Ambassadar

Until the first tidal wave comes along... D'oh!

Basically it all boils down to you have a few choices of what might have happened and all require a degree of faith to believe since none can be proven or disproven at this point. I tried to bring those options into as narrowed down and simple a form as I could. What you asked though is basically the entire point of this thread. No one knows. It all boils down to what you place your faith in. A large part of my motivation was I was sick of creationists and non-creationists flaming each other about being idiots. There are highly intelligent rational individuals on both sides of the debate with logical reasons for what they believe and we all need to respect each other when we talk or debate things. Just because a person believes in God or believes in some sort of big bang or energy leak from another universe doesn't mean they are dumb. I can understand how someone could put their faith in either one. I personally choose to put my faith in a creator since to me that is the most rational choice in my opinion. Someone else may choose to put their faith in something else. That is their choice and I am not going to look down on them for that as long as they have thought things through and aren't blindly following someone else's agenda. I just want to provoke thought for everyone and have this be a thread where we can question and explore what we see as the different possibilities. :D

"I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny! You have come to fight as free men. And free man you are! What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?" "Two thousand against ten?" - the veteran shouted. "No! We will run - and live!" "Yes!" Wallace shouted back. "Fight and you may die. Run and you will live at least awhile. And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one cahnce, to come back here as young men and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they will never take our freedom!"

I agree with a lot of the smells already listed. I'll add a few more that haven't been mentioned yet. Another thing that smells great is cigar/pipe stores. I love the smell of fresh tobacco even though I don't smoke or dip. My girlfriend's hair... That smell outside if it is about to snow... The smell of football... the lockerroom, the pads, the grass, the dirt, the sweat... it just has this distinct smell when all mixed together. It's crazy the memories that come back when I get a whiff of that smell.

That's basically all I am saying is that at this point it is impossible to be sure one way or another what is really going on.

Tuesday: Chest, Tri's, legs, abs Thursday: Back, Biceps, Shoulders, Abs Usually one or two other days of assorted exercise like going on a hike or playing basketball or something...

Is NASA good enough for ya? http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm This article goes into a lot of detail about how we really don't know what is going on. It also provides ice core sample data. There's lots of good stuff in that article like this. I suggest reading it. The rooftop and asphalt road effect is called the Urban Heat Island(UHI). A lot of the sites I looked at blow it off as negligible but this Australian site makes some very good points. Basically it talks about how even in a town of a few hundred people there are UHI effects that mess up the data received from that town. As the town grows and gives it's temperature readings they will go up as population increases. This gives the appearance of wide scale warming because most towns grow over time. They said the US takes Data from towns with 10,000 people and that these have a lot bigger UHI effect that would totally mess up the data. http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/seozuhi.htm Also don't just look at the IPCC. They definitely aren't above politics. This is an entire article questioning motives of the IPCC. You might find it interesting. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-03-24/ipcc.htm Article on how we were being told global cooling was the next big scary thing 30 years ago and how when it really comes down to it we don't know one way or another. Good read. http:// http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 034077.cms Let me know if you want me to dig up more of this stuff. There is tons of it out there. Like I said before... If someone says they completely know what is going on they are full of it. At this point no one really knows.

warri0r: Like I said earlier I don't feel I or science has enough information at this point to say we KNOW what is going on. In this response I focus on man made possible causes first and then on natural possible causes. I'll try to get around to giving you actual papers and links later if you still want it. A lot of this is just common sense though. All focus on global warming appears to be on the gasses released from combustion. This would include cars, power plants, etc. That is a big problem I have with the way it is presented now. It seems waaay too agenda based and not enough real science on the issue. Why does no one talk about the thousands upon thousands of miles of new black asphalt roads that have been constructed in the past 100 years? Imagine how much heat that absorbs from the sun over the course of a year. Roads get so hot they will burn your feet in the summer. These roads replaced tree canopies that would absorb and convert the solar radiation thus keeping temperatures lower. Think about all the millions and probably billions of houses and buildings built in the past 100 years. A large number of these have black or dark colored roofs. Imagine how much heat is absorbed from that. Why no talk on this? Ever noticed on a cold night if you are out in the country it is literally about a 10 degree difference than if you drive into a city on the same night? A large part of that is heat retention of all the black roofs and roads as well as waste heat from houses. Don't you find it funny how one volcano can put out about all the CO2 that humans have in our history? The Earth has functioned well for thousands of years with volcanos going off all the time. Why would a little bit more gas in the air all of a sudden destroy the Earth's climate? The Earth has shown it can compensate for these things with the way it does with volcanos. Do you believe that temperature stays constant and climates stay the same without human interference? What ended the last ice age? Why did the Earth warm up then? How do we not know it isn't a natural occurance? It's not like we have a long history of data about the Earth's climate and causes for weather shifts. Do you think our scientists know enough or have enough data at this point to rule this out? Why does it seem like anyone that raises this option is attacked vehemently? Did you know as recently as 1975 I believe it was Newsweek(might be wrong but I think it was them) was running an article on global cooling?

I understand what you are saying Warrior but all I am focusing on in this post is the possibility of God. For this topic it isn't as much concerned with who is that supernatural being but rather if it is plausible he exists which I feel according to the knowledge I have it is plausible. Keep in mind I am not ramming that down people's throats... merely saying that is my opinion. Once again my entire point rests on these three options of how the Universe exists. 1. There must be an infinite number of universes that bumped into each other because if there is a set number of universes even if it is billions of them eventually all that energy in all those universes would stabilize at it's lowest form and because of that our universe couldn't exist as it does now. (Anyone saying anything about other universes or energy leaking in from somewhere else would fall into this catagory) 2. The scientific Laws of Thermodynamics that can be reproduced 100% of the time in any situation aren't true and we should ditch them in favor of a mere theory that cannot be proven. (Any theory that says energy can be created from nothing would fall into this category) 3. Somewhere, somehow, sometime, there was a God or creator that created everything. (Besides those two options above this is all I see left as the alternative... give me more options if you can think of any)

Why are scientists trying to figure it out then? Please provide me with data that says energy can come from nothing. If this is not the case then the whole quantum thing is irrelevant to the conversation. Link me to it. The big bang was not a creation of new energy. The theory states that it was a rapid expansion of pre-existing energy. Thus the fact remains if energy cannot be created from nothing the pre-big bang energy would have already been an infinite number of years old(assuming outside energy wasn't leaking into the situation from another universe which I addressed in my original post). If it cycled then every time it cycled it would never quite reach it's prior potential from the previous cycle. It would be like a clock pendulum swinging slightly less each time and eventually stopping. The only way this isn't the case is if energy can be created from nothing or there is an energy leak in the system which I addressed. I cut and pasted my definition from the Webster Dictionary. I think it was entry number six on the list. Please go into more detail. Are you making the claim that energy is created from nothing here? Just wanting clarification on what exactly you are getting at with this. Thanks. I'm glad you acknowledge God creating the Universe as a legitimate reasonable explanation then. That is the point I was getting at with this. I stated it might not be a closed system in my examples. I also stated that if the 2nd Law could be overturned that would be an option. Those two things take care of the suggestions you just made of things I missed. As long as there isn't an infinite energy source doing the leaking into our universe the second law would hold true because that energy source would run out eventually. If there is an infinite energy source that means either the second law doesn't hold true in some circumstances which was one of my options or else there already is an infinite amount of energy out there somehow. (only way how I could see this could be is with an infinite amount of multiple dimensions) which was another choice of mine. I fail to see the logic hole. Lemme know if I missed something. I left my three final options pretty broad so they could cover just about every finer point I could think up. And Tigra I didn't want you to cover any of it since we aren't talking about the Earth or evolution in the first place. :P

I don't understand the need to fundamentally change a word that has existed since humanity can record. Marriage... marriage is a union usually in a religious context between a man and a woman. That is what it has always been for thousands of years. Saying homosexuals can be married is fundamentally going against the meaning of the word. Why don't they just make up their own word for whatever it is they are doing? It is just stupid to try to change a word to mean something it isn't. Calling it "homosexual marriage" is like describing a blue crayon as the color pink. The fundamental meanings of the words are at odds so it just doesn't make sense.

Like this is the type stuff I am talking about. Implication: I believe in global warming but there are these stupid people out there that don't believe in it. That's just a form of peer pressure. The whole peer pressure everyone into believing global warming at the professional and scientific level is disturbing to me.

1. I'm not completely sure where I stand on the issue yet. There is not enough proof one way or another at this point for me to claim I KNOW the answer. If you want me to play Devil's advocate to your position I can if you want. 2. Can it be proven global warming is 100% caused by man? Can it be proven that global warming is 100% not a chance of a cyclical climate on Earth or other factors? Remember, Galileo was the one man standing in the face of accepted science at one point as well... Remember at one point Galileo had also not gathered all his data to show his position was correct so what you said about this guy would apply to Galileo as well. Just because everyone believes something that isn't proven doesn't make it true.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html This kind of shut up the other side tactics really bothers me. It's like no one wants to have honest open debate. If you disagree you are demonized or in this guy's case... fired due to politics.

Angry rhetoric + threats + developing nukes = A red flag you might not want to ignore. Remember... Everyone thought Al Quaida was just angry rhetoric also before 9/11. I don't understand how telling me the Ayatollah has more power is supposed to make me feel better... When replying to a question asking if Iran was supplying munitions to Iraqi insurgents the President of Iran changed the subject. If Iran wasn't involved in anything like that then why wouldn't he just say so instead of dodging the question? Hmm... and maybe that is one reason they are developing nukes so they can actually back up their threats then. Let's see... they are already supporting indirectly the attack on Israel through Hezbollah. Their hands are tied at the moment in doing more because if they did their regular army couldn't repel an invasion. If they had nukes on the other hand.... I'm tired of typing for now. Maybe I'll get around to responding to the rest of it later. Why do they need the centrifuges they which are only used for enriching uranium?

Get the butane gas tank out from under the gas grill. Lay it out in the yard in an area I think the Zombies would get crowded at trying to get me. Get on my roof and peek over the edge and shoot the gas tank with gun. BOOM!. Lot's of dead zombies for only one bullet.

Darn it Tigra... you beat me to that post lol. I was thinking of typing same thing when I read the original post.

Another problem comes when one side has rationalized destruction and puts plans into effect to accomplish this but the other side is still stuck on "lets try to talk things out and see your side of things mode." Then the second side is going to have to learn the hard way to come to a conclusion fast or face destruction.

I agree... flattening the Pentagon would be more of annoyance then a serious detriment to the functioning of the military. I know the first gulf war was run out of Tampa and there are also some bases in Colorado that do a lot of higher lvl planning I think.(not quite as sure on that second one) A big strength of the US military vs a military like Iraq's is that if you chop off the head of the US military it still functions properly and loses little effectiveness. If you chop off the head of a dictator's army it is dead meat because every one becomes paralyzed without orders from higher up. As to the second part I disagree. The US is pretty strong against conventional methods. The way we are really vulnerable right now is to a massive surprise sneak attack through unconventional means. Things like nuclear ballistic missile submarine launch, smuggled in nukes into many US cities all detonated at once, Electro Magnetic Pulse nuke... that type stuff could hurt us bad. Yeah we would get our licks in and probably crush whoever did it but the topic is on if we could be hurt. If they were crazy enough they could hurt us for sure.

I didn't realize it got locked. That is a bummer. You did a very good job of introducing that thread but it turned into a runaway train. I stayed away from it because it just got too ugly. I'm trying to avoid that fate for this thread so we can have some intelligent banter on topics instead of opinions and the only way I know how to do that is to stay on this one topic. I'm still learning more about the area of quantum physics that assassin_696 brought up. The reason I am holding off on responding to his comment is I want to make sure I know my stuff to avoid making a false comment about it.

Fair enough... So let's look at what has happened in Sweden starting in the early 90's when those children that were born and didn't get spanked would be getting to the age of committing crimes. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/266umtwb.asp http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1873 Why the huge [bleep]e in crime in the last 20 years?

Locke, Tigra, Warrior... there is a thread on evolution. If ya'll want to talk that go there for reasons I describe below plus the fact we will explode the topic into something so large we will get nowhere in our discussion on origins of the universe. Now let the fun begin. :P Did you just get annoyed at me for dodging questions after you started your whole rant off dodging my question? I'm sorry but that is kinda funny. :D I was told this thread would be locked if it became an evolution thread. In fact it did get locked until I clarified that we would not talk about that. Don't blame me. I can't help that. Just check the first page and you will see the moderator that said they went back and unlocked it after I clarified that it would not be about evolution. Woo Woo. I is just an ignoooramus thut tinks cyanse is jus wut dem dere heathens beeleeve. Is buuks those thingies with dem squigglez? I mean come on... Do you honestly think I am some ignorant person with no brain and no education? Secondly what is with all the personal attacks? It is coming across as you are incapable of making a post without personally attacking me in some way. That isn't something you want to be doing in a debate. It adds nothing while creating all kinds of problems that get your position nowhere. If my ideas are so wrong then prove it with facts. If you make my ideas look ridiculous then you make me look ridiculous and then it spares you the trouble of calling me names.

I have noticed a lot of us in western culture have a tendency to look at people in places like the Sudan as these helpless Africans that need us to come take care of them and that they are so different than we are. I find myself wishing them well while in doing so not respecting them as equals sometimes. It is an easy trap to fall into with the way our media portrays the continent of Africa. Kinda like they are children that we the west needs to make sure we take care of. Those people in the Sudan are not that different than us. They work. They have families. They have dreams and hopes and desires like us. They care and love and plan the same as we do. When I ask myself if I was in that situation what would I do or what would I think it helps me analyze the situation a lot better. If I was in the Sudan and I had a family and children I would want their safety to be first on my priority list. If I knew people were out to exterminate me and people like me then I would be doing anything possible to obtain means to protect myself. That means I would want guns. I would also want everyone like me that just wanted to live their lives to have guns as well so they could defend themselves. Then I would organize into armed groups for each neighborhood so that if our neighborhood was attacked by a group of killers we could band together and protect our families. Parents have a responsibility to protect their children. Men have a responsibility to protect their wife. Why deny a person the right to a gun if having that gun would allow them to live up to their responsibility and prevent more death? I can guarantee you that a death squad would think twice about attacking a town that was bristling with AK-47's when there was an undefended town down the road they could attack instead. Once again this would be what I would want and I only see it as being fair to give Sudanese people the same thing I would want for myself. For people saying they don't think giving guns to the victims is the answer... If you were in the Sudan and had a family would you want a gun to protect yourself?

I agree with you. I know the reason you see more defense of Christianity is because it is more of a personal question and most of the people stepping in to answer it are Christians so they can only say how that question relates to their experience with Christianity. Feel free to enlighten us to some Jewish perspective on things. :wink:

These are some tough questions you are asking but I will do my best to field them. God is the definition of Holy which is the complete opposite of sin. Can God sin? When he came in human form to us as Jesus I believe he opened himself to our weaknesses so that he could become the perfect sacrifice for our sin in the end. Since he didn't succumb to sin he was about to fulfill being the pure sinless sacrifice that was needed to pay for our sin. Someone might differ with me on this but at this time with what I know this is how I feel about the issue. You would have to ask him. I don't know. I can tell you what I think might be true but it is merely speculation on my part. I get the impression God didn't want a bunch of little robots to control. He gave us the ability to make choices and the ability to choose if we were going to love him or not. That makes that love that much more special since it isn't dictated at the point of a sword. If you think there shouldn't be the possibility of sinning then you would also be saying you wished you were a brainless little robot that did exactly what God wanted you to do. I don't think you would want that and I don't think he would want that. I guess I didn't explain what I was saying well enough. Sorry about that. What I meant is when we die and this human life of about 80 years is over then it is welcome to eternity. That would have been laughable if I had meant it the way it appeared to you. heh I think insane answered this pretty sufficiently.