Messages posted by: UltimaCenturion

garato wrote:The planet earth is billions of light years away from the enter of the universe. This means that if there IS other life form closer to the center then they have advanced billions of years ahead of us. We as intelligent humans have only lived for oh.... im going to say 2009 years. (Ya know since the whole jeebus birth thing... bah) this means that compared to these EXTRAMLY advance creatures we haven’t even started yet. Let me write it out...

2009= two thousand nine years

100'000'00- 1 billion years

Actually, we've been around for 10,000 years, if the fossil record is any indication. And that's "Jesus." I am, in fact, Christian, and I would like you at least to have respect for someone whose made an awful lot more impact on the world than should be expected from someone of his status.

now imagine 1 billion multiplied by say.... (Keep in mind if its to close to the center then it couldn’t survive) 20 billion. We are nothing compared to that. Not to mention we don’t even know HOW big the universe is or what was here before it. So in the long run we have absolutely no way of telling how long other life has existed in it. Aliens have probably looked at us and said holy !@#$ captain turn the ship around these things are crazy :O. And honestly? I don’t blame them one bit. As some other person said in this post humans are crazy ignorant beings completely convinced of there on power in the galaxy.

I doubt aliens exist. Despite popular assumption that "there are a whole ton of stars, so there MUST be life out there," our life got quite a lot of lucky breaks.

Now don’t get me wrong. I for one think that we as a race have come along way since are dawn of brains.
But at the same time allot of other races got a major head start because they were closer to the center of the universe.

Of course. Brains "dawned" quite a while ago. Even most invertebrates have something resembling them. (Even worms.)

For science there is no way of seeing this with the Hubble telescope (the worlds strongest) because... well lets me explain...

We all know this. The Hubble Telescope (which actually, I'm not sure, is probably not the world's strongest anymore) can't even see the details of the surface of a star.

if we look at something 2 light years away we are not seeing it as it is now we are seeing it as it was 2 years ago. This is because time is carried by light. And it takes 2 years for the light of 2 light years away to reach us. Scientists have looked at things thousand millions of light years away. What they see is something that looks millions of years younger then it really is. This helps scientists see and study what are galaxy may have looked like million of years ago when we were weeee little single cells (cute right?)

What? Time is not "carried by light." Light takes time to reach us.
And actually, as far back as 530,000,000 years ago we had multicellular lifeforms. (Meaning by "millions of years ago," we were not weeee little cells. We were full-fledged cordates.)

however this also proves another fact that I may have overlooked in the beginning of this post. If this is the case and every direction we look looks younger then we have no way of telling WARE in the universe we are. Because everything around us looks younger then we could really assume WE are the center of the universe (sound like you heard it before? it was the theory the Greeks came up with. everything even the sun revolves around us... gee we were even cocky then) however we have proven this wrong with the light years.

We still are arrogant. Our arrogance has grown with the overthrow of Christianity, which at least gave something useful for us to concentrate our arrogance into (such as Capitalism, which subdues hunting instinct.) In fact, that we consider ourselves more humble because we are more scientifically advanced is laughable.

The only way we could see what other galaxy’s looks like in the here and now is to send something to that point. However there would be one problem. If we went there and looked at earth we would see earth as it was so in so time ago! The only way to change this... would be to go faster then light. It would defy time space everything. It could in fact cause a rip in the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe.... but it is possable.

By what theory?
Einstein's theory explained a lot, and was a crucial step in our understanding, but the theory of relativity has recently been discovered to be wrong. Its been replaced by "Quantum Mechanics."

Everything in the universe is composed of stardust. Everything. You me trees birds rocks everything. These different peaces are called elements. Elements are the building blocks of matter. There are close to 60 different types (not including man made) elements are different structures of atoms and neutrons. (Such as water being a atom with 2 neutrons or helium being an atom with three neutrons) light is just atoms no neutrons. So in effect if water can move people why not light? It’s as logical as you can get really...

Wrong. Normal atoms are "composed" of "stardust" (or rather, are "stardust.") Water is also not an atom. It is a molecule, meaning it is made from multiple atoms bonded together. And helium has two protons, and a varying amount of neutrons. In fact, atoms are not classified by neutron composition. Light is not atoms. You MUST be confusing it with cosmic radiation, which is composed of a hydrogen ion (an ion being an atom with an amount of electrons disproportionate to its protons) accelerated to near-light speed. (Matter can move as close to light speed as it wants, just not at the same speed or beyond.) When classifying an atom by its number of neutrons, we classify them as "isotopes" rather than elements, which are classified by proton number. And, going back to ions, they are classified by there electron number. (H+ would be what cosmic radiation is composed of, yet H+ does not mean you are talking about cosmic radiation. H+ is a common ion given off by the sun (along with light) and is utilized in basic cellular metabolism, meaning it is quite common in living organisms, and is used to transport energy.)
Light can move people because it has energy. Yet light that can move a space ship is going to be moving your atoms into a fried batch of scrambled eggs. If you are talking about the "solar sail" idea, that can get spaceships moving very fast, yet not fast enough to move out of the heliopause into interstellar space at a fast enough rate for a human being to survive the trip.

but it would be extremely dangerous to make. If a hole were to rip in a ship with light speed it would cause the person inside to have there molecules completely collapse. however the molacules would be fine. only the protons would collide. (thanks to the person who made this apparent on the forume (thumbs up)

Erm...molecules don't collapse---exactly. I mean, proteins (macromolecules also known as "polypeptides") can be folded and collapsed and expanded in varying different ways depending on their structure. (The least complicated one known is made of about 60 amino acids, and amino acids are very complicated---made of a sugar (that's about...12 atoms there, (that's a rough guess)) a peptide (4 atoms, I think) and a nitrogenous base, (varies.) That's well over 16*60 atoms. WELL over. That's a lot.)

so I guess we are still faced with the question... are there other life forms out there? Would they share their wisdom with us? Or would it be us sharing are wisdom with them? No one can really say... but in this big dark place we call the universe.... well I cant see us being alone....

Interesting. The natural instinct to reach out to a higher force (the basic definition of a god) is being funneled into looking for something purely speculative. Are any of you here SURE you aren't superstitious? Is science truly always the opposite of superstition? Or is superstition anything one uses to justify oneself?

RegularSpode wrote:So,people,what do you think about Area 51?

Here is my opinion:

Well,I for one,consider it a fact that the USA uses it for researching new technology.Why else would it be that it's a restricted area?I don't think there are any aliens or flying saucers there at all.They just want to prevent people from knowing what they are researching.Well, if you think I'm wrong,correct me,but I think I stand correct as far as Area 51 goes.

Comment people

Look up, I kid you not, "Bikini Atoll" on Google Earth. Zoom in as far as you can go. You can't zoom in very far, but enough to see a big circle cut out of the side of one of the islands there. That is the remains of a nuclear explosion. You know why you can't zoom in very far? Because Google Earth has been prohibited, by the government, from showing too much of what nuclear explosions are capable of. Little known fact: nuclear explosions are censored by the government.

So what?

Government was a bad idea in the first place. But speculating on what government is actually doing is a waste of time. YOU have the power to vote those freaks into office, so correct me if I'm wrong, YOU have the right to kick them out of office. End of discussion.

As for Area 51, probably a nuclear explosion. Look it up on Google Earth. Actually, it may be some old radioactive substance processing plant or an old shut down bio weapons facility that the government doesn't want any shady individuals to get their hands on. Or maybe some sort of military testing facility. They probably just test new weaponry there.

sfw12345 wrote:Perfection, schmerfection. Genetically speaking, our differences are what define us. And of course, beacuase of these small differences is the endless combinations of four little letters, evolution is possible.... but that's not what we're talking about.

If parents want their little (insert name of child here) to look exactly how they want them to and if there's some company out there willing to do that for them, good for them. They can do what they want.

However, when the government gets involved, we're going too far. The government should have no say in the affairs of human reproduction. (Unless, say, a method used was found to promote disease or be possibly harmful, etc

So screw perfection, go uh... er- "uniqueness!"

"Oh, isn't my baby cute? I made sure its eyes match with my purse!"

Pretty soon, people will be abandoning babies because they got a new purse.

Of COURSE government involvement is bad. That's because government is exactly what socialists think Capitalists are---a thief. Government ultimately is merely the culmination of what any human venture is the culmination of---power. Look up the definition of "budget," (something which, in its very mathematical nature, exists merely to grow.)

Yes it should, but not for eugenics. Not everyone is fit to be a parent. So many things are regulated, yet the most important thing, the creation and shaping of another human being, it left in the hands of anyone. I am by all means not suggesting forced abortion, but I think there needs to be better education in the way of parenting for all. Children that are poorly raised can grow up to be murderers, robbers, rapists, or on a lesser note, that guy or girl that uses you and breaks your heart.

So...life is about merit?
Your argument falls to pieces with one little fact, artfully phrased by Mark Twain:

If heaven were about merit, you would stay out, and your dog would go in.

I really hope I accurately quoted that.
But seriously, whether or not a human is genetically predisposed to murder, rob, rape, or "break your heart" (calling that a lesser note is quite an understatement) doesn't matter. Because they will be, being human, genetically predisposed to be redeemed.

One sin does not justify another. Just because someone murdered another does not mean you have the right to murder them as well.
You should seriously see the Death Note movies. (Not the anime or the manga, but the ones filmed with real people.)

And what in the world is a transhumanist? Someone who likes the idea of forcibly moving people? Honestly, that concept was just another failed, stupid idea that was birthed in the throes of bad science. I don't ever want to here that stupid term for the rest of my life. Humans may be awful scum, but you don't have the right to do anything about it.

Ultimately, there is only one and can only be one perfect thing: God. Eugenics tries to usurp God and his power. Luckily, God has no need to raise a finger against that Tower of Babble: It collapses under its own tyrannical, arrogant weight.

Haxorzunited14 wrote:Yeah i actually argue with them to get them to leave, personally in the election i think we chose the lesser of 2 evils but i won't get started on politics

Well, we certainly got a bad choice with those two...but in my opinion, both of the candidates were WAY too far left.
But I won't get started on politics, either.

As for the whole "evolution vs. creationism," I think the real problem is both sides agree on a fundamental principle that I find there is no logical foundation for. Really, its a concept you can trace back to the very beginnings of Nihilism and people such as Jack London and Nietzsche who have, quite literally, given evolution a bad name. 1) Evolution is an AWFUL name. "Reformationism" would have been much better, but us Christians had already taken it (and given it to something not very reformative.) After all, evolution really isn't merely a wheel spinning, its not really very slow, and its not steady, either. Think about it in terms of synergy vs. entropy: Entropic forces, such as erosion, take a long time and steadily chip away. Yet synergistic forces, such as the replacement of an old fence post, are generally quick and sudden. Evolution is much the same: mutations are spontaneous events, new species can appear in a year, behavior changes and adapts quickly, and life is sudden and overbearing...yet death and age happen slowly, not "evolution." 2) Both sides think Evolution is grounds for immorality. Catchy slogans made by fools who pioneered the science of it yet didn't even catch a glimpse of the underlying principles caught mainstream culture's imagination, fortifying failed and outdated mental models that bear little resemblance to life. For example, life is NOT about reproduction, reproduction is about life. Only organisms on the bottom of the food chain have lots of sex. I would say with much certainty that sexual perversion means not just defacement of the very concept of sex, but the complete annihilation of all meaning behind it. (In fact, sexually perverted people not only lack children, but do there best not to have any.) Organisms with more complicated (practically (yet not grammatically or mathematically) the definition of "synergy") systems generally mate for life. And evolution doesn't select for the "fittest" in the long term, only the short term. An organism chosen for its ability to utilize a niche will, with almost 100% chance, go extinct, replaced by more generalized organisms with weaker ability to utilize resources, yet more ability to switch what resources it utilizes. (If you are wondering, we are sort of the former. Yet we have an enormous advantage (an advantage which is, to be cliche, what makes us human) over all other life: rather than making ourselves more flexible to fit the environment, we make the environment more flexible to fit us. And that is the ultimate climax of synergy...if there even is one. "Synergy," i.e. Reformation, is a thing of leaps and bounds, and we humans have a double edged sword in our hands given to us by evolution, and by being given to us by evolution, given to us by God, the arbiter of reformation, (being, after all, the ultimate Creator, who creates both the art and the medium it is made of,) that can allow us to face any direction, and thus leap in any direction--whether to safety, or to Hell.

Man, everyone probably just read that thinking "this guy is nothing but a windbag."

Sorry, people, I'm no good at being poetic. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Haxorzunited14 wrote:
Its a game, your computer probably sux the graphix are actually pretty good if your computer is from the 21st century

Actually, I was referring to the disgusting, clashing colors and the the Nickelodeon feel.
I do, in fact, think the graphics are a tremendous advance over conventional graphics. I don't think Maxis used them to their full potential. Actually, I think Maxis used them to create a monster.

Taupo wrote:You guys sound like a couple of three year olds.

Actually, you are completely correct. I'm a little tired today, because of the Fourth of July.

-Typing 'HAHAHAHA' at the beginning of every point does NOT strengthen your arguement.

It helps relieve my tension.

-This is NOT a religious debate, nor is it a debate on abortion. Also, nobodies trying to secretly convert you to socialism, nor is anyone stealing all your money. Don't beleive everything the television says.

I DON'T believe what the television says. If I did, I would think that socialism is good. (And no one is trying to secretly convert me. Most of them are quite open about it. And they've already succeeded in stealing my money.)

-If Venus had water it'd be hotter, because water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas. 'Stagnant lid tectonics' are not responsible for Venus being 300 degrees hotter than it should be either.

1) Water vapor's "greenhouse properties" depend on its altitude and concentration.

-CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas, although it's power is often exaggerated. If you want sources, just search it yourself on Google. 99% of sites will agree it's a greenhouse gas.

The internet is not the source of all wisdom. Pointing to it is merely an Ad Populam fallacy.
As for CO[size=7]2 's greenhouse properties, they are by no means significant enough to overpower any other climate changing force, and I doubt its properties aren't significantly altered by altitude.

-Global temperatures are not as low as 1900. They have fallen slightly recently but not that much.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3400

ever heard of smog? blocks the sun's radiation cooling the area, on a larger scale the planet, i never mentioned Venus in the first place.

1) You're grammar is confusing. On that second sentence, do you mean "smog blocks the sun's radiation, cooling the area"? Or "smog blocks the sun's radiation that is cooling the area?"
2) Smog is a function of socialist industry, which Global Warming alarmists absolutely love (unless they're Libertarians.) That, and it only shows greenhouse gas properties when above previously warmed asphalt (as practically anything above asphalt does.)
3) About Venus, that was a preemptive attack, since Global Warming alarmists only seem to be able to point to Venus when I point out how little Earthly evidence there is for CO2's supposedly powerful greenhouse properties.

k i proved all your points wrong, care for more religion?

Actually, you didn't. I've seen heard most of those points already. If they would've proved my points wrong, they would have
If you want to debate religion with me, go to the "Meaning of Life" thread. I don't want to debate religion here because this thread has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

right sure you keep believing that, while all those darn satanist scientists are too busy looking at their facts you have god to tell you

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

1) http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25367707-25717,00.html
2) I would like to point out that most of the scientists yakking on and on about climate change aren't climatologists. In fact, most climatologists disagree with global warming.

Of course, I know more about Satanism than you do. And trust me, Satanists aren't scientists.

k right and i remember a man cutting off a womans head and wearing it as a mask science bless america, he was a devout christian btw

Are you sure he wasn't a Muslim? Oh, of course not. A Muslim is a Liberal, and they NEVER kill people. (I think you need to look up Maoism.)

I really don't get why you keep attacking my religion to refute my posts, when they are

Oh, and Mosquitos only breed in warm areas, the kind they are refering to that is.

Well, if you want to know how misleading such events are, we just got a week of snow here at a rather low elevation. Where I live, we rarely even get an INCH of snow, and when we do, it barely lasts a day. But not only did we get a week of snow, we got plenty of bizarre snowstorms all the way well into Spring.

Ok next time you post something try to make it relate

You clearly don't know wht Uv radiation is, it can be blocked easily look at sunscreen lmao.

I'm well versed in the electromagnetic spectrum. I also happen to know what current global warming theory is, and that it is that CO2 traps INFRARED, no UV.

no it traps both, oh man the electromagnet spectrum my dad taught me that in third grade go try and impress someone a little less compitent

Anything made of matter is going to do SOMETHING to both.
And I'm not trying to impress someone.

And I'm getting incredibly tired of this ridiculous, tiring, illogical banter.

Abortion, while we are on the topic is pro choice, you have no right to say what a woman should do whether you are a female yourself or not.

I bloody have the right to save a life, you creep.
And yes, I do have such a right. I have the right to tell a woman not to point a bazooka in my direction, for example.
So that would be quite a fallacy you just committed there.

Of course, a majority of women who have abortions get them because they're family and/or boyfriend pressured them into it.

Are you aware that, here in the states, for every two children born successfully, one is brutally murdered?

And do you even know how abortions are done? There are two methods I know of: salination (pump the baby full of salt; which is a nasty way to go,) and ripped apart limb from limb (literally.)

Really my terrible spelling? hmm ok ill be wait for an example of that, and no u gave no source at all, but i may be mistaken im sure you wouldn't mind saying it again

You see the red dotted lines beneath your words? Those are what we call "misspelled." I myself have been misspelling plenty, (I misspelled misspelled, for example,) but at least I know what the word checker is for.
And yes, I did. Go back a few pages, and I most definitely did.

k well bush was the single worst president in all of history and Palin is mocked by Left and Right wing politicians. McCain is just rediculous. But please tell me how smart Palin is because im heating up some more Pwnsauce if your still hungry

1) Bush wasn't the worst. And however far down he was on the list, it doesn't matter. I'm not a Bush supporter. Of course, Bush was fairly left-field in his politics.
2) You don't know anything about politics. The president doesn't even really HAVE a job. Its the administration that "makes or breaks" the presidency. And some of his administration seems to be working for Obama right now.
3) I don't bloody care about Palin. My family wanted Romney to be president, since he was the ONLY Conservative running for the Republican nomination.
4) Shut up with the pwnsauce. You haven't "pawned" even one of my points.
5) Has your account been hacked? Earlier you seemed much smarter and much more mature.

And BACK ON TOPIC:

1) CO2 levels lag behind temperature levels. (look at the record.)
2) Venus is no proof of CO2's greenhouse abilities. It has stagnant lid tectonics and no water. (What a lack of water implies there is no telling, but what stagnant lid tectonics implies is very clear.)
3) Socialist countries generally produce a majority of CO[size=7]2 , which does not disprove global warming theory, but certainly makes most suggestions to "fix" the problem look absolutely ridiculous.

Just try and prove me wrong.

Dracosus(girl) wrote:Oh i have well not 400 times (i know you ment that in sarcasm) Spore has a food chain here
The plants produce fruit
Herbivoirse eat the fruit,
Carnivores eat theherbivores
then when the carnivores die the flies things decompose it.
There
And viva pinata does not really have a food chain.
And for Zoo Tycoon, you are right about one thing it would not be called Zoo Tycoon but it does contain realastic features and parts of an ecosystem

Sorry for the double post.

There is plenty more to a realistic biosphere than that. Things that don't show up at all. I don't recall having to wait for Cyanobacteria to grow to large enough numbers to drive a majority of bacteria into stagnant swamps (I don't recall swamps at ALL.) I don't recall having to develop an organelle system to hold on to iron. I don't recall having to lose my cell membrane so I can communicate with other cells of my kind. I don't recall having to create a multicellular layout plan. I don't recall developing different kinds of cells. I don't recall DISEASES, even. And mostly its the same scenery over and over again on any one planet! No deserts, no marshes, no estuaries, nada!

And don't get me started on the graphics.

Dracosus(girl) wrote:If you love science and have heard about the Ecosystem this poll is for you! :willowsaur:

Thumbs up or down?

:thumbsup: = you know what an Ecosystem is

:thumbsdown: = you should vote for Eco-what? in the poll...

An ecosystem in order, steps to get one:
Organisms: Eg. Animals
Speicies: Organsims that are physically the same and can reproduce with eachother
Population: A group of a speicies all over the same area
Community: Everything living together

I say they all relate to spore, you?

...Eco-what?

Actually, I happen to know more than enough about ecosystems. And Spore bears absolutely no resemblance to them.

In fact, I'm also aware that a lot of scientists are sketchy on your definition of "species." Because if that is so, then the nice old lady in the Nursery is her own distinct species.

So I guess I'll be pointing my thumb over my shoulder...towards the door.

Haxorzunited14 wrote:lmo the very first sentence "I diproved that weeks ago just speaks to your blunderous ignorance, its a green house gas.

I did disprove that. I actually looked through the some of the thread, and realized I did that a lot earlier. You could probably look for it, if you want to.

Lmao darn those Europeans with their murder rate of 1/4 of ours man they are so ignorant right UC?

Funny, but I heard a certain news story about how some old people were slipped a little extra medication to help them become organ donors.
The reason they have such a low murder rate is because their government does it for them.

Oh, and Mosquitos only breed in warm areas, the kind they are refering to that is.

Well, if you want to know how misleading such events are, we just got a week of snow here at a rather low elevation. Where I live, we rarely even get an INCH of snow, and when we do, it barely lasts a day. But not only did we get a week of snow, we got plenty of bizarre snowstorms all the way well into Spring.

You clearly don't know wht Uv radiation is, it can be blocked easily look at sunscreen lmao.

I'm well versed in the electromagnetic spectrum. I also happen to know what current global warming theory is, and that it is that CO2 traps INFRARED, no UV.

Oh and not just global warming, but if got created everything.... oh man he mad global warming omg that phsyco! Oh wait he doesn't exist i forgot

1) Global warming doesn't exist.
2) God created something that you couldn't hope to (unless you decided not to vote for abortion,) and that would be potential.
3) God really doesn't have much to do with this topic.

rofl we are not entering an ice age you alfa moron this is too easy at least do some research

Give me a reliable source. I gave you plenty, none of which you replied to.

Its not too easy for ME, and that's mainly because of you're terrible spelling.
And I'm puking at your Liberal views.

ChaosHarbinger wrote:Have you examined the timescale of those graphs? The spikes, whilst admittedly very steep, nonetheless occur over a period of several thousand years at the least, give or take a century. Our meteorological surveys have demonstrated a temperature increase in the last century alone that is more consistent with two or three millennia of the usual process.

Problem: What were they using to find out the temperature?
I hope not ground based measurements. Those are incredibly innacurate. Satellites are the most accurate way to go.

How come people STILL think CO2 causes warming? I COMPLETELY DISPROVED THAT NOT EVEN A WEEK AGO.

If volcano eruptions can cause climate change, I would think that it is possible that humans, over the 100 years or so that we've had factories, could also affect the climate the same way a volcano does. Consider 6.5 billion people worth of factories, transportation, and housing, all putting chemicals into the air. 6.5 billion people, over the whole globe. That's a lot of people.

1) I incredibly HATE the word "climate change." It does not require any thinking to spew it out. It doesn't hold ANY meaningful value as a term. And it sounds absolutely ridiculous.
2) Consider a sea full of centillions (that is, if I know my Latin roots well, an actual number) of algae cells pumping chemicals into the air.
3) On the subject of algae, they caused a bigger mass extinction than we could ever hope to. Not that it matters, since 80% of all known species in the fossil record have no living descendants. Without invasive organisms like us, of course, the only life there would be is thermophilic Archaeobacteria. (I hope I'm spelling that correctly.
4) Look up the term "Mueller's Ratchet." It will only prove my above point. Without selection (I will not use the word "natural," since that is an artificial distinction), POOF, there goes evolution. That is the end result of pacifistic, stagnant evolutionary theory espoused by environmentalists.

Have you examined the timescale of those graphs? The spikes, whilst admittedly very steep, nonetheless occur over a period of several thousand years at the least, give or take a century. Our meteorological surveys have demonstrated a temperature increase in the last century alone that is more consistent with two or three millennia of the usual process.

Have you noticed the resolution of the graph?

ok global warming is a natural cycle that takes place when CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere its just that the humans are increasing the speed in which it happens. However humans aren't causing it just assisting it in happening and infact after enough CO2 enters the atmosphere the earth goes into an ice age so no matter what happens we are going to be blaming ourselves for warming and in a couple hundred years rapid cooling

We've undergone rapid cooling already. In fact, the ice caps have GROWN. (See my previous posts here. I even provided some links.)

denying the Gospel according to Al Gore means you're an enviornment-hating, tree-killing, truth-denying, big bad Hummer-driving rich person - that hates Polar bears.

HAHAHAHA! That's awesome.
The funny thing is that some of those I am, some of those I want to be, and some of those I am by no means. (I do hate environmentalists, I'd LOVE to be a tree killer, as well as a Hummer driver, and I am pretty sure I am NOT denying truth, and that I am by no means, unlike Al Gore, a rich person. And I dislike Polar Bears. Those things are actually pretty dangerous. I by no means wish them harm, though, but I think I'd kill one if my life was at stake.)

Well it could very well go either way, nay sayers have tood me that it is just a natural warming period, or we are coming out of a mild ice age but to be honest that doesn't seem very compelling to me.

We're not exiting a mild ice age.
We're entering an ENORMOUS ice age. Or rather, HAVE entered it.
Apparently this one is going to be some tens or hundreds of thousands of years long.

evolution doesnt happen in a century

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And not too long ago I talked to an evolutionist (it wasn't a debate, since I'm evolutionist, too) who was talking about how scientists are SURPRISED at how fast evolution actually occurs.
I not only challenge that assertion, but I bet you that evolution can happen in a DECADE.

that is y religious extremists must not succeed, science must prosper fuly to ensure the absolute survival of our species

Help! I'm dying! I was laughing so hard I spewed out all my internal organs!
That is so completely ridiculous.
Its PAGAN extremists you need to worry about. Us conservatives, after all, are constantly being blamed (by environmentalists) for starting technological advancement. And of course, given that we support giving rewards for innovation (its called "capitalism"), I think that WITHOUT religious extremists, science WOULD BE DEAD IN THE WATER BECAUSE OF THOSE CREEPY, PAGAN HIPPIES.
Of course, its global warming theory that is THREATENING our technology, and threatening to send all civilized society back into tribal nature worship.

And that is where we stand together

Satan's kingdom cannot stand divided.

The point isnt that a rise in temperature isnt bad. A rise of just a few degrees could be terrible. The point is that an increase in CO2 is not causing and has never caused a rise in global temperature.

Quite correct. In fact, CO2 levels lag after temperature, meaning temperature effects CO2, not the other way around.

It's simple - we do not have much time to think of a way of surviving global warming IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not increased CO2 levels are influencing this rise. Ergo we must investigate every possibility, which includes or included that of increasing CO2 levels affecting global warming. If we are wrong, and let us say for the moment that we are, then we will investigate another possibility with equal fervour until we find the right one.

Problem: There isn't global warming. Global temperatures have dropped back since 2000 to the same levels they were in 1900, and are going to be hitting 1800s level if they keep going thus.

So perhaps the more useful thing to do, instead of only arguing against people who lack the appropriate scientific mindset to move on to something else when it seems apparent that they are wrong, would be to provide your own theory on why global warming is occurring at such a breakneck pace, or to withdraw from the debate entirely. Note that I do understand the difficulty of the latter option, but it remains the logical thing to suggest.

Read my posts earlier on this thread. The only reason I didn't win the debate was because my mom kicked me off the computer.

then you have lost you refuse to give valid points to support what you are saying, you cant argue what so ever so please dont try

I'd yell at you, but I think you are guilty of the exact same sin as mine: ARROGANCE.
Dragonvoid happened to be here much longer than you. He probably doesn't even NEED to make his count higher.

Of course, he wasn't contributing much. But you seem to be spewing the same junk to all the new people that I completely bashed not a few days earlier.

well it is very clear that greenhouse gases (methane CO2 CO2M etc) keep the sun's Uv radiation to keep our lovely blue planet cozey warm. bt at these massively increasing rates it could very well majorly increase the earths temperature, raising the sea level and making areas more prone to storms

I noticed how you didn't bring up my points.

Of course, I never even HEARD the theory that "greenhouse gases" keep in UV radiation. In fact, its incredibly difficult to hold UV radiation in the atmosphere.
In fact, I heard that it was INFRARED that greenhouse gases hold in.
Please keep your electromagnetic radiation concepts straight.

Chaos in not on the same scientific knowledgability level as i am

That's not arrogant at all.

Global Warming: The New Creationism vs. Evolution Thread!

Nothing close!

Yep, I think global warming is real. The fact that I got bitten by a mosquito in Edinburgh only strengthens my conviction in this regard...

Mosquitoes are everywhere. Even here in Oregon. They're not exactly the BEST indicator of "climate change."

it seems we both are. yes i completely agree with u. Americans are very ignorant about too many subjects that may one day destroy our society, simply filing in the blanks with "God did it" accomplishes nothing and may one day undermine all that science has accomplished

Yes, because plenty of people are trying to refute global warming by saying "God did it."

Though I am in agreement with him. In fact, I will say that not only are most Americans ignorant, but practically EVERYONE ON THE BLOODY PLANET is ignorant. Especially Europeans, who seem to have lost touch with all the wisdom built up slowly in their past, and have turned to things that have for centuries ravaged the world. (Take "socialism" for instance.) (Though I'm not sure I agree about "raising the cost of energy," since that would require government action, and government ruins everything. (Raising the cost of energy would merely make people produce their one. So then again, maybe raising the cost of energy WOULD be good for the economy---and it would lower people's expectations of government at the same time! Woohoo!)

And most of them* have diseases. Maybe the people up north got the right idea.

*(People who live in the tropics.)

Actually, a lot of diseases means, in metabolic terms, that they're doing pretty good. Of course, they'd be doing better, and they WOULDN'T have so many diseases, if not for socialism.
The main reason we LIVE in the high latitudes is because we don't have socialism (for the most part.)

I believe I have replied to everything worth replying to, and plenty that isn't, since I've been gone.

Haxorzunited14 wrote:

GeneralZCD wrote:I think that there really is no meaning to life, that you just do what you can do, (but what the crap do I know?)

i agree, but at least we base our opinions on what we deam as fact, not a book

What YOU deem as fact. Of course, people have been trying since Roman times (and earlier) to refute that book, and not a SINGLE point it makes has been refuted in the LEAST bit.
That's what I call a good source.

EDIT:

christians are ignorant of other religions and are intolerant, not to mention the countless murders of innocent people, christian believe that an omnipresent omniknowing superbeing created the universe in seven days. Ever heard of the Dark ages? Thanks Christians! But present day theists are better i suppose

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That is HILARIOUS.
Compare Christian aristocracy to ANY OTHER ARISTOCRACY. The only reason our current secular aristocracy is better is because of societal inertia.
And if you try to point to an Aristocracy-less philosophy, the only things you'll find yourself pointing to are small, bizarre little cults like Scientology.

Of course, the fact is is there is quite the distinction between the actual dark times of the dark ages and the actual Christian times of the dark ages. In the former, there WAS countless murders of innocent people, but

hehe i have been waiting your arrival, i deam fact as something that has been proven by scientific theory, What about you?

Rofl ok so all the time it contdradicts itself is just not real ok you got it

But im not going to go against Blackbird again so if you want some more pwnsauce pm me

I think scientific theory is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But I think it is a tool. A thing of pure practicality. I think you only end up with bizarre, senseless, vague nonsense when you try to replace religion with science, especially since you merely trade religious terms for scientific ones, but the terms ultimately mean the same, usually pagan nonsense. I prefer to stick to Christianity, because, for one thing, its very clear what it is saying. It also does not in the least bit try to explain the universe, which is where most religions go wrong. Actually, Christianity tries to explain us, and its review is not a very nice one. (The Bible doesn't exactly give us five out of five stars.) Another reason I suppose is because Christianity is grounded in both reality, as well as spirituality, where as generally all other philosophies I've seen, including the ones trying to mere ground themselves in reality, get lost in spirituality.
Then there is what G.K. Chesterton said, about how he noticed that everyone had contradictory complaints against Christianity, and that's what first set him on the path to Christianity.

tyrannolodon wrote:
How many people live in the poles and compare to how many live in the tropics.

Error: Cannot divide by zero.

Thanks for helping me, Tyrannolodon.

Haxorzunited14 wrote:far too complicated to show a real meaning

The real meaning of our life is quite simple. That He can not only take inanimate matter and breath life into it, but take a wicked and despicable thing and breath good into it. That He can reverse the natural state of something, and yet it is still the same thing.