It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).

Other animations on the tiny cellular machineries apart from the Expelled movie can be seen in here:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Videos_animations_flagella_evidence_existence_creation_contra_evolution.htm

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, Finland
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-the-Movie-Evolution-Intelligent-Design-ID.htm

You “cannot understand” why debate at this time is a bad idea – its because its far too late for that. The time for debate was the last three decades, as the evidence slowly mounted up. It is now the time for /last-chance/ action in a desperate attempt to save the environment we have built our civilisation in.

Its simply not acceptable to pander to good form, and make a jolly nice committee to debate the issues for ANOTHER ten years, while we squander the last few years in which we have a chance to turn the climate situation around. By the time the most pig-headed, obstinate, head-in-the-sand philistines are convinced, the point of no return is already reached.

Our most pessimistic projections say this has /already happened/! Why else do you think the scientific community was in uproar during the Bali Conference at the bickering politicians slowing down the process for short-term gain for themselves or their nations?

Now can you see why the “Zealots” are “stifling debate” (a carefully barbed way of implying that those who can understand the issues are undemocratic)?

What exactly would your so-called debate acheive? Either you will beleive the consensus of the trained scientific community and the evidence base, or you wont. Evidence changes, yes, but unless you have some reason to expect that the entire climate change thing will go away in the next few years (incidentally, you /cant/ expect this, because such an assertion ought to be backed up by evidence, and then that would be part of the current evidence base), then all a period of debate acheives is delaying our one chance of solving the problem, so the 99% watertight evidence because 100% as we ACTUALLY SEE IT HAPPEN.

You then say that “its not up to them to make that judgement” – ignoring that this is another oh-so-cunning attempt to make the scientific community some sinister dictatorial conspiracy – who is it up to? Our politicians? The idea itself is ludicrous – perhaps there should be a referendum, with everyone in the world weighing up the vast amount of scientific evidence and voting for whether they /beleive it/ or not(because you, along with a billion uneducated chinese peasants, and the indigenous amazonian tribespeople, and etc etc, have the training and ability to do that, right?). Either our politicians should take the advice of the scientific community, and thus the “global warming zealots”, as you put it, CAN make the decision that the argument is won, or you think they shouldnt.

It boils down to this – do you think science is the best method we have of understanding how our world works and how we affect it? If you do, you have to accept its system of peer-reviewed evidence and its reccomendations to save the one known environment our species can survive in – Earth.

If you dont, and think people should be able to make up their minds freely, completely uninformed (because without the relevant training how can you be truly informed?), then continue with your line of debate. Continue to suggest that you should be convinced before any action is taken using your precious resources. But accept that that position means you do not trust the scientific community, you dont accept their methods and you ought to both reject the other items given to you by such methods, including modern medicine, and also kindly not complain when your procrastination DOES cause the biggest humanitarian, economic and environmental disaster in history.