Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: WiregrassTiger on February 18, 2014, 11:35:20 AM
-
Now that he's spoken, we can finally put this to rest on here. Apparently, the most important thing he has done to thwart the earth from burning up is in bold. He met with someone.
I'm pretty sure that they (gov't leeches) may take away our cars and further regulate electricity in the not-so-distant future. "Meetings" for these people usually promote laws and change that have an adverse effect on us. It would be nice if there were more realistic and common sense taxpayers in the room.
Also, someone quick! Pull Kaos' head out of the sand before he suffocates!
John Kerry: Denying climate change is like saying Earth is flat
Cassie Fambro | cfambro@al.com By Cassie Fambro | cfambro@al.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on February 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM, updated February 16, 2014 at 12:48 PM
Secretary of State John Kerry has blunt words for those who question climate change.
‘‘The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,’’ Kerry said. ‘‘We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society,’’ he said at an American center, via the Boston Globe.
He also said that people need to take it more seriously.
‘In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.’’
Kerry supports a global initiative to switch from fossil fuels to natural technologies that are cleaner and has met with China to facilitate changes in reducing vehicle emissions; advanced electric power grids; capturing and storing carbon emissions; gathering greenhouse gas data; and building efficiency.
Kerry also added that he encourages taking personal responsibility for the climate, pointing to "everyone and every country" for the future of the world's environment.
-
I am happy to see this thread so well received. I'm just glad to contribute to this board and discuss meaningful issues in a respectful manner.
-
But according to EVERYONE, the data os indisputable...
Climate Change This Week: Faulty Accounting Feb. 11, 2014 An audit by the Office of the Inspector General found that the State Department's $75 million tab for climate change programs included $600,000 that couldn't be accounted for. That may be seen as nothing more than a rounding error, but it was also a sign of burning cash and fudging data. The OIG pointed out the recipients in question “did not fully … ensure that the data used in reporting programmatic results were complete, accurate, consistent, and supportable.â€
Buttressing this revelation about “fudging†the data, at a time when earlier climate models estimated we had been significantly warmer, the amount of ice and snow cover burying most of the nation signifies otherwise. Satellite reporting this week showed the Great Lakes had their greatest ice cover (http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/02/great_lakes_added_11_percent_i.html) in two decades, with Lake Superior and Lake Erie being almost totally frozen.
Yet there are some in Congress who continue to use incomplete, inaccurate, inconsistent and unsupportable data to plod on with their tired tales of man-made climate change. After all, there's a lot of government money to be redistributed and regulations to be handed down from on high. The Safe Climate Caucus (yes, that's a real thing), chaired by retiring Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), can't get the time of day in a GOP-controlled House, so the Caucus is enlisting the help of an all too willing Leftmedia. Regardless of the evidence mounting against man-made climate change, Waxman believes the American people will “wake up†and ask “how can you deny this?â€
But the chances are greater that a new skepticism of science could arise, argues Australian climate scientist Garth Paltridge (http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/02/03/will-the-overselling-of-global-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/). He writes that “the average man in the street … is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue,†fretting that this may put an end to the belief in the honesty of science for years to come. Having to dig out from another foot of snow may also be a sign of this challenge to conventional wisdom.
http://patriotpost.us/articles/23292 (http://patriotpost.us/articles/23292)
-
Just maybe the science is rotten!
Is it a failure to communicate, or faulty climate science?
(http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/viewpoint/entry/2013/05/29/Chapter_9_Cartoon_Caption_s640x458.jpg?418fc8cf1c41f4dd99c26372b626e2addb13f903) Photo: Bob Lynch Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - Climatism: A Mad, Mad, Mad World (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/) by Steve Goreham (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/staff/steve-goreham/)CHICAGO, May 29, 2013— Earlier this month, a New York Times article (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/the-other-climate-science-gap/) by Andy Revkin voiced concern over a gap between “the consensus†of climate scientists and public acceptance of the theory of human-caused global warming. Revkin pointed to a study (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article) published in April by Dr. John Cook and other researchers, which claimed that 97 percent of scientific papers over the last decade “endorsed the consensus†of man-made warming. But is it a failure to communicate the science to the public, or a case of bad science?
A 2010 paper from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University recommended (http://cornerstone.gmu.edu/articles/2927) that advocates for activist climate policies emphasize the dangers to the health of citizens: “Successfully reframing the climate debate in the United States from one based on environmental values to one based on health values…holds great promise to help American society better understand and appreciate the risks of climate change…†So, if Americans fear for their health, then they’ll more readily accept that humans are causing dangerous climate change?
Climate science has smelled for some time. The 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/) “new evidence†claiming that “the increase in temperature in the twentieth century was likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years.†This was the famous “Hockey Stick Curve†of Dr. Michael Mann, which became an icon for Climatism, trumpeted to the world and taught in schools across the globe.
But the tree-ring data used by Mann and his research team did not show a temperature rise at the end of the twentieth century, so they pasted the thermometer record for the last 50 years onto the 1,000-year curve to provide the alarming hockey stick temperature rise. Later analysis by Stephen McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick found (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021750/abstract) that the Mann algorithm would also produce a hockey stick from input of random noise. The IPCC dropped the Mann Curve from their 2007 Fourth Assessment Report without any explanation.
Then in November 2009 came Climategate, the release of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University. An unidentified hacker or whistle-blower downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails and posted them on a server in Russia. The CRU is the recognized leading keeper of global temperature data, and CRU scientists wrote and edited the core of the IPCC reports.
The Climategate emails showed (http://www.amazon.com/Mad-World-Climatism-Mankind-Climate/dp/0982499620/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369751107&sr=1-1&keywords=steve+goreham) CRU practices that were seriously at odds with accepted scientific procedure. Evidence of bias, data manipulation, deliberate deletion of emails to avoid sharing of information, evasion of freedom of information requests, and attempts to subvert the peer-review literature process were all used to further the cause of human-made global warming.
Based on model projections, the IPCC First Assessment Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf) of 1990 told the world to expect a “best estimate†rise of 0.3oC per decade in global temperatures, leading to 2025 temperatures that would be 1oC higher than 1990 temperatures. The IPCC also projected a “high estimate†and a “low estimate†rise. Today, global temperatures remain well below (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/) the IPCC’s low estimate. Contrary to model projections, temperatures have been flat for the last 15 years.
It doesn’t matter if 97 percent or even 100 percent of published papers endorse the consensus of man-made warming. One hundred percent of the world’s top climate models, 44 models in all, projected (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/) a rise in global surface temperatures over the last 15 years. And 100 percent of the climate models were wrong. The empirical data does not support the theory of dangerous man-made climate change.
Since global temperatures are not rising, proponents of man-made climate change are now reduced to weather scaremongering. In the best tradition of ambulance chasing, the recent severe tornado in Oklahoma, Hurricane Sandy, and other weather events are blamed on mankind’s relatively small contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide, a trace gas.
But any citizen who can read can learn that today’s weather is not abnormal. Hurricane Sandy was a Category 1 hurricane that made a direct hit on New York City. But according to the National Climatic Data Center, 170 hurricanes (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html) made US landfall during the 20th century. Fifty-nine of these were Category 3 or better, with wind speeds much stronger than those of Sandy. So how is a single Category 1 hurricane “evidence†of dangerous climate change? Historical data also shows that the US experienced more strong tornados in the 1960s and 1970s than today.
The reason for lukewarm public acceptance of the theory of man-made warming is not a failure to communicate, but that the science is rotten.
-
Climate change aside - this is John Kerry. One of the most idiotic, do nothing and irrelevant politicians of our time. Similar to Mondale and Dukakis. A man who got trounced by George Bush. Not the George Bush of 2000. The GB of 2004 that was highly unpopular and considered a bumbling buffoon. Yes. THIS same John Kerry got beat badly by THAT George Bush. No one really gives 2 shits what he says no matter the topic.
-
He's got a funny looking head
-
I was reminded of you guys this weekend.
I know you hate at least one of these sources which will preclude you from processing anything they say, but what they hell.
http://youtu.be/SBUAVeElmPU (http://youtu.be/SBUAVeElmPU)
-
Climate change aside - this is John Kerry. One of the most idiotic, do nothing and irrelevant politicians of our time. Similar to Mondale and Dukakis. A man who got trounced by George Bush. Not the George Bush of 2000. The GB of 2004 that was highly unpopular and considered a bumbling buffoon. Yes. THIS same John Kerry got beat badly by THAT George Bush. No one really gives 2 shits what he says no matter the topic.
He got trounced by Karl Rove and the Republicans' wholesale capitulation to the religious right.
-
He got trounced by Karl Rove and the Republicans' wholesale capitulation to the religious right.
One of the worst long term investments in the history of politics.
-
One of the worst long term investments in the history of politics.
No doubt. Now if they can't pull their heads out of their asses on immigration, they're going the way of the dodo.
-
No doubt. Now if they can't pull their heads out of their asses on immigration, they're going the way of the dodo.
The unwavering anti-science position isn't helping either, but I guess that goes hand in hand with the aforementioned religious right.
-
The unwavering anti-science position isn't helping either, but I guess that goes hand in hand with the aforementioned religious right.
To be clear - are you saying that if you don't believe in man made global warming climate change you are anti-science?
-
they hell.
You left out "bound for"
One is a narcissistic, pompous ass who knows nothing about anything, the other argues against the existence of God.
-
To be clear - are you saying that if you don't believe in man made global warming climate change you are anti-science?
And yet they claim that global warming is not a religion.....
The studies show that 95% agree that the climate is changing, BUT over half do not agree that it is man-made. They always leave that part out!
-
To be clear - are you saying that if you don't believe in man made global warming climate change you are anti-science?
To be clear, yes.
If you think that the GOP knows more about climate science than 97.1% (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article) of climate scientists (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/16/climate-research-nearly-unanimous-humans-causes), then yes. I am saying you are anti-intellectual and anti science.
Additionally if you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, despite the fact that we know, for sure, that we have rocks and fossils that are billions and billions and billions of years older than that, which can be proven with radiometric and carbon dating...you're anti science.
And if you refuse to understand or believe that humans, and all life for that matter, undergo changes to their brain and body size, locomotion, diet, skeletal structure, and other aspects regarding the way of life throughout their vast histories, and this phenomenon is called evolution and is an actual thing that exists...you're anti-science.
And this is why it's not ok to just say, "Well, that's just, like, your opinion...man..."
Saw this in the news this week and pulled a triple :facepalm:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/16/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/ (http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/16/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/)
1 in 4 Americans Apparently Unaware the Earth Orbits the Sun
They must have been sick the day this was taught in school.
Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?
When asked that question, 1 in 4 Americans surveyed answered incorrectly. Yes, 1 in 4. In other words, a quarter of Americans do not understand one of the most fundamental principles of basic science. So that’s where we are as a society right now.
The survey, conducted by the National Science Foundation, included more than 2,200 participants in the U.S., AFP reports. It featured a nine-question quiz about physical and biological science and the average score was a 6.5.
And the fact that only 74 percent of participants knew that the Earth revolved around the sun is perhaps less alarming than the fact that only 48 percent knew that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.
-
And yet they claim that global warming is not a religion.....
The studies show that 95% agree that the climate is changing, BUT over half do not agree that it is man-made. They always leave that part out!
Oh, sorry I left that out because it's complete bullshit you just made up just now.
97.1% believe in man made climate change.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024)
http://news.yahoo.com/scientific-debate-over-climate-change-looks-97-1-181704626.html (http://news.yahoo.com/scientific-debate-over-climate-change-looks-97-1-181704626.html)
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/strong-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-130516.htm (http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/strong-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-130516.htm)
http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-climate-change-2013-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-climate-change-2013-5)
http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/05/what-scientific-debate-over-climate-change-looks-971-agreement/65308/ (http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/05/what-scientific-debate-over-climate-change-looks-971-agreement/65308/)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/15/survey-finds-scientific-consensus-on-cause-of-climate-change-humans/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/15/survey-finds-scientific-consensus-on-cause-of-climate-change-humans/)
http://www.theconsensusproject.com/ (http://www.theconsensusproject.com/)
-
To be clear, yes.
If you think that the GOP knows more about climate science than 97.1% (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article) of climate scientists (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/16/climate-research-nearly-unanimous-humans-causes), then yes. I am saying you are anti-intellectual and anti science.
Additionally if you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, despite the fact that we know, for sure, that we have rocks and fossils that are billions and billions and billions of years older than that, which can be proven with radiometric and carbon dating...you're anti science.
And if you refuse to understand or believe that humans, and all life, undergo changes to their brain and body size, locomotion, diet, skeletal structure, and other aspects regarding the way of life throughout their vast histories, and this phenomenon is called evolution and is an actual thing that exists...you're anti-science.
And this is why it's not ok to just say, "Well, that's just, like, your opinion...man..."
Saw this news this week and pulled a triple :facepalm:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/16/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/ (http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/16/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/)
Guess I'm anti-science. Weird since I'm a college degreed aerospace engineer designing and analyzing the next generation of manned earth departure vehicles for NASA. Guess I better go turn in my notice and start doing whatever us non smarty people do who are a drain on American society.
-
Guess I'm anti-science. Weird since I'm a college degreed aerospace engineer designing and analyzing the next generation of manned earth departure vehicles for NASA. Guess I better go turn in my notice and start doing whatever us non smarty people do who are a drain on American society.
You just need to have faith. Chizad does!
-
Guess I'm anti-science. Weird since I'm a college degreed aerospace engineer designing and analyzing the next generation of manned earth departure vehicles for NASA. Guess I better go turn in my notice and start doing whatever us non smarty people do who are a drain on American society.
What do you deny, specifically?
All three things I just said? Just the climate change thing? Elaborate.
-
We are here:
As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in early America, once an idea is thought to be supported by the majority, the dynamics of what de Tocqueville calls “majority tyranny over thought†ensure that this idea will be very difficult to dislodge. He explains: The more alike men are, the weaker each feels in the face of all. Finding nothing that raises him above their level and distinguishes him, he loses his self-confidence when he comes into collision with them. Not only does he mistrust his own strength, but even comes to doubt his own judgment, and he is brought very near to recognizing that he must be wrong when the majority hold the opposite view. There is no need for the majority to compel him; it convinces him.
For more than 25 years, Climatists have promoted the propaganda of man-made climate change in a shameless attempt to perpetuate Climatism and the madness built upon it, while discouraging most people from questioning it. Most people still lack the knowledge, as well as the inclination, to analyze and then reject the faulty hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/14398-exposing-the-con-game-of-man-made-climate-change (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/14398-exposing-the-con-game-of-man-made-climate-change)
-
And the fact that only 74 percent of participants knew that the Earth revolved around the sun is perhaps less alarming than the fact that only 48 percent knew that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.
Can't know something that isn't true.
I believe in evolution. Things evolve over time. And I don't even believe THAT crap. There's no "knowing" that because it's just one theory that hasn't been proven by any stretch.
For the record? It is the absolute height of ignorant arrogance to claim that people who don't believe the money-driven hyperbole of man-made climate change are "anti-science."
I'm very pro science. I also think that science and religion go hand in hand. That has noting to do with the GOP or the other silly ass arguments you tried to equate to not believing the Al Gore lunacy of global cooling warming change whatever lie is most convenient.
Go back to the "Irony" thread and look at the chart that RWS provided showing a clear and consistent pattern of warming and cooling that continues today with little top-end or bottom-end change. It's a pretty compelling chart that doesn't cherry pick certain dates to make an argument that doesn't exist in order to line somebody's pockets.
You clearly make the assumption that people who don't believe in the global warming change hooey aren't educated or haven't read enough. You're wrong. I HAVE read. I HAVE researched it -- just as I did 35 years ago when they said we were all going to freeze and I was 13 years old and terrified of dying in an ice age before I got fully laid.
I've read it. I've read both sides. The more rational, more compelling and less "money for research" driven results are those that tell me this is nothing but man-made hyperbole. Posting more articles by scientists whose funding depends on answering a question in such a way that it generates more funding (and many of whom have admitted to faking or cooking numbers to generate their results) aren't going to sway me. Neither is the rambling of a saggy-faced fool like John Kerry.
-
Can't know something that isn't true.
I believe in evolution. Things evolve over time. And I don't even believe THAT crap. There's no "knowing" that because it's just one theory that hasn't been proven by any stretch.
The current study and understanding of biology and medicine is predicated on the theory of evolution holding true. It's not like it's just a noodle hoping to stick to the wall.
-
We are here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/14398-exposing-the-con-game-of-man-made-climate-change (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/14398-exposing-the-con-game-of-man-made-climate-change)
Well, you're in luck. Apparently only 75% of people believe the earth rotates around the sun. Maybe you can keep shouting down those libtards until you get it below 50.
-
The current study and understanding of biology and medicine is predicated on the theory of evolution holding true. It's not like it's just a noodle hoping to stick to the wall.
No. No it's not.
I don't disagree with the fact that species change over time. They evolve. That's obvious.
But I can disagree with what some consider the starting point and still embrace every bit of biology and medicine there is. The Bible and science don't have to be mutually exclusive -- and to those with an open mind they aren't.
-
Well, you're in luck. Apparently only 75% of people believe the earth rotates around the sun. Maybe you can keep shouting down those libtards until you get it below 50.
There are times I wish I was a lawyer.
Objection, your honor. Relevance.
Sustained. I'm not going to tolerate these obvious diversions, Chizad. Try it again and I'm holding you in contempt.
*Gavel sound*
-
What do you deny, specifically?
All three things I just said? Just the climate change thing? Elaborate.
Climate change I'm ambivalent on. I have no doubt that since we have started accurately tracking climate data (patterns, temps, precipitation amounts) that stuff has been changing, but really how far back does that go? 1850's? And I doubt that that is worldwide tracking at that point. I hear about measurements on the polar ice caps, we made it to the north and south poles in 1909 and 1911. Is that really long enough data sample?
I tend to go with a younger earth view. That's my faith talking so you won't buy it and I don't really care to argue about it on a football message board. But I will say that Carbon-14 dating isn't as accurate as we once thought.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html)
Evolution, obviously goes with the above re my faith, but there's too many missing pieces in the fossil record to say for certain that macroevolution is a proven fact. Microevolution is obvious. Plus, evolution or not, science still has come up with a satisfactory answer for how life began in the first place. When I was a kid in my elementary school science book there was some mumbo-jumbo about lightning striking a tidal pool to give the "spark of life". I called that the "frankenstein theory".
Edit: Oh and I think the earth definitely goes around the sun.
-
Three months ago proof was evaporating. Now, we are to believe that 97.1111111% are correct.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/ (http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/)
-
Three months ago proof was evaporating. Now, we are to believe that 97.1111111% are correct.
It probably evaporated because it was so dang hot this winter. Thanks Al Gore, you punk.
-
No. No it's not.
I don't disagree with the fact that species change over time. They evolve. That's obvious.
But I can disagree with what some consider the starting point and still embrace every bit of biology and medicine there is. The Bible and science don't have to be mutually exclusive -- and to those with an open mind they aren't.
What do you mean you can "disagree"? You have your own set of results and analysis to bring to the table?
Genetics proves that there are branches from common ancestors tracing back to the earliest roots of life as a single source.
-
Genetics proves that there are branches from common ancestors tracing back to the earliest roots of life as a single source.
Not remotely true. Genetics THEORIZES based on what it knows at this point.
-
What do you mean you can "disagree"? You have your own set of results and analysis to bring to the table?
Genetics proves that there are branches from common ancestors tracing back to the earliest roots of life as a single source.
Ah the primordial sludge again.
-
Ah the primordial sludge again.
I think I got drunk one night and went home with her.
-
What do you mean you can "disagree"? You have your own set of results and analysis to bring to the table?
Genetics proves that there are branches from common ancestors tracing back to the earliest roots of life as a single source.
How did the earliest life form get something as complex as DNA right off the bat?
-
How did the earliest life form get something as complex as DNA right off the bat?
Well. see, there's SEICNECE, dammit! It put it in thar.
-
I don't know how they do it. I just know they have science to back it up. See? Wow, science.
-
How did the earliest life form get something as complex as DNA right off the bat?
It didn't.
-
It didn't.
So you mean to tell me it had to adapt? Change over time in order to "get it right"?
-
So you mean to tell me it had to adapt? Change over time in order to "get it right"?
So you're saying that something without intelligence or even life at the beginning spontaneously developed a structure composed of chains of thousands of very specific chemical compounds? Completely by chance, from nothing, took chemicals and just randomly started stringing them together in a way that it would control the very blueprint of life and end up with a successful plan? Something that with our technology today we could not replicate in a lab under controlled conditions but occurred in a tidal pool or gas vent on the ocean floor? And after we got one chain we would combine it with another chain in a helix formations so that we could split it down the middle so the single celled creature could replicate itself? All by chance? Time + Nothing + Random Chance = All this?
We can just agree to disagree, but to me that sounds as nutty as anything ever come up with by anybody. And quite frankly has not been proven out.
-
So you're saying that something without intelligence or even life at the beginning spontaneously developed a structure composed of chains of thousands of very specific chemical compounds? Completely by chance, from nothing, took chemicals and just randomly started stringing them together in a way that it would control the very blueprint of life and end up with a successful plan? Something that with our technology today we could not replicate in a lab under controlled conditions but occurred in a tidal pool or gas vent on the ocean floor? And after we got one chain we would combine it with another chain in a helix formations so that we could split it down the middle so the single celled creature could replicate itself? All by chance? Time + Nothing + Random Chance = All this?
We can just agree to disagree, but to me that sounds as nutty as anything ever come up with by anybody. And quite frankly has not been proven out.
That's what the world's leading geneticists think.
Also, year one students at universities and most high school kids who decide to trust their teachers over Pastor Jimmy Bub.
-
So you're saying that something without intelligence or even life at the beginning spontaneously developed a structure composed of chains of thousands of very specific chemical compounds? Completely by chance, from nothing, took chemicals and just randomly started stringing them together in a way that it would control the very blueprint of life and end up with a successful plan? Something that with our technology today we could not replicate in a lab under controlled conditions but occurred in a tidal pool or gas vent on the ocean floor? And after we got one chain we would combine it with another chain in a helix formations so that we could split it down the middle so the single celled creature could replicate itself? All by chance? Time + Nothing + Random Chance = All this?
We can just agree to disagree, but to me that sounds as nutty as anything ever come up with by anybody. And quite frankly has not been proven out.
So says Sheldon Cooper
-
Oh, and by the way, I couldn't agree more with the esteemed 2000.
-
So you mean to tell me it had to adapt? Change over time in order to "get it right"?
Nobody that I know of disagrees with the notion of micro-evolution, or adaptation, or whatever you want to call it. However, macro-evolution is a completely different argument.
Do you ever wonder what the odds are that every single thing that had to fall into place in order for Earth to sustain life did? I've seen studies that show that 322 separate parameters had to fall exactly in to place at the same time in order for life to be possible. The odds of this happening are less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe.
In other words, we won the cosmic lottery! When I think about that, and couple it with notions like this:
So you're saying that something without intelligence or even life at the beginning spontaneously developed a structure composed of chains of thousands of very specific chemical compounds? Completely by chance, from nothing, took chemicals and just randomly started stringing them together in a way that it would control the very blueprint of life and end up with a successful plan? Something that with our technology today we could not replicate in a lab under controlled conditions but occurred in a tidal pool or gas vent on the ocean floor? And after we got one chain we would combine it with another chain in a helix formations so that we could split it down the middle so the single celled creature could replicate itself? All by chance? Time + Nothing + Random Chance = All this?
We can just agree to disagree, but to me that sounds as nutty as anything ever come up with by anybody. And quite frankly has not been proven out.
...and it simply doesn't seem crazy to me that creation requires a Creator. It seems more insane to me to think that everything came from nothing. That one day there was absolutely nothing and due to some spontaneous combustion event that no one can explain the entire universe was formed with no rhyme or reason. Then fast forward trillions of years and here we have mammals who have evolved enough to debate said event over the internet while being hundreds of miles apart.
If believing in that blows your skirt up have at it, but I don't see how you can see one belief is so outlandish and crazy and the other is "science."
-
That's what the world's leading geneticists think.
Also, year one students at universities and most high school kids who decide to trust their teachers over Pastor Jimmy Bub.
All due respect? You're an idiot.
And gonna go ahead and invoke hitler just to end this stupidity.
-
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
-
All due respect? You're an idiot.
And gonna go ahead and invoke hitler just to end this stupidity.
You have no rebuttal so you jumped to name calling.
Want me to list some scientists and geneticists that agree with me? Or is that too much for you to handle?
-
He got trounced by Karl Rove and the Republicans' wholesale capitulation to the religious right.
If you say so.
John Kerry was just that bad.
-
You have no rebuttal so you jumped to name calling.
Want me to list some scientists and geneticists that agree with me? Or is that too much for you to handle?
Yeah...because you haven't been a condescending know it all jerk anywhere in this thread. You guys preemptively take any chance you get to take jab at anyone with a belief in religion. Several instances of that in this thread alone. But Kaos gets a little defensive about it in response? Bring on the tears.
Kaos - apologize now. THS's feelings are hurt.
-
You have no rebuttal so you jumped to name calling.
Want me to list some scientists and geneticists that agree with me? Or is that too much for you to handle?
I already invoked Hitler.
Anything you say after this is tainted.
You ARE an idiot if you truly believe that anybody with a high school education rejects religion and buys your nonsense "geneticist" crap. I'd wager to say the VAST majority of Auburn students don't think the way you claim at all.
Here's all I need to know on the subject. I KNOW there is a God. Beyond any shadow of a doubt. And I'm an educated person who comes from an educated family. Some of you think there is not. Anything beyond that is jibberjabble.
-
I already invoked Hitler.
Anything you say after this is tainted.
You ARE an idiot if you truly believe that anybody with a high school education rejects religion and buys your nonsense "geneticist" crap. I'd wager to say the VAST majority of Auburn students don't think the way you claim at all.
Here's all I need to know on the subject. I KNOW there is a God. Beyond any shadow of a doubt. And I'm an educated person who comes from an educated family. Some of you think there is not. Anything beyond that is jibberjabble.
Francis Collins stood in front of the cameras with Craig Venter and Bill Clinton to announce that the human genetic code had been cracked. It was a tremendous breakthrough in understanding what defines us as a species and has led to many medical advancements that were unthinkable prior to the completion of the big goal set by the human genome project.
Collins is a devout Christian. He wrote a book called The Language of God, and in it, he expounds on how any kind of creationism and rejection of the current thoughts on evolution are foolhardy and idiotic. He explains how what they have discovered through genetics seals the deal that evolution started from a single source and through millions of years of adaptations and changes on the macro level led to the diverse world that we know today.
He also explains why he isn't afraid of science when it comes to his religion.
I don't know why accepting basic principles in scientific thought is so terrifying to some of you. You really think high school students are mocking with authority and credibility the work produced by our nation's highest academic scientists? Seriously? You think Auburn students are above accepting evolution and climate change? Really? Do you realize that my degree is from Auburn University?
Not one time has anyone in this thread attacked or criticized a belief in God. That's how you took it most likely because you don't have a firm grasp on why you believe in God. He's just there and your ticket to heaven or whatever it is psychologically that soothes you. Being forced to read with an open mind new ideas that explain the universe shakes you to the core to the point that you have to head butt anyone mentioning those ideas.
-
Yeah...because you haven't been a condescending know it all jerk anywhere in this thread. You guys preemptively take any chance you get to take jab at anyone with a belief in religion. Several instances of that in this thread alone. But Kaos gets a little defensive about it in response? Bring on the tears.
Kaos - apologize now. THS's feelings are hurt.
Hahaha my feelings are hurt? That's rich considering it's not me running around screaming nanny boo boo with my thumb in my mouth like someone else in this thread.
The ONLY condescending remark made remotely towards religion was Wes bringing up that the GOP pandered to the religious right. There is a religious left and a religious middle. And even some of the religious right is accepting of new scientific ideas that make one question their own beliefs.
I'd be interested in a quote of where I was so condescending. Practicing brevity when people are saying, "I don't accept what the majority of scientists believe because it seems nutty" isn't condescending. It's just being straight forward and refusing to engage in emotional rhetoric that's spawned from a severe insecurity in one's own idea of what's right in life.
-
I already invoked Hitler.
Anything you say after this is tainted.
You ARE an idiot if you truly believe that anybody with a high school education rejects religion and buys your nonsense "geneticist" crap. I'd wager to say the VAST majority of Auburn students don't think the way you claim at all.
Here's all I need to know on the subject. I KNOW there is a God. Beyond any shadow of a doubt. And I'm an educated person who comes from an educated family. Some of you think there is not. Anything beyond that is jibberjabble.
You don't know. You believe. You have faith.
-
Francis Collins stood in front of the cameras with Craig Venter and Bill Clinton to announce that the human genetic code had been cracked. It was a tremendous breakthrough in understanding what defines us as a species and has led to many medical advancements that were unthinkable prior to the completion of the big goal set by the human genome project.
Collins is a devout Christian. He wrote a book called The Language of God, and in it, he expounds on how any kind of creationism and rejection of the current thoughts on evolution are foolhardy and idiotic. He explains how what they have discovered through genetics seals the deal that evolution started from a single source and through millions of years of adaptations and changes on the macro level led to the diverse world that we know today.
He also explains why he isn't afraid of science when it comes to his religion.
I don't know why accepting basic principles in scientific thought is so terrifying to some of you. You really think high school students are mocking with authority and credibility the work produced by our nation's highest academic scientists? Seriously? You think Auburn students are above accepting evolution and climate change? Really? Do you realize that my degree is from Auburn University?
Not one time has anyone in this thread attacked or criticized a belief in God. That's how you took it most likely because you don't have a firm grasp on why you believe in God. He's just there and your ticket to heaven or whatever it is psychologically that soothes you. Being forced to read with an open mind new ideas that explain the universe shakes you to the core to the point that you have to head butt anyone mentioning those ideas.
I'm sorry you got a degree and not an education
You don't know the first thing you're talking about.
-
You don't know. You believe. You have faith.
I'm not going to get into the reasons why and all that, but I know. It's not an issue of faith or belief. It's an absolute. I know.
Don't care if you or anyone else believes that. Isn't my problem. Don't actually expect you to.
-
Guys, Please stay on topic and remember to limit the name calling. Fag and motherfucker are allowed but son of a bitch is a last resort.
-
Hahaha my feelings are hurt? That's rich considering it's not me running around screaming nanny boo boo with my thumb in my mouth like someone else in this thread.
The ONLY condescending remark made remotely towards religion was Wes bringing up that the GOP pandered to the religious right. There is a religious left and a religious middle. And even some of the religious right is accepting of new scientific ideas that make one question their own beliefs.
I'd be interested in a quote of where I was so condescending. Practicing brevity when people are saying, "I don't accept what the majority of scientists believe because it seems nutty" isn't condescending. It's just being straight forward and refusing to engage in emotional rhetoric that's spawned from a severe insecurity in one's own idea of what's right in life.
Christians believe that God created man from dirt and we're ridiculous. Others believe that life spontaneously came to be from dirt and they're brilliant.
-
It is nutty. Christians believe that God created man from dirt and we're ridiculous. Others believe that life spontaneously came to be from dirt and they're brilliant.
There is the allowance that both could be true in a sense.
I do find it hard to believe that we are as complex as we are by accident. Just the reproduction process alone is enough to marvel at.
-
There is the allowance that both could be true in a sense.
I do find it hard to believe that we are as complex as we are by accident. Just the reproduction process alone is enough to marvel at.
Yeah. I marvel at that too. The videos are especially marvelous.
-
Again the results of climate science are the best that money can buy. I guarantee you that if the government were to give grants, in the amounts currently spent to prove man made global warming, to scientists to prove it's all bunch of bullshit, the results would be quite different.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
-
Again the results of climate science are the best that money can buy. I guarantee you that if the government were to give grants, in the amounts currently spent to prove man made global warming, to scientists to prove it's all bunch of bullshit, the results would be quite different.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
Kaos alluded to this as well. I was going to let it go unchecked because the willful ignorance in this thread is too great to even attempt to combat with logic or reason.
But for fuck's sake.
Yes. Please do. Follow the money.
(http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/imagecache/node_primary/primary_image/13/12/funding.png)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131220154511.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131220154511.htm)
A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.
Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.
The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.
The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.
If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes.
"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming," said Brulle. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight -- often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians -- but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."
To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.
The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.
Key findings include:
Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.
Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.
Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.
Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.
"The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," said Brulle. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."
At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts [to deny scientific findings about global warming].
This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate.
Follow it to the oil conglomerates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/10/26/chevron-donates-2-5-million-to-gop-super-pac/) that are funding GOP Super PACs (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/01/31/8063/big-oil-fuels-pro-perry-super-pac-contributions-total-55-million).
You people are deathly afraid of knowledge and education for some bizarre reason. You know all there is to know in this ol' world. NO MORE LEARNIN' FOR YOU. Waste of time.
But for fuck's sake, to say the people who AREN'T denying climate change are driven purely by some bottom-line desire to pull a profit? Are you people even hearing yourselves? We're reaching past delusion into psychosis here.
So let me get this straight. I'm assuming you all take issue with universities getting grant money for scientific research? That's the "money-grab"? I guess you all believe the world would be a better place if we all lived in the dark ages and didn't waste time spinning our wheels trying to cure cancer, lower the costs of food & fuels, or invent the next supercomputer (or as CCTAU calls them Debil Machines).
Secondly, the very fact that research money chaps your ass to such a degree illustrates one of two things:
1) You don't understand the very basic principles of what science even is. To you, funding research is exactly the same as the Koch Brothers and Chevron paying billions of dollars to politicians to brainwash coots like yourselves. To you, you think that science works backwards from an ends to justify a means. To you, these climate scientists are just slavin' away trying desperately to prove climate change is real so they can really stick it to you guys.
OR
2) You're afraid of the truth. You don't want to know because your delicate ego can't handle having been so belligerent about something in which you are so damned wrong.
Both are ignorant as fuck. Hope you don't mind me saying so since Kaos has decided we should be so blunt in this thread.
-
Kaos alluded to this as well. I was going to let it go unchecked because the willful ignorance in this thread is too great to even attempt to combat with logic or reason.
But for fuck's sake.
Yes. Please do. Follow the money.
(http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/imagecache/node_primary/primary_image/13/12/funding.png)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131220154511.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131220154511.htm)
Follow it to the oil conglomerates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/10/26/chevron-donates-2-5-million-to-gop-super-pac/) that are funding GOP Super PACs (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/01/31/8063/big-oil-fuels-pro-perry-super-pac-contributions-total-55-million).
You people are deathly afraid of knowledge and education for some bizarre reason. You know all there is to know in this ol' world. NO MORE LEARNIN' FOR YOU. Waste of time.
But for fuck's sake, to say the people who AREN'T denying climate change are driven purely by some bottom-line desire to pull a profit? Are you people even hearing yourselves? We're reaching past delusion into psychosis here.
So let me get this straight. I'm assuming you all take issue with universities getting grant money for scientific research? That's the "money-grab"? I guess you all believe the world would be a better place if we all lived in the dark ages and didn't waste time spinning our wheels trying to cure cancer, lower the costs of food & fuels, or invent the next supercomputer (or as CCTAU calls them Debil Machines).
Secondly, the very fact that research money chaps your ass to such a degree illustrates one of two things:
1) You don't understand the very basic principles of what science even is. To you, funding research is exactly the same as the Koch Brothers and Chevron paying billions of dollars to politicians to brainwash coots like yourselves. To you, you think that science works backwards from an ends to justify a means. To you, these climate scientists are just slavin' away trying desperately to prove climate change is real so they can really stick it to you guys.
OR
2) You're afraid of the truth. You don't want to know because your delicate ego can't handle having been so belligerent about something in which you are so damned wrong.
Both are ignorant as fuck. Hope you don't mind me saying so since Kaos has decided we should be so blunt in this thread.
Kere's what we've decided:
1. I'm ignorant as fuck
2. You're arrogant as Fuck
Not sure by the way which one is worse. I tell you what, I'll keep driving my gas guzzling mini van, you keep wishing for the day the volt takes over. Maybe we will offset each other and the earth can continue to not warm like it has for the last 15 years.
I have no faith in a group of scientist that try to scare the shit out of everyone that the world is going to freeze and then turn around when their hypothesis turn out to be false and claim we are going to burn up. now all this has happened in the mind numbing span of 30 years.
Chizad, what caused the ice age? Even better, what caused the end of the ice age? Pretty sure neither was man made. To think that anything humans can do (we are pimple on the ass of mother earth) will drastically change the weather cycles of earth is extremely arrogant and bordering on narcissistic.
If humans have such power over the earth's climate, how come we can't make it rain in southern California?
-
Oh yeah one more thing:
If global warming has been proven just as you and John Kerry would have us believe, then you should agree not one more dime of my tax money should go to anyone trying to prove we have global warming.
NO MORE MONEY they have done their job. Case closed. Go try to study something else
-
You people are deathly afraid of knowledge and education for some bizarre reason.
Based on what I've seen here you don't know the meaning of the words "education" or "knowledge"
-
how come we can't make it rain in southern California?
Because it pours, man. It pours.
-
Based on what I've seen here you don't know the meaning of the words "education" or "knowledge"
Then explain, Mr. Fancy Pants. What is real education and what is true knowledge?
-
Here's the infuriating thing about this discussion (and far too many others in the dead season):
Because some don't accept the same theories as fact that others do, those who have a different viewpoint are painted as uneducated, backward, mentally deficient or ignorant.
That's ridiculous. I've been to college. Grew up in a college atmosphere (both parents are/were college professors) where I was taught to think, study and research. Was taught to be intelligent enough to change my views as I gathered more information. Was taught to look past the surface and try to see the true motivations for things. Taught to stick to what I know and learned regardless of what public opinion was, particularly if I'd done the research.
I've looked at the global warming/cooling/change issue and done so since the 70s. I've heard both sides. Ice heard the hysteria and seen essentially the same evidence interpreted in vastly different ways. I've also seen unbiased evidence that shows that the "change" idiots like Kerry freak out about is naturally occurring and has naturally occurred for millions of years. I watched people like him scream about a coming ice age because we were polluting the planet so we spent trillions and ceded control to the government to strangle the coal and timber industries. We cleaned it up so well that now we are all gonna burn!!
I looked at the evidence over a long span of time from a variety of sources and I made up my mind. Just because you choose to believe something different doesn't give you the intellectual high ground.
That I can sort of accept.
But when you drift off into categorizing everyone who believes in God and accepts the fact that the wonders of this earth are divinely inspired as snake-handling, Jesus-rode-a-dinosaur, high school drop out, foot washing, duck dynasty watching, tent revival shouting dimwit, that is patently offensive.
I may not be the smartest guy in this room, but I'm not some unwashed rube either. To claim that because I don't accept your "maybe there was lightning that hit some mud and accidentally formed DNA" hypothesis means I'm somehow less intelligent or less educated or less civilized as you is patently absurd.
And to further that by proposing that anyone with a tenth grade education most certainly believes as you do completely flies in the face of every shred of evidence that exists. Otherwise all the churches in the state would be abandoned.
I'm smart enough to recognize that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. That many religions share similar origin stories and values and codes of morality, so I'm not even talking just about Christianity.
You claim people like me are close minded. What you fail to recognize is that you are far more close minded than I because you refuse to consider the possibility of something you can't see or hear.
For what it's worth I was a raging liberal democrat who trusted nothing but what I thought I could prove scientifically when I was in my 20s. As I've gotten older, lived in this world, had children, suffered loss, developed my own work ethic, bought a house, paid taxes and watched the cycle of life all of that has changed. The only people I grew up with who remained liberal and democrat are those who inherited a family fortune or those who took government jobs. All of us who had to work our way through? We lean more conservative.
-
All I got from your rant is that you believe that your life experiences give you credibility to decide what science is right and what science is wrong. That's patently unscientific.
I don't think anyone truly believes they are intellectually superior than you. But you are acting like a brick wall when it comes to links to credible sources.
And again, no one has challenged the existence of God in this thread or any others related to this topic. There's been some sarcasm and finger pointing at the religious right who refuse to open their own minds to reconciling scientific discovery and religious texts, but as for saying that only God-believers are evolution/climate change refusers, I haven't seen that at all.
-
And again, no one has challenged the existence of God in this thread or any others related to this topic. There's been some sarcasm and finger pointing at the religious right who refuse to open their own minds to reconciling scientific discovery and religious texts, but as for saying that only God-believers are evolution/climate change refusers, I haven't seen that at all.
Or anything remotely political, unless believing in scientific principles is a partisan issue.
So the rant on taxes, work ethic and "liberal democrat thinking" is baffling to those of us staying on topic and not shifting the conversation to address straw men only alluded in some hallucinogenic Rorschach test that is being projected onto others.
-
All I got from your rant is that you believe that your life experiences give you credibility to decide what science is right and what science is wrong. That's patently unscientific.
I don't think anyone truly believes they are intellectually superior than you. But you are acting like a brick wall when it comes to links to credible sources.
And again, no one has challenged the existence of God in this thread or any others related to this topic. There's been some sarcasm and finger pointing at the religious right who refuse to open their own minds to reconciling scientific discovery and religious texts, but as for saying that only God-believers are evolution/climate change refusers, I haven't seen that at all.
1. Wasn't a "rant"
2. I'm smarter than a lot of people here. Life experience is part of that. But "smart" isn't alpha and omega.
3. I find little credibility in the "sources" and there is as much or more evidence to the contrary. Just because YOU choose to accept it doesn't make it so. I've been watching this same horse crap for longer than you've been alive.
4. Yes. Often in this thread I've seen anyone who rejects the so-called consensus branded as morons. You yourself claimed that anyone with any semblance of education embraced your theories. The only way that can be interpreted is that anyone who doesn't isn't as educated as you or the average 10th grader.
5. It's a consistent theme from some that if you believe in God you must be dim and lacking in sophistication.
I already invoked Hitler so why is this still continuing?
-
1. Wasn't a "rant"
2. I'm smarter than a lot of people here. Life experience is part of that. But "smart" isn't alpha and omega.
3. I find little credibility in the "sources" and there is as much or more evidence to the contrary. Just because YOU choose to accept it doesn't make it so. I've been watching this same horse crap for longer than you've been alive.
4. Yes. Often in this thread I've seen anyone who rejects the so-called consensus branded as morons. You yourself claimed that anyone with any semblance of education embraced your theories. The only way that can be interpreted is that anyone who doesn't isn't as educated as you or the average 10th grader.
5. It's a consistent theme from some that if you believe in God you must be dim and lacking in sophistication.
I already invoked Hitler so why is this still continuing?
This!
I gots me one a dem Aubren edmacations too.
I just didn't let the few libtard professors influence me. My hard working daddy taught me better!
-
This!
I gots me one a dem Aubren edmacations too.
I just didn't let the few libtard professors influence me. My hard working daddy taught me better!
Yeah! You gotta work to earn a lack of trust in science and education! None of those book-learnin' handouts! No matter how much I paid for an education, I wasn't letting SHIT in cause diddy tolt me you gotta EARN that ignorance. TEACHERS AND PROFESSORS DON'T KNOW SHIT! ROLL TIDE!
-
Yeah! You gotta work to earn a lack of trust in science and education! None of those book-learnin' handouts! No matter how much I paid for an education, I wasn't letting SHIT in cause diddy tolt me you gotta EARN that ignorance. TEACHERS AND PROFESSORS DON'T KNOW SHIT! ROLL TIDE!
You are not the brightest scholar are you? Plus, you haven't even lived long enough to see how education has changed over the years from teaching to forcing opinions. The THEORY of evolution is just ONE proposal of how life was created and evolved. That is how it was taught when I was in school. They even had a, GASP, Bible class too. Education used to be about learning. Now it is about indoctrination. Hell half of the teachers teaching the shit know better, but for fear of their jobs, they teach your bullshit in books written by people like you.
It used to be that we taught what was passed down as history, now it is REVISED history. Any scholar on the civil war would be able to point out the tremendous amount of propaganda that is being taught on that subject alone.
They spend more time today on tolerance of everyone BUT the mainstream that they get no teaching done.
And you would have us believe that we should trust educators? Are you out of your damn mind? Let me answer that. YES! But you don't even know it.
Go and discuss history with old people from different parts of the country and see how and what they were taught. Its not what you were taught. And no, its not better because they know more now. You and your generation are victims of the hippie generation. It really is sad to see.
And my daddy's generation still know what America should stand for. They were raised on right and wrong and the consequences of those actions. So when I was taught right and had some liberal panty waist poly sci almost professor trying to teach me from his mind and not from the textbook (both different), I raised hell and had it stopped. Your generation sucked it up as truth. Why would you not. Nobody taught you different.
Kaos is right, but your generation cannot see it. You are the first truly hippie educated group to come out of that liberal plan that started back in the late 60's. You just don't know it.
BTW. Evolution is just a theory and global warming is bullshit.
-
Yeah! You gotta work to earn a lack of trust in science and education! None of those book-learnin' handouts! No matter how much I paid for an education, I wasn't letting shoot in cause diddy tolt me you gotta EARN that ignorance. TEACHERS AND PROFESSORS DON'T KNOW shoot! ROLL TIDE!
This is truly sad. It's shameful actually.
I feel badly for you.
-
This is truly one of the best topics I've ever seen discussed on message forums.
-
This is truly one of the best topics I've ever seen discussed on message forums.
Sarcasmuch?
-
Or anything remotely political, unless believing in scientific principles is a partisan issue.
So the rant on taxes, work ethic and "liberal democrat thinking" is baffling to those of us staying on topic and not shifting the conversation to address straw men only alluded in some hallucinogenic Rorschach test that is being projected onto others.
And another thing about this?
Although you guys love to artificially inject my personal political opinions into every one of these conversations, and although you believe to have me pegged as a raging pinko-hippie...
BECAUSE I happen to share a lot of the same opinions as many of you guys on most issues regarding personal freedoms and economic principles? That's exactly why these conversations drive me insane. Bringing it back full circle to the post that lit off this gas fire. Maybe I don't get outraged that Coke commercials don't speak Amurican, or pine over the good ol' days when you could call black people the N-word with no repercussions. But there IS a lot of PC-bullshit run amok out there that IS worth griping about. I'm opposed to economic policies like raising the minimum wage, raising taxes, expanding social programs. I hate hippie bullshit like banning Big Gulps. I'm generally opposed to any infringements on the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I'm consistent in holding the entire Bill of Rights sacred, which isn't en vogue these days by either side. I'm on the right on all of these things.
What sparked this whole discussion is that the right is in danger of extinction BECAUSE they refuse to step out of the primordial ooze they don't believe in and fucking EVOLVE. SOMEONE needs to step up and challenge some of the bullshit I mentioned in the paragraph above. But when the only people doing so are the ones that think homosexuality is a genetic defect that needs to be cured? When they refuse to "believe" in foundational scientific principles that are consensus among the scientific community? When they spin their wheels trying to display the 10 Commandments on a courtroom wall after the 300th time they've been explained that it's not constitutional? When they don't want no brown people permeating our borders for fear of a future where whitey may not be the majority? Then of course no one takes anything else they have to say seriously. A senile homeless man in a Napoleon hat may have a nugget of wisdom or two buried in between rants about the end being nigh and the conversation he's having with the aliens in his head, but no one's sticking around to listen.
-
And another thing about this?
Although you guys love to artificially inject my personal political opinions into every one of these conversations, and although you believe to have me pegged as a raging pinko-hippie...
BECAUSE I happen to share a lot of the same opinions as many of you guys on most issues regarding personal freedoms and economic principles? That's exactly why these conversations drive me insane. Bringing it back full circle to the post that lit off this gas fire. Maybe I don't get outraged that Coke commercials don't speak Amurican, or pine over the good ol' days when you could call black people the N-word with no repercussions. But there IS a lot of PC-bullshoot run amok out there that IS worth griping about. I'm opposed to economic policies like raising the minimum wage, raising taxes, expanding social programs. I hate hippie bullshoot like banning Big Gulps. I'm generally opposed to any infringements on the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I'm consistent in holding the entire Bill of Rights sacred, which isn't in vogue these days by either side. I'm on the right on all of these things.
What sparked this whole discussion is that the right is in danger of extinction BECAUSE they refuse to step out of the primordial ooze they don't believe in and fudgeing EVOLVE. SOMEONE needs to step up and challenge some of the bullshoot I mentioned in the paragraph above. But when the only people doing so are the ones that think homosexuality is a genetic defect that needs to be cured? When they refuse to "believe" in foundational scientific principles that are consensus among the scientific community? When they spin their wheels trying to display the 10 Commandments on a courtroom wall after the 300th time they've been explained that it's not constitutional? When they don't want no brown people permeating our borders for fear of a future where whitey may not be the majority? Then of course no one takes anything else they have to say seriously. A senile homeless man in a Napoleon hat may have a nugget of wisdom or two buried in between rants about the end being nigh and the conversation he's having with the aliens in his head, but no one's sticking around to listen.
Why don't you just go ahead, get it over with and come out of the closet?
-
You claim to believe in the bill of rights, yet you subscribe to an obvious misinterpretation and fabrication of meaning surrounding the first one based on a letter from Jefferson to his constituents?
And none of the other stuff you bitched about can be proven or dis-proven.
You also misconstrue the immigration argument. But we get it; you don't get it yet.
One day you might. Or maybe the indoctrination of your generation is complete. It's not they they planned to turn you over night. A little at a time will do. Look at your statement. "I agree with you guys on almost everything except these few issues", which happen to be moralistic opinion issues.
I know. I now. Tinfoil and all that. But you guys never even attempt to see any other possibility.
You can go ahead and throw me into the Loon category with others you don't even know. I get it. It's part of the plan.
-
What sparked this whole discussion is that the right is in danger of extinction BECAUSE they refuse to step out of the primordial ooze they don't believe in and fudgeing EVOLVE. SOMEONE needs to step up and challenge some of the bullshoot I mentioned in the paragraph above. But when the only people doing so are the ones that think homosexuality is a genetic defect that needs to be cured? When they refuse to "believe" in foundational scientific principles that are consensus among the scientific community? When they spin their wheels trying to display the 10 Commandments on a courtroom wall after the 300th time they've been explained that it's not constitutional? When they don't want no brown people permeating our borders for fear of a future where whitey may not be the majority? Then of course no one takes anything else they have to say seriously. A senile homeless man in a Napoleon hat may have a nugget of wisdom or two buried in between rants about the end being nigh and the conversation he's having with the aliens in his head, but no one's sticking around to listen.
What sparked this whole discussion is that John Kerry is a saggy faced moron, spouting off about something he knows nothing whatsoever about.
You believe there is "global whatever." There's not. But it's your right to believe whatever you want. It's not your right to dump anyone who disagrees with you into the "uneducated, moron, dinosaur, religious nusto" party any more than it is ours (loosely) to brand you as a greenpeace dope smoking hippie fag for believing what you want.
You've made a few good arguments, but at the end of the day, after looking at 40 years of evidence (my lifetime essentially) and at the least biased records available I personally deem the climate cooling, warming change hysteria to be lunacy. "Scientific community" my ass. And I'm done with it.
For argument's sake if homosexuality is a genetic defect, shouldn't it be cured? It's one or the other. Genetic or choice. If it's one -- well.. -- and if it's the other.. .well...
-
You claim to believe in the bill of rights, yet you subscribe to an obvious misinterpretation and fabrication of meaning surrounding the first one based on a letter from Jefferson to his constituents?
Yeah, I "subscribe to an obvious misinterpretation". Me, the Surpreme Court, and everyone who ever studied the Constitution all "subscribe to an obvious misinterpretation." Alvin Holmes, DuWayne Bridges, Darrio Melton, James Buskey. Those guys are the great thinkers of our time. If only I could get it like you and they do.
Look at your statement. "I agree with you guys on almost everything except these few issues", which happen to be moralistic opinion issues.
What's "moralistic", as you say, about most of those issues is loving thy fellow man. Treating them as you would want to be treated and not begrudging them for being different than you. You know, the one Golden Rule that Jesus actually did say trumps all others and should be applied to the way you view the world?
-
Yeah, I "subscribe to an obvious misinterpretation". Me, the Surpreme Court, and everyone who ever studied the Constitution all "subscribe to an obvious misinterpretation." Alvin Holmes, DuWayne Bridges, Darrio Melton, James Buskey. Those guys are the great thinkers of our time. If only I could get it like you and they do.
What's "moralistic", as you say, about most of those issues is loving thy fellow man. Treating them as you would want to be treated and not begrudging them for being different than you. You know, the one Golden Rule that Jesus actually did say trumps all others and should be applied to the way you view the world?
"everyone who ever studied the constitution"? Really? There you go again...
The golden rule does not allow for acceptance of sin. You might want to get a little more context.
-
"everyone who ever studied the constitution"? Really? There you go again...
The golden rule does not allow for acceptance of sin. You might want to get a little more context.
More context-------> "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
-
More context-------> "Judge not, let ye be judged".
Once again you have bought the liberal lie. Pointing out sin is not judging!
-
Once again you have bought the liberal lie. Pointing out sin is not judging!
Maybe not, but going around pointing out the sins of others does make you a self-righteous asshole.
In God's eyes, a sin is a sin - there are no degrees of one being worse than another. So if being gay is a sin, and you being blasphemous is a sin, then you are no better than a gay guy if you say "Goddammit". So unless you are He who is without sin - and there was only one Jesus - then you = gay guy.
Your exact attitude is what turns so many people off or turns people away from organized religion - me in specific: People who have anointed themselves to be The God Squad and feel it is their moral duty to run around pointing out sin, which ironically enough is usually a sin that they themselves don't indulge in - all those others get overlooked. I am now of the opinion that as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord in our own way and leave the hatey mchatering to others. I will raise my children to not worry about what others do or say, and to do what they feel is loving, compassionate and kind, because it will be for God to judge all the fags and the heathens one day. And I think there will be a lot of self-righteous hypocrites right in line behind those fags who are in for a rude awakening and an eternity to think about it.
-
Maybe not, but going around pointing out the sins of others does make you a self-righteous asshole.
In God's eyes, a sin is a sin - there are no degrees of one being worse than another. So if being gay is a sin, and you being blasphemous is a sin, then you are no better than a gay guy if you say "Goddammit". So unless you are He who is without sin - and there was only one Jesus - then you = gay guy.
Your exact attitude is what turns so many people off or turns people away from organized religion - me in specific: People who have anointed themselves to be The God Squad and feel it is their moral duty to run around pointing out sin, which ironically enough is usually a sin that they themselves don't indulge in - all those others get overlooked. I am now of the opinion that as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord in our own way and leave the hatey mchatering to others. I will raise my children to not worry about what others do or say, and to do what they feel is loving, compassionate and kind, because it will be for God to judge all the fags and the heathens one day. And I think there will be a lot of self-righteous hypocrites right in line behind those fags who are in for a rude awakening and an eternity to think about it.
Okay....fag? Really?
-
Maybe not, but going around pointing out the sins of others does make you a self-righteous asshole.
In God's eyes, a sin is a sin - there are no degrees of one being worse than another. So if being gay is a sin, and you being blasphemous is a sin, then you are no better than a gay guy if you say "Goddammit". So unless you are He who is without sin - and there was only one Jesus - then you = gay guy.
Your exact attitude is what turns so many people off or turns people away from organized religion - me in specific: People who have anointed themselves to be The God Squad and feel it is their moral duty to run around pointing out sin, which ironically enough is usually a sin that they themselves don't indulge in - all those others get overlooked. I am now of the opinion that as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord in our own way and leave the hatey mchatering to others. I will raise my children to not worry about what others do or say, and to do what they feel is loving, compassionate and kind, because it will be for God to judge all the fags and the heathens one day. And I think there will be a lot of self-righteous hypocrites right in line behind those fags who are in for a rude awakening and an eternity to think about it.
You are correct. Neither sin is more egregious. And neither should be ignored.
But one does not have to run around pointing out sin to get blasted. In your mind, if we even disagree with the premise of gayness based on sin, we are like little children running around pointing. Not so.
I do not point it out, but will not back down when it is hefted upon society as an accepted lifestyle in the eyes of God ( he has addressed it as sin and therefore NOT acceptable). And if you truly believe the Bible, then it is still sin, just as any other. We are supposed to love each other all the same according to the Bible. Therefore if my brother is sinning, I have a duty to address it in a loving manner, just as he should me.
But in no way is that JUDGING. It is our duty to help each other stay accountable.
Your acceptance of sin is between you and God.
Many people try to manipulate the word to fit a lifestyle. But its pretty clear about sin. Sin is darkness and cannot be in the presence of light. And that is for all sin. And that is why he allows for repentance and forgiveness. But it has to be true repentance. Knowingly living in sin is something that each individual has to work out with God in his own way.
But sin is sin, whether or not it is pointed out by a monk or a self righteous asshole.
No more preaching by me. I am no preacher but I do know what has been deemed sin in the Bible. I can only go by that.
-
Hmmmm....
foxnewz. I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!! I also have no idea how to use the quote function to post stories, so I annoy the piss out of others. I like male genatalia in and around my mouth.
A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.
Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,†he said.
Even if the planet is warming up, Moore claimed it would not be calamitous for men, which he described as a “subtropical species.â€
Skeptics of manmade climate change say there is no evidence the Earth is warming. A UN report on the scientific data behind global warming released in September indicated that global surface temperatures have not increased for the past 15 years, but scientists who believe climate change due to man is occurring say it has merely paused because of several factors and will soon resume.
The 2,200-page new Technical Report attributes that to a combination of several factors, including natural variability, reduced heating from the sun and the ocean acting like a “heat sink†to suck up extra warmth in the atmosphere.
Moore said he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science.
“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,†he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.â€
-
No global warming for 17 years, 6 months (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/)