@RedSky

I don't know how many times you want me to explain to you that it is not the absolute number of humans on Earth that signifies. In principle a human being costs no more than a large dog to support.* The number of advanced, high energy, modern lifestyles is the figure in question, which you want approximately to quintuple to around ten billion (as recently as fifty to sixty years ago there were fewer than one billion near-modern humans on Earth); that's using a high estimate of the number already at that level, a low estimate of the growth in their resource consumption over the relevant period and a low estimate of total population growth; that's your plan. Or alternatively, to share two billions worth of resources among ten, a burden civilisation cannot bear.

Corporations pollute only so far as we require them to. These are not cigar-puffing fat cats pouring oil on baby seals for the evulz; the fulfilment of the social function we assign them necessarily involves pollution. Expecting to control that effectively with tax incentives is childishly naive.


*Much less if we forego meat. Carnivorous pet ownership by criminals is a substantial driving factor in climate change.

True but the Atheist also holds the "belief" that there is not GOD. So which belief is more correct? For me to get into a biblical debate with you and the atheist sift community would be pointless. It's like the saying you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. So this makes me search the web for other ways to argue the point. Here is 1 of them.

Mathematically speaking evolution falls flat on it face..
Lifted from site: http://www.freewebs.com/proofofgod/whataretheodds.htm



Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing number 1 is 1 to 10.
Your chance of drawing 1 & 2 in succession is 1 in 100.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2 & 3 in succession would be one in a thousand.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3 & 4 in succession would be one in 10,000.

And so on, until your chance of drawing from number 1 to number 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve a Rubik’s cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Now, just imagine, if life as we know it had come into existence by a stroke of chance, how much time would it have taken? To quote the biophysicist, Frank Allen:

Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10^160, that is 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.

Proteins are made from long chains called amino-acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B. Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (10^48). It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.

But proteins, as chemicals, are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only the infinite mind of God could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.

Science, in attempt to calculate the age of the whole universe, has placed the figure at 50 billion years. Even such a prolonged duration is too short for the necessary proteinous molecule to have come into existence in a random fashion. When one applies the laws of chance to the probability of an event occurring in nature, such as the formation of a single protein molecule from the elements, even if we allow three billion years for the age of the Earth or more, there isn't enough time for the event to occur.

There are several ways in which the age of the Earth may be calculated from the point in time which at which it solidified. The best of all these methods is based on the physical changes in radioactive elements. Because of the steady emission or decay of their electric particles, they are gradually transformed into radio-inactive elements, the transformation of uranium into lead being of special interest to us. It has been established that this rate of transformation remains constant irrespective of extremely high temperatures or intense pressures. In this way we can calculate for how long the process of uranium disintegration has been at work beneath any given rock by examining the lead formed from it. And since uranium has existed beneath the layers of rock on the Earth's surface right from the time of its solidification, we can calculate from its disintegration rate the exact point in time the rock solidified.

In his book, Human Destiny, Le Comte Du nuoy has made an excellent, detailed analysis of this problem:

It is impossible because of the tremendous complexity of the question to lay down the basis for a calculation which would enable one to establish the probability of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond all imagination. It would that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 10^82 years to cover this distance. The volume is incomparably greater than that of the whole universe including the farthest galaxies, whose light takes only 2x10^6 (two million) years to reach us. In brief, we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nill. Indeed, if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second (5x10^14), which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave lengths comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 microns), we find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule (degree of dissymmetry 0.9) in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe (Earth) is about 10^243 billions of years (1 followed by 243 zeros)

But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for two billion years and that life appeared about one billion years ago, as soon as the Earth had cooled.

Life itself is not even in question but merely one of the substances which constitute living beings. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much greater figures to "explain" the appearance of a series of similar molecules, the improbability increasing considerably, as we have seen for each new molecule (compound probability), and for each series of identical throws.

If the probability of appearance of a living cell could be expressed mathematically the previous figures would seem negligible. The problem was deliberately simplified in order to increase the probabilities.

Events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions or shakings per second, need an almost-infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the Earth in order to have one chance, on an average to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.

It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life, its development and progressive evolution, and that, unless the foundations of modern science are overthrown, they are unexplainable.

We are faced by a hiatus in our knowledge. There is a gap between living and non-living matter which we have not been able to bridge.

The laws of chance cannot take into account or explain the fact that the properties of a cell are born out of the coordination of complexity and not out of the chaotic complexity of a mixture of gases. This transmissible, hereditary, continuous coordination entirely escapes our laws of chance.

Rare fluctuations do not explain qualitative facts; they only enable us to conceive that they are not impossible qualitatively.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

It would be impossible for chance to produce enough beneficial mutations—and just the right ones—to accomplish anything worthwhile.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^50. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Next up, how the United States government gives one billion dollars to Egypt to help finance the killing of gays and perpetuate the war on women.

Ok well I checked the maths on this, average height is about 5' 10" with a standard deviation of 2.8 inches (for Americans apparently). This guy is 21 inches taller than average which is 7.5 standard deviations above the norm.

So some humorous facts:
There is a 99.9999999997440% of being born less than 7 standard deviations from the norm.
That means there is one chance in seven hundred and eighty one billion of being born taller than 7' 5.6" (7 standard deviations above the norm). So basically, this guy breaks maths.

Feel free to correct my horrible calculations

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^garmachi:
It's been many years since I studied physics. What does the lowercase gamma in the bottom left represent?


Me to, I think the answer is in here, but eff if I can remember.
Edit: ok I think it is the "Lorentz factor" . 7.089 Lorentz factor is 0.990 ratio to the speed of light (or very very close)


Lorentz sounds like it to me too. There are only a few other choices it could be, but I don't see them really relating very well to the what's in the video (gamma brightness for the "video", or gamma radiation factor from nuclear sciences--both I highly doubt).

Lorentz transformations (which is linked above by @GeeSussFreeK ) would be the way you would calculate many of the dilation effects caused by relativistic effects traveling near the speed of light.

Traveling at the speed of light you would have a pinpoint in front and in back. The light up front, the size of a point and basically nothing behind, as it would be shifted to very low levels of radiation. If you're going at the speed of light you wouldn't be doing any calculations as time has stopped, but from your vantage point everything happens at the same speed. As you slow down though far from the speed of light, in less than a second you instantly see things change all around you depending on how long of course you had been going at the speed of light (if you had been going that speed for 10 years you won't see too much; but, what about one billion years--can you imagine...).

But, to you a second was still one second even at that speed, or any speed, even as time slowed down the closer you got to the speed of light. Everyone else will of course still count their seconds the same as well. Hence, relativity.

If you did go that fast, yet had mass you would be facing some HUGE problems. At the front you would find a tremendous amount of energy (I'd guess all of it would be shifted to the highest energy level; one huge one-dimensional jet of gamma radiation) and at infinite amounts. In other words, it's impossible to do it. that is why a lot of Sci-Fi uses space warping/tearing/etc... to connect yourself to another place, like a wormhole; or bend space in front and back of you like Star Trek and use warp.

Gotta love Einstein and his little revelation--and all revelations in science or otherwise that add to the understanding, the expanses created, broadening our horizons, windows to the wondrous mountains of the mind put into view, and all of reality's grandeurs still there to be conquered and our dreams explored. It makes this world just a bit more interesting and worth bothering to get up every morning and go about our daily routines.

/corny

Reasonable views QM, but how can we afford to fight Iran? And if so, could we really take on a threat like China or some other place afterwards...? We are weak as is... Extended like England, Rome, Greece... This isn't a gotcha question--this is a question conservatives must answer.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I like Paul on domestic issues, though he's full of sh t there too. He's already stated he wouldn't dismantle Social Security or Medicare.
Would never expect any liberal to vote for a guy who talks about dismantling the welfare state.
What seals Paul's fate is he sees no danger in a nuclear Iran.
Who wants money? I wouldn't spend one billion dollars to get a 400K-a-year job.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Exposes-Mainstream
-Media-Bias-Against-Ron-Paul
This is why you should vote for Paul...because money hates him I love him.
And even, sigh, @quantumushroom (Remember, the liberals want the money too QM, so therefore if you vote a republican who wants the money, you are no better than those you hate...think on it...yes, that's a gotcha point, but it is still true...)

I like Paul on domestic issues, though he's full of sh*t there too. He's already stated he wouldn't dismantle Social Security or Medicare.

Would never expect any liberal to vote for a guy who talks about dismantling the welfare state.

What seals Paul's fate is he sees no danger in a nuclear Iran.

Who wants money? I wouldn't spend one billion dollars to get a 400K-a-year job.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Exposes-Mainstream
-Media-Bias-Against-Ron-Paul
This is why you should vote for Paul...because money hates him I love him.

And even, sigh, @quantumushroom (Remember, the liberals want the money too QM, so therefore if you vote a republican who wants the money, you are no better than those you hate...think on it...yes, that's a gotcha point, but it is still true...)

Issue One: Stat-issued plates should be apolitical. However, if you're going to foist THIS on the public, then she has as much right as anyone.

Issue Two:

It's OK to hate the world's one billion Catholics. Your politically-correct TV leaders and "comedians" gave you the green light.

It's possible to oppose homosexual antics without hating homosexuals.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Catholics are an easy PC-approved target for these folks and the left in general. Boys were being buggered by criminally mental defectives, not "in the name of the Catholic Church."
Remember the hypocrisy: a "small" group of jihadists continue their worldwide assaults and we're told they are not a part of islam while a small group of criminal priests = blanket condemnation of the world's one billion Catholics.
Meanwhile... Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts


I think the concern here is more the orchestrated coverup extending to the highest levels of the catholic hierarchy. I don't think anyone has a problem with practitioners of catholicism. Further, Islam has by no means escaped atheists' censure.

Catholics are an easy PC-approved target for these folks and the left in general. Boys were being buggered by criminally mental defectives, not "in the name of the Catholic Church."

Remember the hypocrisy: a "small" group of jihadists continue their worldwide assaults and we're told they are not a part of islam while a small group of criminal priests = blanket condemnation of the world's one billion Catholics.

Meanwhile... Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Vatican is made up of fallible, irrational human beings in a 'fallen' world. The evildoers should be punished, but if you're going to condemn one billion Catholics for the crimes of some in the priesthood are you better than someone who hates an entire race because one of 'them' stepped on your toe?
Isn't it interesting that the liberal "defenders" of free speech reward this thief for thwarting a legal act, while condemning an entirely different religion (Catholicism) over the actions of a few?
>> ^mentality:
When a priest molests a child, does the semen come all the way from the Vatican too, or just the money for the cover up?



I'm not condemning Catholics in general, just this perverted abomination that you call the Catholic church, who spent decades and millions denying, moving around and covering up for child molestors, allowing them to continue defiling innocent children.

These so-called priests are the representatives/voice of god. Theoretically in telephatic communication with the so-called omnipotent all powerful creator of the universe. If 'he' can't even keep the source of his influence in line, how the heck is he going to keep the rest of the universe in line? Oh.. maybe because he doesn't exist.

I don't condemn the billion catholics. I condemn the religion and its leadership. There is a difference.


>> ^quantumushroom:

The Vatican is made up of fallible, irrational human beings in a 'fallen' world. The evildoers should be punished, but if you're going to condemn one billion Catholics for the crimes of some in the priesthood are you better than someone who hates an entire race because one of 'them' stepped on your toe?
Isn't it interesting that the liberal "defenders" of free speech reward this thief for thwarting a legal act, while condemning an entirely different religion (Catholicism) over the actions of a few?

>> ^mentality:
When a priest molests a child, does the semen come all the way from the Vatican too, or just the money for the cover up?

I admit, I do bash religion, but there is just too much hypocrisy, inconsistency, and lack of reason in it to leave it alone. In the world of science, harsh critique is beneficial. I evaluate my position all the time and I have changed my stance on issues as supporting evidence surfaces. There is where the difference lies. Religion is incapable of functioning in the presence of evidence and reason. It survives in a logic vacuum. It is incapable of simply stating, "we don't know what happens after we die because there is no evidence.". Instead the answer is, "an multi-thousand year old book tell me I go to a magical land, so it is true.". Sorry. Not good enough.

It may not be your personal task to convince me that god exists... tough apparently it is for the hordes of missionaries that fan out across the world, johovas witnesses that buzz around my front door, and the mormons in their white shirts and magical underwear that harass my wife at the house during the day. Add to that churches, and the signs plastered across towns spouting 'truth' without evidence. Apparently they have something to say and are trying to convince me their fairytale sky god is real. If all is in their great god's plan, then apparently the existence of atheists is a part of that plan too? I'd like to hear the logic behind that. Again, the mysterious ways argument doesn't cut it.

You certainly have a right to believe in whatever fashionable religion you happen to be born into through familial tradition. You'd be following islam if you were born in the middle east. You certainly have the right to believe in a magic sky god. Just as I have the right to state that I don't endorse superstitious fairy tales.

Interestingly many think it is taboo to speak up against religion. Well.. to them it is because doing so, as per christianity and islam, for example, is punishable by death. Oh wait. We ignore that part don't we... probably because it is not popular. I guess following god's word per the infallible book isn't all that obligatory, if it isn't convenient of the culturally acceptable norm for the times.

From where I stand, it is the responsibility of the religious to take the stories that they spread and prove their validity. They cannot prove it. Thus why should I confide in it? They are welcome to confide in it if they wish. Just as you are welcome to confide in finding a high paying job by calling 800-HOME-JOB. Sure I could tell you all about how wonderful god or that perfect job it is, but without a paycheck (evidence) in hand, it is just a fantasy/scam.

Yes, some religious individuals do good things. So do many atheists. The point I am making is.. you do not have to be religious to do good. I volunteer and I donate to charities. I get riled up when a religious person takes into assumption that if someone doesn't believe in a magic sky god. They are innately immoral. I would contest that morality has nothing to do with religion. Religion holds no monopoly on charity. It never has. Religion just likes to claim it does because god will not show up at your door and help you through that bout of cancer. This supposed all powerful universal creator is unfortunately sleeping at the wheel or too darn busy making flowers to show his face, noodly appendage, or whatever to help those of us that were supposedly created in his 'image'. Whatever that means.

About muslims vs christians. I don't give muslims a free ride. I don't give christians a free ride either. The only group I may be a bit lenient on are the buddhists. While the foundation of the belief is bunk as is all other religions, the core general philosophy is somewhat honorable. The purists that is. The ultimate in pacifism. We don't see buddhists blowing themselves up, nor do we see them crusading across the and telling everyone they are going to burn in hell if they don't worship a man nailed to a torture symbol.


>> ^quantumushroom:

It's not my task to convince you that God does or does not exist.
There are likely millions of people on this planet that would deny the existence of God even if God appeared before them.
But the militant atheist, who denies that ANY good has come from religion is, IMO, intellectually dishonest, ignorant of history, or both.
In this age, subversives have made it fashionable to bash the world's one billion Catholics while giving the world's 1.5 billion muslims a free pass.

>>

The Vatican is made up of fallible, irrational human beings in a 'fallen' world. The evildoers should be punished, but if you're going to condemn one billion Catholics for the crimes of some in the priesthood are you better than someone who hates an entire race because one of 'them' stepped on your toe?

Isn't it interesting that the liberal "defenders" of free speech reward this thief for thwarting a legal act, while condemning an entirely different religion (Catholicism) over the actions of a few?


>> ^mentality:

When a priest molests a child, does the semen come all the way from the Vatican too, or just the money for the cover up?