Posted on 07/11/2007 3:40:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
Yes, but I observe that the temperature rises when a forest is replaced by a parking lot...and that we're pouring tons of garbage into the atmosphere every hour. It would be miraculous if that turned out to be good for us, as if eating raw sewage turned out to be a cure for cancer.
You were never in the game, you just talked to yourself.
Thanks for that link. This guy thinks Albore is the smartest person in the world. He also thinks Albore should be the president - one of those “The 2000 election was stolen” kids.
From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863983/posts :
“This should settle the debate,” said Mike Lockwood from the UK’s Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
Thank you. And your unquestioning faith lies where?
My chickens don't seem to have a high rate of cancer. Just might be something to that. Another assertion shot to He!!?
Please, When you and the Man Made Gore-Bull Warming crowd, zip up, let the rest of us know. I'm tired of a wet neck.
...and he's not saying that no one should question his data, noone should attempt to repeat his experiments. Rather, that he believes they are eminently replicable...and that no other reasonable interpretations are possible.
He doesn't realize the power of "unreasonable" interpretations when economic interests are at stake, when ideology is questioned.
The sun also has a magnetic field, which helps to deflect cosmic rays coming from outside the solar system. See this page on Solar magnetic field and cosmic rays
You feed your chickens raw sewage? Do you then eat them...or sell them for others to eat?
Maybe we can send algore there.
But no reporter would ever ask this question. It would only occur to a person with critical thinking skills.
Add a "most scientists" to the comment (sorry to step on toes).
“..And your unquestioning faith lies where?” ~ liberallarry
Dawkins also asks stupid questions.
“... If (Dawkins) should ask, “what, don’t you _believe in_ evolution?,” my response would be, “what, don’t you _know about_ God? You’re kidding, right?”
And if he says, “but God is not great,” I would ask, “tell me what you know about God. No, not about what other people say or do. Tell me what you _personally_ know.” To which, if he were honest, he would have to respond, “oh, nothing.”
That being the case, he would be compelled to change the title of his book from “God is Not Great” to “I Know Nothing” — or perhaps “I Am Nothing,” which is what a human being unarguably is in any materialistic paradigm.
To be completely accurate, the materialists must affirm that “I Am Nothing, and So are You,” for in the end, atheism is nihilism, and a nihilist is just an atheist with the courage of his absence of convictions: there is no truth and everything is permitted. ..
“...there is no possible metaphysical grounds for something wholly random, transient and accidental to know the Immutable. Or, if it can know the Immutable, then we must revise our assessment of the transience of this entity, for there is something absolute about it, something which mysteriously touches the eternal, something which cannot be surpassed. In reality, there can be no species above or beyond the human being. It is inconceivable. We are evolutions’s end.
“....Of course there is continuity between animals and human beings, just as there is continuity between matter and life (or humans and God, for that matter).
Nevertheless, there is also a radical ontological discontinuity between matter and life, something “present” in life that could never be seen in its constituent parts.
Naturally, being that we are alive and conscious, we are privileged to bear witness to countless fascinating spiritual hints and clues embedded in, and radiating through, matter, which “looks” at us with its outward forms of inexplicable beauty and “speaks” to us with its extraordinary inner mathematical elegance. But to suggest that this means that matter is just as spiritual as the divine consciousness that contemplates it is basically stupid, just a sort of exalted flatland Spinozean pantheism that is superficially appealing to a certain kind of middlebrow intellect, but ultimately blind to the true hierarchy of being.
In the paradigm of natural selection there can be no absolutes, no end states, no final accomplishments. Everything is a work in progress, minus the progress.
Thus, the inability to explain how natural selection has produced the perfection of the human archetype, something which is an absolute end and cannot be surpassed. Anyone who looks into the eyes of his child realizes this.
Yes, it is hypothetically possible — no, inevitable — that natural selection will continue to tinker at the margins of this archetype, but this archetype cannot surpass itself any more than perfect beauty or absolute truth can surpass itself.
This is what it means to say that human beings are in the image of their creator: that they are in their own way absolute, only in reflected form — as above, so below. Thus, they are absolute, but only relatively so. This makes much, much more sense than the opposite — that we are really reflections of matter, or absolutely relative: as below, so above.
Despite the fact that this preposterously upside down metaphysic makes no sense at all — for how could relativity be absolute without immediately refuting itself? — it is what you must believe in order to be a self-consistent doctrinairre Darwinian.
Let’s be honest: either we are a random, transient, and therefore meaningless organization of molecules, or we descended from something which surpasses us.
Woe to the impoverished soul incapable of intuiting our source and ground in that which surpasses us.
And woer still to the beasts in human form who admit hierarchy but who substitute their own imaginary mind parasites for the reality of the One. ..” ~ Absolute Truth and False Absolutism http://tinyurl.com/2zmcu6
More, as per my tag line: http://tinyurl.com/2adnfb
Apparently you know less about chickens than Global Warming. By reading your posts, I didn't believe that was possible.
It's not a choice that a farmer has any part in making. Just like man has no part in Global Warming.
Science is uncomfortably dependent on politics. Researchers who produce results that make grant issuing agencies unhappy do not get further funding
He said, “This should settle the debate.”
There’s no question what he’s saying, and it ain’t what you’re saying he’s saying.
The evidence since the 1800's is that high life expectancy is strongly correlated to industrialised, modern societies - i.e. the very societies that "pour tons of garbage into the atmosphere".
Whereas the societies that live in relative peace with our gentle Mother Gaia (for instance the poor bastards in Swaziland) die off at age 33.
In the '50s I had a friend who ran a very large chicken "farm". He had a lot of control over what his chickens ate. It's also well-known that our meat supply can be easily contaminated by whatever our meat supply eats.
Do you deny any of that (try to understand my meaning before you reply)?
You’re welcome again. “kid” is a good term for the emotionally immature INGRATES of whatever age.
Those who live UNGRATEFUL lives are doomed to be unhappy for ever.
Are you telling me you believe our high life expectancy is due to eating industrial garbage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.