• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Georgia Guidstones

DeletedUser34

ok, I have thought long and hard on how to respond to Narwhal and Dark Lotus...and I can't. I got nothin. I agree with you for many reasons, both scientific and religious. Sorry Narwhal, I can't argue with you...I know I know, you were hoping.

I will say, I am one of those that doubts global warming is as bad as it is portrayed, but, because I am meant to be a good steward of the planet, I do my part to maintain it. But the stones are still kooky.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

You are never going to get it into peoples heads. To debate something is one thing. To go beyond that is another. It must be nice for so many people to be perfect. For their lives to be without flaws, that they have all this free time to now make others lives perfect as well (liberals). The sun will burn out. The moon is getting farther away each year. The core is cooling and we will lose our magnetic field. Much shorter terms... we live on an active planet that cycles itself with extreme heat and cold. There is no limit to the doom and gloom that faces mankind.

The people trying to solve problems (where you would have to be God to do so) are not the smart people. The ones enjoying life, while it is here to be enjoyed are. 100 years from now who is gonna care about anything that we said? They will be coming out with a new movie "2112 When the world ends" cuz some other ancient calendar predicted it.
The only reason you and I are here today is because people of the past tried, and generally succeeded, to resolve issues facing the human race. We did simple things like discover fire to maintain our body heat in the cool winters, we did complex things like invent vaccinations to eradicate diseases like smallpox from the face of the planet. Humans are some of the weakest, most fragile beings on the planet. We survived merely because our brain gave us "artificial evolution", more than enough to overcome our natural flaws. If it wasn't for these people trying to solve problems then we simply wouldn't be here. Perhaps is it the ones enjoying life who are the smartest, wait no - maybe just their respective asses, although just remember where you came from.

There is no limit to the doom and gloom that faces mankind, it is true, but neither is there a limit to the collective human mind and history. The sun is burning out, the moon is getting further away from the earth and the earth's core is cooling. Other facts include that we're genetically hardwired to solve problems, science is advancing exponentially and all these things are way off into the distant future. Not exactly a compelling argument to stop all science, innovation and studies today because the next task is just a little more colossal than the last; we'll manage like every time before that or else perish trying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Lol talk about a bad case of YOLO...And, it might be one thing to say that trying to solve a problem may be fruitless, but to call the scientists and engineers working towards a solution "stupid" is quite something, since they really are "the people trying to solve problems."

Diggo pretty much summed it up. If everyone was as lazy, simple minded, and selfish as to only care about personal enjoyment just because they think that the world will soon end, then we probably wouldn't even be here. Unfortunately for some, I suppose, not everyone can sit back and relax when there's a world of problems to be solved and a world of people to help.

And Domino, I'm not sure what there is to doubt, but global warming is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community, and these people have spent their lives learning this stuff, enhancing our understanding of it, and have the knowledge to understand the implications of it. I think we can trust that the experts and the scientific community know what they are talking about. But good on you for maintaining your part.
 

DeletedUser

I think you twisted what was said. It was stated that man can not solve problems that you would have to be a God to solve.

You give the human mind way to much credit. That is alright tho as it is a very human thing to do. What you are talking about is trivial. In the movies, the big bad asteroid is heading to earth. We get Bruce Willis and some people off an oil rig, fly them up their in our dual titanium space shuttles, drill a hole, explode a nuke and save the day.

In reality it took 3 days to get fresh water to the people in hurricane katrina. That would be 3 days to get water to a state in the US from the other 49. Speaking of oil rigs... How long did it take to cap the one in the gulf? We went to the moon in the 1960's. It was certain Mars in the 70's and then no limit to the space man would venture to. Again in reality we have still only been to the moon. We can not build a working biosphere here on earth. Yet humans will talk about the ones we "could do" on Mars.

You can talk about computers, AI and how they could take over the world. I will talk about the dreaded blue screen of death you get with windows. You can tell me about the androids on TV. I will point out the ones that fall over trying to climb stairs. As they did 50 years ago. I will show you people walking around with metal hooks in place of a missing hand. Not as crude as the pirates, but a metal hook just the same.

These great minds you speak of.... would they be the same ones that can not solve grid lock and rush hour? Would they be the same ones who treat cancer by cutting off human body parts and throwing them away. Hitting it with high doses of radiation? So humans really like to watch kids suffer and die of cancer. Surely if we put our collective minds together we could stop this horrible thing. Yet we do not. Then it must be that we actually enjoy the thought.

The only reason you and I are here today (I will stress again) is that we have NEVER come up against anything you would have to be a "God" to stop from happening. We can not tell the day of a volcanic eruptions, yet alone stop them. Our tornado watches and warnings are based on the right conditions so they may be one or after the fact when one is spotted. Nothing more, no great science involved. Yet we are so smart we can stop one?

It is funny and ironic to me that the smartest people on the planet really know just how limited we are. Yet the least smart, think there is no limit to things we can do. After all, a tribe sees a man in a hot air balloon and worships him as a God. He must be able to stop the earth on its spin. I am sorry I do not share your faith. I do not see humans who can control the weather. I see the ones who can not even predict it right. I learned a long time ago that there is NO santa and it was just mom and dad putting things under the tree.

You do have the numbers one your side tho. There is about 99 percent of the population who watches a movie and thinks it is real. Who want to talk about how smart humans are. What they mean is other humans. If you put them on an island with nothing. They would not even have this "fire" you speak of.

I am here to tell you when a gamma ray burst is on the way. The great minds will not be working on a solution. They will leave that for you. They will be enjoying the few minutes they have left to live.

P.S. That person you are worshiping and speaking of his greatness. The one in the flying machine. He is not a god and will not solve the population problems. global warming or fix the ozone. I recommend you put your bone back in your nose, go dance around the fire and enjoy life while it is still here to be enjoyed.

Wait one last thing if I may.... When the great minds told you that all you needed to survive a chemical attack was some plastic and duct tape. You were one of those people who rushed out and cleared the shelf in the store huh? C'mon now, tell the truth. You know you got a little hole out back with some cans of tuna. A canteen and a flashlight to carry you through anything that gets thrown your way. Nukes, super volcano. not a problem cuz you have fire and a brain.

I will try this again. Man should solve the problems he can (never said be lazy or do not try). He should know his limits and accept the things that are beyond his means. And he should be "smart" enough to know the difference.

If a boat is filling with water at 500 gallons per minute. There is a pump that will drain it at 100 gallons per minute. Will the great mind say "do it"? Or would he point out the obvious?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34

And Domino, I'm not sure what there is to doubt, but global warming is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community, and these people have spent their lives learning this stuff, enhancing our understanding of it, and have the knowledge to understand the implications of it. I think we can trust that the experts and the scientific community know what they are talking about. But good on you for maintaining your part.
Be that as it may, there are scientists who say it is a scare tactic, and their evidence is pretty interesting as well. I am not saying I don't believe in global warming, I just don't think it is as tragic as the tree thumpers are pushing down peoples throats.
 

DeletedUser

lol their argument is more then interesting. It is staggering! Less then 4 percent of CO2 emissions are created by humans. Before people jump on the Al Gore is the savior bandwagon... they should keep in mind a few things. Public records showed his mansions used the same electric as 16 average size homes. At first he was not available for comment. Then a statement was released that solar panels were being installed to correct this problem. Now where did he get the money for this? Well as luck would have it, you can buy carbon credits online. This will free you of your guilt for the damage you have done. It just so happens that ole Al happens to own the website. Your guilt in turn pays for his hypocrisy. It is funny how everything works out in the end when we "go green". There is a documentary called "Trading thin air". It is all about how carbon credits are now a commodity like pork bellies and orange juice. It is a good watch and will get you thinking.
 

DeletedUser34

I understood the the OP to be about good standards of living...what are our thoughts, are they valid etc etc. So if that was the intent of the OP, then dismissing them based on the issue of for example "global warming" which is in fact, applicable to
10.Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.
is a valid debate.
 

DeletedUser

:unsure:. I'm going to go sit in my corner.

I am a strong believer in global warming. We need to look after our planet and yet we're just killing it!
Obama could do something about it but his hands are tied because the sceptics would block any bill he tried to pass to combat global warming.

The sceptics do only have 1 note-worthy scientist on-side at the moment and he is basically un-published. They are more or less just relying on their supporters being rich so that they can spend money on advertising.

Their latest ad was some famous serial killer (who's name i've forgotten) on an add with the caption- 'I believe in global warming. Do you?'. Sheesh.
 

DeletedUser34

:unsure:. I'm going to go sit in my corner.

I am a strong believer in global warming. We need to look after our planet and yet we're just killing it!
Obama could do something about it but his hands are tied because the sceptics would block any bill he tried to pass to combat global warming.

The sceptics do only have 1 note-worthy scientist on-side at the moment and he is basically un-published. They are more or less just relying on their supporters being rich so that they can spend money on advertising.

Their latest ad was some famous serial killer (who's name i've forgotten) on an add with the caption- 'I believe in global warming. Do you?'. Sheesh.

ok narwhal.....this post needs citation...you make a lot of claims of fact here you need to back up.....I have seen more than one scientist, for starters.

Here you go :D
I did my homework years ago....

http://www.climategate.com/
http://www.forbes.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser3

Global warming, Climate Change as it's properly called, is not a belief. It's factual, verifiable, even testable. What is theory is what the future holds. The effects of Climate Change, the impact on life and ecosystems, are speculated. There is no "speculation" on the existence and effects of Climate Change, only on whether there's anything we can do about it at so late a point, and on the severity of its impact to our lives over the next 100 years.
 

DeletedUser

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder
That is a link to the article about the mass murderer ads.

The Guardian said:
They've never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp. That's MIT's Richard Lindzen, who has been arguing for years that while global warming is real, it won't be as severe as almost all his colleagues believe. But as a
The Guardian said:
long article in the New York Times detailed last month, the credibility of that sole dissenter is basically shot. Even the peer reviewers he approved for his last paper told the National Academy of Sciences that it didn't merit publication. (It ended up in a "little-known Korean journal".)

Don't know why its splitting the quote like that... it is one quote not two!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...change-sceptics-influence-science?INTCMP=SRCH
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34

Hell, your argument is pointless, as is narwhals because......
tilting at strawmen

Nobody ever bothers to look and see just where we disagree with the tree huggers....
 

DeletedUser3

Nobody ever bothers to look and see just where we disagree with the tree huggers....

tree huggers huh? Name calling now?

Anyway, where do you disagree? Instead of posing this claim that we're posing strawmen (btw, your opinion article clearly demonstrates that I did not pose a strawman), how about if you simply indicate what you disagree with. See, what you're posing is a typical tactic sometimes referred to as "moving the goalposts." So, post your goalposts as to what you disagree with and we can start from there, from firmly established goalposts that cannot later be moved.
 

DeletedUser34

hahahahahahahaha, my bad hell, you were actually correct in your post....I was more so refering to narwhal with my link. To you my point was your post was pointless, because in many areas we agree....I should have known better whilst going up against you.

As I have stated before, I do believe in global warming, just not to the alarmist extents the tree huggers rally on.
And no, I have always said tree hugger :p I would never call you a tree hugger ;)
 

DeletedUser3

Omg, you didn't indicate your goal posts. ;)

I think you twisted what was said. It was stated that man can not solve problems that you would have to be a God to solve.
It was believed we would never fly, that we would enter space, never visit the moon. It was thought there was no means to save someone from certain diseases, could not repair an ailing heart, a failing liver. It was thought we could not do many things, but we're doing them. Perhaps you should review the story of Icarus, with the father asserting the limitations of man. What I find most interesting, is that this story is flawed at a fundamental level. It asserts that the wax used to glue the wings together melted as Icarus flew closer to the Sun, when in fact as he flew closer to the Sun, he entered into a higher atmosphere, which would have been cooler and less likely to result in the wax melting.

It is these misunderstandings, these errors in facts, that result in the belief there is a limit to what Man can do. But, as we have seen countless times, Man has the mental capacity to learn, grow, adapt, and overcome. Knowledge, resources, and time are what is required for Man to "solve" problems. Do remember, a mere high school student recently found a means to detect, and treat, a particular type of cancer.

I reviewed your arguments Lotus, and they all stem from a review of science fiction and the assumption that such things are not possible because of a time constraint. But we don't have a time constraint to achieve all things. Perhaps you should review earlier episodes of Star Trek and see that we have, in fact, replicated and even surpassed many of the technologies posed in those earlier episodes. But let's get things clear here, science fiction doesn't abide by the physical laws, and so they present things that are simply not possible, at least in the manner they are presented. But that doesn't mean we cannot replicate the effects, the end result.

It has already been achieved, teleportation. Moving inorganic matter from one point to another, it has been done. It did not follow the conventions of Star Trek, but instead followed a different convention, but there has been success in performing something many people thought pure science fiction. It has already been achieved, invisibility. Still being developed, no doubt, but it has been acheived, and thus demonstrating that what we thought "would have to be a God to solve" has turned into things Man can solve.

If a boat is filling with water at 500 gallons per minute. There is a pump that will drain it at 100 gallons per minute. Will the great mind say "do it"? Or would he point out the obvious?
The obvious being what? That the boat is going to sink? So is the obvious that you should sink with the boat? No Lotus, you're approaching this from a linear perspective, and thus your arguments are flawed.

Man should solve the problems he can (never said be lazy or do not try). He should know his limits and accept the things that are beyond his means. And he should be "smart" enough to know the difference.
Climate change is something Man can address, but has repeatedly failed to act on. It is this that is the real problem. It is not the capability, but the will. There is a wealthy element that finds short-term profit in denying the facts and they have found that posing doubt in the minds of others is an effective means of ensuring inaction.

Ultimately, the only valid argument you present is that of time constraints. It is time constraints that may result in our failures. If we are under the gun, limited by time to achieve a result, we may indeed fail to achieve said result, particularly if there are Machiavellian actions posed by entities (organizations, corporations, political parties) with alternative agendas.
 

DeletedUser

My science is sound. You like to put physics and quantum theory in the same realms. It has yet to be done and that is why we do not agree. It is okay as there are many who do not agree on this. What we do agree on is the time restraint.....

In quantum theory ALL things are possible. If you took a new deck (all suits together, 2 through Ace) of cards and throw them up in the air and let them hit the ground. When you pick them up the order would be random. Yet given enough times, the random order would be the exact order that the cards were purchased in. Now while this is true, you have already exceeded a lifetime needed to do this enough times for it to happen (if all you did all day and night for 80 years is toss the cards and pick them up).

Now the quantum gang likes to go one step further. Given the fact of the cards.... Then "in theory" if you cross the street enough times, there will be a time you do not end up on the other side. You will end up on the planet Venus. This may be the case "in theory". The number of times needed to cross the street now exceeds a million life times. So my argument is that while in theory, it is possible, you will not find a sane scientist any where (the news, youtube videos) who is out to prove this true, and take it past just a theory. While they are smart enough to know it is possible, they are also smart enough to know that they would have to create a new number to define the astronomical number of times needed. Hence it is deemed impossible for all practical purposes.

I argue that man is wrong many more times then he is right. He is forever changing his mind and his theories. There are still school books out there that show Saturn as the planet with rings. We now know that all the outer planets have rings. They still show Pluto as a planet. When they wanted to justify having humans as slaves, the great minds got together to show why they were inferior. Now we have global warming and the great minds tell us why it is true and why we can fix it.

I argue that you compare the ability to fly, or go to the moon, things like that.... is in the same realm as being able to reach around, grab yourself by the back of your pants and lift yourself off the ground. Physics allows some things (like flight) but it prevents others (like lifting yourself off the ground by your own pants).

I argue that when something as complex as global warming comes into play. That man should be careful. Great minds have introduced species to new environments, to solve a problem, only to create 100 more problems.

I argue that we do not know what the colossal disaster will be, so we can not plan for it. There will just not be enough time so ergo, for all intentional purposes, it is IMPOSSIBLE! Even if we do plan for it.... Every boxer has a plan before he steps into the ring. The plan works until he gets hit! That will be the great minds of the world.

But my comments were directed at the original concept of controlling or solving the planets population of 7 billion people and not climate change. For this, people and not science comes into play. Humans are the wild card that negates all science...

So gather around my select few. You great minds and world leaders. We go to that secret room that nobody admits to to solve this problem........

I propose that since we have many sides to this argument, all of who claim to be right. We do what we always do. The one thing we can always count on with 100 percent certainty. We play the people themselves. I do not know which side is right, but I do know people so lets look at the things we do know.

1. Perception is reality. We control the media. If we say that this person is a terrorist, then it is so. If we say he is a rapist, then it is so. If we say that he is a child molester then it is so.

2. People will fight each other if one insults the other sports team. They will riot given the right amount of push.

Knowing this, we pit the arguing sides against each other. This table is square. Those sitting on the north will take the side of group A. Those on the east, group B. Sitting on the south group C. And on the west will be group D. Some will impose birth limits, others food rationing. What ever is needed to get the mobs to revolt and war each other.

The goal is a 50 percent reduction. Of course we all have to give 15 percent of ours. We will take much higher percents from the people not represented here like in Africa, India, parts of Asia. As high as 75 percent in some places to get a total of 50 percent. In the past large cities and civilian targets were forbidden. Now they are of the highest priority. I will let you all chose your 15 percent targets. You can clean out your inner cities, prisons, what ever it may be. When the desired number is reached we call a truce and all come together with open arms.

With this plan there are 3 things I can promise you. 1) Over population will no longer be an issue. 2) Like little stars on our taverns and schools, the happiness of the people will be ecstatic. The minions will be thrilled by all the new jobs created to rebuild things. 3) We will still rule and control the planet. We get to tax the minions and the companies who hire them. For us it will be "business as usual".

Sound a little absurd and far fetched? You see scientist sitting around in a room to solve the planets population problem. I see politicians sitting around to solve it. People should be careful what they wish for. If history has taught us nothing else. It has showed us that politics trump science! Politicians do not use physics or quantum theory. They use mind games, double talk, and big armies to solve the problems they are faced with.
 

DeletedUser

This so called "Global warming", or "Climate change", or whatever you want to call it, is just a huge propaganda of our governments to rip us off by raising funny new taxes and forcing us to buy expensive stuff that won't help anybody or anything, especially not nature. It only helps those selling the stuff. I've lost faith long ago in what politicians and scientists are trying to "sell" us - there have been too many lies.

There have been huge temperature changes on this planet ever since it has started to exist, they're called "Ice Ages" for example. And those were not made up of those ridiculous 4 or 5 degrees so called experts are talking about, we're talking 20, 30 or more degrees. Did it harm earth? Not a bit. Did it harm it's inhabitants? In a way, yes. But as it turned out, new creatures evolved and populated it. Over and over again.

So what's the big fuss about mankind? One day, we will be gone. Sooner or later. Sooner, if we start throwing nukes again. Later, when nature decides it's time for us to go. But so what? Nobody cares. Especially not nature.

So without any moral concerns, I personally LOVE global warming, it lowers my heating bill. In times where we're being ripped off by the energy industry, global warming can't be warm enough and I'll continue to use my Big Block V8 made in USA to contribute to it, where- and whenever I can.
 

DeletedUser

Yes it is, in the sub atomic world. Show me the scientist who tells us that soon it will be real objects or people. You are breaking one of the golden rules of science with your thinking. That what applies to the very small, also applies to the very large. This does not even apply for a food recipe. If you multiply the ingredients you will not end up with the same great tasting food. That link is not to a science article. It is for entertainment based on science.

You want to take the fact that the faster we go, the slower time goes.... To the giant leap that time travel is possible. All that was proved that when an object is going very fast, time must be corrected to match that of something not going that speed. NOTHING MORE! Yet you would have people think that when you are going this fast it in some way magically alters biology and anatomy and you would return young. While the rest of us have aged a great deal. So let me ask you this. When you slowed down, to again match our space/time, with your own logic, would not your body magically age back to match ours? You can not have one without the other.

Your logic sez that if a 2 foot cannon shoots this far. Then a 4 foot cannon would do this. And the 8 foot, and the 16 foot, and the 32 foot and the 64 foot. People tried it and it DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT! There are rules that apply in physics. This is the world we live in. We do not live in the sub atomic world, so your rules do not apply here. They can me used here, like in a computer. But that is as far as it goes. We use the processor, we do not live inside of it and abide by its rules. So we do not agree. While they can coexist in the same realm, they are both still bound by their own sets of rules. It has yet to be done where they can abide by both. Some of the greatest minds have tried to show a theory of anything and all have failed because of the different rules that apply.

LOL and for the record sign me up for global warming too. If I had a dollar for every time I asked "where is this global warming" last winter, I would make Bill Gates look poor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top