OT: Global Warming Not Real ?

[Incubus]

That's why Marco Rubio was parched.

[AJ]

This only shows how desperate and pathetic the liberal media is to
highlight and make an issue out of a man taking a drink of water.
Plus, there a bigger issue, shit attracts flies.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/957605/thumbs/o-OBAMA-FLY-PHOTO-570.jpg?8

[steveh99]

In article <5ff91853-946f-46f2-9480-
a61f02...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com
says...

:/

[FVH]

LOL Killer spent his Valentine's Day lonely, bitching, moaning, and hating the world. Sad.

Hi, Killer! Hope you enjoyed reading this post!
FVH
Good ole RMAK. Where the majority swears off "scab KISS" then
wrights a review of the new album the week it comes out. LOL!-
Professor AJ
Yes I know that and I know they gained that power under Obama's
watch.-Professor AJ on China's nukes.
This was passed in 2008 under Obama.- AJ, political guru
Wait and see. Paul is not going to name the new KISS album what Gene
was
going to call his solo boxset.-AJ, KISS "expert"
Laughter is an emotion-Professor AJ Johnson, channeling his feminine
feelings.
You wrongfully misinterpreting another post noted.-AJ, English major
I love how people like you consternate so much time and effort-
Professor AJ Johnson.
10 years ago your posts were better written and your grammar was
better than what they are now.-AJ.
Pssst. Obama has been president for 7 years and you suck at math.-AJ,
2009
LOL! I doubt imergration is reading your posts.-Speeling bea
chaump, AJ.
McCain wins 2008 Election.This is what will be printed on every
newspaper next week. Wait and see.-AJ, proving that he's an idiot.
our new commander and chief.- AJ, talking politics.
Stadiums have no walls!- AJ
*Geeks with key boards aren't intimidating.-AJ
You made a boneheaded 'observation' about Ace, and you're a fool.
That's pretty much it.- Hidell, making a brilliant point about AJ.
Twinkle Toes Stanley hadn't quite picked up that Lick It Up/
Heaven's On Fire half a ballerina dance that he does.- db
How many times can the Greed Twins milk a cow? As many times as the
sheep will let them.-db

[steveh99]

In article <64ab76cd-1ed4-4bc0...@googlegroups.com>,
jarj...@gmail.com says...

AJ probably posted signs in his front yard with the following warning:
NO TRASSPASSING AND THIS MEANS spooks, libruls, gays, free thinkers will
be shot on sight.. Tax evaders, draft dodgers, dumb hillbillies, women
haters are always welcome

[FVH]

Ha! I wonder what he'd do if I walked in John's store wearing an Obama shirt?

[steveh99]

In article <6eadbf77-318c-48e6...@googlegroups.com>,
jarj...@gmail.com says...

he'd probably be to afraid to say anything

[AJ]

On Feb 18, 9:20 am, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> he'd probably be to afraid to say anything- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Then try it if you think I'm bluffing.

[FVH]

But you're too afraid to tell me directly, so you come off as the pansy I say you are, pansy. Busted.

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:


> Then try it if you think I'm bluffing.
>

The tough guy routine is really dated at this point, AJ.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Feb 14, 10:07 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> This only shows how desperate and pathetic the liberal media is to
> highlight and make an issue out of a man taking a drink of water.

Right...which is why "Big Gulp" Rubio has now made 100 grand off of
selling water bottles.

"Only the libruls paid attention to something so minor!!"

LOL

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

> Right...which is why "Big Gulp" Rubio has now made 100 grand off of
> selling water bottles.

That's apparently much better than the official Obama
site did -- and they had ALL KINDS of swag...

http://store.barackobama.com/

Not to fear tho - this one was up and running as of
a month ago!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/politics/inaugural-store

And if you can't walk in, there's their
online store too!
https://store.2013pic.org/

Better hurry tho, those $7,500.00 medallions are
sure to be going quick.
https://store.2013pic.org/featured-on-homepage/medallion-set.html

[AJ]

So are the threats. Like I've said for years, if anyone really wants
to say something to my face, I've given directions to where I can be
found.

[AJ]

More proof republicans know how to make money. And more proof how a
liberal will bitch and complain about it.

[AJ]

On Feb 19, 10:18 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> Busboy Jefe wrote:
> > Right...which is why "Big Gulp" Rubio has now made 100 grand off of
> > selling water bottles.
>
> That's apparently much better than the official Obama
> site did -- and they had ALL KINDS of swag...
>
> http://store.barackobama.com/
>
> Not to fear tho - this one was up and running as of

> a month ago!http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/politics/inaugural-store

>
> And if you can't walk in, there's their

> online store too!https://store.2013pic.org/

>
> Better hurry tho, those $7,500.00 medallions are
> sure to be going quick.https://store.2013pic.org/featured-on-homepage/medallion-set.html

LOL! Hey Jefe, spin this.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Feb 19, 10:18 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Busboy Jefe wrote:
> > Right...which is why "Big Gulp" Rubio has now made 100 grand off of
> > selling water bottles.
>
> That's apparently much better than the official Obama
> site did -- and they had ALL KINDS of swag...
>
> http://store.barackobama.com/
>
> Not to fear tho - this one was up and running as of

> a month ago!http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/politics/inaugural-store

>
> And if you can't walk in, there's their

> online store too!https://store.2013pic.org/

>
> Better hurry tho, those $7,500.00 medallions are
> sure to be going quick.https://store.2013pic.org/featured-on-homepage/medallion-set.html

What does the above to do with the whines about "only libruls"
highlighting the water bottle thing?

And Obama is not the first president to have merchandi...oh, right.
BUT it's Obama, so of course something is wrong with it. Silly me.

El Jefe

[FVH]

Who's threatening you, Killer? You've never been threatened on here, however you've made several (empty) threats on those who have offended you. Can the victim card act, Detective, no one is buying it.

[FVH]

The HOOD RATS are reaching. It'll be funny watching them squirm for FOUR MORE YEARS.

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:


> So are the threats. Like I've said for years, if anyone really wants
> to say something to my face, I've given directions to where I can be
> found.
>

Meh... 99.999% of threats made on Usenet are b.s. anyhow.

[Busboy Jefe]

It's not our fault that you feel threatened by intelligent, factual
responses you have no answer to. Grow a pair. Then maybe RMAK won't be
so intimidating for you.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

....and so are 100% of AJ's "threats".

El Jefe

[steveh99]

In article <70dfb313-ad81-484a-aafc-
ee2778...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com
says...
>
> On Feb 19, 2:07ï¿œam, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 14, 10:07ï¿œam, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This only shows how desperate and pathetic the liberal media is to
> > > highlight and make an issue out of a man taking a drink of water.
> >
> > Right...which is why "Big Gulp" Rubio has now made 100 grand off of
> > selling water bottles.
> >
> > "Only the libruls paid attention to something so minor!!"
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > El Jefe
>
> More proof republicans know how to make money. And more proof how a
> liberal will bitch and complain about it.

too funny lol

[steveh99]

In article <c5de2f6e-c9e2-4830...@googlegroups.com>,
jarj...@gmail.com says...

>
>You've never been threatened on here, however you've made several
(empty) threats on those who have offended you.
>

true thus

[steveh99]

In article <MPG.2b8dcb6cc...@news.albasani.net>,
sit...@this.computer says...

Nobody here has ever threatened AJ in any way. Its always been the other
way around!

[FVH]

Got schooled (again) by one of your "enemies", Killer. LOL!

[AJ]

So in other words, "Take the shit we throw at you and don't say a word
about it, because the next time someone starts shit with you I'm only
going to accuse you for it." Thanks, Don.

[steveh99]

In article <c1a04357-f82a-442e-96a8-
187221...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com
says...

>
> On Feb 19, 4:49ï¿œpm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > AJ wrote:

> > > So are the threats. ï¿œLike I've said for years, if anyone really wants

> > > to say something to my face, I've given directions to where I can be
> > > found.
> >
> > Meh... 99.999% of threats made on Usenet are b.s. anyhow.
>
> So in other words, "Take the shit we throw at you and don't say a word
> about it, because the next time someone starts shit with you I'm only
> going to accuse you for it." Thanks, Don.

You're the only person who presently posts here that has ever threatened
anyone AJ!
Evasion noted.

[AJ]

On Feb 20, 10:54 am, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <c1a04357-f82a-442e-96a8-
> 187221939...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com

> says...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:49 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > > AJ wrote:

> > > > So are the threats.  Like I've said for years, if anyone really wants

> > > > to say something to my face, I've given directions to where I can be
> > > > found.
>
> > > Meh... 99.999% of threats made on Usenet are b.s. anyhow.
>
> > So in other words, "Take the shit we throw at you and don't say a word
> > about it, because the next time someone starts shit with you I'm only
> > going to accuse you for it."  Thanks, Don.
>
> You're the only person who presently posts here that has ever threatened
> anyone AJ!
> Evasion noted.

Pssst. If I'm responding directly to what is written, you can't say
"evasion noted." Dumbass.
Again, if you or anyone else here wants to walk into my store and tell
me something to my face, I've given the address here many times where
you can do so. So yeah, I'm the one calling the bluff.

[Busboy Jefe]

I'll do it only if we sign a contract for a reality show. I want in on
some of this lucrative hillbilly/Honey Boo Boo shit!

El Jefe

[AJ]

> El Jefe- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

BTW, Can an atheist get insurance against acts of God?

[Busboy Jefe]

Seems foolish to insure oneself against something that doesn't exist.

El Jefe

[AJ]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580471_432837396798497_487716049_n.jpg

[FVH]

For all you know, I could have already visited John's store and "faced you". Since you have no idea who I am or what I look like, it's VERY easy for me to walk into that store without you knowing. Better go check the security tapes and see if you can figure out when FVH paid you a visit!

I called your fat bluff many times when I've dared you to step foot in Dallas to "kill FVH", Internet Tough Guy. Gotcha.

[steveh99]

In article <6b36af06-8f20-401e-8395-2e2e2166f2f5
@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...

>
> On Feb 20, 10:54ï¿œam, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > In article <c1a04357-f82a-442e-96a8-
> > 187221939...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 19, 4:49ï¿œpm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > > > AJ wrote:

> > > > > So are the threats. ï¿œLike I've said for years, if anyone really wants

> > > > > to say something to my face, I've given directions to where I can be
> > > > > found.
> >
> > > > Meh... 99.999% of threats made on Usenet are b.s. anyhow.
> >
> > > So in other words, "Take the shit we throw at you and don't say a word
> > > about it, because the next time someone starts shit with you I'm only

> > > going to accuse you for it." ï¿œThanks, Don.

> >
> > You're the only person who presently posts here that has ever threatened
> > anyone AJ!
> > Evasion noted.
>
> Pssst. If I'm responding directly to what is written, you can't say
> "evasion noted." Dumbass.
> Again, if you or anyone else here wants to walk into my store and tell
> me something to my face, I've given the address here many times where
> you can do so. So yeah, I'm the one calling the bluff.

I still remember the many a teef being knocked out

[steveh99]

In article <d2a095bf-90a8-4505-beb8-7eb83ab675b4
@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, busbo...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Feb 20, 1:27ï¿œpm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 20, 10:54ï¿œam, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <c1a04357-f82a-442e-96a8-
> > > 187221939...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com
> > > says...
> >
> > > > On Feb 19, 4:49ï¿œpm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > > > > AJ wrote:

> > > > > > So are the threats. ï¿œLike I've said for years, if anyone really wants

> > > > > > to say something to my face, I've given directions to where I can be
> > > > > > found.
> >
> > > > > Meh... 99.999% of threats made on Usenet are b.s. anyhow.
> >
> > > > So in other words, "Take the shit we throw at you and don't say a word
> > > > about it, because the next time someone starts shit with you I'm only

> > > > going to accuse you for it." ï¿œThanks, Don.

> >
> > > You're the only person who presently posts here that has ever threatened
> > > anyone AJ!
> > > Evasion noted.
> >
> > Pssst. If I'm responding directly to what is written, you can't say

> > "evasion noted." ï¿œDumbass.

> > Again, if you or anyone else here wants to walk into my store and tell
> > me something to my face, I've given the address here many times where

> > you can do so. ï¿œSo yeah, I'm the one calling the bluff.

>
> I'll do it only if we sign a contract for a reality show. I want in on
> some of this lucrative hillbilly/Honey Boo Boo shit!
>
> El Jefe

LOLOLOL

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:


> So in other words, "Take the shit we throw at you and don't say a word
> about it, because the next time someone starts shit with you I'm only
> going to accuse you for it." Thanks, Don.
>

AJ, I don't recall anyone here ever actually threatening you. As far as the
standard insults, such is life in a communication medium where people can
remain somewhat anonymous.

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:


> BTW, Can an atheist get insurance against acts of God?
>

Insurance companies are changing that part to read, "supposed acts by a
supernatural being whose existence is open to debate by many."

[steveh99]

In article <d2a095bf-90a8-4505-beb8-7eb83ab675b4
@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, busbo...@gmail.com says...
>

> On Feb 20, 1:27ï¿œpm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 20, 10:54ï¿œam, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <c1a04357-f82a-442e-96a8-
> > > 187221939...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com
> > > says...
> >
> > > > On Feb 19, 4:49ï¿œpm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > > > > AJ wrote:

> > > > > > So are the threats. ï¿œLike I've said for years, if anyone really wants

> > > > > > to say something to my face, I've given directions to where I can be
> > > > > > found.
> >
> > > > > Meh... 99.999% of threats made on Usenet are b.s. anyhow.
> >
> > > > So in other words, "Take the shit we throw at you and don't say a word
> > > > about it, because the next time someone starts shit with you I'm only

> > > > going to accuse you for it." ï¿œThanks, Don.

> >
> > > You're the only person who presently posts here that has ever threatened
> > > anyone AJ!
> > > Evasion noted.
> >
> > Pssst. If I'm responding directly to what is written, you can't say

> > "evasion noted." ï¿œDumbass.

> > Again, if you or anyone else here wants to walk into my store and tell
> > me something to my face, I've given the address here many times where

> > you can do so. ï¿œSo yeah, I'm the one calling the bluff.

>
> I'll do it only if we sign a contract for a reality show. I want in on
> some of this lucrative hillbilly/Honey Boo Boo shit!
>
> El Jefe

Maybe being the entrepeneur AJ must be he could get us all a reality
show

[83LowRider]

Incubus wrote:

> That's why Marco Rubio was parched.

Released yesterday...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-among-scientists-crumbles-global-warming-alarmists-attack-their-integrity/

Oct. 2012

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#axzz2Kk8FhrL3

[Busboy Jefe]

On Feb 21, 9:40 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> Incubus wrote:
> > That's why Marco Rubio was parched.
>
> Released yesterday...
>

> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-a...

LOL

Wow, what a misleading title for that article. Those aren't
scientists. They're fucking employees of the petroleum industry.

Mr. Taylor is one shoddy "journalist".

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Feb 20, 5:18 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <d2a095bf-90a8-4505-beb8-7eb83ab675b4
> @u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, busboyj...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 1:27 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> > > On Feb 20, 10:54 am, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <c1a04357-f82a-442e-96a8-
> > > > 187221939...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com
> > > > says...
>

> > > > > On Feb 19, 4:49 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > > > > > AJ wrote:

> > > > > > > So are the threats. Like I've said for years, if anyone really wants

> > > > > > > to say something to my face, I've given directions to where I can be
> > > > > > > found.
>
> > > > > > Meh... 99.999% of threats made on Usenet are b.s. anyhow.
>
> > > > > So in other words, "Take the shit we throw at you and don't say a word
> > > > > about it, because the next time someone starts shit with you I'm only

> > > > > going to accuse you for it." Thanks, Don.

>
> > > > You're the only person who presently posts here that has ever threatened
> > > > anyone AJ!
> > > > Evasion noted.
>
> > > Pssst. If I'm responding directly to what is written, you can't say

> > > "evasion noted." Dumbass.

> > > Again, if you or anyone else here wants to walk into my store and tell
> > > me something to my face, I've given the address here many times where

> > > you can do so. So yeah, I'm the one calling the bluff.

>
> > I'll do it only if we sign a contract for a reality show. I want in on
> > some of this lucrative hillbilly/Honey Boo Boo shit!
>
> > El Jefe
>
> Maybe being the entrepeneur AJ must be he could get us all a reality
> show

Next week on RMAK Redneck: AJ saves black people from a fire, then has
conflicting thoughts after he realizes they probably voted for Obama.

El Jefe

[FVH]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Killer voted for Obama thinking he was voting for Romney. LOL!

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-a...

> Wow, what a misleading title for that article. Those aren't
> scientists. They're fucking employees of the petroleum industry.

Some certainly are/were. Does that mean that those leaders
of that field have all sold their souls? Do they not have little
chil'runs they love too? Are the majority of those on the "other"
side not financed by those with an equal agenda? There's endless
debate - data that's been fudged - and opinions and science do
change. The article speaks for itself.

Most certainly there is a change in our climate, but how
much is due (or not) to man is NOT a settled matter.
And we certainly won't settle it or change many opinions
here. Care to throw a similar opinion on the article you
snipped?

Every scare tactic I've ever seen either
amounted to nothing or was solved by science
and technology. When I was a kid, they said by
2000 that we would no longer be able to feed the
world due to massive over-population. The air
was so bad in L.A. they said people would either
have to move or die - they cleaned it up. "We're
killing our rivers and making that Indian on the
commercial cry"... you can probably swim in the
Hudson nowadays. Ain't nobody gonna die of man-
induced climate change in our lifetime nor in our
<me and you excluded> great-grandchildrens life.
50 years from now they'll be laughing over cars
running on fossil fuels. In spite of every gloom and
doom scenario ever played out --> we're living far
better and far longer than any time in the known
history of man. Even those fuckers that lived in
L.A. back in the seventies. They may be using
inhalers, but they are doing it at a very old age.

[mss]

Just thinking out loud... (excuse typos in a hurry) Global-warming...
I can only guess it freaks out some because its a scary thing.
Allot of misconceptions about this topic...

::Al Gore

He speaks the documented truth but his actions betray a motive on
his part for profit. Those whom seek to disprove climate change
using Gore an an example mis-labor under the impression that because
they find his dealings less than forthright this shows global
warming to be false. Not at all - he's making a buck telling truth,
while trading with Al Jazerra & it ought to be called what it is -
chickenshit. But the thing is, his actions do not detract from the
evidence - the earth is warming...

::Follow the evidence

<http://www.google.com/search?&q=ice+core+data+climate+change>

We have ice core samples spanning several thousand years, the air
bubbles trapped in those samples show a huge increase in C02. C02 is
weird because it absorbs 'infrared' radiation, sorta like a sponge
absorbs water. Infrared radiation is just a fancy term for 'heat'.
And it only requires an increase of as little as 1 degree (about
where the change is now) to have a negative impact on our ecosystem.
For instance...year after year of only a single digit increase, a
river that once froze-over every February, now does not, with the
end result being any/all of:

- some fish mistakenly migrating earlier (into environments that
cant support them)

- ditto birds, some even going too far south, or upon their return,
too far north, because landmarks are either not yet blooming for
spring, or blooming way to early in the season.

- and food... you can figure this one out.

::Look for yourself

<http://globalwarmingsiren.com/wp-content/gallery/polar-ice-caps/polaricecapsmelting.jpg>

Yeah - but the south pole's ice is growing, so there take that heh!

Right you are... here's NASA's evidence:

<http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html>

But if your read closely, its not thickening at the rate the north
is thinning, which indicates things are out-of-whack (& really
badly) somehow...

::Who stands to gain from it

- Al Gore? Naw, he's selling books, ignore him.

- Big oil? These guys don't want change, think about it - American
oil is booming what with 'fracking' & 'shale' reserves. In fact,
they will claim the contrary e.g. - 'everything is fine'.

- Scientists? No, they have nothing to gain. Why? Because their work
is 'peer-reviewed' that means if something doesn't add up it *will*
exposed. And in fact, twice reports have surfaced from groups that
were less than honest with their data (folks in India), and the
first to expose the fraud? Yup, Scientists. Most of these studies
(in the USA/UK) are grant funded, which means folks loose their jobs
if caught in a lie and/or produce shoddy documentation.

::Bottom line

Truth is, climate change *is* the defacto driver for all life
on this planet. We gotta have temperatures smack-dab in the
'sweet-spot' to grow food... right? Consider this: The whole of
humanity has risen since the last glacial-maximum if its either
too warm/too cold its bad news for us. Open your eyes to the truth
& don't be afraid, its verifiable answers we need, not politics &
religion.

Back to lurking for me...

--
later on,
Mike

[Busboy Jefe]

On Feb 21, 1:22 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> Busboy Jefe wrote:
> >>http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-a...
> > Wow, what a misleading title for that article. Those aren't
> > scientists. They're fucking employees of the petroleum industry.
>
> Some certainly are/were.

84% of those surveyed are engineers. As for the rest: "Geoscientist"
is a very open term. How many actually worked in climatology? Note
that Taylor doesn't say. Hmm!

> Does that mean that those leaders
> of that field have all sold their souls? Do they not have little
> chil'runs they love too?

I think they see that it's best for their own personal gain to tow the
line. They're oil employees in an area in which oil extraction drives
the economy.

> Are the majority of those on the "other"
> side not financed by those with an equal agenda?

Are you saying that a majority of climatology scientists are being
paid to lie? Al Gore is behind all of this?

I wonder if there were righties back in the day who whined that
claiming the world is actually round was a librul agenda....

> There's endless
> debate - data that's been fudged - and opinions and science do
> change.

Sure, and while we're at, let's ask the CEOs at Cargill and ADM for an
honest assessment of the dangers of HFCS.

As I've said many times before, when an overwhelming majority of
scientists say they believe in something, I'm inclined to go along
with them, and not some hack "journalist" who writes for Forbes...

> The article speaks for itself.

The article is a fetid turd and a farce, designed to muddy the waters,
and written by someone who has a history of just getting stuff wrong.
He's the Dick Morris of Forbes. Hell, even the two people who
conducted the survey have stated that Taylor is misrepresenting it.
They posted in the comments section:

"First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey.
Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research
questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents
believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs
the frames the members of a professional association hold about the
issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these
professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research
does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does
not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out
several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data
set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe
that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not
correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have
their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that
humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support
that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also
not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against
regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more
encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct
interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents –
more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the
Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher
hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people
in lower hierarchical positions.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the
potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely
the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more
influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol
should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol
a year ago.

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be
used as such!"

Note that Taylor has not responded. Hmm!

Just because you can find an article that argues a side you want to
believe doesn't mean it's worth due consideration. There is no real
dispute or "endless debate" on this issue at this point...unless one
is being willfully obtuse, or has some financial stake in downplaying
the risks.

El Jefe

[lab~rat >:-)]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:10:33 -0800 (PST), Busboy Jefe
<busbo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>84% of those surveyed are engineers. As for the rest: "Geoscientist"
>is a very open term. How many actually worked in climatology? Note
>that Taylor doesn't say. Hmm!

Since you brought it up, exactly where does one get a degree in
"climatology"? Is that an online thing like "mold remediation"?

And how long has the "career" of climatology been active? I'm sure
that since the climate has been here forever, the doctorate in
climatology has as bold, rich history, right?

[Busboy Jefe]

On Feb 21, 4:16 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:10:33 -0800 (PST), Busboy Jefe
>

> <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >84% of those surveyed are engineers. As for the rest: "Geoscientist"
> >is a very open term. How many actually worked in climatology? Note
> >that Taylor doesn't say. Hmm!
>
> Since you brought it up, exactly where does one get a degree in
> "climatology"?  Is that an online thing like "mold remediation"?
>
> And how long has the "career" of climatology been active?  I'm sure
> that since the climate has been here forever, the doctorate in
> climatology has as bold, rich history, right?

Do I have to hand-hold you through everything? There's this thing
called Google. Try it:

http://www.climatepedia.org/about-climatologist-careers#link2

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

>>> Al Gore
>
> He speaks the documented truth but his actions betray a motive on
> his part for profit.

Ya think? He was worth a bit less than one million when running
for VP with Clinton. His estimated worth now is supposedly
well over a billion dollars.

> Those whom seek to disprove climate change
> using Gore an an example mis-labor under the impression that because
> they find his dealings less than forthright this shows global
> warming to be false.

Gore made some very critical mistakes in his "documentary"
and has refused at every opportunity - to address those facts.

> Not at all - he's making a buck telling truth,
> while trading with Al Jazerra & it ought to be called what it is -
> chickenshit. But the thing is, his actions do not detract from the
> evidence - the earth is warming...

It warms, it cools... cyclical patterns. One massive volcano
erupting has far more influence than anything man has
ever done.

>>> Follow the evidence
>
> <http://www.google.com/search?&q=ice+core+data+climate+change>
>
> We have ice core samples spanning several thousand years, the air
> bubbles trapped in those samples show a huge increase in C02. C02 is
> weird because it absorbs 'infrared' radiation, sorta like a sponge
> absorbs water. Infrared radiation is just a fancy term for 'heat'.
> And it only requires an increase of as little as 1 degree (about
> where the change is now) to have a negative impact on our ecosystem.
> For instance...year after year of only a single digit increase, a
> river that once froze-over every February, now does not, with the
> end result being any/all of:

A degree a year would be devastating. As one born in the 50's
shouldn't I now be seeing temperatures around 130 degrees?

> - some fish mistakenly migrating earlier (into environments that
> cant support them)
>
> - ditto birds, some even going too far south, or upon their return,
> too far north, because landmarks are either not yet blooming for
> spring, or blooming way to early in the season.
>
> - and food... you can figure this one out.
>
>>> Look for yourself
>
> <http://globalwarmingsiren.com/wp-content/gallery/polar-ice-caps/polaricecapsmelting.jpg>
>
> Yeah - but the south pole's ice is growing, so there take that heh!
>
> Right you are... here's NASA's evidence:
>
> <http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html>
>
> But if your read closely, its not thickening at the rate the north
> is thinning, which indicates things are out-of-whack (& really
> badly) somehow...
>
>>> Who stands to gain from it
>
> - Al Gore? Naw, he's selling books, ignore him.
>
> - Big oil? These guys don't want change, think about it - American
> oil is booming what with 'fracking' & 'shale' reserves. In fact,
> they will claim the contrary e.g. - 'everything is fine'.

As we consume more and more energy there is NO
viable alternative to coal and oil. It would take 20
years <if we started today> to build enough nuclear
plants to ease the load off of fossil fuels. And by then,
we'll be consuming even more energy as populations
increase. Big oil doesn't rely on what scientists can or
cannot prove. If it were proven tomorrow, beyond ANY
reasonable doubt --> that man is affecting climate -- do you
think the world would change overnight? Over the next
year or ten years? Hell no, we need to drive, we need to
heat our homes.

> - Scientists? No, they have nothing to gain. Why? Because their work
> is 'peer-reviewed' that means if something doesn't add up it *will*
> exposed. And in fact, twice reports have surfaced from groups that
> were less than honest with their data (folks in India), and the
> first to expose the fraud? Yup, Scientists. Most of these studies
> (in the USA/UK) are grant funded, which means folks loose their jobs
> if caught in a lie and/or produce shoddy documentation.

And indeed many have been discredited within the IPCC. Data
misrepresented, models that do not align with facts, false
presumptions, etc.

>>> Bottom line
>
> Truth is, climate change *is* the defacto driver for all life
> on this planet. We gotta have temperatures smack-dab in the
> 'sweet-spot' to grow food... right? Consider this: The whole of
> humanity has risen since the last glacial-maximum if its either
> too warm/too cold its bad news for us. Open your eyes to the truth
> & don't be afraid, its verifiable answers we need, not politics &
> religion.

Were we to blame for the ice-age? If man decided to RAISE
global temperatures tomorrow, we have no way of doing so.
We don't know how to raise it, lower it, or change it in any way.
We can do nothing other than speculate as to why and how
temperatures change.

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

> 84% of those surveyed are engineers. As for the rest: "Geoscientist"
> is a very open term. How many actually worked in climatology? Note
> that Taylor doesn't say. Hmm!

So you're saying these engineers aren't as smart as someone
who took a bachelors degree <according to the link you
provided lab> to study meteorology?

--- from the link you posted for lab --

a.. 9 term hours in:
b.. -subjects like computer science, statistics, chemistry, oceanography,
climatology, hydrology, aeronomy, light and optics, electricity and
magnetism, etc.
c.. 6 term hours in:
d.. -analysis and prediction of weather systems
e.. -atmospheric dynamics and thermodynamics
f.. -college physics
g.. 3 term hours in:
h.. -physical meteorology
i.. -ordinary differential equations
I dare say the engineers quoted in my story have the same or
better background.

>> Does that mean that those leaders
>> of that field have all sold their souls? Do they not have little
>> chil'runs they love too?
>
> I think they see that it's best for their own personal gain to tow the
> line. They're oil employees in an area in which oil extraction drives
> the economy.

Nothing changes for the oil companies regardless of findings.
Exxon will not sell one gallon less of gasoline.

>> Are the majority of those on the "other"
>> side not financed by those with an equal agenda?
>
> Are you saying that a majority of climatology scientists are being
> paid to lie? Al Gore is behind all of this?

Federal funding pays for almost all the studies that
are done claiming global warming. Had those studies
concluded years ago that man has no affect on climate,
that money, and those 'climatologists' would have been
long gone.

> I wonder if there were righties back in the day who whined that
> claiming the world is actually round was a librul agenda....
>
>> There's endless
>> debate - data that's been fudged - and opinions and science do
>> change.
>
> Sure, and while we're at, let's ask the CEOs at Cargill and ADM for an
> honest assessment of the dangers of HFCS.
>
> As I've said many times before, when an overwhelming majority of
> scientists say they believe in something, I'm inclined to go along
> with them, and not some hack "journalist" who writes for Forbes...

There is NO overwhelming majority. Take ALL the scientists
and ALL their opinions -- nothing overwhelming from either side.

>> The article speaks for itself.
>
> The article is a fetid turd and a farce, designed to muddy the waters,
> and written by someone who has a history of just getting stuff wrong.
> He's the Dick Morris of Forbes. Hell, even the two people who
> conducted the survey have stated that Taylor is misrepresenting it.
> They posted in the comments section:
>
> "First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey.
> Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research
> questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as �respondents
> believe �� or �scientists don�t believe �� Our research reconstructs
> the frames the members of a professional association hold about the
> issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these
> professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research
> does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does
> not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out
> several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

All I see is "our data set is large and diverse enough for our
research questions". The article made no definitive claims
as to global warming -- it merely represented the opinions
of a huge number of experts in that field.

> In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data
> set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe
> that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not
> correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have
> their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that
> humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support
> that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also
> not the case that all frames except �Support Kyoto� are against
> regulation � the �Regulation Activists� mobilize for a more
> encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct
> interpretations would be, for instance, that � among our respondents �
> more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the
> Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher
> hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people
> in lower hierarchical positions.
>
> All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the
> potential influence of these frames � e.g. on policy responses. Surely
> the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more
> influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol
> should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol
> a year ago.
>
> But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be
> used as such!"
>
> Note that Taylor has not responded. Hmm!

As said, the article speaks for itself. Interpret it however
you see fit.

> Just because you can find an article that argues a side you want to
> believe doesn't mean it's worth due consideration. There is no real
> dispute or "endless debate" on this issue at this point...unless one
> is being willfully obtuse, or has some financial stake in downplaying
> the risks.

Thousands of scientists disagree with you.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Feb 21, 8:36 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> So you're saying these engineers aren't as smart as someone
> who took a bachelors degree <according to the link you
> provided lab> to study meteorology?

There's being smart in general, and then there's being smart, trained
and experienced in a specific area.

> --- from the link you posted for lab --
>
>   a.. 9 term hours in:
>   b.. -subjects like computer science, statistics, chemistry, oceanography,
> climatology, hydrology, aeronomy, light and optics, electricity and
> magnetism, etc.
>   c.. 6 term hours in:
>   d.. -analysis and prediction of weather systems
>   e.. -atmospheric dynamics and thermodynamics
>   f.. -college physics
>   g.. 3 term hours in:
>   h.. -physical meteorology
>   i.. -ordinary differential equations
> I dare say the engineers quoted in my story have the same or
> better background.

They may have a nice background...but can they mow as mean a lawn as
you? Does your experience not count for something there? I wouldn't
ask an engineer to mix me a drink simply because he or she is an
engineer.

The above, by the way, is the bare minimum/entry level. You
conveniently glossed over those who have masters/Phds.

> There is NO overwhelming majority. Take ALL the scientists
> and ALL their opinions -- nothing overwhelming from either side.

LOL - whatever you say!

> All I see is "our data set is large and diverse enough for our
> research questions". The article made no definitive claims
> as to global warming -- it merely represented the opinions
> of a huge number of experts in that field.

The entire point of the study was to determine how to convince people
like those engineers of the reality of climate change. DESPITE that, a
majority still acknowledged that carbon emissions do indeed contribute
to it.

> As said, the article speaks for itself. Interpret it however
> you see fit.

Dude -- the two people who *conducted the survey* have stated that
Taylor has entirely misrepresented the intent. What the fuck more
could you possibly want or need to understand that Taylor's article is
tripe?

I'm not the one "interpreting". YOU are.

> Thousands of scientists disagree with you.

And a vast majority disagree with you.

El Jefe

[steveh99]

In article <f01fdc03-e29e-4c84-a176-
ad595d...@l13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, busbo...@gmail.com says...

LOL

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

>> So you're saying these engineers aren't as smart as someone
>> who took a bachelors degree <according to the link you
>> provided lab> to study meteorology?
>
> There's being smart in general, and then there's being smart, trained
> and experienced in a specific area.

There is a singular 'main' statement being made within
the article ----

"A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly
known as earth scientists) and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed
Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that
humans are causing a serious global warming problem. By contrast, a
majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary
cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will
not be a very serious problem."

> They may have a nice background...but can they mow as mean a lawn as
> you? Does your experience not count for something there? I wouldn't
> ask an engineer to mix me a drink simply because he or she is an
> engineer.

Duuuude -- really?

"1000 geoscientists and engineers"

>> There is NO overwhelming majority. Take ALL the scientists
>> and ALL their opinions -- nothing overwhelming from either side.
>
> LOL - whatever you say!

It ain't about what I say, it's about what those that study
such things say -- and their opinions are divided.

> The entire point of the study was to determine how to convince people
> like those engineers of the reality of climate change. DESPITE that, a
> majority still acknowledged that carbon emissions do indeed contribute
> to it.

The entire point of the STORY was that only a THIRD of
those thousand surveyed, believed man had a large impact.

>> As said, the article speaks for itself. Interpret it however
>> you see fit.
>
> Dude -- the two people who *conducted the survey* have stated that
> Taylor has entirely misrepresented the intent. What the fuck more
> could you possibly want or need to understand that Taylor's article is
> tripe?
>
> I'm not the one "interpreting". YOU are.

The story/point I made has NOTHING to do with 'intent'.
The point is --> that over 600 of those 1000 surveyed
would disagree with you.

>> Thousands of scientists disagree with you.
>
> And a vast majority disagree with you.

By your standards - the 4 local meteorologists/clowns
on my local news stations are more qualified to give an
opinion than the scientists/engineers interviewed.

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Ya think?

Drop the attitude 83, don't have the time for it.

> It warms, it cools... cyclical patterns. One massive volcano
> erupting has far more influence than anything man has
> ever done.

Bullshit pure & simple - volcanic activity doesn't equal 1% of
the accumulation that results from man burning hydrocarbon fuels.
Are you just pissed off that the world is changing, or will
you continue to act like a kid here? Research more...

Here's what scientists in Hawaii say:

<http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html>

> A degree a year would be devastating. As one born in the 50's
> shouldn't I now be seeing temperatures around 130 degrees?

[palm-face]

Not a 1 + 1, damn 83... a single degree above the mean average,
c'mon man you asked for this one:

*PLONK*

--
later on,
Mike

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

[clipped your reply, I'm out of time today - doh!]

> do you think the world would change overnight? Over the next
> year or ten years? Hell no, we need to drive, we need to
> heat our homes.

When do we start then? We have to sometime.
I don't see this as a matter of all or nothing but rather,
slowly supplanting obsolete technology with more efficient
means.

> Were we to blame for the ice-age? If man decided to RAISE
> global temperatures tomorrow, we have no way of doing so.

The keyword here being 'decided'. In fact we do know how to change
temperature as well as having ways of doing so. You've lost me on
the above statement. If we know the that something is causing damage
(man-made or otherwise) should we not try to fix it? We do so now
by regulating our indoor temperature, expecting more MPG from our
vehicles. Fertilizers that greatly enhance yields. You gotta
re-explain your thinking on this point, I cant believe you meant it
as it reads, probably me but...

> We don't know how to raise it, lower it, or change it in any way.
> We can do nothing other than speculate as to why and how temperatures change.

Huh? No 83, not true. Man, I know you know better than this, now don't get mad,
just consider what you're saying here... we *can* make a better world.
I'm at a loss for words here - the whole tenor of your posts on this
matter are waaaaaay below the level of competency I regularly enjoy reading
from you, wtf? That's not a put-down, just surprised I guess. I mean
I know you disagree but hey, no biggie, have fun. You guys carry on,
I'll sit back & read, & will catch up soon.

--
later on,
Mike

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

>> Ya think?
>
> Drop the attitude 83, don't have the time for it.

The time you 'have' is of no relevance as you had
time to make the post and make a follow-up.

There was no attitude in my statement to you.
Al Gore is the biggest piece of shit on the GW bandwagon.
He pollutes more in one month than everyone in this
group will over the next 10 years. One trip on his private
plane will put more shit into the air than all of us in those
next ten years. He is a whore-dog, a capitalist of the highest
degree, and yet is held as hero to many on the left.

>> It warms, it cools... cyclical patterns. One massive volcano
>> erupting has far more influence than anything man has
>> ever done.
>
> Bullshit pure & simple - volcanic activity doesn't equal 1% of
> the accumulation that results from man burning hydrocarbon fuels.

Claiming 'bullshit' doesn't make it bullshit.

"When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines June 15, 1991,
an estimated 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and ash particles
blasted more than 12 miles (20 km) high into the atmosphere.
The eruption caused widespread destruction and loss of human
life. Gases and solids injected into the stratosphere circled the globe
for three weeks. Volcanic eruptions of this magnitude can impact
global climate, reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the
Earth's surface, lowering temperatures in the troposphere, and
changing atmospheric circulation patterns. The extent to which
this occurs is an ongoing debate."

furthermore --

"massive outpouring of gases and ash can influence climate
patterns for years. Sulfuric gases convert to sulfate aerosols,
sub-micron droplets containing about 75 percent sulfuric acid."

and finally --

"The temperature of the tropical lower stratosphere increased
by 4 Kelvin (4�C) because of aerosol absorption of terrestrial
longwave and solar near-infrared radiation."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/

Now then, YOU TELL ME, how could man (if he so
desired) have ANYWHERE near that kind of change on
our climate? Tell me how the brightest scientists in the
world could change our climate by 4 degrees centigrade?

> Are you just pissed off that the world is changing, or will
> you continue to act like a kid here? Research more...
>
> Here's what scientists in Hawaii say:
>
> <http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html>

From your link --

"people who live in Honolulu, 250 miles away, know first-hand
how these emissions can affect air quality and life on the regional
scale. It's a fact that Kilauea has been releasing more than twice
the amount of noxious sulfur dioxide gas (SO2) as the single
dirtiest power plant on the U.S. mainland. "

And while the story says that manmade CO2 is a far larger
number, CO2 isn't the only factor to be considered. And
as a sidenote, short of stopping all plants, all production,
all cars -- shit - bringing the entire world to a screeching
halt, what would you have us do? We can only control
(at best) what we do here in the US. Take a look at Bejing
and what they're going thru right now (smog-wise). Not
a damn thing we can do about it. We put stipulations
here on our cars, our powerplants and everything else.
What we CANNOT do is to stop life as we know it.

>> A degree a year would be devastating. As one born in the 50's
>> shouldn't I now be seeing temperatures around 130 degrees?
>
> [palm-face]
>
> Not a 1 + 1, damn 83... a single degree above the mean average,
> c'mon man you asked for this one:

It was tongue-in-cheek.... get with the program.

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

>> do you think the world would change overnight? Over the next
>> year or ten years? Hell no, we need to drive, we need to
>> heat our homes.
>
> When do we start then? We have to sometime.
> I don't see this as a matter of all or nothing but rather,
> slowly supplanting obsolete technology with more efficient
> means.

Are scientists around the world not doing this EVERY DAY?
Gov't has put VERY strict regulations on cars and business.
Battery tech has gotten much better, you're seeing solar
panels going up... science and technology are like baking
a cake, you can't cut steps.

>> Were we to blame for the ice-age? If man decided to RAISE
>> global temperatures tomorrow, we have no way of doing so.
>
> The keyword here being 'decided'. In fact we do know how to change
> temperature as well as having ways of doing so. You've lost me on
> the above statement. If we know the that something is causing damage
> (man-made or otherwise) should we not try to fix it? We do so now
> by regulating our indoor temperature, expecting more MPG from our
> vehicles. Fertilizers that greatly enhance yields. You gotta
> re-explain your thinking on this point, I cant believe you meant it
> as it reads, probably me but...

Then please tell me how if we were going into an ice-age, how would
man raise global temperatures by a single degree? You can't.
Tell me how we could likewise DROP temperatures a single degree.
I'm sure all those mid-eastern countries <as well as TX> would
be interested in hearing this.

>> We don't know how to raise it, lower it, or change it in any way.
>> We can do nothing other than speculate as to why and how
>> temperatures change.
>
> Huh? No 83, not true. Man, I know you know better than this, now
> don't get mad, just consider what you're saying here... we *can* make
> a better world.

Mike - get real. There is nobody that wouldn't advocate for
a better/cleaner world. Corporations are spending billions
every year to put out the next new solar collector or the newest
scrub filters for power plants. Individuals at home are tinkering
every day for the 'next big thing'. No one is calling for MORE
pollution. Reality has to set in at some point tho - India and
China are in desperate need for more power as populations
come into the modern age. And fact is, we can't do a damn thing
about the pollution in either of those countries.

> I'm at a loss for words here - the whole tenor of your posts on this
> matter are waaaaaay below the level of competency I regularly enjoy
> reading from you, wtf? That's not a put-down, just surprised I guess.

Back in the 70's I was an advocate for many things that I've now
simply accepted as reality. You cannot stop wars, you cannot
smile and turn the other cheek. You cannot stop progress to those
that want running water and a place to charge their cellphones.
Progress has brought us almost as many problems as it has
solutions. But with all this said, the very greatest minds in the world
cannot change the weather and cannot collectively say that man
has much impact.

[AJ]

> El Jefe- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL! OK, that wasa good one.

[AJ]

On Feb 21, 4:16 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:10:33 -0800 (PST), Busboy Jefe
>

> <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >84% of those surveyed are engineers. As for the rest: "Geoscientist"
> >is a very open term. How many actually worked in climatology? Note
> >that Taylor doesn't say. Hmm!
>
> Since you brought it up, exactly where does one get a degree in
> "climatology"?  Is that an online thing like "mold remediation"?
>
> And how long has the "career" of climatology been active?  I'm sure
> that since the climate has been here forever, the doctorate in
> climatology has as bold, rich history, right?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Ollie+Williams.+Blacky+weather+forecast+featuring+Black+kids+dad+as_dc22fc_4047121.jpg

[lab~rat >:-)]

Yeah, ya do. I asked you a specific question, one that takes greater
google skills than you seem to exhibit.

Is there a major university offering a climatology degree?

Of course, you probably know the answer, because you would have posted
a plethora of links to Ivy League schools boasting their strong
climatology program instead of a general link.

Here, let me hand-hold you through one of the more reputable
institutes of higher climatological learning:

http://www.onlinedegreeshub.com/science/climatology/

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

(replied to both in this post 83, behind at work...)

> Al Gore is the biggest piece of shit on the GW bandwagon.
> He pollutes more in one month than everyone in this
> group will over the next 10 years. One trip on his private
> plane will put more shit into the air than all of us in those
> next ten years. He is a whore-dog, a capitalist of the highest
> degree, and yet is held as hero to many on the left.

Hard to argue this point that's for sure. Any gains in knowledge
that could be brought to bear (bare?) are rendered useless
by his greed. For me, its also about a man's character...

> Now then, YOU TELL ME, how could man (if he so
> desired) have ANYWHERE near that kind of change on
> our climate? Tell me how the brightest scientists in the
> world could change our climate by 4 degrees centigrade?

The facts are this: Total volcanic activity (as measured in heat) does
not equal, *not even close* the heat generated via hydrocarbon based fuels.
Sure volcanoes can damage the environment, & a 'mega eruption' could
of course extinguish/impede life, raise temps, etc..., however,
in *day to day dealings*, we're talking about distilled petroleum that
*is* several orders of magnitude more potent in its ability to retain
heat for *much* longer amounts of time. That is the issue.

Here's another way to look at it... put your hand in a 5gal bucket of
soda-pop (our volcano) for 10 mins. The acid contained therein does
negligible harm. Now sprinkle a few drops of hydrochloric acid (our petrol)
on your hand & you'll feel the pain johnny-on-the-spot. What I'm seeking to
convey is that refined distillates are much, much more harsh.

> What we CANNOT do is to stop life as we know it.

Ahh but we CAN change it over time...

feet > horse > wagon > car > plane > moon > ???

> It was tongue-in-cheek.... get with the program.

Just ribbin' you, ya dang okie =)

> Then please tell me how if we were going into an ice-age, how would
> man raise global temperatures by a single degree? You can't.
> Tell me how we could likewise DROP temperatures a single degree.
> I'm sure all those mid-eastern countries <as well as TX> would
> be interested in hearing this.

Question: Then how did vehicles raise temps these days? By way of
inefficient power consummation of course, the quintessential idea
(my 50 cent word today) is to lighten mankind's impact - if petrol
raises temps, then burning less of the same means we're lowing temps
back to where it naturally resides. What's so hard about that?

> Mike - get real. There is nobody that wouldn't advocate for
> a better/cleaner world. Corporations are spending billions
> every year to put out the next new solar collector or the newest
> scrub filters for power plants. Individuals at home are tinkering
> every day for the 'next big thing'. No one is calling for MORE
> pollution. Reality has to set in at some point tho - India and
> China are in desperate need for more power as populations
> come into the modern age. And fact is, we can't do a damn thing
> about the pollution in either of those countries.

Well, a couple of things here 83...

Internal combustion engines typically have a fuel to power conversation
ratio of about 13%. That means that 87% of the loss is wasted as heat...
Heat that is embedded in CO2...

(!)

Lemme say that again:

(!!)

That's not efficient by any standard.

And Asia does not yet have the carbon foot-print the West does, but
'Katy bar the door' when they come of age... its a big deal.

> Back in the 70's I was an advocate for many things that I've now
> simply accepted as reality. You cannot stop wars, you cannot
> smile and turn the other cheek. You cannot stop progress to those
> that want running water and a place to charge their cellphones.
> Progress has brought us almost as many problems as it has
> solutions. But with all this said, the very greatest minds in the world
> cannot change the weather and cannot collectively say that man
> has much impact.

ugh <gnashing-teeth> 83, you're a sharp thinker, 'collectively' we can
forge a better future (lol why does that sound like a self-help book)
*if* folks like you would only quit looking inward & start looking outward.
Man, times have changed, we routinely give prizes away in cereal-boxes
to children NASA would've killed for not 50 years ago. Virtually the entire
industrialized world understands the threat of global warming for what it is,
has health-care for its populace, even provides net access as standard-fare
for its kids. I'm moving forward, hope you do as well.

--
later on,
Mike

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

>> Al Gore

> Hard to argue this point that's for sure. Any gains in knowledge
> that could be brought to bear (bare?) are rendered useless
> by his greed. For me, its also about a man's character...
>
>> Now then, YOU TELL ME, how could man (if he so
>> desired) have ANYWHERE near that kind of change on
>> our climate? Tell me how the brightest scientists in the
>> world could change our climate by 4 degrees centigrade?
>
> The facts are this: Total volcanic activity (as measured in heat) does
> not equal, *not even close* the heat generated via hydrocarbon based
> fuels. Sure volcanoes can damage the environment, & a 'mega eruption'
> could
> of course extinguish/impede life, raise temps, etc..., however,
> in *day to day dealings*, we're talking about distilled petroleum that
> *is* several orders of magnitude more potent in its ability to retain
> heat for *much* longer amounts of time. That is the issue.

That may be the issue, but the POINT was that you implied we
could willingly and/or knowingly raise or lower the earths temps.
We can't.

> Here's another way to look at it... put your hand in a 5gal bucket of
> soda-pop (our volcano) for 10 mins. The acid contained therein does
> negligible harm. Now sprinkle a few drops of hydrochloric acid (our
> petrol) on your hand & you'll feel the pain johnny-on-the-spot. What
> I'm seeking to convey is that refined distillates are much, much more
> harsh.
>
>> What we CANNOT do is to stop life as we know it.
>
> Ahh but we CAN change it over time...

And indeed we have and we are. Tell me, what is there
today that isn't MUCH more efficient? Your home AC
if far more, your car is far more, your home is better
insulated, etc etc.

> feet > horse > wagon > car > plane > moon > ???
>
>> It was tongue-in-cheek.... get with the program.
>
> Just ribbin' you, ya dang okie =)
>
>> Then please tell me how if we were going into an ice-age, how would
>> man raise global temperatures by a single degree? You can't.
>> Tell me how we could likewise DROP temperatures a single degree.
>> I'm sure all those mid-eastern countries <as well as TX> would
>> be interested in hearing this.
>
> Question: Then how did vehicles raise temps these days?

Unfair question... first and foremost you'd have to tell me what
the average or mean temp was <for instance> in 1930 or 1960
<whatever, pick a year>. We would then compare that number to
todays number. Let's say it is on average 1 or 2 degrees warmer
today. It would then be on you/scientists to prove there is a
direct correlation, and just how much. Now then, that said -
there is no question that we spew pollutants into the air.
And further, I've never EVER said that climate change isn't
happening OR that man hasn't had an impact on that. What
I DO question - is how much impact we have had AND if it
is possible to back off. My personal belief <strictly IMO> is
that man has little impact on the change of temperatures. It's
also my personal belief that we can do very little about any of
it beyond the small improvements we make in any given year.
But keep this in mind, we're just a small piece of this big rock.
While the Chinese are advancing their infrastructure -- they
aren't worrying about the environment as we would. While
India is suddenly developing a real middle class - they continue
to pour toxins in the very water that many drink and bathe in.
And you know what? we did the same shit for many years.

Point here? -- until they find their 'happy spot', they'll continue
to pour toxins in the rivers and spew mass pollutants into
their air. The air in Bejing is almost toxic today. Same as living
in LA was in the 70's. Man adapts.

> By way of
> inefficient power consummation of course, the quintessential idea
> (my 50 cent word today) is to lighten mankind's impact - if petrol
> raises temps, then burning less of the same means we're lowing temps
> back to where it naturally resides. What's so hard about that?

Well, I guess the hard part is telling some single mother that her
$300 Pinto is going to be taken from her <as they do in Japan>.
Or maybe telling the Chinese/India that they can't 'advance' as quickly
as they want to.

>> Mike - get real. There is nobody that wouldn't advocate for
>> a better/cleaner world. Corporations are spending billions
>> every year to put out the next new solar collector or the newest
>> scrub filters for power plants. Individuals at home are tinkering
>> every day for the 'next big thing'. No one is calling for MORE
>> pollution. Reality has to set in at some point tho - India and
>> China are in desperate need for more power as populations
>> come into the modern age. And fact is, we can't do a damn thing
>> about the pollution in either of those countries.
>
> Well, a couple of things here 83...
>
> Internal combustion engines typically have a fuel to power
> conversation ratio of about 13%. That means that 87% of the loss is
> wasted as heat... Heat that is embedded in CO2...

> That's not efficient by any standard.

You're right and you're wrong on this one.

Go here --
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

You would imply that 87% is wasted in heat, but
that's not true. Losses of energy in a car doesn't all
turn into heat -- Drivetrain losses <speeding up or
slowing down> Power to Wheels <wind resistance
or braking>. And what about that energy that DOES
turn into heat? does the quick/small amount of heat
from braking really sneak into our upper atmosphere?
If that is the case <and I really don't know> then EVERY
SINGLE THING we do <that produces heat> is now
suddenly killing our environment. Every dinner cooked,
every campfire made, every time that I rub my hands
together. Likewise, if we're speaking strictly of heat
created - when a cars brakes heat up, does that
temperature not almost instantly level off when it
hits the surrounding cold air? What is there from hot
brake pads exactly, that reaches into our atmosphere?

> And Asia does not yet have the carbon foot-print the West does, but
> 'Katy bar the door' when they come of age... its a big deal.

Our worst part is behind us. We're actively seeking to lower
our toxic output, we're requiring certain standards. When
a billion Chinese hit that standard of living it will indeed be
'Katy bar the door'. And not a damn thing we can do to change
it. China doesn't listen to us, China doesn't care about its
individual citizens/peons. We can't even get China to come
out and denounce N Korea, how are we going to 'make' them
spend billions/trillions on cleaning their air?

http://tinyurl.com/by8psd5

>> Back in the 70's I was an advocate for many things that I've now
>> simply accepted as reality. You cannot stop wars, you cannot
>> smile and turn the other cheek. You cannot stop progress to those
>> that want running water and a place to charge their cellphones.
>> Progress has brought us almost as many problems as it has
>> solutions. But with all this said, the very greatest minds in the
>> world cannot change the weather and cannot collectively say that man
>> has much impact.
>
> ugh <gnashing-teeth> 83, you're a sharp thinker, 'collectively' we can
> forge a better future (lol why does that sound like a self-help book)
> *if* folks like you would only quit looking inward & start looking
> outward.

Here is one of your greatest misconceptions. Most (or at
least many) people in the US indeed ARE very aware and
doing what they can. Should we speak of compact flourescents
or solar panels or hybrid cars? How about my recycle bins?
or eliminating an unnecessary trip? On the gov't level it
continues -- scrubbers on power plants, higher fuel mileage
requirements. The list goes on. To imply we are collectively
just sitting on our asses is simply wrong.

You must also understand this -- no insult intended at all -
When you make statements as your last one above (and
elsewhere in this conversation) you sound to me very
much like the "flower power'' generation I grew up with and
tended to gravitate towards. That is to say a whole lotta
touchy/feely/lovey/hopey kinda shit. And there ain't
nothing wrong with that in and of itself. The problem is -
WHAT CAN WE REALISTICALLY do about it? It's like
the problem with the hardcore muslims -- there isn't
a thing we CAN do about it. I will ALWAYS keep a fairly
positive attitude -- in spite of my bitching I feel we will
work our way thru this stuff. We have made amazing
strides regarding pollution, and we'll make more. The
Hudson is clean, LA is 'breathable', our cars are getting
2 or 3 TIMES the fuel efficiency. But one thing is CERTAIN
beyond any reasonable doubt -- people will continue to
drive, heat their homes with coal or oil, and other countries
will still move forward into the industrial/technological age.
And we don't have one iota of control over any of that.

> Man, times have changed, we routinely give prizes away in
> cereal-boxes
> to children NASA would've killed for not 50 years ago. Virtually the
> entire industrialized world understands the threat of global warming
> for what it is, has health-care for its populace, even provides net
> access as standard-fare for its kids. I'm moving forward, hope you do
> as well.

I skipped having kids, so there's thousands less in my 'future
genetics', I'll continue to recycle, buy the crappy bulbs. I'll
make sure my next vehicle gets good mileage if possible. But
beyond that, there isn't anything that you or I can do to make
ANY significant change. Our complaining, moaning will
change nothing in this country -- you and I both know the
individual has virtually no voice whatsoever. For Bejing to
clean up their air -- it's gonna take an act of God.... because
their politicians don't care about their citizenry. This is obvious
by what Bejing looks like. Now MAYBE -- if they HAD a
democratic gov't, and MAYBE if ALL the citizens came
together - they could 'fix' it. But at the same time, you'll
never tell all those chinese citizens they can't/shouldn't
be driving all those piece of shit old cars. We have no
right to tell others how to live, that they should get back
on their bicycles or shut down that spewing factory that
provides their paycheck and makes widgets that their
children insist on having.

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

Thoughtful remarks 83 thanks for sharing. I'll only
reply to a single point...

> You must also understand this -- no insult intended at all -
> When you make statements as your last one above (and
> elsewhere in this conversation) you sound to me very
> much like the "flower power'' generation I grew up with and
> tended to gravitate towards. That is to say a whole lotta
> touchy/feely/lovey/hopey kinda shit. And there ain't
> nothing wrong with that in and of itself. The problem is -
> WHAT CAN WE REALISTICALLY do about it? It's like
> the problem with the hardcore muslims -- there isn't
> a thing we CAN do about it. I will ALWAYS keep a fairly
> positive attitude -- in spite of my bitching I feel we will
> work our way thru this stuff. We have made amazing
> strides regarding pollution, and we'll make more. The
> Hudson is clean, LA is 'breathable', our cars are getting
> 2 or 3 TIMES the fuel efficiency. But one thing is CERTAIN
> beyond any reasonable doubt -- people will continue to
> drive, heat their homes with coal or oil, and other countries
> will still move forward into the industrial/technological age.
> And we don't have one iota of control over any of that.

Sure enough, I am hopeful, heck even confident. And this is not
born of some loopy hippie-dog age of aquarius mentality, but rather
the knowledge (verifiable knowledge) that is the bedrock of science.

Hard core Muslims? No worse than hard core practitioners of
<insert your favorite religion here>.

Where I live, I see allot of otherwise good folks in the south
predicating their entire view of the world on mythology, a silly
& superstitious meme that stunts human potential & denies the
very proof lying on the ground in plain view of everyone. Its
always the same depressingly morbid message:

'Creationism: Because it's a lot easier to read one book
than a bunch of hard ones.'

Time continues its advance forward & me? I want to
'eat from the tree of knowledge'.

Welp, I'm outta words =) Thanks for reading guys,
off to work for me...

--
later on,
Mike

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

> Thoughtful remarks 83 thanks for sharing. I'll only
> reply to a single point...

Actually you replied to two things, but not at all to the
things I wish you would have.

Scenario -- we have two years before the earth totally
crumbles. The only way 'out' is to raise <or lower>
global temperatures by four degrees. Can we do that?

--------

You've made numerous statements in this thread that
"we need to do something now". Yet, you've not once
acknowleged all that we ARE doing. And it's a LOT.

--------

Regarding the car/efficiency statement you made --
It's one thing to say the heat from a massive volcano
will enter the upper atmosphere, but tell me how heat
eminating from a hot radiator or brake pads will reach
those heights. If I burn a candle in a cold room, does that
heat average out within the room? or does it reach our
stratosphere?

Now, to my statement below, you did reply - but it was
WAAAAY generic and didn't address any issue whatsoever
other than to say you will put your faith in science.

That was ONE thing you chose to 'address'.... now let's scroll
on down and see what else you chose to reply to --

>> You must also understand this -- no insult intended at all -
>> When you make statements as your last one above (and
>> elsewhere in this conversation) you sound to me very
>> much like the "flower power'' generation I grew up with and
>> tended to gravitate towards. That is to say a whole lotta
>> touchy/feely/lovey/hopey kinda shit. And there ain't
>> nothing wrong with that in and of itself. The problem is -
>> WHAT CAN WE REALISTICALLY do about it? It's like
>> the problem with the hardcore muslims -- there isn't
>> a thing we CAN do about it. I will ALWAYS keep a fairly
>> positive attitude -- in spite of my bitching I feel we will
>> work our way thru this stuff. We have made amazing
>> strides regarding pollution, and we'll make more. The
>> Hudson is clean, LA is 'breathable', our cars are getting
>> 2 or 3 TIMES the fuel efficiency. But one thing is CERTAIN
>> beyond any reasonable doubt -- people will continue to
>> drive, heat their homes with coal or oil, and other countries
>> will still move forward into the industrial/technological age.
>> And we don't have one iota of control over any of that.
>
> Sure enough, I am hopeful, heck even confident. And this is not
> born of some loopy hippie-dog age of aquarius mentality, but rather
> the knowledge (verifiable knowledge) that is the bedrock of science.
>
> Hard core Muslims? No worse than hard core practitioners of
> <insert your favorite religion here>.

Number two --- you chose to take a very generic example with
no relation to this discussion whatsoever. Methinks you are
taking the easy way out here. But let's look at what you had to
say and I'll address it below your comments.

> Where I live, I see allot of otherwise good folks in the south
> predicating their entire view of the world on mythology, a silly
> & superstitious meme that stunts human potential & denies the
> very proof lying on the ground in plain view of everyone. Its
> always the same depressingly morbid message:
>
> 'Creationism: Because it's a lot easier to read one book
> than a bunch of hard ones.'

Total nonsense. Let's do this -- take every atheist out there,
put them on side of the room. Take every true christian out
there - put them on the other side. Which side do you think will
hurt more people in a lifetime? Which side do you think will be
more charitable/giving? Which side will do more prison time?
Which side will likely be more honest? hard-working? commited
to their wife and their children? I don't know that there is any
kind of hard facts on these things -- just looking for your opinion.

Now tell me what 'depressingly morbid' things any mainstream
religion has caused/done in the last 100 years. We'll leave
Islamist extremists out of this conversation as they 'speak'
for theirselves. And don't go all "catholic priests" or "David
Koresh, Jim Jones" on me -- those are not religions, those
are psychopaths with an agenda.

> Time continues its advance forward & me? I want to
> 'eat from the tree of knowledge'.

This guy has been making a lot of news recently for his
speech he gave in front of the president -- do you think HE
has 'eaten from the tree of knowlege'?

(a VERY short article)

From the article linked to below -

"voracious reader of the medical and scientific literature"

"over 120 major scientific publications in peer reviewed journals"

"His achievements have so far earned him 51 honorary doctorates,
including from Yale and Columbia Universities."

One of the greatest medical minds ever... and leader within
his field of pediatric surgery.

Be sure to let me know how you feel about his views on
Darwinisn and evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/4311/

> Welp, I'm outta words =) Thanks for reading guys,
> off to work for me...

I hope you'll respond when you have a bit of time --

unless of course --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEoMO0pc7k

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Regarding the car/efficiency statement you made --
> It's one thing to say the heat from a massive volcano
> will enter the upper atmosphere, but tell me how heat
> eminating from a hot radiator or brake pads will reach
> those heights. If I burn a candle in a cold room, does that
> heat average out within the room? or does it reach our
> stratosphere?

Sigh. No, not heat from mechanical wear - the retention of heat
embedded in CO2. The exhaust of internal combustion...

> > 'Creationism: Because it's a lot easier to read one book
> > than a bunch of hard ones.'
>
> Total nonsense. Let's do this -- take every atheist out there,
> put them on side of the room. Take every true christian out
> there - put them on the other side. Which side do you think will
> hurt more people in a lifetime?

If you're suggesting that it requires a belief in an invisible sky-god
to be moral, you're nuts buddy... Christians are [in]famous for their
lack of empathy. And charity as noted below? Please, you insult my
intelligence with your coy pretense... Isn't Obama-care Christ-like
enough for you? Why don't you practice what you preach hypocrite!

Without a doubt Christians have done more harm to mankind *BY FAR*
than science has.

- Science has engineered fertilizers that increase crops yields on avg.
40%, And your god's contribution? zip. (Or starvation)

- Science engineered a cure for polo. And your god's contribution? zip.

- Science flies to Mars. And your god's contribution? He flies planes
into buildings. Impressive huh?

There are many (many) more such examples...

> Which side do you think will be more charitable/giving? Which side will
> do more prison time? Which side will likely be more honest? hard-working?
> commited to their wife and their children? I don't know that there is any
> kind of hard facts on these things -- just looking for your opinion.

My opinion says *evidence does not require faith*, whereas religion literally
requires a suspension of the laws of nature to work (walking on water, talking
snakes, raising the dead).

But hey, lemme show you how to stop your family from becoming a nasty ol'
<gasp> atheist... Quoting another:

'Do not educate them, or expose them to critical thinking, logic or science.

Lie to them constantly about how the world works. Feed them a steady diet of mumbo
jumbo dressed up like real knowledge - the jumbo jet in the whirlwind for example
*and pretend* that it is deep wisdom.

Make them loathe their own natural bodies and functions. Convince them they
are small and weak and worthless and need redemption. Tell them everything
enjoyable is grievously wrong to even think about, and that their only fun
should be in grovelling to an invisible friend.

Ensure that they resent anyone who is not like them in every way - skin color,
nationality, political opinion, but especially creed. Make such people out to be
evil and vile and give them - impotent minorities all - the fictional power to
somehow oppress and persecute the vast majority who do think like you.

Teach them to laugh at and dismiss out of hand any faith but their own. Early
- early mind you - make sure they are taught the difference between superstitious
deadly error - that one raving lunatic in the desert told the truth about a vicious
god who killed people, and divine eternal truth - that another raving lunatic in the
desert told the truth about a vicious god who killed people.

Instruct them with all severity and import to never question for themselves, to never
think for themselves, to never live for themselves, but to seek answers only in one
*just one* particular set of semi-literate bronze age folk tales.

That should do the trick.'

> Jerry Bergman, Ph.D

Did god teach him science, how to read/write, honor him with a PHD or did man?
'lean not to your own understanding' - Proverbs 3:5-6 Think about that for awhile..

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEoMO0pc7k

Cute. You've mistook a lack of time on my part in keeping up as superiority
on your part? Chuckle, well you're imaginative, I'll give you that much.

--
later on,
Mike

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

>> Regarding the car/efficiency statement you made --
>> It's one thing to say the heat from a massive volcano
>> will enter the upper atmosphere, but tell me how heat
>> eminating from a hot radiator or brake pads will reach
>> those heights. If I burn a candle in a cold room, does that
>> heat average out within the room? or does it reach our
>> stratosphere?
>
> Sigh. No, not heat from mechanical wear - the retention of heat
> embedded in CO2. The exhaust of internal combustion...

EXACTLY! But that is nowhere near your 87% figure quoted.

With the advent/use of catalytic convertors, turbochargers,
etc --- the amount of unburnt fuels/efficiency has changed
dramatically over the last couple decades.

>> Total nonsense. Let's do this -- take every atheist out there,
>> put them on side of the room. Take every true christian out
>> there - put them on the other side. Which side do you think will
>> hurt more people in a lifetime?
>
> If you're suggesting that it requires a belief in an invisible sky-god
> to be moral, you're nuts buddy...

You seem to be getting a bit touchy there Mike... I asked you
strictly for your OPINION. And I NEVER said one had to believe
in God to be a moral or good person because that certainly isn't
true.

> Christians are [in]famous for their
> lack of empathy. And charity as noted below? Please, you insult my
> intelligence with your coy pretense... Isn't Obama-care Christ-like
> enough for you? Why don't you practice what you preach hypocrite!

Now I'm a hypocrite for having a conversation you started?
You might not be cut out for USENET -- shame too, as I like
hearing your opinions.

Could this be an example of atheist vs christian behavior?

> Without a doubt Christians have done more harm to mankind *BY FAR*
> than science has.

Utter horseshit.. Tell you what, let's keep it to the last 100 years.
No talk of the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition. There are
christian based groups all over the globe that are in the line
of fire to save, medicate or feed those in war zones, etc. Now,
since we've made it this far, you wanna tell me how many
people Christians have killed or maimed vs the number that
have died via drones, atomic bombs, Chernobyl, etc etc etc.
If we were killin' Taliban with sticks and stones I might be
inclined to agree with you.

Science is merely science -- it takes a good or a bad man to
apply that science to either the welfare or destruction of
mankind.

> - Science has engineered fertilizers that increase crops yields on
> avg. 40%, And your god's contribution? zip. (Or starvation)

And as we'll never have any way of knowing how many of those
scientists were believers in God, that point is moot.

> - Science engineered a cure for polo. And your god's contribution?
> zip.

Hmmm, a few things here -

1) "Science" didn't find the cure for polio... Jonas Salk (a jew) did.

As a sidenote - how can you be sure God didn't put Salk here
in order to eliminate polio?

You'd have us believe science is an entity to itself, it ain't. It's
a combination of people (both religious and not).

2) It is my personal belief that God rarely interferes with the
daily affairs of man. We're mostly on our own there. Any
evil done by Hitler was done when MAN chose to follow him
and/or when MAN didn't take steps to stop him.

3) How about the link you snipped that I provided?
Benjamin Carson is a devout Christian. Are we not going
to credit him with all his marvelous work? Or are we
going to ignore the man and just claim it as "science"?
You CANNOT do that.

> - Science flies to Mars. And your god's contribution? He flies planes
> into buildings. Impressive huh?

This is almost hovering on stupidity. God doesn't fly planes.
God does not advocate killing. Show me anywhere in the
teachings of Christ that backs you up. Science doesn't fly
or build rocketships either -- MEN DO.

One of my most prized autographs is Neil Armstrong.
How many astronauts you wanna guess said a prayer
before strapping that rocket to their ass?

> There are many (many) more such examples...

And I'll respond equally to any you may wish to post.

>> Which side do you think will be more charitable/giving? Which side
>> will do more prison time? Which side will likely be more honest?
>> hard-working? commited to their wife and their children? I don't
>> know that there is any kind of hard facts on these things -- just
>> looking for your opinion.
>
> My opinion says *evidence does not require faith*, whereas religion
> literally requires a suspension of the laws of nature to work
> (walking on water, talking snakes, raising the dead).

I asked for your opinion, you totally sidestepped. And ain't
no one talking about walking on water, snakes or raising the dead.
Having said that tho - if God does indeed exist, if He can create
the universe and all that's in it -- he can certainly make a talking
snake, raise the dead and walk on water.

> But hey, lemme show you how to stop your family from becoming a nasty
> ol' <gasp> atheist... Quoting another:
>
> 'Do not educate them, or expose them to critical thinking, logic or
> science.

It isn't very hard to find an educated man that will believe
(or not believe) in God. Virtually every worthwhile stride
in science has come from the US in the last 100 years. And
as a general rule, the HUGE majority of our population
professes a belief in God.

<snipped for brevity>

> That should do the trick.'
>
>> Jerry Bergman, Ph.D

His opinion (on an 'unknown' subject such as God) is no
more valid than mine or yours. He (and you) are certainly
entitled to your opinions, and I've certainly never tried
to convert anyone in here. This is just me and you swapping
opinions.

> Did god teach him science, how to read/write, honor him with a PHD or
> did man? 'lean not to your own understanding' - Proverbs 3:5-6 Think
> about that for awhile..

Pure silliness -- for that remark to have any real 'bearing' on
anything you'd have to presume that God would come down and
be our personal tutors.

-----------

Sidenote -- you gave no opinions on the work of
Benjamin Carson. Is he just some hick-idiot simply
because he has faith?

These were also skipped --

Scenario -- we have two years before the earth totally
crumbles. The only way 'out' is to raise <or lower>
global temperatures by four degrees. Can we do that?

--------

You've made numerous statements in this thread that
"we need to do something now". Yet, you've not once
acknowleged all that we ARE doing. And it's a LOT.

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEoMO0pc7k
>
> Cute. You've mistook a lack of time on my part in keeping up as
> superiority on your part? Chuckle, well you're imaginative,
> I'll give you that much.

I posted it because it's a GREAT clip.

<sigh> -- God also gave us a sense of humor. You should
search a little deeper for yours. I've never made one single
statement to you that harbored any kind of ill will.

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:


> EXACTLY! But that is nowhere near your 87% figure quoted.

You keep hopping around here on me, one time you disagree the next
you agree. Bottom line is the problem is real weather you believe
or not doesn't matter, the facts are the same.

> With the advent/use of catalytic convertors, turbochargers,
> etc --- the amount of unburnt fuels/efficiency has changed
> dramatically over the last couple decades.

There you go! And that's a good start, but there's still more
to be done.

> You seem to be getting a bit touchy there Mike... I asked you
> strictly for your OPINION. And I NEVER said one had to believe
> in God to be a moral or good person because that certainly isn't
> true.

But that is my opinion 83.

> Now I'm a hypocrite for having a conversation you started?
> You might not be cut out for USENET -- shame too, as I like
> hearing your opinions.

Earlier in this thread you mentioned hard core Muslims as be
troublesome, I replied its the same for all religion.

> Could this be an example of atheist vs christian behavior?

> Yes, I'll combat relgiuos ignorance when I can.

> Utter horseshit.. Tell you what, let's keep it to the last 100 years.
> No talk of the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition. There are
> christian based groups all over the globe that are in the line
> of fire to save, medicate or feed those in war zones, etc. Now,
> since we've made it this far, you wanna tell me how many
> people Christians have killed or maimed vs the number that
> have died via drones, atomic bombs, Chernobyl, etc etc etc.
> If we were killin' Taliban with sticks and stones I might be
> inclined to agree with you.

In regards to the Iraq war George Bush said: 'I am driven with a
mission from God'. The result? Over 100,00 people died because of
a religious war. Kind god you have there 83... And it makes no
difference if you agree, the facts are self evident.

> "Science" didn't find the cure for polio... Jonas Salk (a jew) did.

So this Jew using science, saved more lives than Christ using religion.

> It is my personal belief that God rarely interferes with the
> daily affairs of man.

God is either reasonable for events or he's not, which is it 83?

- If he's not responsible then why call him god?

- If he is responsible, then the recent tsunami in Japan that
killed innocent children is a crime he's to blame for:

<http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html>

> How about the link you snipped that I provided?
> Benjamin Carson is a devout Christian. Are we not going
> to credit him with all his marvelous work? Or are we
> going to ignore the man and just claim it as "science"?
> You CANNOT do that.

Sure I credit him, & those that taught him science, religion
however is simply not part of the equation, its what he
believes, not what he can prove...

> This is almost hovering on stupidity. God doesn't fly planes.
> God does not advocate killing. Show me anywhere in the
> teachings of Christ that backs you up. Science doesn't fly
> or build rocketships either -- MEN DO.

Yes & those men were compelled by the same monotheistic god
you venerate 83. Here's some examples of Christ condoning
killing [thinking to myself: its in your bible why don't
you know this?]

Christ said: 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell
you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter,
not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
until everything is accomplished.'

Above Christ states flatly that he 100% approves Mosaic law. So lets
have a look at the *laws*...

THE LAW ALLOWING RAPE & KILLING OF CHILDREN: 'Now therefore kill every
male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by
lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by
lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.' - numbers. 31:17-18

THE LAW ALLOWING RAPE OF WOMEN: 'If a man happens to meet a virgin who
is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he
shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.' - deut 22:28-29

THE LAW ALLOWING MURDER OF INFANTS: 'Happy shall he be, that taketh and
dasheth thy little ones against the stones.' - psalms 137:9

You wanna tell me CHRIST BRINGS PEACE? Christ himself says: 'Think not
that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
but a sword.' - matt. 10:34

Sodom and Gomorrah? Didn't Lot offer up his daughters? (Nice father he was).
But wait... god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sinful ways & allows
Lot to get away with the SAME THING? Yes he takes his daughters to cave a bones
them both! 'Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him,
that we may preserve seed of our father.' gen 19:32

But these were men of old! Men of mighty! Men of renown!
They had special knowledge! Nope guess again! THEY WERE ILLITERATE:
'Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived
that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled' - acts 4:13

> Sidenote -- you gave no opinions on the work of
> Benjamin Carson. Is he just some hick-idiot simply
> because he has faith?

Because of his faith to be frank. 'Hick' doesn't matter to me, we all have
humble origins. I want proof of his god *before* he makes claims not the
other way around. If he cant establish his god as being anything other than
myth, nothing else he says really matters till that point is cleared up...

> And I'll respond equally to any you may wish to post.

I'll read as soon as I can. It ought to be interesting to see you wiggle around
on the law (not trying to be provocative here, but the smart man wouldn't do it
83, just saying...)

> Scenario -- we have two years before the earth totally
> crumbles. The only way 'out' is to raise <or lower>
> global temperatures by four degrees. Can we do that?

Don't know.

> <sigh> -- God also gave us a sense of humor. You should
> search a little deeper for yours. I've never made one single
> statement to you that harbored any kind of ill will

Naw... I'm refuting the post not the person, its all good, no sweat,
83, take your best shot, we all get scrapes & bruises along the way,
learning is the thing I'm after.

--
later on,
Mike

[AJ]

On Feb 25, 2:52 pm, mss <fu...@email.invalid> wrote:

IMO, we're all just one solar flare away from going off the grid. My
only beef with this whole global warning stuff is, I don't want to be
taxed for it.

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

>> EXACTLY! But that is nowhere near your 87% figure quoted.
>
> You keep hopping around here on me, one time you disagree the next
> you agree. Bottom line is the problem is real weather you believe
> or not doesn't matter, the facts are the same.

No hopping here. It was my intent to get you to admit that
an internal combustion engine is far more efficient than 13%.

>> With the advent/use of catalytic convertors, turbochargers,
>> etc --- the amount of unburnt fuels/efficiency has changed
>> dramatically over the last couple decades.

> There you go! And that's a good start, but there's still more
> to be done.

Science never sleeps, but you CANNOT force/rush progress.
And as a sidenote, you cannot force the public to participate.
Chevy Volt sales are in the pits. When you consider what it takes
to 'mine' the batteries, cost of battery replacement, disposal of
batteries - there ARE NO benefits. Same with ethanol. Many of
the things we see as 'saving the earth' turn out to just be wrong
or stupid. Carbon credits are a perfect example. Al Gore paying
someone to plant a tree so he can ride around in his jet? That's
like me taking a stinky shit in the bathroom, and spraying Lysol
in my basement.

>> You seem to be getting a bit touchy there Mike... I asked you
>> strictly for your OPINION. And I NEVER said one had to believe
>> in God to be a moral or good person because that certainly isn't
>> true.
>
> But that is my opinion 83.
>
>> Now I'm a hypocrite for having a conversation you started?
>> You might not be cut out for USENET -- shame too, as I like
>> hearing your opinions.
>
> Earlier in this thread you mentioned hard core Muslims as be
> troublesome, I replied its the same for all religion.

Two things -- my 'muslim' statement was simply that we'll
never be able to change the opinions/actions of fundamentalist
Islamists. It was a flippant statement - I could have just as easily
stated that you cannot force a gay person to become straight.
You took that and ran with it to create a religious debate.

And no, it's NOT the same for all religions. For you to compare
those that would strap bombs to their childrens backs to
modern day Christianity, or Bhuddists or any other religion is
simply wrong. Other than the muslim faith, I don't think you
can back that up. Feel free to give me similar examples of
any other organized religion.

>> Could this be an example of atheist vs christian behavior?
>
>> Yes, I'll combat relgiuos ignorance when I can.
>> Utter horseshit.. Tell you what, let's keep it to the last 100
>> years. No talk of the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition. There are
>> christian based groups all over the globe that are in the line
>> of fire to save, medicate or feed those in war zones, etc. Now,
>> since we've made it this far, you wanna tell me how many
>> people Christians have killed or maimed vs the number that
>> have died via drones, atomic bombs, Chernobyl, etc etc etc.
>> If we were killin' Taliban with sticks and stones I might be
>> inclined to agree with you.
>
> In regards to the Iraq war George Bush said: 'I am driven with a
> mission from God'. The result? Over 100,00 people died because of
> a religious war. Kind god you have there 83... And it makes no
> difference if you agree, the facts are self evident.

Since when is G. Bush a religion? Did any of the various christian
groups stand up and say 'let's kill them all'? Did baptist or
catholic leaders stand up and say "you GO George"? Your
paragraph above is null and void. Unless of course - you believe
George had a hotline directly to God.

>> "Science" didn't find the cure for polio... Jonas Salk (a jew) did.
>
> So this Jew using science, saved more lives than Christ using
> religion.

???? Makes no sense whatsoever in the context of our discussion.

Unless of course, Christ is disguising himself as a paramedic.

>> It is my personal belief that God rarely interferes with the
>> daily affairs of man.
>
> God is either reasonable for events or he's not, which is it 83?

No, I don't think God is responsible for the holocaust or for
some little girl drowning in a well. I stated pretty plainly -
that it is my feeling we are pretty much on our own here.
I don't think God cares who wins a football game, I don't think
He is gonna send a pony to every child praying for one.

> - If he's not responsible then why call him god?

I presume that title comes along when you create man
and the universe.

> - If he is responsible, then the recent tsunami in Japan that
> killed innocent children is a crime he's to blame for:
>
> <http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html>

Seriously? Let's just imagine for a minute that God steps in
and stops ALL bad things from happening... then it is no
longer a matter of faith, is it? We'd all be little lemmings and
there would be no consequences for any of our actions.

>> How about the link you snipped that I provided?
>> Benjamin Carson is a devout Christian. Are we not going
>> to credit him with all his marvelous work? Or are we
>> going to ignore the man and just claim it as "science"?
>> You CANNOT do that.
>
> Sure I credit him, & those that taught him science, religion
> however is simply not part of the equation, its what he
> believes, not what he can prove...

But you seemed to imply that men of science don't
believe in God... or that those who do are idiots.
And in the same vane, you cannot prove any kind
of Big Bang theory, any kind of single cell critter
crawling up from the seashore and turning into
horses, flowers and man. It doesn't MATTER what
you believe (as to the creation of man) because
it's nothing you can prove either way.

>> This is almost hovering on stupidity. God doesn't fly planes.
>> God does not advocate killing. Show me anywhere in the
>> teachings of Christ that backs you up. Science doesn't fly
>> or build rocketships either -- MEN DO.
>
> Yes & those men were compelled by the same monotheistic god
> you venerate 83. Here's some examples of Christ condoning
> killing [thinking to myself: its in your bible why don't
> you know this?]

"Those men" that use religion as an excuse to gain power
or profit for theirselves are NOT Christians. Christ advocated
helping the poor, the homeless, and had no use for any
kind of monetary reward or glory.

> Christ said: 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
> Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell
> you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest
> letter,
> not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the
> Law
> until everything is accomplished.'

Not sure how or what you're trying to point out here.
I see that statement as meaning Christ has come to
fullfil the prophecies. And by 'law', I presume He is
speaking of the laws of God, not man.

> Above Christ states flatly that he 100% approves Mosaic law. So lets
> have a look at the *laws*...

Not sure where you are getting that from. Care to elaborate?

Wow!! That's a whole lot of 'stuff' there.. You want to
point out where Jesus said it was okay to rape, pillage
and plunder? You've gotten WAAAAAY off track.
Do you really think the reference to Jesus and a sword
(Matt.10:34) was meaning he armed himself with a battle
blade and started chopping heads?

>> Sidenote -- you gave no opinions on the work of
>> Benjamin Carson. Is he just some hick-idiot simply
>> because he has faith?
>
> Because of his faith to be frank. 'Hick' doesn't matter to me, we all
> have humble origins. I want proof of his god *before* he makes claims
> not the
> other way around. If he cant establish his god as being anything
> other than myth, nothing else he says really matters till that point
> is cleared up...

Mr. Carson, Jonas Salk, Isaac Newton, da Vinci and HUNDREDS (if not
THOUSANDS) more who believe in God -- people who are hundreds of
times smarter than you or I... and now suddenly they're all idiots?
You CANNOT keep saying "science, science, science" over and over,
and then denounce those very people -- the smartest people the
world has ever seen. They ARE science. It strikes me as funny that
on this matter, you're smarter than all of those men put together...
and your own parents as well.

>> And I'll respond equally to any you may wish to post.
>
> I'll read as soon as I can. It ought to be interesting to see you
> wiggle around on the law (not trying to be provocative here, but the
> smart man wouldn't do it 83, just saying...)

Not sure what you mean here.

>> Scenario -- we have two years before the earth totally
>> crumbles. The only way 'out' is to raise <or lower>
>> global temperatures by four degrees. Can we do that?
>
> Don't know.

Yes you do.. you KNOW we can't do it. If we could there would
be a constant 72 degrees all around the world. We CANNOT
willingly change the weather, climate patterns. That is not
to say that decades of pollution haven't has some kind of effect.
Again, (in my mind) it's simply debateable as to how much.

>> <sigh> -- God also gave us a sense of humor. You should
>> search a little deeper for yours. I've never made one single
>> statement to you that harbored any kind of ill will
>
> Naw... I'm refuting the post not the person, its all good, no sweat,
> 83, take your best shot, we all get scrapes & bruises along the way,
> learning is the thing I'm after.

We learn and see what we choose to. If most of the greatest minds
in our history can't convince you, there's surely no way I could/can.
And you know what? I've never tried to convert anyone. How odd is it
that every time religion is brought up -- the atheists are throwing
stones, calling believers stupid or uninformed. I've never had a
single conversation about religion that I bad-mouthed someone
for their beliefs, told them they were going to hell or anything such
as that. Yet it never fails that the atheist rebuttal is ALWAYS
a bit vile and degrading.

[AJ]

Environmentalist should really consider planting more Eucalyptus trees
globally if they really want to do something.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=eucalyptus+trees+consume+more+carbon&oq=eucalyptus+trees+consume+more+carbon&gs_l=hp.3...42250.42250.2.43625.1.1.0.0.0.0.203.203.2-1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.psy-ab.YKNoznAPO5A&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42965579,d.eWU&fp=ae39e4caac1019b2&biw=1119&bih=554

[mss]

AJ <misfits...@aol.com> wrote:

> IMO, we're all just one solar flare away from going off the grid. My
> only beef with this whole global warning stuff is, I don't want to be
> taxed for it.

Chuckle, me neither AJ.

--
later on,
Mike

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> But you seemed to imply that men of science don't
> believe in God... or that those who do are idiots.
> And in the same vane, you cannot prove any kind
> of Big Bang theory, any kind of single cell critter
> crawling up from the seashore and turning into
> horses, flowers and man. It doesn't MATTER what
> you believe (as to the creation of man) because
> it's nothing you can prove either way.

Imply? No I'll state it flatly: anyone who espouses belief
in a invisible god they 'talk' to without providing evidence
is on slippery ground. An individual may well have contributed
advancements to science but an invisible buddy means nothing
without proof. I don't feel its unreasonable to demand some evidence...

As for the Big Bang, In fact we do have proof, google 'big bang echo'.
As for evolution, we have proof of that too, ample proof. You would
simply lie to yourself rather than believe otherwise. How does one
convince another to stop placing their faith in a myth when that other
is afraid to open their eyes?

> Not sure where you are getting that from. Care to elaborate?

From the King James Bible. Why is it those who profess faith
in a god that required the murder of his 'only begotten son'
are the least likely to know the bible? C'mon man...

> Wow!! That's a whole lot of 'stuff' there.. You want to
> point out where Jesus said it was okay to rape, pillage
> and plunder? You've gotten WAAAAAY off track.

Jesus fully supports the law, I proven that with scripture from your bible.
And the law as given by god demands blood - killing - murder - death.
Understand it for what it is - a primitive, superstitious belief.

Did not your god *cause* the 1st murder by demanding a sacrifice of blood?

'And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit
of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the
firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect
unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not
respect.' - gen 4

So your god was petty, vivacious, preferred another, not at all happy with fruit;
fruit that required Cain to till the ground, to sow, to farm, to harvest, sweat &
bust his ass for, nooooooooo! Your god required killing, a sacrifice to satisfy
his blood-lust. Your god's rejection quite naturally freaked out Cain, so Cain
slays his brother Abel. Damn dude! This entire mess reeks because your god *FIRST*
demanded a blood offering. Now I ask you, if your god had not played favorite's
with peoples lives that could've been avoided 83, should god know better?
*HOW* in the world can you not understand this as anything other than
stone-age mythology?

But you'll eat it up, even telling children that Noah's ark 'is real'!
So long as mammals have walked this planet there has never been a worldwide
flood. Shoot the, if water covered all the mountain tops as the bible states,
man/animals can not even breath at the altitude because the atmosphere is so thin.
And you've likely seen for yourself oxygen tanks required just to climb Mt. Everest.
but still you'll eat it up! How would polar-bears survive the journey from the frozen
arctic into the Mediterranean desert? How can fresh water fish survive salt-water,
and salt-water fish fresh water? How could Noah & only 3 have lifted multi-ton beams
with just himself & 3 sons (psst wood beams will break under their own weight if we
follow the dimensions given in the bible). Right...

> Do you really think the reference to Jesus and a sword
> (Matt.10:34) was meaning he armed himself with a battle
> blade and started chopping heads?

Yes, that's what he said. but I suppose you muddy the waters
& call it a 'parable'.

<http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html>

> Mr. Carson, Jonas Salk, Isaac Newton, da Vinci and HUNDREDS (if not
> THOUSANDS) more who believe in God -- people who are hundreds of
> times smarter than you or I... and now suddenly they're all idiots?
> You CANNOT keep saying "science, science, science" over and over,
> and then denounce those very people -- the smartest people the
> world has ever seen. They ARE science. It strikes me as funny that
> on this matter, you're smarter than all of those men put together...
> and your own parents as well.

I've only asked for proof of their god.

> Yes you do.. you KNOW we can't do it. If we could there would
> be a constant 72 degrees all around the world. We CANNOT
> willingly change the weather, climate patterns. That is not
> to say that decades of pollution haven't has some kind of effect.
> Again, (in my mind) it's simply debateable as to how much.

If I say to you I don't know that's not a parable, it really means
I don't know. It would require evidence, testing, careful examination,
with only two years, my only possible answer is I don't know honestly.

> We learn and see what we choose to. If most of the greatest minds
> in our history can't convince you, there's surely no way I could/can.
> And you know what? I've never tried to convert anyone. How odd is it
> that every time religion is brought up -- the atheists are throwing
> stones, calling believers stupid or uninformed. I've never had a
> single conversation about religion that I bad-mouthed someone
> for their beliefs, told them they were going to hell or anything such
> as that. Yet it never fails that the atheist rebuttal is ALWAYS
> a bit vile and degrading.

Well, if we carefully think about it using the *available evidence*
(that would be the bible), the only thing vile here is the veneration
of a murderous tribal-god (careful he watches what we do when naked)
taught to trusting children, its sick.

--
later on,
Mike

[AJ]

On Feb 26, 11:58 am, mss <fu...@email.invalid> wrote:

The closest that you will find is the "Snowball Earth" theory, which
states that at some time in the past, the entire planet was covered in
ice due to orbital and environmental changes, and it snuffed out
almost all life; we were lucky that some bacterial ancestors of our
survived.

Fossils are only found in sedimentary rock.
Nearly all the sedimentary rock and the fossils were laid down by the
Global Flood, 4000 years or so ago.
Hence we see billions of fossils laid down by water, buried in
sediment all over the world.

Evolutionists typically date the fossils from the rocks, and then date
the rocks from the fossils! All based on uniformitarian *assumptions*
that the world is billions of years old.

However the rocks were clearly not laid down slowly over millions of
years since there are many tightly folded strata laid down and bent
while wet); there are many polystrate fossils going between rocks
allegedly millions of years old; coal contains carbon 14 showing it is
not millions of years old.
And think about it - if an animal dies today it is completely eaten if
days if not hours. The fossils we see were clearly buried very
quickly. Some have been found giving birth, in the middle of eating
another animal, etc.
The fact that fossils exist in vast numbers is testimony to the Global
Flood. But of course some people dismiss that idea, not on scientific
grounds, but on religious (atheistic) grounds.

[AJ]

On Feb 26, 11:58 am, mss <fu...@email.invalid> wrote:

> But you'll eat it up, even telling children that Noah's ark 'is real'!
> So long as mammals have walked this planet there has never been a worldwide
> flood. Shoot the, if water covered all the mountain tops as the bible states,
> man/animals can not even breath at the altitude because the atmosphere is so thin.
> And you've likely seen for yourself oxygen tanks required just to climb Mt. Everest.
> but still you'll eat it up! How would polar-bears survive the journey from the frozen
> arctic into the Mediterranean desert?

How would water not freeze at our north and south poles?

>How can fresh water fish survive salt-water,and salt-water fish fresh water?

Some sharks today can and have adapted.

>How could Noah & only 3 have lifted multi-ton beams
> with just himself & 3 sons (psst wood beams will break under their own weight if we
> follow the dimensions given in the bible). Right...

Rocks and ropes could have been used to counter weight and to lift
heavy materials. Many believe this is the same system that built the
pyramids.


As you may or might not know, I live in the Appalachian mountains. As
a kid it was normal to be digging in the dirt and find sea shells.
Also, I've seen many bird and fish fossils from our local coal mines.

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

> Imply? No I'll state it flatly: anyone who espouses belief
> in a invisible god they 'talk' to without providing evidence
> is on slippery ground.

What? Why are they on 'slippery ground'? To listen to you tell
it they are causing themselves harm or wasting their time.
And that is STRICTLY your OPINION. We do something every
day simply on faith. Even if it's just faith that the oncoming driver
will stop for a red light. Having a belief in God is NOT harmful
to believers OR non-believers. As a matter of fact, my faith is
absolutely of no harm to you whatsoever, and frankly it's none
of your business as to anyone elses faith. My faith is of no more
consequence to you than my sexuality.

> An individual may well have contributed
> advancements to science but an invisible buddy means nothing
> without proof. I don't feel its unreasonable to demand some
> evidence...

You have no right to 'demand' a damn thing from anyone
regarding faith. That would be akin to me 'demanding'
that you tell us your sexual preferences, how you should
treat your wife or boyfriend, how you should do your job.

> As for the Big Bang, In fact we do have proof, google 'big bang echo'.
> As for evolution, we have proof of that too, ample proof.

When scientists can prove the world was created from a
big ol' bang, then I'll give it more weight. Your big bang
theory is no more provable than God.

> You would
> simply lie to yourself rather than believe otherwise. How does one
> convince another to stop placing their faith in a myth when that other
> is afraid to open their eyes?

This is priceless.... "lying to myself"? Again, that is strictly
YOUR OPINION. And again, you're free to believe as you wish.
All I see here is more mudslinging from a non-believer.
And again, glad to know your opinion/smarts is greater than
most of the greatest minds to ever have lived.

>> Not sure where you are getting that from. Care to elaborate?
>
> From the King James Bible. Why is it those who profess faith
> in a god that required the murder of his 'only begotten son'
> are the least likely to know the bible? C'mon man...

Uhhh, I know where the various quotes came from.

You had said this --

"Above Christ states flatly that he 100% approves Mosaic law. So lets

have a look at the laws..."

I asked for clarification of your statement. Feel free to point out
where Christ says it's okay to kill your daughters, etc.

>> Wow!! That's a whole lot of 'stuff' there.. You want to
>> point out where Jesus said it was okay to rape, pillage
>> and plunder? You've gotten WAAAAAY off track.
>
> Jesus fully supports the law, I proven that with scripture from your
> bible.

And I disagree, lay it out a little plainer and we can debate it.

> And the law as given by god demands blood - killing - murder - death.
> Understand it for what it is - a primitive, superstitious belief.
>
> Did not your god *cause* the 1st murder by demanding a sacrifice of
> blood?

You've taken this to a whole new level. We were (originally) discussing
organized religion IN TODAYS WORLD. You couldn't deny
my statement that no religion other than Islam advocates
killing so you fall back on a bunch of Old Testament writings.
I have no interest in going back thousands of years. Let's stick
with the last 100.

> 'And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the
> fruit
> of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of
> the
> firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had
> respect
> unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he
> had not respect.' - gen 4

Nothing to do with our conversation. Strawman.

> So your god was petty, vivacious, preferred another, not at all happy
> with fruit; fruit that required Cain to till the ground, to sow, to
> farm, to harvest, sweat & bust his ass for, nooooooooo! Your god
> required killing, a sacrifice to satisfy
> his blood-lust. Your god's rejection quite naturally freaked out
> Cain, so Cain
> slays his brother Abel. Damn dude! This entire mess reeks because
> your god *FIRST* demanded a blood offering. Now I ask you, if your
> god had not played favorite's
> with peoples lives that could've been avoided 83, should god know
> better? *HOW* in the world can you not understand this as anything
> other than
> stone-age mythology?

More useless trivia. Imagine God as real for a moment. Do you
think He would have 'interacted' with people then on a wavelength
relateable to us today? No. Do you think WE could relate to those
days now? If we were sent backwards in time to those days, with
a Bic lighter and an mp3 player -- WE'D be considered gods.

> But you'll eat it up, even telling children that Noah's ark 'is real'!
> So long as mammals have walked this planet there has never been a
> worldwide
> flood. Shoot the, if water covered all the mountain tops as the bible
> states, man/animals can not even breath at the altitude because the
> atmosphere is so thin. And you've likely seen for yourself oxygen
> tanks required just to climb Mt. Everest. but still you'll eat it up!
> How would polar-bears survive the journey from the frozen arctic into
> the Mediterranean desert? How can fresh water fish survive
> salt-water, and salt-water fish fresh water? How could Noah & only 3
> have lifted multi-ton beams with just himself & 3 sons (psst wood
> beams will break under their own weight if we follow the dimensions
> given in the bible). Right...

And once again, given that God is real, none of what you
speak of would be impossible. Do you think Noah needed
to load up 'da polar bears? You are applying modern world
thoughts to an ancient time.

>> Do you really think the reference to Jesus and a sword
>> (Matt.10:34) was meaning he armed himself with a battle
>> blade and started chopping heads?
>
> Yes, that's what he said. but I suppose you muddy the waters
> & call it a 'parable'.

Yes, I'd call it a parable. I doubt Jesus ever held a sword
and went to battle. See it as you will.

> <http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html>
>
>> Mr. Carson, Jonas Salk, Isaac Newton, da Vinci and HUNDREDS (if not
>> THOUSANDS) more who believe in God -- people who are hundreds of
>> times smarter than you or I... and now suddenly they're all idiots?
>> You CANNOT keep saying "science, science, science" over and over,
>> and then denounce those very people -- the smartest people the
>> world has ever seen. They ARE science. It strikes me as funny that
>> on this matter, you're smarter than all of those men put together...
>> and your own parents as well.
>
> I've only asked for proof of their god.

You or I have no 'right' to proof. If God created you and
I then He certainly owes you no proof. Matter of fact, He
'owes' you nothing.

>> Yes you do.. you KNOW we can't do it. If we could there would
>> be a constant 72 degrees all around the world. We CANNOT
>> willingly change the weather, climate patterns. That is not
>> to say that decades of pollution haven't has some kind of effect.
>> Again, (in my mind) it's simply debateable as to how much.
>
> If I say to you I don't know that's not a parable, it really means
> I don't know. It would require evidence, testing, careful examination,
> with only two years, my only possible answer is I don't know honestly.

People going thru life 'demanding' proof/evidence of all they see are going
to miss out on most of life. I'll enjoy all the world has to offer
and I'm not going to question all that I see. Life is far too short.

And you know good and well (proof or not) that we cannot change
the climate.

>> We learn and see what we choose to. If most of the greatest minds
>> in our history can't convince you, there's surely no way I could/can.
>> And you know what? I've never tried to convert anyone. How odd is it
>> that every time religion is brought up -- the atheists are throwing
>> stones, calling believers stupid or uninformed. I've never had a
>> single conversation about religion that I bad-mouthed someone
>> for their beliefs, told them they were going to hell or anything such
>> as that. Yet it never fails that the atheist rebuttal is ALWAYS
>> a bit vile and degrading.
>
> Well, if we carefully think about it using the *available evidence*
> (that would be the bible), the only thing vile here is the veneration
> of a murderous tribal-god (careful he watches what we do when naked)
> taught to trusting children, its sick.

There is evidence Jesus walked the earth. Written word, etc.
Do you believe the whole story is made up? Was he an actual man
but NOT the son of God? Or was the entire 'story' totally fabricated?

Now call your mom and dad and tell them how stupid they are.
After all, you're coming as close as you can to doing that to me here.
Why would you give one single flying fuck as to what I or others
may believe? Why are you the 'enlightened' one, but da Vinci was
a fool? For one not having much 'time', you've sure spent a lot of
it telling us how we're all just ignorant hicks. I allow others to believe
as they wish. I'd suggest you suck it up and do the same, you'll
never change a persons politics or religion posting on USENET.

[AJ]

On Feb 26, 1:04 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
>If we were sent backwards in time to those days, with
> a Bic lighter and an mp3 player -- WE'D be considered gods.

That pretty much sums it up.

[83LowRider]

AJ wrote:

>> If we were sent backwards in time to those days, with
>> a Bic lighter and an mp3 player -- WE'D be considered gods.
>
>
> That pretty much sums it up.

In the world of mss, it is impossible for a hummingbird
to fly, because that's what physics tell us. In the words of
Jesse Pinkman -- SCIENCE, BITCHES! And yet, they do.

Apparently hummingbirds have more faith than mss.

[mss]

AJ <misfits...@aol.com> wrote:

> The closest that you will find is the "Snowball Earth" theory, which
> states that at some time in the past, the entire planet was covered in
> ice due to orbital and environmental changes, and it snuffed out
> almost all life; we were lucky that some bacterial ancestors of our
> survived.

Solid post must study this AJ. Will catch up soon.

--
later on,
Mike

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:


> What? Why are they on 'slippery ground'? To listen to you tell
> it they are causing themselves harm or wasting their time.
> And that is STRICTLY your OPINION. We do something every
> day simply on faith. Even if it's just faith that the oncoming driver
> will stop for a red light. Having a belief in God is NOT harmful
> to believers OR non-believers. As a matter of fact, my faith is
> absolutely of no harm to you whatsoever, and frankly it's none
> of your business as to anyone elses faith. My faith is of no more
> consequence to you than my sexuality.

Totally disagree, faith harms us all. When one is taught mythology that
can not be proven true (& more often than not can be demonstrably proven false)
it does hurt people. How about shutting down abortion clinics? How about
denying gay people rights? Biblical law says slavery is fine too, we both
know its not. This all hurts lots of folks that are not inclined to take
part in fairy tales.

> You have no right to 'demand' a damn thing from anyone
> regarding faith. That would be akin to me 'demanding'
> that you tell us your sexual preferences, how you should
> treat your wife or boyfriend, how you should do your job.

So if the demand is proof of one's claims, you'd argue that's out of bounds.
Silly wabbit *PLONK* If you make a claim about the way 'x' works, yet provide no
evidence, 'x' remains unproven. You cant take science & mash it all up in a ball
with faith & squeal 'Eureka!' The currency for science is evidence, not mythology
83. That's the price of entry for that discipline. So yeah, I have every
right to demand as much. All you need to do is provide evidence...

> When scientists can prove the world was created from a
> big ol' bang, then I'll give it more weight. Your big bang
> theory is no more provable than God.

Yes & when snakes talk I'll believe too =)

> This is priceless.... "lying to myself"? Again, that is strictly
> YOUR OPINION. And again, you're free to believe as you wish.
> All I see here is more mudslinging from a non-believer.
> And again, glad to know your opinion/smarts is greater than
> most of the greatest minds to ever have lived.

But notice the difference...

You believe what stone-age folks wrote (burn the witches!), while I
believe in *evidence* for instance the earth is NOT the center
of the universe. Your view of the world is static & can never
advance as new discoveries are made. Even the Pope was smart enough
to get on board before your desert-war-god-buddy-cult shrivels up:

'...new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution as
*MORE THAN A HYPOTHESIS*...' - Pope John Paul II (google it for more info)

> I asked for clarification of your statement. Feel free to point out
> where Christ says it's okay to kill your daughters, etc.

83, twice over I have, please read it again.

>> Jesus fully supports the law, I proven that with scripture from your
>> bible.
>>
>> And I disagree, lay it out a little plainer and we can debate it.

'I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter,
not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear *FROM THE LAW* until
everything is accomplished.'

and...

'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come

to abolish them but to fulfill them.'

So... until a new universe, & until a new Earth magically appears out of Christ's
top hat the law will NOT be changed AND Christ will NOT abolish the law. Now then
if the law decrees killing/rape/incest as okay (btw... checkout Abraham too who
banged his 1/2 sister Sarah). An example:

'Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not;
but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

Slaughter even the infants? Really? You have faith in that? By any reasonable measure,
killing is a crime. Why are Christians so ignorant to their own book of worship?

> You've taken this to a whole new level. We were (originally) discussing
> organized religion IN TODAYS WORLD. You couldn't deny
> my statement that no religion other than Islam advocates
> killing so you fall back on a bunch of Old Testament writings.
> I have no interest in going back thousands of years. Let's stick
> with the last 100.

Not true, I quoted George Bush's words who I demonstrated is responsible
for the killing of over 100,00 people because he was on a 'mission
from god' way less than a 100 years ago. You want to cherry-pick your
arguments.

> More useless trivia. Imagine God as real for a moment. Do you
> think He would have 'interacted' with people then on a wavelength
> relateable to us today? No. Do you think WE could relate to those

> days now? If we were sent backwards in time to those days, with

> a Bic lighter and an mp3 player -- WE'D be considered gods.

So in order to talk on the same 'wavelength' as the brutes he created,
to more fully 'relate' to primitive man, he commanded them to kill one
another as is written time & again in the bible?

83, (sorry man) *PLONK*

> And once again, given that God is real, none of what you
> speak of would be impossible. Do you think Noah needed
> to load up 'da polar bears? You are applying modern world
> thoughts to an ancient time.

The bible (the alleged word of god) says so... & further if its
wrong to apply moderen thinking to that time then why do you take
stock in it? (damn near a *plonk*) If its so very wrong to think
in moderen terms, your faith can not stand up to scrunity -
'but if you use moderen science that's not fair!'

Evasion noted =) <hey youse' guys say it>

> You or I have no 'right' to proof. If God created you and
> I then He certainly owes you no proof. Matter of fact, He
> 'owes' you nothing.

In all seriousness, why cant we depend on him? Why cant we expect
answers when we ask him? Crazy stuff...

> People going thru life 'demanding' proof/evidence of all they see are going
> to miss out on most of life. I'll enjoy all the world has to offer
> and I'm not going to question all that I see. Life is far too short.

Well put I'll admit, no contesto.

> And you know good and well (proof or not) that we cannot change
> the climate.

'Proof or not'? So if I offer proof you're stating you still wouldn't
accept it? Another for you private *PLONK*. Lets say we ceased emissions
for two years that *would* affect temps.

> There is evidence Jesus walked the earth. Written word, etc.
> Do you believe the whole story is made up? Was he an actual man
> but NOT the son of God? Or was the entire 'story' totally fabricated?

I personally feel there is plenty evidence to support his existence.
There is no evidence however to support his resurrection and the earliest
manuscripts (you've read them right?) say nothing it or a virgin birth.
Have you ever heard of Bart Ehrman (new testament scholar)? He's considered
the worlds foremost authority on the issue of the new testament, most of my
views agree with his findings. All ribbing aside, please listen to a few
lectures, he back's up what he finds with evidence:

<http://www.bartdehrman.com/multimedia.htm>

> Now call your mom and dad and tell them how stupid they are.
> After all, you're coming as close as you can to doing that to me here.
> Why would you give one single flying fuck as to what I or others
> may believe? Why are you the 'enlightened' one, but da Vinci was
> a fool? For one not having much 'time', you've sure spent a lot of
> it telling us how we're all just ignorant hicks.

Fact is my parents were none to bright 83, they believed in this stuff
even to their detriment. They were good folks, but suckers otherwise.
They kept the faith & the preacher kept the money, but that's another story.
Yeah, I'll admit it - I'm challenging you because I feel you'll think
about it some. Maybe not, but I think you will a little, at least that's
my gut feeling.

> I allow others to believe as they wish. I'd suggest you suck it up
> and do the same, you'll never change a persons politics or religion
> posting on USENET.

Sorry buddy (& no hard feelings I hope), if you make a claim
(re: Hardcore Muslims), science can test that claim (all religion
retards human potential), you gotta back it up with evidence or
I'll certainly challenge any half-baked rant that's silly enough
not to include proof. 'Question everything': now THAT is usenet.

gotta run - snow all over...

--
later on,
Mike

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:


> Totally disagree, faith harms us all.

Well, as you're keen on showing proof... tell me in your
personal experiences - how ANYONE YOU HAVE EVER
KNOWN - has been hurt by being exposed to christianity,
cathology, buddhism, shinto, judaism. And one other
thing here that is VERY important --- just WHO puts any
kind of religion on you other than your parents? If you
(by ANY slim chance) DO know anyone harmed by religion -
was that religion not put upon them by their parents?

Are you now saying you are better equipped to teach
other peoples children? In this day and age religious
teachings are a very private thing. The state sure as
hell ain't pushing religion, unless your parents enroll
you in a private school - the schools sure as hell ain't
pushin' religion. As a matter of fact, I virtually NEVER
hear religion being spoke of anymore.

> When one is taught mythology that can not be proven true
> (& more often than not can be demonstrably proven false)
> it does hurt people.

I'll take this into consideration when you tell me your
personal experiences of being harmed by religion.

> How about shutting down abortion clinics? How
> about denying gay people rights? Biblical law says
> slavery is fine too, we both know its not.
> This all hurts lots of folks that are not inclined to
> take part in fairy tales.

Bahhh - total strawman. Point me to where a religious
group (NOT some politician with an agenda) is shutting
down abortion clinics. Show me the same where gays
rights have been taken away.

>> You have no right to 'demand' a damn thing from anyone
>> regarding faith. That would be akin to me 'demanding'
>> that you tell us your sexual preferences, how you should
>> treat your wife or boyfriend, how you should do your job.

> So if the demand is proof of one's claims, you'd argue that's out of
> bounds.

You and I 'talking' -- I'll answer your questions as a courtesy
and for the sake of conversation. Beyond that --> what
religion <or not> someone has, is none of your business.
Do you not agree?

> Silly wabbit *PLONK*

Another courtesy -- 'plonk' does not mean what you
apparently think it means. To plonk me is to say you
have killfilled me and will from that point on have
nothing to say to me.

>If you make a claim about the way 'x' works, yet
> provide no evidence, 'x' remains unproven. You cant take science &
> mash it all up in a ball
> with faith & squeal 'Eureka!' The currency for science is evidence,
> not mythology
> 83. That's the price of entry for that discipline. So yeah, I have
> every
> right to demand as much. All you need to do is provide evidence...

Another bahhhh -- x and y and proven and unproven. Religion is
based on faith. Obviously. An x and a y will never settle a
religious debate. And we'll all have our 'evidence' soon enough.
Die ---- re-awaken --- or not. Other than that - there's no way
for you to prove your points anymore than I can prove mine.

>> When scientists can prove the world was created from a
>> big ol' bang, then I'll give it more weight. Your big bang
>> theory is no more provable than God.
>
> Yes & when snakes talk I'll believe too =)

Do they 'talk' to other snakes? Do dogs understand
other dogs? Do any or all animals have their own
languages? And if so, all these miracles of life came
from a single cell organism? Bullshit.

>> This is priceless.... "lying to myself"? Again, that is strictly
>> YOUR OPINION. And again, you're free to believe as you wish.
>> All I see here is more mudslinging from a non-believer.
>> And again, glad to know your opinion/smarts is greater than
>> most of the greatest minds to ever have lived.
>
> But notice the difference...
>
> You believe what stone-age folks wrote (burn the witches!),

Another strawman. We are waaaaay past the witch burning
age. Religion has adapted like everything else. You talked
above about slavery -- and it was a large christian push
that helped end it. Yes, the bible had slaves - we've adapted.
Stone the adulterers - we've evolved. Even in Islam, the
huge majority of followers would not advocate killing
the kafirs <non-believers> today.

> while I
> believe in *evidence* for instance the earth is NOT the center
> of the universe. Your view of the world is static & can never
> advance as new discoveries are made.

Sigh... more nonsense and strawman. Anyone with a 3rd
grade education knows the earth ain't flat and the sun ain't
revolving around us. Anyone with a LICK of sense knows
that science and religion MUST go together. Everything
in this universe and beyond - ALL OF IT - has a scientific
formula to make it work. I mean hell, that's BEYOND
obvious. There's a scientific reason my cars do what they
do -- but they didn't evolve from a piece of rusted metal.

> Even the Pope was smart enough
> to get on board before your desert-war-god-buddy-cult shrivels up:

Sometimes your sheer silliness makes it hard to converse.
You seriously think the pope stepped down because
he gave up his faith? Seriously?

> '...new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution as
> *MORE THAN A HYPOTHESIS*...' - Pope John Paul II (google it for more
> info)

I have NO DOUBTS as to evolution. Hell, I saw Waterworld.
That changes nothing.

>> I asked for clarification of your statement. Feel free to point out
>> where Christ says it's okay to kill your daughters, etc.
>
> 83, twice over I have, please read it again.

Then I missed what you were getting at twice.
Should you wished it addressed, please clarify
exactly what you were saying... afterall, I'm stuck
down here in rural TN and my brain may not be
up to it.

>>> Jesus fully supports the law, I proven that with scripture from your
>>> bible.
>>>
>>> And I disagree, lay it out a little plainer and we can debate it.
>
> 'I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
> smallest letter,
> not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear *FROM THE
> LAW* until everything is accomplished.'

I still don't get your point as to how this applies to our conversation.
It adds nothing to the theory of whether God exists or not.
It does nothing to support your claim that religion hurts us.
If you care to debate as to what that 'means' -- we can certainly
do that -- otherwise -- strawman.

> 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
> have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.'

Same as above.

> So... until a new universe, & until a new Earth magically
> appears out of Christ's top hat the law will NOT be changed
> AND Christ will NOT abolish the law.

More of the same. You wanna debate what that means?

> Now then
> if the law decrees killing/rape/incest as okay (btw... checkout
> Abraham too who banged his 1/2 sister Sarah). An example:

Maybe she was superhot... and hell, with an earth population
of about ten people, I suppose it was slim pickens' too!

<sidenote>
You know, there was a time when the Jews sent their
young women out to the foreign soldiers for 'servicing'.
They realized that the inbreeding was gonna do them in.

> 'Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and
> spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox
> and sheep, camel and ass.'

Feel free to google all the old world scripture you wish.
None of it has nothing to do with todays world or our
original conversation.

> Slaughter even the infants? Really? You have faith in that? By any
> reasonable measure, killing is a crime. Why are Christians so
> ignorant to their own book of worship?

Who says they are? You're applying your train of thought
and reason to a world that is NOTHING like todays.
Hell, by the time of Christ - the ENTIRE WORLD population
was smaller than that of the US today. You can't relate
something written thousands of years ago to what we see
and know in the 21st century.

> Not true, I quoted George Bush's words who I demonstrated is
> responsible
> for the killing of over 100,00 people because he was on a 'mission
> from god' way less than a 100 years ago. You want to cherry-pick your
> arguments.

Totally incorrect. You're not seperating the man from the
religion. G Bush can say whatever he wants as far as his
'motives'... but that doesn't mean God spoke to him.
Obama sat in a hate-filled church for 20 years, BUT -
the sermons of Rev. Wright were not equal to the sermons
of Jesus, even tho his church says "Church of Christ". Many
men, many organizations, many politicians have used
religion as a way to reap personal gain/reward. I'll certainly
admit that.

>> More useless trivia. Imagine God as real for a moment. Do you
>> think He would have 'interacted' with people then on a wavelength
>> relateable to us today? No. Do you think WE could relate to those
>> days now? If we were sent backwards in time to those days, with
>> a Bic lighter and an mp3 player -- WE'D be considered gods.
>
> So in order to talk on the same 'wavelength' as the brutes he created,
> to more fully 'relate' to primitive man, he commanded them to kill one
> another as is written time & again in the bible?

Hey, some men NEED killin'. Actually, a LOT of people need
killin'. On a more serious note - the bible tells us that
God and man had an actual interaction in those days.
Adam and Eve talked to God, Moses, Abraham, etc. I
cannot logically speak on this. That world, and todays
world are not the same. We can no more relate to that
time/era than we could relate to living under the sea.

> 83, (sorry man) *PLONK*

See above reference to "plonk".

>> And once again, given that God is real, none of what you
>> speak of would be impossible. Do you think Noah needed
>> to load up 'da polar bears? You are applying modern world
>> thoughts to an ancient time.
>
> The bible (the alleged word of god) says so... & further if its
> wrong to apply moderen thinking to that time then why do you take
> stock in it? (damn near a *plonk*) If its so very wrong to think
> in moderen terms, your faith can not stand up to scrunity -
> 'but if you use moderen science that's not fair!'

I've said very simply and in numerous ways - we have no
way to relate to that time and place. I am no biblical scholar
by any means. I've said here before I've not attended church
in decades. If you are looking for detailed replies as to something
thousands of years old, I suggest you find a religious newsgroup.

> Evasion noted =) <hey youse' guys say it>

Silliness - I reply to EVERY point someone makes in their posts.
Not having an answer to something and evasion are very different.

>> You or I have no 'right' to proof. If God created you and
>> I then He certainly owes you no proof. Matter of fact, He
>> 'owes' you nothing.
>
> In all seriousness, why cant we depend on him? Why cant we expect
> answers when we ask him? Crazy stuff...

Lot of ways to answer that. I DO depend on Him. I count on the
fact that we have a creator and that our soul will travel on.
I've also had 4 or 5 incidents in my lifetime that have only
strengthened my beliefs. In a past conversation (with Jefe
I believe) --- I stated that IMO if God were to speak to us,
His face in the sky, everyone seeing his existence, we'd
forever be lemmings. Every person on this earth would
no longer live as they previously did. It'd be "oh shit, there
ain't no doubt now is there?". The entire concept of free-will,
faith, whatever... would be totally shot. Millions of people
would record that shit on their iPhones, and forever more
we'd all be perfect little minions. That AIN'T the reason we
were put here.

>> People going thru life 'demanding' proof/evidence of all they see
>> are going to miss out on most of life. I'll enjoy all the world has
>> to offer and I'm not going to question all that I see. Life is far
>> too short.

> Well put I'll admit, no contesto.

I liken it to my wife and her car. She has no idea how
any of it works. She doesn't CARE how it works.
She only has the belief that it is going to start and
take her where she needs to go. I have a core belief
and I could spend the rest of my life trying to figure
out some kinda 'truth', trying to prove or disprove
my "God theory" - but in the end it'd be just like all the
millions of others who have done the same, with no
concrete answers. My gut instincts are almost never
wrong, they've served me very well in my lifetime.
Unless or until I have some crisis of faith, I'm just
gonna turn the key and enjoy the ride.

>> And you know good and well (proof or not) that we cannot change
>> the climate.

> 'Proof or not'? So if I offer proof you're stating you still wouldn't
> accept it? Another for you private *PLONK*. Lets say we ceased
> emissions for two years that *would* affect temps.

Bahhh. not by a tenth of a degree I'd bet.
They cleared the shit out of smoggy old LA.
Was there any change in temps? <i seriously don't know>

>> There is evidence Jesus walked the earth. Written word, etc.
>> Do you believe the whole story is made up? Was he an actual man
>> but NOT the son of God? Or was the entire 'story' totally fabricated?
>
> I personally feel there is plenty evidence to support his existence.
> There is no evidence however to support his resurrection and the
> earliest manuscripts (you've read them right?) say nothing it or a
> virgin birth.

Okay then! Forget for a moment the "son of God" thing. The world
'christian' means Christ-like. Even as a mortal man, what in
the teachings of Jesus is not a wonderful lesson? Compassion,
kindness, forgiveness etc. If literally billions of people over time
have modeled theirselves on his example -- then what's the
problem? If he was indeed only 'mortal', then we should certainly
EXPECT there to be flaws somewherez in His life and/or teachings.

> Have you ever heard of Bart Ehrman (new testament scholar)? He's
> considered the worlds foremost authority on the issue of the new
> testament, most of my views agree with his findings. All ribbing
> aside, please listen to a few lectures, he back's up what he finds
> with evidence:
>
> <http://www.bartdehrman.com/multimedia.htm>

I'll do so in the next day or two (wife and I both have the
flu) simply out of curiosity.. but if his thoughts mirror
yours - sorry - but he'll have no more influence on my
belief system than you will.

>> Now call your mom and dad and tell them how stupid they are.
>> After all, you're coming as close as you can to doing that to me
>> here.
>> Why would you give one single flying fuck as to what I or others
>> may believe? Why are you the 'enlightened' one, but da Vinci was
>> a fool? For one not having much 'time', you've sure spent a lot of
>> it telling us how we're all just ignorant hicks.
>
> Fact is my parents were none to bright 83, they believed in this stuff
> even to their detriment. They were good folks, but suckers otherwise.

Do not confuse education with intelligence. And even the dumbest
people I've known have had areas they excelled at. My dad had
a third grade education, mom made it thru high school. They
would have both made it thru a holocaust... yet I've got 6 years
of higher education and couldn't can a bean or bake a loaf of bread.
"Knowlege" is a very much open to interpretation.

> They kept the faith & the preacher kept the money, but that's
> another story.

My first wife had a much harder time in college than I did.
I studied with her and walked her thru her psychology
degree. Some in that field might surmise your anger at
religion <and you DO have an anger towards religion>
stems from what you have written above. Maybe it eats
at you that some money-grubbing preacher was taking
advantage of your 'backward' parents. But you know
what? if there is a God, your parents will certainly be
rewarded for their faith and their donations. And on the
other foot - if that preacher was in it for the $$$, he'll
be equally punished.

> Yeah, I'll admit it - I'm challenging you because I feel you'll think
> about it some. Maybe not, but I think you will a little, at least
> that's my gut feeling.

Ha!!! You don't think I've had periods of questioning such things?
"How can I be sure", "How do we really know", etc.
There are certainly fleeting moments when EVERYONE may
question their faith. How could they not? But let me tell you
this -- there is no doubt in my mind, and there is NOTHING
that would change my mind regarding my faith. I've watched
the lives of both believers and the non-believers. By and large
those of faith have a much more tranquil life. And statistically
they have a better marriage and live longer. And in the end,
I can afford to be wrong. You can't say the same. If you and
I both die tomorrow - and you're right - well, we're both just
dead. If we both die tomorrow and I'M right -- well, you're the
one into quoting verse, you can figure it out.

>> I allow others to believe as they wish. I'd suggest you suck it up
>> and do the same, you'll never change a persons politics or religion
>> posting on USENET.
>
> Sorry buddy (& no hard feelings I hope),

Nary a hard feeling. I've been WAAAAAY deeper/harder
than this on USENET.

> if you make a claim (re: Hardcore Muslims), science
> can test that claim (all religion retards human potential),
> you gotta back it up with evidence or
> I'll certainly challenge any half-baked rant that's silly enough
> not to include proof. 'Question everything': now THAT is usenet.

My flippant reply to the effect of "you're never gonna change
the hardcore muslims??? Uhhh, you don't need any scientists
to prove that shit. Read a newspaper, turn on the news channel
or log onto the BBC. You cannot name ANY other religion in
modern history that equates to the fundie islamists. When I
see a rabbi or a priest advocate killing women and children...
no.. fuck that... when I see a rabbi, priest advocate KILLING,
then you have a case. And don't go all Old Testament on me again,
just tell me which other religion is a'preaching to their congregation
to kill those with different beliefs. To make it easier for you -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

I see from the list I linked to that apparently Satanism is
a religion... so maybe there's something you can use there,
but I've never actually heard a Satanist calling on their
followers to kill the christians. They may be doing so
behind closed doors - but like you say, if there ain't proof,
you can't use it.

:o)

[mss]

AJ <misfits...@aol.com> wrote:

> The closest that you will find is the "Snowball Earth" theory, which
> states that at some time in the past, the entire planet was covered in
> ice due to orbital and environmental changes, and it snuffed out
> almost all life; we were lucky that some bacterial ancestors of our
> survived.

That's my understanding as well.

> Fossils are only found in sedimentary rock.
> Nearly all the sedimentary rock and the fossils were laid down by the
> Global Flood, 4000 years or so ago.
> Hence we see billions of fossils laid down by water, buried in
> sediment all over the world.

In fact, you're very close AJ, but your end assumptions are a little off,
from wikipedia:'Sedimentary rocks can contain fossils because, unlike most
igneous and metamorphic rocks, they form at temperatures and pressures that do
not destroy fossil remnants.'

> Evolutionists typically date the fossils from the rocks, and then date
> the rocks from the fossils! All based on uniformitarian *assumptions*
> that the world is billions of years old.

Radiocarbon dating is used for organic remains up to about 50/60 thousand years.
After that, radio-isotope comparison (google 'Potassium-Argon') dating methods
are used for fossils by looking at the igneous rocks surrounding the sedimentary
rocks in which they are found. So in order to date most older fossils, scientists
look for layers of igneous rock or volcanic ash above and below the fossil.
By dating these surrounding layers, they can figure out the youngest and oldest
dates that the fossil might be see?

> However the rocks were clearly not laid down slowly over millions of
> years since there are many tightly folded strata laid down and bent
> while wet); there are many polystrate fossils going between rocks
> allegedly millions of years old; coal contains carbon 14 showing it is
> not millions of years old.

As noted above, you can't date items (like coal) that are that old using
radiocarbon dating, that would give the false readings you're wondering about.

> And think about it - if an animal dies today it is completely eaten if
> days if not hours. The fossils we see were clearly buried very
> quickly. Some have been found giving birth, in the middle of eating
> another animal, etc.

Err, you've lost me here...

> The fact that fossils exist in vast numbers is testimony to the Global
> Flood. But of course some people dismiss that idea, not on scientific
> grounds, but on religious (atheistic) grounds.

No, we find fossil data in other places as well, it just happens to be preserved
more easily in environments that can quickly cover/bury an animal's remains
(something wet/sandy). We have fossilized footprints dating back almost 4
million years. Here's one such example:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8443879.stm>

Certainly older than the 4000 (or was it 6000?) year period you
mentioned elsewhere.

> How would water not freeze at our north and south poles?

It has no choice but to freeze. The polar caps are further from the
sun than the equator.

> Some sharks today can and have adapted.

The exception to the rule proving things do in fact evolve no?

> Rocks and ropes could have been used to counter weight and to lift
> heavy materials. Many believe this is the same system that built the
> pyramids.

Yes I believe that method built the pyramids as well, however, these
monuments took many decades to build, & required a vast work-force.
Both are distinctly missing from OT scripture (recall everyone laughed at Noah
so strangers wouldn't help him build it.) Also, close examination
of the sizes of the ark the bible gives along with the number of animals
stowed inside (not only 2 of each species but some case seven):

'Gen. 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male
and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his
female.'

Now one elephant consumes 750 lbs. of food per day, and about 75% of
that food would be converted to waste on a daily basis so, double that
for the 2nd elephant. That's 120 TONS of food for just the two elephants
(more so if we go by sevens...) So besides the animals, we now have to
store food & waste (water was readily available!)

Its easy to calculate that the payload would not fit within the ark
I'm afraid to say.

Here's some more mind-benders... How did marsupials (like Kangaroos that are
only found in Australia) make the journey to the ark? How did they make the
journey back from My. Ararat afterwards? Did they swim thousands of miles?

How did the animals repopulate without extreme inbreeding? How did mankind
repopulate without interbreeding? (remember now bros. & sisters doing this is
against god's laws...)

The closest we have to a flood in the area where the myth is most prominent
geographically is that during end of the last ice age, run off from the
Mediterranean basin spilled over into the basin of that forms the black sea.
Heavy flooding (real heavy bad flooding for that area) killed allot of folks.

Maybe some took refuge in boats? Heck, even put their life-stock inside.
It shook them so badly that didn't forget it for centuries...

The issue here is jumping from what's IS possible to what is NOT possible.
The term miracle is defined as the *least* likely event to happen. Think
I'll stick with more plausible explanations that have some form of evidence,
seems like the smart thing to do.

> As you may or might not know, I live in the Appalachian mountains. As
> a kid it was normal to be digging in the dirt and find sea shells.
> Also, I've seen many bird and fish fossils from our local coal mines.

Cool. Sure enough, even whales in what was now desert... Our planet
constantly changes on a timescale that's hard to conceptualize in our
brief lifespans of 60-70 years (I wouldn't wanna sit around waiting on
a mountain to erode!) And during that time, mostly due to 'plate tectonics'
things really move around... Ever notice how the continents look like
pieces of a puzzle that could fit together?

Here's why: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics>

The action of eons long plate tectonics have thrust portions of our
planet's sea-floor high into the air forming new mountains like the
Himalayan mountain range in India:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Himalaya

And some areas that were once above ground, pushed below sea-level:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Plate>

This is why we find marine fossils in higher altitudes, and land
creature's fossilized remains on the sea/ocean floors in others.

Interesting debate =)

--
later on,
Mike

[Tattoo Vampire]

mss wrote:


> Interesting debate =)
>

No one with a brain truly believes the Noah/flood/ark story, or that the
earth is only a few thousand years old.

[AJ]

IMO, I think Noah may had to only collect animals from his region.
Not the entire world. I think that many things in the bible are
written metaphorically.

[FVH]

We all know you've never read the Bible, much less know anything about it, fat ass.

Hi, Killer! Hope you enjoyed reading this post!
FVH
Good ole RMAK. Where the majority swears off "scab KISS" then
wrights a review of the new album the week it comes out. LOL!-
Professor AJ
Yes I know that and I know they gained that power under Obama's
watch.-Professor AJ on China's nukes.
This was passed in 2008 under Obama.- AJ, political guru
Wait and see. Paul is not going to name the new KISS album what Gene
was
going to call his solo boxset.-AJ, KISS "expert"
Laughter is an emotion-Professor AJ Johnson, channeling his feminine
feelings.
You wrongfully misinterpreting another post noted.-AJ, English major
I love how people like you consternate so much time and effort-
Professor AJ Johnson.
10 years ago your posts were better written and your grammar was
better than what they are now.-AJ.
Pssst. Obama has been president for 7 years and you suck at math.-AJ,
2009
LOL! I doubt imergration is reading your posts.-Speeling bea
chaump, AJ.
McCain wins 2008 Election.This is what will be printed on every
newspaper next week. Wait and see.-AJ, proving that he's an idiot.
our new commander and chief.- AJ, talking politics.
Stadiums have no walls!- AJ
*Geeks with key boards aren't intimidating.-AJ
You made a boneheaded 'observation' about Ace, and you're a fool.
That's pretty much it.- Hidell, making a brilliant point about AJ.
Twinkle Toes Stanley hadn't quite picked up that Lick It Up/
Heaven's On Fire half a ballerina dance that he does.- db
How many times can the Greed Twins milk a cow? As many times as the
sheep will let them.-db

[stev...@roadrunner.com]

In article <9c120d93-2c9c-448a...@googlegroups.com>,
jarj...@gmail.com says...

My views and opinions on the existance a god, higher-up being are quite
clouded. I have read much of the Bible and other books on judaism,
christianity and believe much of it to be bs. I don't believe that a
loving god would have allowed the attrocities in say, WWII and other
wars where people were tortured to happen. Furthermore, a kind loving
god would have stopped children from being thrown into burning furnaces
alive. Along with all the other forms of torture the germans, japanese
came up with.

[83LowRider]

stev...@roadrunner.com wrote:

This is the equivalent of replying to a stump, but I'm
gonna do it anyway --

> My views and opinions on the existance a god, higher-up
> being are quite clouded.

No surprise, you don't seem to have ANY clear-cut
views... take a solid fucking stance on SOMETHING.

> I have read much of the Bible and other books on
> judaism, christianity and believe much of it to be bs.

So religion should be like a buffett then? pick and choose
what you want?

> I don't believe that a loving god
> would have allowed the attrocities in say,
> WWII and other wars where people were tortured to happen.

I hear this ALL THE FUCKING TIME -- if God were to
step into the affairs of mortal man and prevent every
atrocity (and there's been millions of them) - then the
entire "faith" thing is out the window and we're back to
the lemmings scenario I pointed out.

Let's call YOU God -- and your kids are your creation.

Just how much fucking control do you put over them?

I'm betting that once out of your sight, they never look back.
You can't follow behind them for 70 years overseeing their
every move, stopping every mistake, preventing every booboo.

Now these are you own kids right? Tell me why you aren't
standing over them every minute of the day? Don't you love
them? Or do you give them a little insight while they are young
and turn them loose? You brought them into this world, but
you CANNOT watch and control another person with their
own free will. We don't want a God over our shoulder telling
us how to live and what to do -- and neither do your kids.

> Furthermore, a kind loving god would have stopped children from being
> thrown into burning furnaces alive. Along with all the other forms of
> torture the germans, japanese came up with.

Nichole Simpson -- why wasn't her loving father there to protect her?
Why wasn't Oswalds momma and daddy there to be sure he didn't
pull that trigger? If someone cannot understand that God put us
here to run things on our own, they'll never understand the concept
of free will. God is not to be accountable for the holocaust - that's
all on man.

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:


> Well, as you're keen on showing proof... tell me in your
> personal experiences - how ANYONE YOU HAVE EVER
> KNOWN - has been hurt by being exposed to christianity,
> cathology, buddhism, shinto, judaism. And one other
> thing here that is VERY important --- just WHO puts any
> kind of religion on you other than your parents? If you
> (by ANY slim chance) DO know anyone harmed by religion -
> was that religion not put upon them by their parents?

Well yes & no... I mean its relative 83. Imagine (say)
a situation where one was forced attend a religious seminary
rather than (say) an automotive course, you get the idea.
But your main point rings true - environment determines outcome.
Recalls something I read years ago, went something like:

'The child is the father of the man' (what you learn as a kid
is what the adult when grown has to deal with).

> Are you now saying you are better equipped to teach
> other peoples children? In this day and age religious
> teachings are a very private thing. The state sure as
> hell ain't pushing religion, unless your parents enroll
> you in a private school - the schools sure as hell ain't
> pushin' religion. As a matter of fact, I virtually NEVER
> hear religion being spoke of anymore.

Come to Texas, its crammed down your throat dang near...

> When one is taught mythology that can not be proven true
> (& more often than not can be demonstrably proven false)
> it does hurt people.

> Bahhh - total strawman. Point me to where a religious
> group (NOT some politician with an agenda) is shutting
> down abortion clinics. Show me the same where gays
> rights have been taken away.

Well the thing is (some) politician's agendas are based
on their faith, therefore...

> You and I 'talking' -- I'll answer your questions as a courtesy
> and for the sake of conversation. Beyond that --> what
> religion <or not> someone has, is none of your business.
> Do you not agree?

Yes & no... I'd say its none of my business so long as:

- its not some type of policy that one must live under or...

- its mixed with science. The two seem mutually incompatible to me.
Science wants evidence, whereas belief requires none.

Hard in my mind to reconcile the two. But on a private level
why not?

> Another courtesy -- 'plonk' does not mean what you
> apparently think it means. To plonk me is to say you
> have killfilled me and will from that point on have
> nothing to say to me.

Ahh... (thanks for the heads up)

> Another bahhhh -- x and y and proven and unproven. Religion is
> based on faith. Obviously. An x and a y will never settle a
> religious debate. And we'll all have our 'evidence' soon enough.
> Die ---- re-awaken --- or not. Other than that - there's no way
> for you to prove your points anymore than I can prove mine.

This is simply not correct. Science IS about proving things,
that's the issue in my mind.

> Do they 'talk' to other snakes? Do dogs understand
> other dogs? Do any or all animals have their own
> languages? And if so, all these miracles of life came
> from a single cell organism? Bullshit.

Chuckle, they may well in fact.

> Another strawman. We are waaaaay past the witch burning
> age. Religion has adapted like everything else. You talked
> above about slavery -- and it was a large christian push
> that helped end it. Yes, the bible had slaves - we've adapted.
> Stone the adulterers - we've evolved. Even in Islam, the
> huge majority of followers would not advocate killing
> the kafirs <non-believers> today.

Agreed, the human race is moving forward. Bit uneven
in its progress at times but we can measure progress.

> Sigh... more nonsense and strawman. Anyone with a 3rd
> grade education knows the earth ain't flat and the sun ain't
> revolving around us. Anyone with a LICK of sense knows
> that science and religion MUST go together. Everything
> in this universe and beyond - ALL OF IT - has a scientific
> formula to make it work. I mean hell, that's BEYOND
> obvious. There's a scientific reason my cars do what they
> do -- but they didn't evolve from a piece of rusted metal.

Yeah but folks had to fight & some even die to get that
non-biblical knowledge accepted.

> Sometimes your sheer silliness makes it hard to converse.
> You seriously think the pope stepped down because
> he gave up his faith? Seriously?

The current pope? No. I'm referring the edict as issued that
acknowledges evolution as real that's all.

> Then I missed what you were getting at twice.
> Should you wished it addressed, please clarify
> exactly what you were saying... afterall, I'm stuck
> down here in rural TN and my brain may not be
> up to it.

grr - drop the hick bs right now enough! Dude, I live in
a real small town too. It don't mean squat to me where you're
from, I'm serious here. C'mon its the brain-food I want!
It aint no crime to live anywhere...

> <sidenote>
> You know, there was a time when the Jews sent their
> young women out to the foreign soldiers for 'servicing'.
> They realized that the inbreeding was gonna do them in.

Really? No I didn't know that factoid. Makes sense tho...

> Totally incorrect. You're not seperating the man from the
> religion. G Bush can say whatever he wants as far as his
> 'motives'... but that doesn't mean God spoke to him.
> Obama sat in a hate-filled church for 20 years, BUT -
> the sermons of Rev. Wright were not equal to the sermons
> of Jesus, even tho his church says "Church of Christ". Many
> men, many organizations, many politicians have used
> religion as a way to reap personal gain/reward. I'll certainly
> admit that.

Yet if the end result is justifying greed/violence/limiting rights
under the banner of religion, the result is exactly the same. My point
is if god allows it when he come otherwise stop it, its a sham 83.

> Hey, some men NEED killin'. Actually, a LOT of people need
> killin'. On a more serious note - the bible tells us that
> God and man had an actual interaction in those days.
> Adam and Eve talked to God, Moses, Abraham, etc. I
> cannot logically speak on this. That world, and todays
> world are not the same. We can no more relate to that
> time/era than we could relate to living under the sea.

For violent crime you bet, kill'em dead, agreed.

> I've said very simply and in numerous ways - we have no
> way to relate to that time and place. I am no biblical scholar
> by any means. I've said here before I've not attended church
> in decades. If you are looking for detailed replies as to something
> thousands of years old, I suggest you find a religious newsgroup.

Huh? We've got plenty of ways to study history, religious or not.
And we can understand what the past meant given context.

> Lot of ways to answer that. I DO depend on Him. I count on the
> fact that we have a creator and that our soul will travel on.
> I've also had 4 or 5 incidents in my lifetime that have only
> strengthened my beliefs. In a past conversation (with Jefe
> I believe) --- I stated that IMO if God were to speak to us,
> His face in the sky, everyone seeing his existence, we'd
> forever be lemmings. Every person on this earth would
> no longer live as they previously did. It'd be "oh shit, there
> ain't no doubt now is there?". The entire concept of free-will,
> faith, whatever... would be totally shot. Millions of people
> would record that shit on their iPhones, and forever more
> we'd all be perfect little minions. That AIN'T the reason we
> were put here.

The free-will argument... what a crock! I say it ain't free-will
'cause if you choose not to believe you're punished. That's not
free-will that's a threat for failure to comply. Free-will
means Free!

> Bahhh. not by a tenth of a degree I'd bet.
> They cleared the shit out of smoggy old LA.
> Was there any change in temps? <i seriously don't know>

Ha! But still cooler! I'm claiming this point as a notch on my
belt damn it. You know that makes sense.

> Okay then! Forget for a moment the "son of God" thing. The world
> 'christian' means Christ-like. Even as a mortal man, what in
> the teachings of Jesus is not a wonderful lesson? Compassion,
> kindness, forgiveness etc. If literally billions of people over time
> have modeled theirselves on his example -- then what's the
> problem? If he was indeed only 'mortal', then we should certainly
> EXPECT there to be flaws somewherez in His life and/or teachings.

Well this then is a notch on your belt. Laying religion/science aside,
if folks can come together without hurting one another & trying help
one another then certainly, that's a good (even great) thing sir.

> Do not confuse education with intelligence. And even the dumbest
> people I've known have had areas they excelled at. My dad had
> a third grade education, mom made it thru high school. They
> would have both made it thru a holocaust... yet I've got 6 years
> of higher education and couldn't can a bean or bake a loaf of bread.
> "Knowlege" is a very much open to interpretation.

Yeppers, we seem to rounding the corner as it were on these topics.
Wisdom is not cut from the same cloth as knowledge. Someone once
said: 'Experience is what you get - right after you needed it - doh!'

> Ha!!! You don't think I've had periods of questioning such things?
> "How can I be sure", "How do we really know", etc.
> There are certainly fleeting moments when EVERYONE may
> question their faith. How could they not? But let me tell you
> this -- there is no doubt in my mind, and there is NOTHING
> that would change my mind regarding my faith. I've watched
> the lives of both believers and the non-believers. By and large
> those of faith have a much more tranquil life. And statistically
> they have a better marriage and live longer. And in the end,
> I can afford to be wrong. You can't say the same. If you and
> I both die tomorrow - and you're right - well, we're both just
> dead. If we both die tomorrow and I'M right -- well, you're the
> one into quoting verse, you can figure it out.

Hell we're all trying to figure it out, sometimes I wish I could
just stop trying to work it out ya know? Feels like a little
loop I can't break.

> My flippant reply to the effect of "you're never gonna change
> the hardcore muslims??? Uhhh, you don't need any scientists
> to prove that shit. Read a newspaper, turn on the news channel
> or log onto the BBC. You cannot name ANY other religion in
> modern history that equates to the fundie islamists. When I
> see a rabbi or a priest advocate killing women and children...
> no.. fuck that... when I see a rabbi, priest advocate KILLING,
> then you have a case. And don't go all Old Testament on me again,
> just tell me which other religion is a'preaching to their congregation
> to kill those with different beliefs. To make it easier for you -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
>
> I see from the list I linked to that apparently Satanism is
> a religion... so maybe there's something you can use there,
> but I've never actually heard a Satanist calling on their
> followers to kill the christians. They may be doing so
> behind closed doors - but like you say, if there ain't proof,
> you can't use it.
>
> :o)

Interesting stats, makes me wonder how our kids in the
future will rate us!

--
later on,
Mike

[mss]

Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> wrote:

> No one with a brain truly believes the Noah/flood/ark story, or that the
> earth is only a few thousand years old.

From what I gather, seems that about 4000 years ago
writing 1st appears, so folks naturally began to pen
their thoughts, legends, myths, bushels of wheat owed
to the king, yadda-yadda-yadda...

--
later on,
Mike

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

> Well yes & no... I mean its relative 83. Imagine (say)
> a situation where one was forced attend a religious seminary

Forced by who tho - other than your parent(s)? And even then
it is up to you as to whether you 'retain' that religion.
There are millions of kids that have gone thru catholic
school that are no longer practicing catholics.

> rather than (say) an automotive course, you get the idea.
> But your main point rings true - environment determines outcome.
> Recalls something I read years ago, went something like:
>
> 'The child is the father of the man' (what you learn as a kid
> is what the adult when grown has to deal with).

It was my entire point to show that religion can only
truly be 'pushed' upon you by your parents. You could
hear ALL the politicians pushing their religious agendas,
you could see a cross on every corner, BUT -- the fact
remains, none of those other things put you into direct
contact with any theology.

>> Are you now saying you are better equipped to teach
>> other peoples children? In this day and age religious
>> teachings are a very private thing. The state sure as
>> hell ain't pushing religion, unless your parents enroll
>> you in a private school - the schools sure as hell ain't
>> pushin' religion. As a matter of fact, I virtually NEVER
>> hear religion being spoke of anymore.
>
> Come to Texas, its crammed down your throat dang near...

I hear about rape daily on the tv or internet, it doesn't make
me want to be a rapist. If you ain't actually participating in
something then it just ain't the same. I've got those fucking
tampon commercials blaring at me all the time, but I've
still not felt the need to buy steve a box yet. Maybe if I
liked him a little bit more.

>> When one is taught mythology that can not be proven true
>> (& more often than not can be demonstrably proven false)
>> it does hurt people.
>
>> Bahhh - total strawman. Point me to where a religious
>> group (NOT some politician with an agenda) is shutting
>> down abortion clinics. Show me the same where gays
>> rights have been taken away.
>
> Well the thing is (some) politician's agendas are based
> on their faith, therefore...

And that never has, never will change. But the fact remains
that morality or social issues NEVER get stricter. Gay
military, gay marriage, abortion, pot laws finally relaxing,
the stigma of interracial relationships, etc etc etc. And
what I said remains true -- I cannot think of ANY religious
organization (other than Islam) with an agenda of getting
rid of gay rights or abortion centers. Catholics are the
strictest on abortion, yet catholics have abortions, use
birth control, and I know of no agenda by the church to
ban abortion.

>> You and I 'talking' -- I'll answer your questions as a courtesy
>> and for the sake of conversation. Beyond that --> what
>> religion <or not> someone has, is none of your business.
>> Do you not agree?
>
> Yes & no... I'd say its none of my business so long as:
>
> - its not some type of policy that one must live under or...
>
> - its mixed with science. The two seem mutually incompatible to me.
> Science wants evidence, whereas belief requires none.
>
> Hard in my mind to reconcile the two. But on a private level
> why not?

Maybe you missed my point here - I was saying that (in general)
it is no ones business what another persons religion <or not>
may be. It's usually a common courtesy that unless you really
know someone you don't ask them their sexual preferences,
their political or their religious views.

>> Another courtesy -- 'plonk' does not mean what you
>> apparently think it means. To plonk me is to say you
>> have killfilled me and will from that point on have
>> nothing to say to me.
>
> Ahh... (thanks for the heads up)
>
>> Another bahhhh -- x and y and proven and unproven. Religion is
>> based on faith. Obviously. An x and a y will never settle a
>> religious debate. And we'll all have our 'evidence' soon enough.
>> Die ---- re-awaken --- or not. Other than that - there's no way
>> for you to prove your points anymore than I can prove mine.
>
> This is simply not correct. Science IS about proving things,
> that's the issue in my mind.

Yes, science is. But science CANNOT 'prove' God.
If it's scientific proof one is seeking to make that
decision, they'll wait a lifetime.

> Agreed, the human race is moving forward. Bit uneven
> in its progress at times but we can measure progress.

These dang kids nowadays -- want it all, want it now.

You gotta remember that in the scheme of millions of
years, we've rocketboosted-turbocharged-warpspeeded
civilization in the last 50 years. Mom was born the 10th
child in 1920. My grandfather was born around 1880.
He simply wouldn't recognize this world or society. Our
progress in BLISTERING along the last 50 years from
social issues to technology. What you feel is slow progress
is actually at supersonic speed in the grand scheme of things.

>> Sigh... more nonsense and strawman. Anyone with a 3rd
>> grade education knows the earth ain't flat and the sun ain't
>> revolving around us. Anyone with a LICK of sense knows
>> that science and religion MUST go together. Everything
>> in this universe and beyond - ALL OF IT - has a scientific
>> formula to make it work. I mean hell, that's BEYOND
>> obvious. There's a scientific reason my cars do what they
>> do -- but they didn't evolve from a piece of rusted metal.
>
> Yeah but folks had to fight & some even die to get that
> non-biblical knowledge accepted.

And that is all too often what it takes to make progress.
I know of no great leaps in society that didn't come
at a usually bloody cost. Just the way it is.

>> Sometimes your sheer silliness makes it hard to converse.
>> You seriously think the pope stepped down because
>> he gave up his faith? Seriously?
>
> The current pope? No. I'm referring the edict as issued that
> acknowledges evolution as real that's all.

My mistake.

>> Then I missed what you were getting at twice.
>> Should you wished it addressed, please clarify
>> exactly what you were saying... afterall, I'm stuck
>> down here in rural TN and my brain may not be
>> up to it.
>
> grr - drop the hick bs right now enough! Dude, I live in
> a real small town too. It don't mean squat to me where you're
> from, I'm serious here. C'mon its the brain-food I want!
> It aint no crime to live anywhere...

lol... we're simply off track here. I really didn't understand
something you stated, but at this point I've lost track
of what it was.

>> <sidenote>
>> You know, there was a time when the Jews sent their
>> young women out to the foreign soldiers for 'servicing'.
>> They realized that the inbreeding was gonna do them in.
>
> Really? No I didn't know that factoid. Makes sense tho...

No differnt here in the Appalachians. Rough terrain,
sparse population... cousins marrying cousins.

>> Totally incorrect. You're not seperating the man from the
>> religion. G Bush can say whatever he wants as far as his
>> 'motives'... but that doesn't mean God spoke to him.

> Yet if the end result is justifying greed/violence/limiting rights
> under the banner of religion, the result is exactly the same. My point
> is if god allows it when he come otherwise stop it, its a sham 83.

A politician with religious 'zest' will almost certainly
always carry that influence and agenda with him.
A truly religious person will put that religion and
those beliefs before almost anything else. Many religious
people will say the order of things in life are 1) God
2) family 3) job. So how could you expect they NOT
be influenced by their beliefs? But no matter how
'dedicated' to his religion GWB might be, it doesn't
change what I stated -- as there certainly wasn't any
Baptist <I think GWB is baptist> organization saying
we needed to invade Iraq or Kuwait. I doubt Billy
Graham was whispering such in his ear either.

>> I've said very simply and in numerous ways - we have no
>> way to relate to that time and place. I am no biblical scholar
>> by any means. I've said here before I've not attended church
>> in decades. If you are looking for detailed replies as to something
>> thousands of years old, I suggest you find a religious newsgroup.
>
> Huh? We've got plenty of ways to study history, religious or not.
> And we can understand what the past meant given context.

My statement was to say that I simply can't answer the
meanings of much of the scripture. I've read the New
Testament many years ago... read a lot of the Old too,
but I'm certainly not the one to give you a good debate
as to much of its meaning. And indeed, much of it would/will
still be open to interpretation. Especially when we're reading
a translation of the original writings.

>> Lot of ways to answer that. I DO depend on Him. I count on the
>> fact that we have a creator and that our soul will travel on.
>> I've also had 4 or 5 incidents in my lifetime that have only
>> strengthened my beliefs. In a past conversation (with Jefe
>> I believe) --- I stated that IMO if God were to speak to us,
>> His face in the sky, everyone seeing his existence, we'd
>> forever be lemmings. Every person on this earth would
>> no longer live as they previously did. It'd be "oh shit, there
>> ain't no doubt now is there?". The entire concept of free-will,
>> faith, whatever... would be totally shot. Millions of people
>> would record that shit on their iPhones, and forever more
>> we'd all be perfect little minions. That AIN'T the reason we
>> were put here.
>
> The free-will argument... what a crock! I say it ain't free-will
> 'cause if you choose not to believe you're punished. That's not
> free-will that's a threat for failure to comply. Free-will
> means Free!

A couple things --

Most of the various religions don't believe in the standard
heaven or hell.
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

Many also believe only those that have been exposed
to the concept of God and denied Him would suffer
consequences.

>> Bahhh. not by a tenth of a degree I'd bet.
>> They cleared the shit out of smoggy old LA.
>> Was there any change in temps? <i seriously don't know>
>
> Ha! But still cooler! I'm claiming this point as a notch on my
> belt damn it. You know that makes sense.

My flu has almost run its course leaving me feeling
almost human again. Take that point!!!

> Yeppers, we seem to rounding the corner as it were on these topics.
> Wisdom is not cut from the same cloth as knowledge. Someone once
> said: 'Experience is what you get - right after you needed it - doh!'

Too true brudda, too true.

> Hell we're all trying to figure it out, sometimes I wish I could
> just stop trying to work it out ya know? Feels like a little
> loop I can't break.

I had about a 3 year hard-on for Farrah Fawcett before
I figured out I needed to just move along.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

> Interesting stats, makes me wonder how our kids in the
> future will rate us!

Have to leave that one on you, no chil'run here.

Guess you didn't care to discuss me little psychoanalaysis
rant eh? It's all pro bono!
:)

[Busboy Jefe]

On Feb 22, 6:57 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:

> Yeah, ya do.  I asked you a specific question, one that takes greater
> google skills than you seem to exhibit.

I suppose if one is limited in intelligence, you'd need hand-holding.
And please don't mistake my lack of desire to educate yet another RMAK
dummy for poor Google skills.

> Is there a major university offering a climatology degree?
>
> Of course, you probably know the answer, because you would have posted
> a plethora of links to Ivy League schools boasting their strong
> climatology program instead of a general link.

A smart person would realize that climate study is interdisciplinary;
what particular degree one has isn't that important.

But I did say smart...so here I am hand-holding you again.

So do none of those Ivy League schools your concerned with offer
science programs that one could then follow up with by focusing on
climate study?

> Here, let me hand-hold you through one of the more reputable
> institutes of higher climatological learning:
>
> http://www.onlinedegreeshub.com/science/climatology/

What does this have to do with it? You can find an online version of
just about any degree/field of study. And did you even bother to read
your own link, Einstein?

"For the purpose of studying an online Climatology degree, you need to
have a bachelors’ degree in environmental science or in geography. In
addition to this you must have completed systematic studies in
subjects like, mathematics, chemistry and climate so that you can
easily understand the whole matter and you can reflect your
suggestions and calculated intuition over a particular matter of
concern. Through these online Climatology degree courses, you will be
able to expand your career as a research scholar and by which you will
also be capable of contributing to a great extent on the protection of
the Earth’s ecology."

So gee, you'd need to have a bachelor's in ES/Geography plus studies
in other areas to even start.

Let me know when you obtain said degree and complete your other
studies. It'll make your overnight attempt at climatology much easier.

El Jefe

[lab~rat >:-)]

Wait, geography?

In
>addition to this you must have completed systematic studies in
>subjects like, mathematics, chemistry and climate so that you can
>easily understand the whole matter and you can reflect your
>suggestions and calculated intuition over a particular matter of
>concern. Through these online Climatology degree courses, you will be
>able to expand your career as a research scholar and by which you will
>also be capable of contributing to a great extent on the protection of
>the Earth’s ecology."
>
>So gee, you'd need to have a bachelor's in ES/Geography plus studies
>in other areas to even start.
>
>Let me know when you obtain said degree and complete your other
>studies. It'll make your overnight attempt at climatology much easier.
>
>El Jefe

All of your deflective insults aside, do you have a link to where one
could obtain a degree in climatology or no? If not, just step up and
say so.

My point is that there are so many studies and articles by and
referring to "climatologists" that one would think the profession is
so established there would be specific requirements to claim expertise
in the field. Even your cite above is a collection of generalities
that further illustrate my point.

Now, if we had a major geological crisis, we would call a geologist.
If we had a major acne problem, we would call a dermatologist. If we
had a problem accepting reality, we might call a psychologist. In
each case, due diligence would dictate that we research their
qualifications in their respective fields, and where they got their
degrees.

Supposedly we have a major climate crisis in this world, and we don't
have a specific degree for a climatologist? Does that seem right to
you?

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Guess you didn't care to discuss me little psychoanalaysis
> rant eh? It's all pro bono!
> :)

Oh, I wouldn't read much into it 83.
Just lamenting that while my parents
had a healthy skepticism of the world,
they never applied that same rigor to
religious matters...

In the same vein... what happens if mankind
places too much faith in computers?

<http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/ross-andersen-human-extinction/>

What say ye of the article above 83?

--
later on,
Mike

[83LowRider]

mss wrote:

>
> <http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/ross-andersen-human-extinction/>
>
> What say ye of the article above 83?

While the possibilities of machinery/AI taking
over is nothing new, it was an interesting read.

The first personal memory of such an event being
possible was 2001 - A Space Odyssey. The Terminator
movies probably being the most famous.

Considering how truly barbaric this country was
when founded - less than 250 years ago, we
cannot imagine what the possibilities will be
250 years from now. I'm sure we'll seem just
as backward to 'them' as the pilgrims would seem
to us today. Certainly a hundred years from now
we should be able to put a colony on Mars.. a
hundred years beyond that -- I can't hardly imagine.

The shitty part is that apparently I'm gonna miss
out on hoverboards and flying cars. On the plus
side, gov't will no doubt have regulated the fuck
out of things and we probably won't be allowed to
'free-fly' them anywayz...

[AJ]

On Mar 1, 5:14 pm, mss <fu...@email.invalid> wrote:

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/3470/44507095.jpg

When you know, you know. When you don't, you can only speculate. I
will say this, the Vatican and Freemasons have books that civilization
isn't privy to.

Maria +Yose+ Yeshua bar Yehosef' + Mariamene e Mara + Yehuda bar
Yeshua =
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/01/article-1352419-0CFCEB1F000005DC-166_634x247.jpg

Do your own homework. ;-)

33

[FVH]

On Saturday, March 2, 2013 10:12:59 AM UTC-6, AJ wrote:
> http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/3470/44507095.jpg

A meaningless symbol that only weak minded simpletons give credence to.

> When you know, you know. When you don't, you can only speculate.

Or in your case, swear by youtube clips, chain e-mails, and make up shit without any solid proof to back it up. Denying reality is another favorite tactic of dumb dumbs like you, fat ass.

> I will say this, the Vatican and Freemasons have books that civilization isn't privy to.

LOL! Oh please. These "books" you speak of are merely fairy tales someone wrote to fool simple minded weaklings like you. Psst, you're nothing special, nor do you have access to any inside information. Grow up and grow a pair, you fat fuck.

> Maria +Yose+ Yeshua bar Yehosef' + Mariamene e Mara + Yehuda bar
Yeshua = http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/01/article-1352419-0CFCEB1F000005DC-166_634x247.jpg
>
>
>
> Do your own homework. ;-)
>
>
>
> 33

LOL!!!! Is this another one of you detective puzzles, Detective? You know, like the puzzle you tried to pass off about FVH when you went on your 3 day bender? I love how you think you're sly and smarter than everyone else, when in REALITY you're merely a fat, dumb gay redneck who has WAY too much fat time on his fat hands. I'll give you one thing--you're great for a laugh.

[FVH]

Oh, here's a puzzle for you to spend all day trying to figure out, Detective:

49 23 17 53

youer' aft dan ubtt ssa glyu ennetirt hogtu ugyl

Good luck with that, Killer!

On Saturday, March 2, 2013 10:12:59 AM UTC-6, AJ wrote:

[mss]

lab~rat >:-)<ch...@cheese.net> wrote:

> My point is that there are so many studies and articles by and
> referring to "climatologists" that one would think the profession is
> so established there would be specific requirements to claim expertise
> in the field. Even your cite above is a collection of generalities
> that further illustrate my point.

google 'Michael Hayes climatology'

His education:

Ph.D. in 1994 from the University of Missouri.Columbia in atmospheric science
M.S. in 1989 from the University of Missouri.Columbia in atmospheric science
B.S. in 1986 from the University of Wisconsin.Madison in meteorology

--
later on,
Mike

[mss]

83LowRider<83low...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

Yeah, the deep future would likely blow our minds
(just as you noted earlier about current humans
wielding BIC's & mp3 players when time traveling).

Some hurtles we face are documented in the abstraction
termed the 'singularity'.

hypothesis:

<http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html>

quick overview:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity>

Of course we gotta figure how *not* to annihilate ourselves
before all of this takes place...

--
later on,
Mike

[mss]

AJ <misfits...@aol.com> wrote:

Into alternate histories huh aj? Yeah some interesting reading...

General consensus is that the Vatican has lots of texts unseen
by the public, some of it dealing with competing theories about
Christ's life & times like 'Thomas the Twin'...

The list of J.C.'s brothers (not necessarily complete) is given in
Matthew 13:55, where four are mentioned: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

1st three are presumed to be older brothers, that last brother the twin.

google <something like>: Didymos Judas Thomas (Twin of Jesus)

What do you think?

> 33

Awarded to the member who brings the most coffee & donuts to
meetings in a calendar year! =)

--
later on,
Mike

[lab~rat >:-)]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:30:39 +0000 (UTC), mss <fu...@email.invalid>
wrote:

Thank you for proving my point.

[mss]

On Saturday, March 2, 2013 2:59:45 PM UTC-6, lab~rat >:-) wrote:

> Thank you for proving my point.

So your argument against climate change is
more education is a bad thing? I've been
following your dialog with Jefe & I'll admit
I don't understand your opposition to global
warming.

--
later on,
Mike