engines are by comparison.

Power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines. But that is an apples to oranges comparison.

In the south east, most people get their electricity from coal. The majority of the world gets their power from coal. When charging your electric car with electricity generated from coal, you can potentially generate more CO2 than if you were driving an efficient gasoline powered car. I've previously done the calculations, and I have also read the same conclusion in The Economist. I will provide calculations when I have the time if you desire.

In addition, my gasoline powered car does not emit mercury into the environment, a dangerous neurotoxin. However if I were to buy a Chevy Volt, it would be charged with coal power, contributing to mercury pollution.

The pros and cons of electric vehicles are quite complex.

[homersapien 12,172]

Ask them how efficient internal combustion engines are by comparison.

Power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines. But that is an apples to oranges comparison.

In the south east, most people get their electricity from coal. The majority of the world gets their power from coal. When charging your electric car with electricity generated from coal, you can potentially generate more CO2 than if you were driving an efficient gasoline powered car. I've previously done the calculations, and I have also read the same conclusion in The Economist. I will provide calculations when I have the time if you desire.

In addition, my gasoline powered car does not emit mercury into the environment, a dangerous neurotoxin. However if I were to buy a Chevy Volt, it would be charged with coal power, contributing to mercury pollution.

The pros and cons of electric vehicles are quite complex.

Well, if I could figure out what we are debating (if anything), I'd respond.

My only point is that electric vehicles are in our future - or perhaps more accurately - our descendants future, regardless of the ultimate source of the electricity - solar, wind, nuclear, fuel cells, whatever - and regardless if it comes from dispersed or centralized sources.

I am not trying to make a short term case for converting. To your point, I am not sure one can be made at this point. I don't really see the current efforts (Prius, Volt, etc) as being all that serious in terms of being practical alternatives from an economic standpoint or ecological standpoint. But that can change relatively quickly.

[autigeremt 7,133]

Variations of e-cars are on the way, but we are at the least 60-80 years away from creating power grids that can support the recharging of 2 cars per household. Until then the internal combustion engine remains the driver, if you will.

[homersapien 12,172]

Variations of e-cars are on the way, but we are at the least 60-80 years away from creating power grids that can support the recharging of 2 cars per household. Until then the internal combustion engine remains the driver, if you will.

Well, maybe if both cars are used daily for relatively lengthy commutes. But for someone like myself, who usually drives no more than 3 times a week, a plug-in hybrid would almost totally eliminate my need for gas. (Of course, the price I would pay for one will a hell of a lot of gas, so I'll stick with my '92 Civic which still gets 30+ mpg)

A statistic I read somewhere said a car with a 40 mile range will suffice for 90+% of all trips (as I recall).

[Aufan59 168]

Well, if I could figure out what we are debating (if anything), I'd respond.

My only point is that electric vehicles are in our future - or perhaps more accurately - our descendants future, regardless of the ultimate source of the electricity - solar, wind, nuclear, fuel cells, whatever - and regardless if it comes from dispersed or centralized sources.

I am not trying to make a short term case for converting. To your point, I am not sure one can be made at this point. I don't really see the current efforts (Prius, Volt, etc) as being all that serious in terms of being practical alternatives from an economic standpoint and possibly and ecological standpoint. But that can change relatively quickly.

Electric vehicles are not necessarily our future.

We agree that the limitation on renewable energy is the storage medium. A completely viable storage medium is hydrogen... i.e. using energy generated from renewable energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Maybe the hydrogen is used in fuel cell powered cars. Maybe the hydrogen is used to produce synthetic natural gas that powers our cars. Maybe nuclear power plants use their energy and high operating temperatures to efficiently split water into hydrogen and oxygen

The point being is that electric cars are not necessarily our future. Our future should be decided strictly science and math... but our future is currently being decided on what "sounds right", independent of science and math. A perfect example of this is that electric cars are the "clean future", even though electric cars can potentially contribute more pollutants (CO2 and otherwise) to the environment than gasoline cars.

The future of electric cars "sounds right", regardless of the science and math, therefore it is the future.

Who else have I seen disregarding the science and math? :D

[homersapien 12,172]

Well, if I could figure out what we are debating (if anything), I'd respond.

My only point is that electric vehicles are in our future - or perhaps more accurately - our descendants future, regardless of the ultimate source of the electricity - solar, wind, nuclear, fuel cells, whatever - and regardless if it comes from dispersed or centralized sources.

I am not trying to make a short term case for converting. To your point, I am not sure one can be made at this point. I don't really see the current efforts (Prius, Volt, etc) as being all that serious in terms of being practical alternatives from an economic standpoint and possibly and ecological standpoint. But that can change relatively quickly.

Electric vehicles are not necessarily our future.

We agree that the limitation on renewable energy is the storage medium. A completely viable storage medium is hydrogen... i.e. using energy generated from renewable energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Maybe the hydrogen is used in fuel cell powered cars. Maybe the hydrogen is used to produce synthetic natural gas that powers our cars. Maybe nuclear power plants use their energy and high operating temperatures to efficiently split water into hydrogen and oxygen

The point being is that electric cars are not necessarily our future. Our future should be decided strictly science and math... but our future is currently being decided on what "sounds right", independent of science and math. A perfect example of this is that electric cars are the "clean future", even though electric cars can potentially contribute more pollutants (CO2 and otherwise) to the environment than gasoline cars.

The future of electric cars "sounds right", regardless of the science and math, therefore it is the future.

Who else have I seen disregarding the science and math? :D

Once again, I am not trying to make a present-day case for electric vehicles. But assuming we will eventually need to replace petroleum for transportation uses, I don't really see any alternatives for propulsion systems other than electric motors.

For the sake of argument, let's rule out things like synthetic gas or wood-burning systems and such. They aren't really next generation replacements.

The only future candidate for an internal combustion engine is hydrogen. Now maybe someone will develop a way to store enough hydrogen to make a hydrogen-powered car viable. I know there is a lot of work being done on sequestration for example.

But even then, I would propose that said hydrogen would more likely be used to power a fuel cell than an internal combustion engine. (Let's ignore the use of hydrogen powered engines as an interim to fuel cells. I am assuming that fuel cells/electric motor can be inherently more efficient that a internal combustion engine.)

Maybe you can show me how burning hydrogen in an internal (or external) combustion engine would be inherently more efficient (or safer or compact or whatever..) than using it to power an electric motor via a fuel cell. I am certainly open to those calculations.

Otherwise, future energy sources will be derived from solar, wind or nuclear. (Of course, the holy grail would be nuclear fusion). I really don't see how anything but electric motors will serve as the means to use that energy.

Now I will be the first to admit that I haven't done the calculations. I freely admit that all of my statements above are based on my "gut-based" assumptions. But that's not exactly the same as "disregarding the science and math".

I am totally open to arguments otherwise, because, (as you know) I respect and will defer to the science and the math.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I think with storage improvements in batteries as we've seen demonstrated in labs over the last few years the future is very bright for energy storage.

[AUDub 11,784]

I think with storage improvements in batteries as we've seen demonstrated in labs over the last few years the future is very bright for energy storage.

I remember reading an interesting article about flywheels on magnetic bearings for storing energy in motor vehicles. I need to find that article.

[autigeremt 7,133]

The problem with some batteries is their environmental impact once used. The good thing about lithium batteries is that they are worth the recovery cost to recycle them. Some of these batteries create other problems. If we are to truly offset and become sustainable, we need to go all the way once we get the technology in place.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

New graphene technology is getting smaller and more efficient. Hopefully we can merge the two quickly.

[DKW 86 7,866]

Go with the self propelled hybrids and wait on the technology to catch up.

i am very content driving a Honda with a monster 1.5L dual overhead cam screamer. ;-) Love mileage and the drive.

Of course my truck is a 76 F-150 4X4. anything more ballsy than that, God named Hummer.

[Aufan59 168]

Once again, I am not trying to make a present-day case for electric vehicles. But assuming we will eventually need to replace petroleum for transportation uses, I don't really see any alternatives for propulsion systems other than electric motors.

For the sake of argument, let's rule out things like synthetic gas or wood-burning systems and such. They aren't really next generation replacements.

The only future candidate for an internal combustion engine is hydrogen. Now maybe someone will develop a way to store enough hydrogen to make a hydrogen-powered car viable. I know there is a lot of work being done on sequestration for example.

But even then, I would propose that said hydrogen would more likely be used to power a fuel cell than an internal combustion engine. (Let's ignore the use of hydrogen powered engines as an interim to fuel cells. I am assuming that fuel cells/electric motor can be inherently more efficient that a internal combustion engine.)

Maybe you can show me how burning hydrogen in an internal (or external) combustion engine would be inherently more efficient (or safer or compact or whatever..) than using it to power an electric motor via a fuel cell. I am certainly open to those calculations.

Otherwise, future energy sources will be derived from solar, wind or nuclear. (Of course, the holy grail would be nuclear fusion). I really don't see how anything but electric motors will serve as the means to use that energy.

Now I will be the first to admit that I haven't done the calculations. I freely admit that all of my statements above are based on my "gut-based" assumptions. But that's not exactly the same as "disregarding the science and math".

I am totally open to arguments otherwise, because, (as you know) I respect and will defer to the science and the math.

We don't disagree.

You said electric cars and I read it as battery operated electric cars, my mistake.