"An Inconvenient Truth" a Movie by Owl Hore [Archive]

SavageSun4x4

05-25-2006, 10:21 AM

For those of you who have not caught the news, there is a new challenge to us 4 wheelers.

I have seen the movie yet, but plan on doing so as I need to understand the plan of attack by old Owl himself.

A bit o background:
The Gore family has its roots in communism, this is not a secret, and there is a ton of info to support this. You can start here: http://crm114.com/algore/hammer.html Additionally Owl himself on November 12, 1998, as Vice President symbolically signed the Kyoto protocol treaty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

I might suggest a bit of research on these topics as it will get quite heated in the upcoming Presidential race and even more so if and when we get a Dimokrat in the WH.

GLOBAL WARMING ACCORDING TO AL GORE:

The new consensus: The world scientific community is now in near-unanimous agreement on five key points:

# Global warming is real.

# Mankind is primarily responsible for it.

# The effects are catastrophic.

# The effects are accelerating.

# It's not too late to turn it around.

The effects: Drastic climate change, extreme hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, insect plagues, epidemics and other health problems, killer heat waves, the extinction of many plant and animal species, the swamping of our coastal cities as the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica melt and the oceans rise, rings of social, political and economic chaos rippling out from the centers of environmental disaster.

The causes: Greenhouse gas emissions (mostly spewing from automobile tailpipes and coal-burning power plants) trapped in the Earth's atmosphere; declining plant life (which breathes in carbon dioxide as it grows and breathes out oxygen).

The chief bad guy: The United States of America, which has only 5 percent of the world's population but is responsible for a quarter of the world's carbon emissions (6 billion tons a year, and rising) and is virtually alone among nations in refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

The cure: A massive global effort to protect forests, reduce emissions, and develop and make available new clean energy technologies such as wind power, solar power, hybrid electric engines and alternative fuels.

The timetable: Five to 10 years, before the effects become irreversible.

I do agree fully that our climate is most likely getting warmer. However not one shred of evidence says Mankind is primarily responsible. Does humanity contribute, most likely, however our climate getting warmer is a historical fact and we cannot stop it from doing so. In fact what we are seeing is the beginning of the next ice age. There is not a shortage of scientists or evidence supporting this opinion.

The earth’s climate is cyclic and runs from various levels of cold ice ages to warmer times doing so over periods of thousands to hundreds of years. That said and viewing from a temperature paradigm vantage point we essentially have 3 options to choose from:
1. Earth is getting warmer
2. Earth is getting cooler
3. Earth maintains a stable temperature/climate

A cursory study of objects in the heavens that have a atmosphere shows that the answer can be either 1 or 2 at any given time, but never 3. Something Owl continually overlooks.

Owl has an agenda and I suspect its taking another run for the WH, be frightened, very frightened if he wins.

What you can do:
• See "An Inconvenient Truth" and read its companion book.
• Get a basic understanding of the Kyoto treaty, such as.
o Financial commitments: The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay, and supply technology to, other countries for climate-related studies and projects. (This means us the US) since we have only 5 percent of the world's population but are responsible for a quarter of the world's carbon emissions. Funny, how if we pay money to the UN everything suddenly becomes ok.
• Keep in mind that the Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Aha, a UN thing! Follow the money boys and girls. Who is angling to be the President of the UN? Who has visited 62 countries in the past couple of years? Who has made HIV-AIDS their number one priority? OK, one more hint, he has an office in NYC? Slick Willie! Now remember that during his tenure he often looked to the UN as the decision maker, a thought shared by all good extreme liberals.

John_P

05-25-2006, 11:13 AM

I do agree fully that our climate is most likely getting warmer. However not one shred of evidence says Mankind is primarily responsible. Does humanity contribute, most likely, however our climate getting warmer is a historical fact and we cannot stop it from doing so. In fact what we are seeing is the beginning of the next ice age. There is not a shortage of scientists or evidence supporting this opinion.

This is easy to state [in bold] but not so easy to back up. Rather than making blanket statements, why don't back this up with some hard facts?

Or is difficult to find those?

The earth’s climate is cyclic and runs from various levels of cold ice ages to warmer times doing so over periods of thousands to hundreds of years. That said and viewing from a temperature paradigm vantage point we essentially have 3 options to choose from:
1. Earth is getting warmer
2. Earth is getting cooler
3. Earth maintains a stable temperature/climate

The one thing YOU are overlooking is TIME. Yes, depending on the time scale, all or none of these can be true.

Also, even IF we are heading in a natural ice age, would you not be concened about bringing upon earlier?

That is to say, it is one thing to point out that another ice age is coming, but quite another to say WE are casuing it to arrive FASTER.

So sure, when pressed on the point many a scientist would concede that indeed warming is a natural cycle that leads to an ice age. However, what most confuse, is that scientists are concerned about ACCELARATION of that process.

So you should not further confuse the two, which clearly you seem to be doing.

FrenchChili

05-25-2006, 11:59 AM

Hey John, that ice age better come fast. I love wheeling in the snow and at least it'd get rid of all those damn mosquitoes:D

JamesT

05-25-2006, 12:59 PM

This is easy to state but not so easy to back up. Rather than making blanket statements, why don't back this up with some hard facts?

Or is difficult to find those?

Do the research John, here are some places to start:

Some people with books:

Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia
[I]Robert Balling of Arizona State University
Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [17]
S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ross McKitrick
Frederick Seitz (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)

Some of the people:
Petr Beckmann (anti-global warming treaties)
Lester Hogan (anti-global warming treaties)
Kary Mullis, biochemist and inventor of PCR
John Lawrence Daly (now deceased)
Andrey Illarionov, former economic advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin
Michael Crichton, science fiction author and critic of the politicization of science, Global Warming is an issue in his 2004 novel, State of Fear
David Bellamy, British environmental campaigner who has since decided to draw back from the debate on global warming.

Some of the orgs:
Information Council on the Environment (defunct): Michaels, Balling and Idso all lent their names in 1991 to the scientific advisory panel of the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), an energy industry public relations group.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Science and Environmental Policy Project, founded by S. Fred Singer

Do you really need Don to type you several books? You might want to go debate when your on campus with the guy bolded at ASU, I believe he has written three books on this.

SavageSun4x4

05-25-2006, 01:01 PM

This is easy to state [in bold] but not so easy to back up. Rather than making blanket statements, why don't back this up with some hard facts?

Or is difficult to find those?

The one thing YOU are overlooking is TIME. Yes, depending on the time scale, all or none of these can be true.

Also, even IF we are heading in a natural ice age, would you not be concened about bringing upon earlier?

In fact it is backed by the very fact that we have and continue to go thru these cycles since the dawn of earth itself. We are not primarily to blame here a contributor, perhaps and most likely so, but humankind is not the culprit.

Time is not being overlooked; in fact, it is a key part of our cycle. Inside of the major ice age cycles, we do have mini-cycles. We just came out of one. From a historical sense, its referred to as the Dark Ages, from a climate viewpoint it was a mini-ice age.

No, I am not concerned about stopping the train. First, we aren't gonna stop it, mother nature is on a mission and we aren't gonna change it. Nor do I think that the cost to society is worth the rewards of prolonging the cycle by a few years. Of course if you elect Owl Hore he can fix it...look for the hidden agenda and always follow the money.

That said I feel our resources would be much better used to prepare for it rather than try to stop a train. I am NOT saying we should throw caution to the wind and pull the cats off our cars. Yes, we need to strive for better cleaner, but not at the cost of a failure to prepare. The 5 P's: Proper Planning Prevents Piss-poor Performance.

Humankind has lived thru ice ages before but it has taken its toll on the world population. The folks in the Dark Ages almost starved to death and millions died from the lack of food resulting from the inability to grow foodstuffs in the cold climate.

But Owl Hore, the extreme liberal he is and like his brethren, has a plan, but only if you elect him can he solve it. Got a hard fact for you Owl, millions of years has shown that we live in a cyclic world of climate change. It gets hot, and then cold, then hot again, just like our Sun and every other planet in our solar system. You and your liberal buddies are not gonna stop this train, better figure out how to make the best of our ride

Bunch of folks sitting on a train and the windows are down since it quite hot. As nightfall sets in it begins to get cool, then cold. The liberal blames nightfall on global pollution and starts a movement to elect him as the train engineer. The liberal says that if elected he will slow down the train to keep the cold wind out of the car. A thinking conservative who is also a bit chilly, decides to raise his window to keep the cold wind off him. The liberal demands he put it down because others haven’t raised their windows and some, because of seating, don’t have a window to raise. The liberal of course, tells everyone that the thinking conservative is discriminating against the others. The thinking conservative then goes around and raises every window an equal amount to reduce the cold air but still provide ventilation. The liberal now says it only benefits the rich who paid extra to get a window seat…and the beat goes on.

SavageSun4x4

05-25-2006, 01:04 PM

Do the research John, here are some places to start:

...

Do you really need Don to type you several books?
Add the National Weather Service to the list.

The Discovery channel recently ran a 2 hour special on Global Warming and the Coming Ice Age. It was an EYE OPENER!

John_P

05-25-2006, 02:15 PM

Do the research John, here are some places to start:

Some people with books:

Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia
Robert Balling of Arizona State University
Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [17]
S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ross McKitrick
Frederick Seitz (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)

Some of the people:
Petr Beckmann (anti-global warming treaties)
Lester Hogan (anti-global warming treaties)
Kary Mullis, biochemist and inventor of PCR
John Lawrence Daly (now deceased)
Andrey Illarionov, former economic advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin
Michael Crichton, science fiction author and critic of the politicization of science, Global Warming is an issue in his 2004 novel, State of Fear
David Bellamy, British environmental campaigner who has since decided to draw back from the debate on global warming.

Some of the orgs:
Information Council on the Environment (defunct): Michaels, Balling and Idso all lent their names in 1991 to the scientific advisory panel of the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), an energy industry public relations group.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Science and Environmental Policy Project, founded by S. Fred Singer

Do you really need Don to type you several books? You might want to go debate when your on campus with the guy bolded at ASU, I believe he has written three books on this.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling

Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.
-(http://www.mtn.org/~newscncl/complaints/hearings/det_118.html)

His views have led to his enthusiastic adoption by various members of the free-market extremist Atlas Economic Research Foundation network. He writes regularly for the Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

His writings find him regularly in the company of other prominent climate change sceptics, including Sallie L. Baliunas, and S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

In August 2004 Balling told Business Week "I'm convinced there will be engineering schemes that will allow our children's children to have whatever climate they want".

OK...so this guy is on the take...OPEC???? Yea...OK.

And Don, I did not say the cycles are not real, nor did I assert that the globe is not warming...

I take the view that humans have contributed to it ACCELERATION....

That is a very different statement...

Your train analogy doesn't work.

Knowing your going to die is one thing. You can't stop it. But you can prolong life, fighting off deaths arrival.

Same here...we know the earth warms as part of a cycle...We want to slow the rate, not stop it. Stopping it is impossible.

John_P

05-25-2006, 02:29 PM

Patrick Michaels
Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels.

Singer
Funded by Exxonmobile...

Idso's
Funded by Exxon and Western Fuels...

Do you see a trend here?

This is all part of a larger scale effort to reduce industry regulation in the US. The repuiblican congress as set up a he said/she said game with science, so that now, it really doesn't matter...

The very idea of refutation and falsifiability is a joke.

It is the politization of science, nothing more.

SavageSun4x4

05-25-2006, 03:21 PM

[url]

I take the view that humans have contributed to it ACCELERATION....

Your train analogy doesn't work.

Knowing your going to die is one thing. You can't stop it. But you can prolong life, fighting off deaths arrival.

We want to slow the rate, not stop it. Stopping it is impossible.
This is what I said: I do agree fully that our climate is most likely getting warmer. However not one shred of evidence says Mankind is primarily responsible. Does humanity contribute, most likely, however our climate getting warmer is a historical fact and we cannot stop it from doing so.

Train analogy does work, we can read it in the paper every day, from tax cuts to so called equal rights. Just pick your subject and fill in the blanks.

There is not a parallel between prolonging life by [fill in blank] stopping smoking, excessive drinking or eating more healthy and having the US pay the UN and the rest of the world for its successes. We are talking Owl Hore, his movie and the Kyoto treaty, do not drift off subject.

JamesT

05-25-2006, 03:38 PM

azdesertrhino

05-25-2006, 08:20 PM

http://www.lovetoparty.co.nz/images/Popcorn%20Bags%20Large%20Pic.jpg

:D

John_P

05-25-2006, 08:29 PM

This is what I said: I do agree fully that our climate is most likely getting warmer. However not one shred of evidence says Mankind is primarily responsible. Does humanity contribute, most likely, however our climate getting warmer is a historical fact and we cannot stop it from doing so.

You still don't understand what I mean do you? I can tell by your responses.

I AGREE on these points you have made:

1. Earth is warming.
2. This has historically happened before.

And that is about it...My point is...

"Humans have caused warming to accelerate faster than what has been historically shown."

Said in yet another way, we are "increasing the rate of change".

Here is what I DID NOT SAY:

1. We can "stop" it.

Again, what I did say:

"We MIGHT be able to "slow" it down."

Simple. If you want to post some EVIDENCE to show I may be mistaken, please do so. I look forward to your post.

John_P

05-25-2006, 08:40 PM

So John,

It is okay for people like Owl Gore to take money from organizations like the Sierra Club and Green Peace (that definately have agendas), but it is not okay for educated people to take a couple hundred thousand from an oil company(assuming your statement is true) ? ASU didn't turn down the money (also, assuming your statement is true) now did they?

Seems to me like you have double standards here, but don't all liberals? ;)

Here you go John:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/13/182926.shtml
is Owl Hore swayed by the money he recieves? Why do you think that your professors are?

James, we are not talking about taking money for speeches. There are no guidelines, or methodology to speeches. Speeches don't even carry the essentials components of makes science, well, science.

Speeches are MEANT to be subjective, persuasive, and agenda driven.

Science is supposed to be objective and non-partial.

So how can you compare them?

Second, you are implicitly comparing "politicians" and "scientists"...Go figure.

This has nothing to do with double standards. it has to do with the new politics of science. Yes, POLITICS of science.

Its dirty, and if you want to believe Exxon-Mobil, that is fine by me. While your at it, why don't you fill my gas tank, I would be more than willing to agree with you after topping off. :D

David C

05-25-2006, 09:21 PM

Bunch of folks sitting on a train and the windows are down since it quite hot. As nightfall sets in it begins to get cool, then cold. The liberal blames nightfall on global pollution and starts a movement to elect him as the train engineer. The liberal says that if elected he will slow down the train to keep the cold wind out of the car. A thinking conservative who is also a bit chilly, decides to raise his window to keep the cold wind off him. The liberal demands he put it down because others haven’t raised their windows and some, because of seating, don’t have a window to raise. The liberal of course, tells everyone that the thinking conservative is discriminating against the others. The thinking conservative then goes around and raises every window an equal amount to reduce the cold air but still provide ventilation. The liberal now says it only benefits the rich who paid extra to get a window seat…and the beat goes on.

Nice analogy, Don.

Ooh, my popcorn is ready...:D

Antman

05-25-2006, 09:48 PM

Quote by John P:Science is supposed to be objective and non-partial.

Comment by Antman as he goes for another Corona: :eek: You have to be kidding! Lets see, Astronomy, Archeology, Geology are all objective and non-partial.

Pass the pop corn.:rolleyes:

John_P

05-25-2006, 09:58 PM

Nice analogy, Don.

Ooh, my popcorn is ready...:D

No, I don't like it...

Here is my analogy...the death analogy...Simply put...

We all will die. History has shown that humans before us have died, we will eventually die. Death is certain. In a sense, after we mature, we are all in a state of slow death.

However, unlike our forefathers, we live to an average age of 72, while they were luck to get past 35...

Thus, we have not "stopped" death, but merely changed the average rate at which it occurs.

Same goes goes for global warming. The earth is warming. This is not only historically true, but currently true.

Over time, we can think of these "warm-ups" as having an average rate of increase. However, since the industrial age, this rate is above average.

Now folks simply want to "slow" that rate, just like when we want to "slow" father time.

BAM!

TRobertsRN

05-26-2006, 12:15 AM

I have wondered how do we know what the temperatures were before we measured them. It's not like we have millions of years of temperatures to compare.

From what I recall the currents in the oceans are responsible for the stability of what would be other wise very erratic temperatures on earth. These currents are a by product of the turning of the earth and cyclical melting and freezind of the polar caps.

It is also my understanding that the major ice ages have to do with the fact that the tilt of the earth realitive to the sun changes over thousands of years. Much like when you spin a top near the end of its energy it is still spinning but begins to wobble. The earth also wobbles but very slowly. So at times the North pole is farter from the Sun (Northern ice AGE) and at times closer to the Sun (no Ice Age and warmer temperatures). If I remember right the whole cycle takes 10,000 to 15,000 years.

I don't think we have been recording temperatures any where close to that amount of time.

There is not a large enough sample of temperatures to conclude we are warming at faster than the normal rate.

Even if we assume the Earth is warming at faster than the normal rate it is a huge leap to blame this on the industrial emmisssions of the United States of America.

I think this like the middle east, and the border with Mexico. They are something we don't have the answers for. Perfect for politicians, they won't be solved or concluded in the majority of the public minds for thousands of years (hopefully sooner with the Mexican border). So in the mean time on both sides of the global warming issue they gain money and power.

They let us bicker about these issues when the real issue should be political reform. Let no bill have any add on's or pork. Each must pass on its own merit. The pork must pass alone on its own merit. This would eliminate lobbys. Git rid of the electoral college. It time was proper when it took 3 months to get the votes from California to DC. No polls or predictions on election day to influence the vote. One total at the end of the day. These things might some day happen.

The one I would really like to see and I know I am dreaming is a return to how things were done when democracy started in Rome. Senators were not elected, they were drawn by lot. Limited to one term. It was a duty an honor to serve the public, not their party or special interest.

LauraA

05-26-2006, 06:29 AM

Whew!! Global warming...so glad to hear it! Now I know why my Jeep's air conditioner isn't cooling like it's supposed to. :rolleyes:

JamesT

05-26-2006, 07:53 AM

Whew!! Global warming...so glad to hear it! Now I know why my Jeep's air conditioner isn't cooling like it's supposed to. :rolleyes:

LOL

Don't worry, Iran will explode a nuc soon, so we will have a nuclear winter to cool off the global warming.
And no one ought to do anything about Iran, because then it will be considered to be "all about power hungry western society" or "all about oil".

John_P

05-26-2006, 08:09 AM

DsrtJeeper

05-26-2006, 08:21 AM

LOL

Don't worry, Iran will explode a nuc soon, so we will have a nuclear winter to cool off the global warming.
And no one ought to do anything about Iran, because then it will be considered to be "all about power hungry western society" or "all about oil".

....but it's ok if we have nuclear technology? Russia? Talk about double standards. :rolleyes: If you think for one minute that Russia or we wouldn't use that technology for protection; think again.

SavageSun4x4

05-26-2006, 09:40 AM

All that said [now stay with me John and don't drift into something else] is patently correct.

The subject here is Owl Hore, his movie, and his thoughts on global warming, nothing else.

Owl sez:

# Global warming is real.

# Mankind is primarily responsible for it.

# It's not too late to turn it around.

The effects: Drastic climate change, extreme hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, insect plagues, epidemics and other health problems, killer heat waves, the extinction of many plant and animal species, the swamping of our coastal cities as the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica melt and the oceans rise, rings of social, political and economic chaos rippling out from the centers of environmental disaster.

The causes: Greenhouse gas emissions ...

The chief bad guy: The United States of America...

The cure: A massive global effort ...

Let us examine this:
Yes, Global warming is real and the earth has done so thru many cycles over millions of years.

As I have said earlier, there is not one shred of evidence to support the premise that humankind is primarily responsible for it. If that were true just how do we explain all of the warming-cold-warming cycles over the past millions of years? I have no argument or doubt that humankind is accelerating this pace, but by how much I do not know. What I do know is that if I walk over to the beach in Kalifornia and I P all the oceans in the world will raise in their levels. However, I doubt that any Chinaman is out buying a life jacket because of it.

As you can see Owl blames just about everything on Global Warming. I am surprised that athletes foot, diarrhea and hang nails aren’t on his list

Yes, at some point in time the effects will be catastrophic. Actually what does need to be done is to predict the effects. There are more or less two scenarios. It can be mild as in the period of the “dark ages” or extreme such as a full-blown ice age.

Unlike Owl I do not believe it can be turned around, nor do I believe he can do it. Additionally, the cost to try to turn around is beyond the cost that the society or the world can bear. Nor do I feel that I owe the world a damn dime because I, my father, and his father, etc, before him along with a bunch of old white guys in 1776 laid and built the foundation for greatness. These old men have done more in the past 225 years or so than all the societies before them for all time. Nor do I think turning over the reins to the UN would ever solve a problem…of any kind. That group of lying, stealing bozos, couldn’t take a crap on their own if they drank a six-pack of cod liver oil.

What I am concerned about as an avid outdoorsman and Jeeper is where Owl and his crew are heading and more so where they would take us if they ever get in charge.

Of course Owl blames global warming on everything in spite of the facts or evidence, that is called propaganda. It worked for Hitler and the USSR and its working today of at least 2/3 of the world. The US is one of the few countries with a free press and free speech.

Remember the Owls roots are eyeball deep in communist-socialist doctrine. Moreover, anyone who thinks the Klintons are true Americans needs to clear the smoke from their crack pipe. How about Ted Turner who gave $1Billion bucks to the UN and it was not to promote the American way.

Bear in mind that Owl SIGNED the Kyoto treaty, can we scream this any louder. The Senate in a 95 to 0 vote said no to the Kyoto Protocol. Nevertheless, loose cannon Owl heads over on his own and signs the damn thing. Wonder what he would do as President.

I firmly believe times are a changing. Our goals need to be how to manage it when it arrives, not how to slow it down. Again, not to say we don’t need to continue our efforts for a better cleaner world, but the US owes no one.

As a career military guy and having a wife who hails from Europe, where her family resides I can say a few things about world pollution. First, the US has the cleanest waters, air of most anyplace in this world. I just spent nearly a month in Italy and just over a week cruising rivers and canals and there is not a single creek or river you can drink, swim or fish out of. In most of the world, sewage is dumped into the local waters. The boat we had, a 50’ motor yacht, with 3 bathrooms, and everyone flushing direct into the waters.

The rest of the world can’t tell the US squat about clean. Which leads me to think the rest of the world [aka UN] wants the US to pay for thier mess.

John_P

05-26-2006, 10:40 AM

Well Don, to be perfectly honest, I will have to see the movie before I can carry this discussion any further on Gore, specifically. However I do find ti a bit troubling at the arrogance this nation has developed. Reminds me of another great Empire you recently visited.

Fact of the matter is, we are all on this planet together. And with industry rapidly growing in other nations, our environment is in for a big surpirse.

At some point we will have to work together, and so I ask, when do we start?

"Ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure"

DsrtJeeper

05-26-2006, 10:44 AM

John_P

05-26-2006, 10:49 AM

John;
Have you been drinking? You're spelling is getting worse by the day. :D

I have been staring at a 45 page manuscript I'm preparing to submit for publication...and let me tell you, I need all the extra eyes I can sucker into reading it!

DsrtJeeper

05-26-2006, 02:05 PM

I have been staring at a 45 page manuscript I'm preparing to submit for publication...and let me tell you, I need all the extra eyes I can sucker into reading it!

That's what editors are for. ;)

SavageSun4x4

06-02-2006, 10:27 AM

For those of you who want to get smart on Global warming and use a trusted source, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/k4zv5

FrenchChili

06-02-2006, 10:52 AM

I liked The Day After Tomorrow, if that happens Jeeps would rule the Earth:D

My1stJeep

06-02-2006, 10:58 AM

Knowing your going to die is one thing. You can't stop it. But you can prolong life, fighting off deaths arrival.

You can? Please explain how. I see far too often people who eat balanced meals, remain physically fit, do all that the health experts say and die early. Then again some like my grandfather, smoke 2 packs a day, eat all the bad things that clog your arteries, no exercise, etc... and live a long life. So while you can try to prolong life as much as you want, I don't see actual proof that it does help. I am sure you will try to produce some, and yes I would even say that we can all agree that doing the good things probably might, however far too many die young (not including things like accidental, car wrecks, drug overdose, etc...) to disprove it.

So if it were truly there, a true sure fire way to prolong life I think everyone would be doing it.

Then again, things may happen for a reason beyond our control, things that even science can not explain, maybe there is truly a higher power, could it be John you left your belief in God too soon?

John_P

06-02-2006, 11:50 AM

You can? Please explain how.

You mean I have to explain this to you Chris? Life expectancy increased over quite a bit of time. So to say that modern technology, advances in what we know about the human body, and general advances in sanitation have not prolonged the average human lifespan is absurd.

I see far too often people who eat balanced meals, remain physically fit, do all that the health experts say and die early. Then again some like my grandfather, smoke 2 packs a day, eat all the bad things that clog your arteries, no exercise, etc... and live a long life.

Exceptions to the rule. Again, I am not talking about individuals, but people on "average". Think of this way...If you HAD to place a bet on who would live longer, which of your two examples would it be?

The individual who exercises and eats well?

Or the 2 pack-a-day smoker?

I bet dollars to donuts most people will take the former.

So while you can try to prolong life as much as you want, I don't see actual proof that it does help. I am sure you will try to produce some, and yes I would even say that we can all agree that doing the good things probably might, however far too many die young (not including things like accidental, car wrecks, drug overdose, etc...) to disprove it.

I agree. Far to many people die young. In fact people die at all ages. HOWEVER, if the vast majority of people died young, we would not have a average life expectancy in the 70's...would we?

So if it were truly there, a true sure fire way to prolong life I think everyone would be doing it.

I have mentioned only one sure-fire thing: death.

When I talk about prolonging life, I am not speaking in absolutes, commonsense would say otherwise, as you have pointed out with your examples. However, I am curious why you would think I am?

Then again, things may happen for a reason beyond our control, things that even science can not explain, maybe there is truly a higher power, could it be John you left your belief in God too soon?

I agree. Science is far from explaining a LOT of phenomena.

What does god have to do with this? Second, what makes you think that I don't believe in a god? How do you know what my beliefs are?

Please explain. :cool:

My1stJeep

06-02-2006, 12:49 PM

In a sense, after we mature, we are all in a state of slow death.

Correction, technically we are in a state of slow death from the time of conception, from that time forward we are bound to die. There is not magic age at which we turn the corner and start down the road to death.

Scary thought, "after we mature" this is assuming that everyone matures, there are a few on this board that have proven an inability to mature, does this mean they will live forever?

My1stJeep

06-02-2006, 12:54 PM

....but it's ok if we have nuclear technology? Russia? Talk about double standards. :rolleyes: If you think for one minute that Russia or we wouldn't use that technology for protection; think again.

:eek: Huh???? :confused:
Huge difference between using if for defense and offense. Most of the nations including Iran, hate us and will do anything to attack us. See previous time in history when they took Americans hostage, kidnapped and murder people, set off car bombs etc... they don't care who they kill, to them the more the merrier.

If that is the case, why did we not care and just drop a nuke on Aghan and Iraq? Basically cause we are not them, we do care and we don't want to hurt innocent people if it can be helped.

I see a big difference.

DsrtJeeper

06-02-2006, 12:54 PM

Scary thought, "after we mature" this is assuming that everyone matures, there are a few on this board that have proven an inability to mature, does this mean they will live forever?

That would be me with 29 lives to go! :D

Eric Knievel

My1stJeep

06-02-2006, 01:10 PM

You mean I have to explain this to you Chris? Life expectancy increased over quite a bit of time. So to say that modern technology, advances in what we know about the human body, and general advances in sanitation have not prolonged the average human lifespan is absurd.

Yes I will say medical advances have made it so we can live longer in a sense, but were out bodies not equiped to live that long before? Only curing diseases has really made a difference, the global environment has nothing to do with that.

Exceptions to the rule. Again, I am not talking about individuals, but people on "average". Think of this way...If you HAD to place a bet on who would live longer, which of your two examples would it be?

The individual who exercises and eats well?

Or the 2 pack-a-day smoker?

I bet dollars to donuts most people will take the former.

I would say most would, but nothing to prove it to be true. So a smoker dies of cancer, if he had not smoked do we have proof he would have lived longer or would he have died sooner, maybe say that day stopping to light the cig before entering the street kept him from being run over by a bus. He may have lived another 10 years before the cancer got him. We have no proof you live longer by taking care of your body, it is a good theory, just not proven.

When I talk about prolonging life, I am not speaking in absolutes, commonsense would say otherwise, as you have pointed out with your examples. However, I am curious why you would think I am?

Please don't take offense to this, just the way I see it, while I do believe you think alot, I would not always apply the word commonsense with your comments. Often times they have shown in the past they were made to be inflammatory, which to me shows the opposite. Plus many times you have taken a completely opposite view and appraoched it in an argumentative way. Commonsense approach tells us that right after you attack someone or make them upset by being infammatory or argumentative the other person stops listening. If you want to actually get a point across you want them to listen.

What does god have to do with this? Second, what makes you think that I don't believe in a god? How do you know what my beliefs are?

Please explain. :cool:

Previous converstations and posts you made not only did you state that you have questioned your beliefs you grew up with, but you were taking the scientific approach. I seem to recall quite a lengethy discussion on this board where you attempted to show that evolution was a scientific fact and that God was a theory. I have yet to meet someone who believed in God when they believe he is only a theory. Since you quite often surprise us, can I put you down as a first?

John_P

06-02-2006, 03:07 PM

Correction, technically we are in a state of slow death from the time of conception, from that time forward we are bound to die. There is not magic age at which we turn the corner and start down the road to death.

Scary thought, "after we mature" this is assuming that everyone matures, there are a few on this board that have proven an inability to mature, does this mean they will live forever?

Correction...

The meaning of "maturity" is bit more than "mental" maturity. Maturing is biological process, as well as a mental one.

I submit the first definition from dictinary.com:

"Having reached full natural growth or development: a mature cell."

So obviouly after full growth...comes well...slow decay.

Now the second def alludes to mental...

"Of, relating to, or characteristic of full development, either mental or physical: mature for her age."

John_P

06-02-2006, 03:09 PM

:eek: Huh???? :confused:
Huge difference between using if for defense and offense. Most of the nations including Iran, hate us and will do anything to attack us. See previous time in history when they took Americans hostage, kidnapped and murder people, set off car bombs etc... they don't care who they kill, to them the more the merrier.

If that is the case, why did we not care and just drop a nuke on Aghan and Iraq? Basically cause we are not them, we do care and we don't want to hurt innocent people if it can be helped.

I see a big difference.

I think your wrong on this...I don't think Iran wants nukes for the sole purpose of attacking us. Not at all. It's fairly obvious they want nukes for the diplomatic muscle it presents. Face it, when you have nukes, the world listens BECAUSE of that threat.

John_P

06-02-2006, 03:41 PM

Yes I will say medical advances have made it so we can live longer in a sense, but were out bodies not equiped to live that long before? Only curing diseases has really made a difference, the global environment has nothing to do with that.

So let me get this right...You don't think that the environment has anything to do with living longer? Can you explain exactly what you mean? I don't want to make any assumptions here.

I would say most would, but nothing to prove it to be true. So a smoker dies of cancer, if he had not smoked do we have proof he would have lived longer or would he have died sooner, maybe say that day stopping to light the cig before entering the street kept him from being run over by a bus. He may have lived another 10 years before the cancer got him. We have no proof you live longer by taking care of your body, it is a good theory, just not proven.

And what exactly is the standard of proof for you? Do you have to be slapped in the face to recognize fact? How high are you goign to set the bar?

Is 99.9999999% sure enough?

Realize that there is no such thing absolute truth. That is why there are standards by which the truth or falsity of a fact can be weighed. Here if you don't believe, maybe Harvard will convince...

http://www.globalhealth.harvard.edu/images/supporting_graph2.gif

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.globalhealth.harvard.edu/images/supporting_graph.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.globalhealth.harvard.edu/globalchallenges_1.html&h=440&w=542&sz=36&tbnid=eMyIr2062ElGEM:&tbnh=105&tbnw=130&hl=en&start=9&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLife%2Bexpectancy%2Bdistribution%26sv num%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

The "proof" your looking for does not exist.

Please don't take offense to this, just the way I see it, while I do believe you think alot, I would not always apply the word commonsense with your comments. Often times they have shown in the past they were made to be inflammatory, which to me shows the opposite. Plus many times you have taken a completely opposite view and appraoched it in an argumentative way. Commonsense approach tells us that right after you attack someone or make them upset by being infammatory or argumentative the other person stops listening. If you want to actually get a point across you want them to listen.

Your listening aren't you? You took the time to write a lengthy response, did you not?

I was actually attributing common sense to your examples, and yet you feel the need to comment on my past, rather than the present issue...What a joke!

Previous converstations and posts you made not only did you state that you have questioned your beliefs you grew up with, but you were taking the scientific approach. I seem to recall quite a lengethy discussion on this board where you attempted to show that evolution was a scientific fact and that God was a theory. I have yet to meet someone who believed in God when they believe he is only a theory. Since you quite often surprise us, can I put you down as a first?

Scientific approach? huh? When I examine something like global warming or life expectancy, yes, I may look at it from a scientific perspective. Along with that comes standards of evidence and falsifiability. I find it to be a very rational approach. I don't see how that conflicts with a belief in god, unless you want to try and scientifically prove or disprove god's existence. And WE both know that is NOT even scientifically possible. Better left to philosphers if you ask me, and they are even short on answers.

So do I think that evolution is a "scientific" fact? YES I do.

SavageSun4x4

06-02-2006, 03:46 PM

I think your wrong on this...I don't think Iran wants nukes for the sole purpose of attacking us. Not at all. It's fairly obvious they want nukes for the diplomatic muscle it presents. Face it, when you have nukes, the world listens BECAUSE of that threat.

In analyzing engagements, be it in pro-football, on the battlefield, in the corp. boardroom, or in a family’s decision to buy a new car, all good coaches, commanders and Indian chiefs ask the same question. What is the upside and what is the downside of the action I am about to commit my players, soldiers, company, or my families’ resources too.

In looking at your statement, there is certainly the chance you could be correct, that is the upside. However, the downside so far outweighs the upside that we as a country cannot and hopefully will not take that chance.

Thus, when the Dimokrats say they will pull out, or do it different, I beg to differ, they will not, because as leaders have to make the same decision based upon the same facts as anyone else.

John_P

06-02-2006, 04:00 PM

In analyzing engagements, be it in pro-football, on the battlefield, in the corp. boardroom, or in a family’s decision to buy a new car, all good coaches, commanders and Indian chiefs ask the same question. What is the upside and what is the downside of the action I am about to commit my players, soldiers, company, or my families’ resources too.

In looking at your statement, there is certainly the chance you could be correct, that is the upside. However, the downside so far outweighs the upside that we as a country cannot and hopefully will not take that chance.

Thus, when the Dimokrats say they will pull out, or do it different, I beg to differ, they will not, because as leaders have to make the same decision based upon the same facts as anyone else.

I agree that is the downside. However, I find that we are giving WAY to much credit to such a nascent nuclear program. What are the estimates? Like 4 years out of anything plutonium based...and then they would have to have launch capability. If they did strike, it more likely be Isreal...But who is going to detonate something like that on their doorstep?

No...Although it is a possibility...I think we "hype" the threat to our soil way to much. I think this has more to do with political stabilization in the region, and thus the stable energy supply it provides, than any credible nuclear threat to our soil.

I would be more worried about some drunk russian general selling a nuke than Iran developing one.

TRobertsRN

06-02-2006, 10:20 PM

So do I think that evolution is a "scientific" fact? YES I do.

I believe in evolution. No one who scientist teaches it or reasearches it and believes in it refers to it as fact. It is the Theory of Evolution.

My1stJeep

06-05-2006, 09:05 AM

Your listening aren't you? You took the time to write a lengthy response, did you not?

I was actually attributing common sense to your examples, and yet you feel the need to comment on my past, rather than the present issue...What a joke!

John,

I will close my thoughts on this. You asked me a question, and to answer where I was coming from it did require looking at your track record. You say we should take science at face value as proof. Well a persons track record is about as scientific a way at looking at how they present themselves. if they are turning over a new leaf they must first prove themselves to disprove what they have done in the past. So yes your track record was brought up, not to dig, not to slight and in as polite a way as possible as to not provoke an attack, but help you understand my responses to your questions. If you think that is a joke, go for it, but then how do you take all the other track records of facts and say they are real?

Scientific approach? huh? When I examine something like global warming or life expectancy, yes, I may look at it from a scientific perspective. Along with that comes standards of evidence and falsifiability. I find it to be a very rational approach. I don't see how that conflicts with a belief in god, unless you want to try and scientifically prove or disprove god's existence. And WE both know that is NOT even scientifically possible. Better left to philosphers if you ask me, and they are even short on answers.

So do I think that evolution is a "scientific" fact? YES I do.

Your arguments when presenting the theory of evolution and against religions show you standing strongly on one side. I don't see how anyhone can believe in both, they are completely opposite of each other. If you do not believe in the theory of evolution why did you lobby so hard for it? Are you now trying to say you were just playing devils advocate? Guess not as above you say you believe evolution to be a fact. If you believe both I would be interested in hearing you out, as I have never known anyone that has and it would present an interesting point of view.

Do I believe in evolution? Yes, but a different way. Yes I believe as our environment changes, and this includes golbal warming, species change and adapt. I do not believe however that we evolved from chimps or any other species of ape. I know there are some that see it, but there are way too many gaps to prove it. I don't know how to explain it, just as those who believe in the theory of evolution, many based on the similar gaps in proof on the side of God, I have the same doubts on the gaps in evolution. I don't know how to explain it, how express it other than I do believe in God and a higher power and I see the signs and the evidence to support it. Another way to look at it is faith. You have to have faith that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is correct in order to believe, same as someone who has religion, they have faith in the evidence and it makes them believe in what ever God they pray too.

As for Iran and the nukes. I will give it that they want it for electricity, and yes it makes for a nice bargaining tool at the table, I will agree that it makes other countries listen, however I think anyone that does not see, based on their track record, and listen to the words of the leaders, that they will use them is being naive. JMO

John_P

06-05-2006, 11:26 AM

I believe in evolution. No one who scientist teaches it or reasearches it and believes in it refers to it as fact. It is the Theory of Evolution.

Excellent discussion on the topic...

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

John_P

06-05-2006, 11:43 AM

John,

I will close my thoughts on this. You asked me a question, and to answer where I was coming from it did require looking at your track record. You say we should take science at face value as proof. Well a persons track record is about as scientific a way at looking at how they present themselves. if they are turning over a new leaf they must first prove themselves to disprove what they have done in the past. So yes your track record was brought up, not to dig, not to slight and in as polite a way as possible as to not provoke an attack, but help you understand my responses to your questions. If you think that is a joke, go for it, but then how do you take all the other track records of facts and say they are real?

[Refering to bold]
Proof is obviously a relative concept, as your reluctance to see my view indicates. I do not subscirbe to any sort of "absolute" proof, yet you seem to want to cast my opinion in such a manner.

You are also confusing scientific facts with and indiviudal's personality. Doesn't make sense to me given the discussion at hand. I do my best not to point out errors in your reasoning. But rather, try to provide more concrete examples of my view. Can you see the difference in that? I can.

Turning over a new leaf? I may not try to provoke, but I will defend my position. You should not confuse the two. Note: Not "change your mind" but "defend my position", again entirely different.

Your arguments when presenting the theory of evolution and against religions show you standing strongly on one side. I don't see how anyhone can believe in both, they are completely opposite of each other. If you do not believe in the theory of evolution why did you lobby so hard for it? Are you now trying to say you were just playing devils advocate? Guess not as above you say you believe evolution to be a fact. If you believe both I would be interested in hearing you out, as I have never known anyone that has and it would present an interesting point of view.

I haven't presented any anti-religious views, unless you consider evolution to be anti-religious, which you do...SO...I guess I am screwed???

I don't have to "lobby" for evolution. It is a scientific fact and it is happening RIGHT NOW. If you choose to ignore that, fine.

However, I don't see the reason why religion and evolution cannot co-exist. They only conflict when one takes the bible "literally". Obvisouly, the bible is a document that is considered to be an interpretive text. I interpret in my own way, and it does nto conflict with evolution.

[refering to bold]
Maybe that is why these ideas seem so "foreign"?

Do I believe in evolution? Yes, but a different way. Yes I believe as our environment changes, and this includes golbal warming, species change and adapt. I do not believe however that we evolved from chimps or any other species of ape.

[refering to bold]
This only shows how "misunderstood" evolution is in the eye of the general public. NO scientist believes we evolved from modern chimps. That would be impossible in evolutionary terms because we co-evolved.

I know there are some that see it, but there are way too many gaps to prove it. I don't know how to explain it, just as those who believe in the theory of evolution, many based on the similar gaps in proof on the side of God, I have the same doubts on the gaps in evolution. I don't know how to explain it, how express it other than I do believe in God and a higher power and I see the signs and the evidence to support it. Another way to look at it is faith. You have to have faith that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is correct in order to believe, same as someone who has religion, they have faith in the evidence and it makes them believe in what ever God they pray too.

As for Iran and the nukes. I will give it that they want it for electricity, and yes it makes for a nice bargaining tool at the table, I will agree that it makes other countries listen, however I think anyone that does not see, based on their track record, and listen to the words of the leaders, that they will use them is being naive. JMO

Or rather, are THEY naive enough to use them? Is that the real question?

JamesT

06-05-2006, 12:15 PM

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

I was wondering if this thread was still alive when I read this story.

SavageSun4x4

06-05-2006, 12:26 PM

Scientific Law: ...

Hypothesis: ...

Theory: ...

All can be fancy words to describe pure BS if one is not careful.

In my early years in the computer business I worked in Army R&D, General Norman Schwarzkopf was our boss at the Pentagon. I worked with and had working for me many scientists, smart folks, some real smart many with multiple advanced degrees from the tops schools in the US. That said:

Here is a story we told many times to keep ourselves and others grounded and not blinded by the light:

The Army was thinking of using frogs to carry explosives into enemy bunkers on the battlefield. We had to determine if frogs were suitable for combat.

We found large, strong suitable frogs and found our best Drill Sergeants to teach them some basic commands. We used Drill Sergeants because of their booming voice and they could be heard over the din of the battlefield.

After teaching the frog-spoken commands, we then proceeded to test the frog.

We set the frog down on the ground and with the Drill Sergeant, standing next to it the first command was issued…JUMP FROG JUMP! The frog jumped and all of us using the latest in measuring equipment measured the first jump to be 4 feet.

We then cut off one of the frog’s legs to simulate a battlefield injury and again gave the frog the command of JUMP FROG JUMP! Again, we measured and came up with a distance of 3 feet. Thus, our findings to the point were: A frog with a battlefield injury can jump 3 feet.

Another leg was cut off to further more battlefield injuries and again the command of JUMP FROG JUMP was given. This resulted in a jump of 2 feet and was so noted.

Now a third leg was cut off and again the command of JUMP FROG JUMP! This time the frog jumped 1 foot and this was so noted.

The final leg was cut off and JUMP FROG JUMP! Was shouted, but no response from the frog. We told the Drill Sgt to shout the command again using his best and loudest command voice. JUMP FROG JUMP boomed out from the chest of our DI and still no movement from the frog.

We completed the test at the time gathered our notes and developed our conclusion, it read as follows:

When all the legs of the frog are cut off the frog goes deaf!

My1stJeep

06-05-2006, 01:19 PM

[Refering to bold]
Proof is obviously a relative concept, as your reluctance to see my view indicates. I do not subscirbe to any sort of "absolute" proof, yet you seem to want to cast my opinion in such a manner.

I could go on and on with this one, suffice it to say more than once you have never budged or even acknowledged anothers point of view, subscribing to your scientific data as proof. I wish the old posts were still around, I could find pages of these from your posts.

Turning over a new leaf? I may not try to provoke, but I will defend my position. You should not confuse the two. Note: Not "change your mind" but "defend my position", again entirely different.

I have not problem with someone trying to defend it, it is the manner by which it is done, from what I have seen here thus far you seem to be turning over a new leaf or have found a different approach to get your point across, a much better approach in my opinion.

I haven't presented any anti-religious views, unless you consider evolution to be anti-religious, which you do...SO...I guess I am screwed???

You have not in here, but again I would have to have the old posts. I would not say that you are screwed, however as I pointed out in my original post I have not yet met anyone that has believed in both, so it would be new to me. I am not saying a belief in both is wrong, just never met anyone who has so I was saying it would be interesting to hear how they are melded together.

I don't have to "lobby" for evolution. It is a scientific fact and it is happening RIGHT NOW. If you choose to ignore that, fine.

I am stating the idea of evolution of humans coming from apes has yet to be proven. Evolution of individual species to adapt to new things, such as global warming I do see happening and I do not dismiss such happenings. These are vastly different from humans coming from apes. I believe I pointed that out in my last post.

However, I don't see the reason why religion and evolution cannot co-exist. They only conflict when one takes the bible "literally". Obvisouly, the bible is a document that is considered to be an interpretive text. I interpret in my own way, and it does nto conflict with evolution.

The evolution of man from ape and the creation of man by God are not even close, this is where I question how they co-exist. Since I am not God I cannot say having such views would be wrong, I just don't see how you could believe in both. As for taking the Bible litterally, it does state it is the complete word of God, not sure why you would not take it literally, however each person is free to make up their own mind. Again I only asked how they would co-exist in your opinion as it would be something I had not ever heard before. You have since pointed out that we are not talking about the same definition of evolution.

[refering to bold]
This only shows how "misunderstood" evolution is in the eye of the general public. NO scientist believes we evolved from modern chimps. That would be impossible in evolutionary terms because we co-evolved.

Not sure how it is misunderstood. Back when I was in school that is how it was taught, the theory of evolution was specific to humans coming from man. Evolving was taught as species changing to adapt to environment. There was a definate seperation between the theory of Evolution and Evolving. If this is not true let me know, however I have yet to hear anyone who was speaking about the theory of evolution that was not talking about the evolution of man from apes. This includes doctors, lawyers, and scholars from many backgrounds, so between what I was taught in school and all those with much higher educations than I agreeing with my definition I guess that is how I came to my conclusions. If you have a more updated definition I would be interested in hearing it, maybe I need to correct mine.

Or rather, are THEY naive enough to use them? Is that the real question?

Yes they are. The people we are talking about use women and children to blow themselves up, they kill women, children, babies etc... and have no care in the world, in fact they glorify it and give those who have done this martyr status and think of them of hereos. Are you saying we should trust these people that they won't use them? Why on earth would be give them the benefit of the doubt and let them develop the technology to make them? The other countries have shown restraint in their use, they have shown they can have them responsibly and not use them on a whim, have these countries like Iran shown that kind of restraint? Have they proven that the world can trust them? If they have, why are so many countries so concerned? I think that all the countries trying to work this out diplomatically is the wise way of doing so, but again I ask what information do you have that says we should trust these guys?

If you are at home and the governent calls and says they are sending someone over to talk with you, they show up and instead cut off a leg. A month later they call and say someone is coming over to talk with you, this time they cut off an arm. Both times you stay home and wait. The third time they call and say they are coming over to talk with you... do you wait again this time and assume they are only coming to talk or get the heck out of there cause you learned your lesson and you know your head may be next?

John_P

06-05-2006, 03:45 PM

I will touch on the few points I wish to continue discussing...

I am stating the idea of evolution of humans coming from apes has yet to be proven.

What is your standard of proof? Let me know. I will tell you whether it exists. Because if having 99% of the same DNA is not somewhat "suggestive" I am not sure what will be.

However, I do want to clear up some stuff...

Humans branched off from modern apes a LONG TIME AGO...

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n12/mente/evolution/familytree2.gif

As you can see then, it would be impossible to "evolve" from a modern chimp.

Evolution of individual species to adapt to new things, such as global warming I do see happening and I do not dismiss such happenings. These are vastly different from humans coming from apes. I believe I pointed that out in my last post.

Two things:

Lets not confuse "biological" evolution, with "behavrioral" evolution. Sure, we as humans can change our behavior because we can learn. So, can animals for that matter. However, this is NOT the type of evolution I am talking about.

Second, somehting like global warming CAN effect biological evolution. Because changes in the environment have an effect on the extent to which species reproduce. That very fact will contribute to the evolution of a species over a large amount of TIME.

The evolution of man from ape and the creation of man by God are not even close, this is where I question how they co-exist.

That is because you take the story of Adam and Eve literally. That all of a sudden there were two humans. Nothing before, only us from then on.

I have two problems with this story.

1) What about all of the pre-humans (i.e. neanderthal) we have found? Were these god's mistakes?

2) The timeline in the story is vague and can be interpreted in many ways. How long is 7 days for god?

Here is my take. Think about WHO the story was written for...relatively illiterate people, with hardly a concept of "science". However, that does not mean a simple question such as, "how did we get here" cannot be asked. The fact is, ALL cultures have a creation story. They all take a complex question, like "how did we get here" and provide a simple, reassuring asnwer; i.e. [fill in you favorite deity, spirit, god, etc here] put us here. People like simple answers. Now let me remind you, the simplicity was for people BACK THEN, not now. We all have a VAST amount of education compared to these folks. Heck, they believed that spirits cause disease! It wasn't until the late 1800's that science said otherwise. There was no concept of "germ". WE couldn't see it, and so we did not know it existed. Same with evolution. It proceeds so slowly (especially with humans) that we cannot "see" the effects.

However, this does not mean that the story of Adam and Eve is not an important one. It has meaning BEYOND the creation of man. It is, essentially, a tale of temptation and how moral transgression undermines a system of authority, i.e. divine law.

Frankly, I don't need the bible to tell me "how" the world works, but rather, I need the bible to tell me "how" to work IN the world (i.e. conduct myself).

As for taking the Bible litterally, it does state it is the complete word of God, not sure why you would not take it literally, however each person is free to make up their own mind.

The bible was a multi-purpose text back when it was written. It served many functions, one being, to explain the how the world works. Today, we have science to explain these things, so the bible, is in a sense out-dated.

When I read the stories, I look for the moral message, not the literal one, per se.

Not sure how it is misunderstood. Back when I was in school that is how it was taught, the theory of evolution was specific to humans coming from man. Evolving was taught as species changing to adapt to environment. There was a definate seperation between the theory of Evolution and Evolving. If this is not true let me know, however I have yet to hear anyone who was speaking about the theory of evolution that was not talking about the evolution of man from apes. This includes doctors, lawyers, and scholars from many backgrounds, so between what I was taught in school and all those with much higher educations than I agreeing with my definition I guess that is how I came to my conclusions. If you have a more updated definition I would be interested in hearing it, maybe I need to correct mine.

Evoution: Biology.

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

That is the one and only definition.

I just wanted to add one last thing. I respect the bible very much. It has been around for thousands of years. Obviously, it has something important to impart on us, I am just not sure that is how we came to be here...No, I think it is more concerned with how we treat each other now that we're here. :)

Sautin

06-05-2006, 04:04 PM

I will touch on the few points I wish to continue discussing...

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n12/mente/evolution/familytree2.gif

The Bonobos, boy they define 'Makeup Sex':eek:

My1stJeep

06-05-2006, 04:07 PM

John,

Nice picture, however I will have say that it appears that the smaller lines represent gaps, or areas where there is no proof. If you think that way, then you can pretty much so take anything,make the lines long enoguh and they will cross somewhere.

As for the rest of the discussion I would have to say we take it off line, it is getting way off base from the intent, and we would be hashing much of it over as we did before. I do think that the illiterate comment bares a striking resemblence to the old John. How can you prove that it was written only for those? Technically and with scientific things proven the Bible has stood the test of the times, yet you say it is out dated. You say that the gentic strains are the same, but gaps remain. I know where where you will go with this thread, the same as last time, so therefore the floor is yours, do as you wish. If you want to continue this discussion with me it will have to be in a post created for this topic or PM's as I don't want to deviate from ths topic in Don's thread any longer.

TRobertsRN

06-05-2006, 09:22 PM

Couple of questions, one about oil vs neuclear the other is about Calvin and Hobbs.

If you own all the oil you could ever use how could it be cheaper to produce electricity from Neuclear power instead of oil? Would seem to be a poor business decision to produce electricity by any means other than oil in an oil rich country. So why are they interested in Neuclear science?

Calvin and Hobbs. Which is real and which is ithe imaginary friend? The tiger has a better vocabulary than the boy and tells jokes the boy dosen't get. So either they are both real or the boy is the Tiger's imaginary friend.

John_P

06-06-2006, 03:32 PM

C
Calvin and Hobbs. Which is real and which is ithe imaginary friend? The tiger has a better vocabulary than the boy and tells jokes the boy dosen't get. So either they are both real or the boy is the Tiger's imaginary friend.

Hobbes IS the boy's imaginary friend. When we get the "adults" perspective, Hobbes is depicted as a stuffed toy. So he is imaginary. Some believe Hobbes represents the voice the writer.

John_P

06-06-2006, 03:42 PM

I do think that the illiterate comment bares a striking resemblence to the old John. How can you prove that it was written only for those? Technically and with scientific things proven the Bible has stood the test of the times, yet you say it is out dated. You say that the gentic strains are the same, but gaps remain. I know where where you will go with this thread, the same as last time, so therefore the floor is yours, do as you wish. If you want to continue this discussion with me it will have to be in a post created for this topic or PM's as I don't want to deviate from ths topic in Don's thread any longer.

Are you telling me that people in the first century A.D. were literate? Only priests, merchnats, scribes and rulers were likely literate. One of the main reasons literacy moved quickly amongst the commoners was so they could read the bible.

Second, I did not say the ENTIRE bible was out-dated. I said the phenomonological aspects were out-dated. That is a very different statement.

Third, yes there are gaps in the FOSSIL record, but recent advances in DNA analysis have linked the fossils we do have together.

Also, it should be known that bacteria can read portions of human DNA. How do you think they make insulin for diabetics? All DNA is coded with just four different molecules. That very fact suggests that all living things have some distant ancestor...some puddle of amino acids early in history of the earth.

Case closed. :rolleyes: