>> ^MarineGunrock:
^Except 99% of Christians are not taught to hate non-believers.
What difference? The crusades happened nearly 1000 years ago. When is the last time you heard of mass murders for Christian beliefs?
I can not believe you seriously compared Jesus to Hitler and said that there's no difference in following either of them.


How about the ongoing conflict in north Ireland? It's not mass murder but there is that abortion doctor was just murdered over christian beliefs, in a freaking church no less! Let's also not forget about all the lynching in the American south for much of the 20th centruy which often involves burning a motherfrickin christian cross to incite terror and symbolize the idea that God wants white christian people to kill everyone else.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
^Except 99% of Christians are not taught to hate non-believers.
What difference? The crusades happened nearly 1000 years ago. When is the last time you heard of mass murders for Christian beliefs?
I can not believe you seriously compared Jesus to Hitler and said that there's no difference in following either of them.


I didn't compare the two. I wouldn't compare them either. One was a living human being, the other a figment of peoples imagination. And it's not about following them, it's about society having any say over what individuals teach their children. If indoctrination is in order, then what difference does it make whatever fucked up piece of nonsense is drilled into kids heads? It just shouldn't be fucking done at all. (Yes, I'm one of those types who thinks that indoctrinating children into religious beliefs is a form of child abuse)


btw:
Last time I heard about mass murder for Christian beliefs was around 2003.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

^Except 99% of Christians are not taught to hate non-believers.

What difference? The crusades happened nearly 1000 years ago. When is the last time you heard of mass murders for Christian beliefs?

I can not believe you seriously compared Jesus to Hitler and said that there's no difference in following either of them.

Don't "That's just correlation" me. Do you think humans arriving in these locations and the animals going extinct had some external, shared cause? If not, then the correlation implies causation. And the mechanisms are many and obvious -- hunting, land use changes by humans, competition for prey with humans, etc.

Cite your claim that humans didn't have enough population density. I don't believe that. Humans expanded very rapidly in new worlds (1000 years = 40 generations, even a small growth rate would lead to saturation over one millennium. From crossing the ice bridge in Alaska humans managed to saturate both continents surprisingly quickly according to Jared Diamond).

And read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna
"Some proponents claim climate change alone caused extinction of the megafauna, but these arguments have to account for the fact that megaufaunal species comfortably survived two million years of climatic oscillations, including a number of arid glacial periods, before their sudden extinction. New evidence based on accurate optically stimulated luminescence and Uranium-thorium dating of megafaunal remains suggests that humans were the ultimate cause of the extinction of megafauna in Australia.[3] The dates derived show that all forms of megafauna became extinct in the same rapid timeframe — approximately 47,000 years ago — the period of time in which humans first arrived in Australia."

So the lesson here is... if you want to stay relatively young, drive faster than everyone else.

Almost seems too simple.
- Everything (as far as we know now*) is traveling through SpaceTime at a fixed 186,000.
- An object with a Space velocity of 0 is still traveling through SpaceTime at 186,000, it's Time velocity = 186,000.
- An object with a Space velocity of 93,000 is still traveling through SpaceTime at 186,000, it's Time velocity = 93,000.
- And an object with a Space velocity of 186,000 is still traveling through SpaceTime at 186,000, it's Time velocity = 0.

*we don't know everything . 1000 years from now science may chuckle at our primitive belief that the speed of light was the theoretical maximum.

ahoy! I replied to this note, and attempted to maintain civility. cheers!

In reply to this comment by BansheeX:
Forget about stupidity on both sides, you people always pick a punching bag who can't defend their position to make your own dumb viewpoint seem like the right one.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

CO2 is a fundamental building block of life, and current levels are NOWHERE NEAR where they have been in the past. Moreover, the correlation of CO2 and Earth temperature is deeply flawed. It's far more likely that temperatures rise and fall in the short term as a result of solar cycles or some other phenomena, and that increased CO2 levels are a corresponding RESULT of temperature change rather than the cause. That's what gives the idiots that nice correlating graph where they can claim the opposite. A more detailed look at ice core graphs show us that temperature changes occur BEFORE changes in CO2 levels. The global warming crowd has it completely reversed that CO2 is driving temperature.

Moreover, the last century's warming trend has been a mere .8 celsius, well within natural expectations given the last 1000 years. I suppose the vikings were also somehow responsible for the even larger climactic swing in temperature known as the Little Ice Age from 1000 to 1200 AD? From 1940 to 1970, there was a cooling trend which led to a global cooling scare. We were all supposed to be frozen in ice by now.

The idea that mankind is capable of affecting earth's temperature is just laughable. If it was even possible to have globally banned coal and oil the last 200 years, the only thing you'd have accomplished is a complete eradication of 200 years of human progress towards cleaner, more efficient technologies like nuclear (which you luddites have also blocked while countries like China and France kick our freaking asses).

http://www.dailytech.com/Chinas+Nuclear+Power+Efforts+Surge+Ahead/article14911.htm

So what exactly are we supposed to do? We can't do nuclear because you boneheads don't want to recycle or store the voluminously small captured waste, you'd rather burn your fuel and disperse it into the atmosphere than put something in a single mountain for a thousand years until we jettison it into the sun. You herald wind power, which takes massive amounts of steel, land, and maintenance for relatively little power output. You'd have to cover an area the size of Montana with windmills just to meet TODAY'S domestic power demands. That's how bloody inefficient it is relative to nuclear, and unless you magically discover a magical material like steel that is way cheaper and 1% as heavy, it's going to hit a wall pretty soon. Wind is fine for the wind belt and rural areas in Iowa, solar is fine for the desert in Arizona. But to say that wind and solar can themselves provide even a majority of our national need for cheap power is pure insanity. It's pure insanity, and anyone who's looked at the numbers knows it.

Forget about stupidity on both sides, you people always pick a punching bag who can't defend their position to make your own dumb viewpoint seem like the right one.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

CO2 is a fundamental building block of life, and current levels are NOWHERE NEAR where they have been in the past. Moreover, the correlation of CO2 and Earth temperature is deeply flawed. It's far more likely that temperatures rise and fall in the short term as a result of solar cycles or some other phenomena, and that increased CO2 levels are a corresponding RESULT of temperature change rather than the cause. That's what gives the idiots that nice correlating graph where they can claim the opposite. A more detailed look at ice core graphs show us that temperature changes occur BEFORE changes in CO2 levels. The global warming crowd has it completely reversed that CO2 is driving temperature.

Moreover, the last century's warming trend has been a mere .8 celsius, well within natural expectations given the last 1000 years. I suppose the vikings were also somehow responsible for the even larger climactic swing in temperature known as the Little Ice Age from 1000 to 1200 AD? From 1940 to 1970, there was a cooling trend which led to a global cooling scare. We were all supposed to be frozen in ice by now.

The idea that mankind is capable of affecting earth's temperature is just laughable. If it was even possible to have globally banned coal and oil the last 200 years, the only thing you'd have accomplished is a complete eradication of 200 years of human progress towards cleaner, more efficient technologies like nuclear (which you luddites have also blocked while countries like China and France kick our freaking asses).

http://www.dailytech.com/Chinas+Nuclear+Power+Efforts+Surge+Ahead/article14911.htm

So what exactly are we supposed to do? We can't do nuclear because you boneheads don't want to recycle or store the voluminously small captured waste, you'd rather burn your fuel and disperse it into the atmosphere than put something in a single mountain for a thousand years until we jettison it into the sun. You herald wind power, which takes massive amounts of steel, land, and maintenance for relatively little power output. You'd have to cover an area the size of Montana with windmills just to meet TODAY'S domestic power demands. That's how bloody inefficient it is relative to nuclear, and unless you magically discover a magical material like steel that is way cheaper and 1% as heavy, it's going to hit a wall pretty soon. Wind is fine for the wind belt and rural areas in Iowa, solar is fine for the desert in Arizona. But to say that wind and solar can themselves provide even a majority of our national need for cheap power is pure insanity. It's pure insanity, and anyone who's looked at the numbers knows it.

>> ^jiyanibi:
Basically, but as far as I know genocide hasn't been committed in the name of Wikipedia.



Yet. Give it 1000 years. One group will go to war against the other.

Books will be dust and all human knowledge will be merged into the one digital source and linked digitally to our minds for convenience. Once something is not just 'a site' but knowledge linked into your mind - everyone's knowledge will be the same knowledge. it seem as the ultimate truth...

Any debate about it being incorrect will be saying what 99.99% of people know is wrong.

It will be Heresy!!!

can i vote to revert back 1000 years or so and live in egalitarian tribal communities on the unexploited texas plains????


i actually voted for obama, mostly to make a point that more candidates SHOULD campaign in texas because its not as republican as it thinks it is. obama took the 4 major metropolitan areas as well and easily could have taken more if he had campaigned.

i probably would have voted for cynthia mckinney had she been a write in candidate in my state.

i will abstain from this vote until tribes are a choice.

Psychologic- From what I've heard, the answer is probably about 3 deg. C. before the methane release is a self sustaining, accelerating process, max 5 deg. Climatologists have recently (finally) admitted that even reducing CO2 emmisions to 0 today would not end global warming for at least 1000 years. The temperature levels from CO2 alone will most likely raise at least the 5deg. C in that time period (most likely in the next 25 years using todays conservative estimates, probably sooner. Methane is already boiling up in the arctic at alarming rates, and these added gasses aren't considered in the climate models that are public.)
Now we get to the unstated problem of CO2, it's raising the acidity levels of the ocean to unliveable levels. The number of "dead zones" are multiplying every year. I don't know for certain, but I have to believe that putting the methane in solution would accelerate the acidification of the ocean (like in the great extinction) killing most living things there and above (can you say acid rain?).
I've recently read that higher temperature water has a difficult time keeping O2 in solution as well. Most things in the ocean require O2 to live. Massive fish kills cause massive bacteria blooms, which release toxic gasses and liquids themselves, killing the surviving sea life. I, for one, don't eat fish, but I still like having my oceans alive.
The reality is that we're hosed. Stop having children people, unless you are sadists and are having them in order to force them into a miserable and short life. Children today have little to no chance of survival to 70+ years, and the insane numbers of people are the main reason for every problem facing the planet. There is no legitimate reason for having more people beyond selfishness. Get a grip and start doing the right thing, or we all suffer the consequences (which are already nearly unsurmountable).

You know that little Casio keyboard in that video? I have one just like that. I got it as a gift 25 years ago. And it still works. I gave it to my son, and now he messes around with it sometimes. You might not like its sound, but you have to admit it was built to last.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Instant suicide. Eternity in Hell could not be worse than 1000 years of that!

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Either that, or maybe this. If you hear the latter, you'll immediately know where you're going.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I don't believe in a Christian God, but if the Rapture ever comes, I suspect it will be to the sound of Rhapsody in Blue.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
This music takes me back to the mid-'80s. I was around 17 then, and it was when I first started seriously listening to music outside of the rock and pop genres. I latched on to Gershwin early on because I was spellbound by "Rhapsody In Blue". This piece is another of my favorites, along with "Violin Piece". I need to see if a video exists for that one.

Instant suicide. Eternity in Hell could not be worse than 1000 years of that!

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Either that, or maybe this. If you hear the latter, you'll immediately know where you're going.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I don't believe in a Christian God, but if the Rapture ever comes, I suspect it will be to the sound of Rhapsody in Blue.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
This music takes me back to the mid-'80s. I was around 17 then, and it was when I first started seriously listening to music outside of the rock and pop genres. I latched on to Gershwin early on because I was spellbound by "Rhapsody In Blue". This piece is another of my favorites, along with "Violin Piece". I need to see if a video exists for that one.

>> ^deedub81:
I believe the original texts of the Bible (as written by the prophets) to have been 100% accurate. It is no longer 100% accurate due to error and corruption by man. Any logical human can see that there are many metaphors, similes, and fables in The Bible. 1000 years in Bible time could represent any length of time. Who knows how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden as immortals?


So you're saying that God (who was pretty interactive early on) no longer cares that His words are 100% accurate? That seems pretty odd that He would no longer care.

Now, if you want to do a quick test of morals then you can also think about the concept of Hell. Most of us tend to think of torture as wrong. So why is it OK to let God send those that didn't follow His rules to Hell and suffer torture for eternity when we can pretty much universally agree that a human torturing another human is wrong?

No. It doesn't say that anywhere.

The Bible we know was passed down through many generations and translated from language to language over the years. Many other writings, traced back to ancient times, can be translated to read differently than do the many versions of the Bible in English today.

Here's one example of how certain things are lost over time. None of the Scrolls of Enoch (Fragments were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls) are included in the Old Testament, but Enoch is mentioned in the Bible as a Prophet who was taken up to return with God because he was so righteous. Why weren't his writings included in the Bible? All but a few of his words were lost.

I believe the original texts of the Bible (as written by the prophets) to have been 100% accurate. It is no longer 100% accurate due to error and corruption by man. Any logical human can see that there are many metaphors, similes, and fables in The Bible. 1000 years in Bible time could represent any length of time. Who knows how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden as immortals?

>> ^poolcleaner:

Is there anywhere in biblical scripture that specifically states that 100% of the Bible is the word of G-O-D? I'm not an expert on said text, but maybe someone can clarify this for me.

No. It doesn't say that anywhere.

The Bible we know was passed down through many generations and translated from language to language over the years. Many other writings that can be traced back to the same time period can be translated to read differently than do the many versions of the Bible in English today.

Here's one example of how certain things are lost over time. None of the Scrolls of Enoch (Fragments were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls) are included in the Old Testament, but Enoch is mentioned as a man who was taken up to return with God because he was so righteous.

I believe the original texts of the Bible (as written by the prophets) to have been 100% accurate. It is no longer 100% accurate due to error and corruption by man. Any logical human can see that there are many metaphors, similes, and fables in The Bible. 1000 years in Bible time could represent any length of time. Who knows how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden as immortals?



In reply to this comment by poolcleaner:
>> ^anti-mammon:
Here's the thing that bothers me, I have heard that the bible is "the word of god given to man". so if that is the case, then isn't it blasphemy to NOT take the bible literally? because god is omniscient, omnipresent and other omnis right? so he knows better than us as to the correct behavior, so we should stone our neighbors if they are wearing more than two types of cloth.


Is there anywhere in biblical scripture that specifically states that 100% of the Bible is the word of G-O-D? I'm not an expert on said text, but maybe someone can clarify this for me.