we are F--ed

[Brak]

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

im not saying if i believe it or not, although its pretty convincing and makes good sense; but its incredibly cycnical and i find it hard to believe its going to be THAT bad. its not really phasing me too much.



if you need something to put your mind at ease, check this out: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira85lw.html
just some info about the supervolcano thats 40,000 years overdue to erupt and cause another ice age.


in all honest, i think all this 'end of the world is closer than you think' stuff is a load of crap, and is not gonna be as bad as some people think. weve come this far and we will keep going (until aliens invade). i might be wrong, but as far as im concerned its all good.

[Wierd-Guy]

ditto

I like being aware of things that we can fix but if I'm going to die tommarrow I really don't care to know about it.

[dansim]

if your gonna go around the cuss filter at least use the correct amount of letters:p

[Brak]

Originally posted by dansim
if your gonna go around the cuss filter at least use the correct amount of letters:p

im not avoiding the curse filter. its an expression. ever been around someone who doesnt like swearing so you just said "eff" you? "F-ed" is the same type of expression. nice job

[dansim]

nah i dont really care if people around me dont like swearing, unless im around older people or young kids....whata you mean good job?:confused:

[Albinonewt]

Don't sweat the oil thing too much.


There is plenty of oil. The only problem is the we're using up the cheapest oil to drill for. Once that's all gone we'll get the next cheapest oil, which will steadily, but slowly, increase prices. Once prices rise supplies will look for a cheaper way to provide energy and the next alternative will be found, which will relax the oil price somewhat while it is slowly phased out.

Don't sweat it. It's cylical and this is how it's supposed to work.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Actually the reason we are all effed, is because the Mayans predicted the end of the world

would be December 13 or so 2012

[p8ntball1016]

Thats just when the Mayan calendar ended.

[RRfireblade]

Poppycock.

Pure nonsence.

Besides that,the end of the world is near.;)

Near,however is a relative term.

Near,as in our lifetime? Probably not.

Near,as in the next few hundred years? Quite possibly.

Near,as in the next 1000 years? Almost definately.

Relative to the Age of the Earth,relative to the percentage of time life has existed in the planet,relative to the typical time between global impacts or other Planet altering events throughout the history of Earth......it's amazing it's not over already.

Seriously.

[spantol]

It's best to take that site--and any doomsday scenario sites, for that matter--with a grain of salt. It describes the worst possible aftermath of peak oil, not necessarily the most likely.

The concept of peak pil, though, is quite real and well-documented (Google the term for more information than you could possibly want). It's nothing I'd lose sleep over, though. Human ingenuity being what it is, I'm sure we'll figure something out in time.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by RRfireblade

Near,as in the next few hundred years? Quite possibly.

Near,as in the next 1000 years? Almost definately.

Relative to the Age of the Earth,relative to the percentage of time life has existed in the planet,relative to the typical time between global impacts or other Planet altering events throughout the history of Earth......it's amazing it's not over already.

Seriously.

and then we look at all the other planets that are still around, and have been just as long as earth:rolleyes:

next thousand years? don't flatter yourself. there's no way to predict that, and to say it'll be in the next thousand years is just dumb, considering everything you just mentioned. earth has been around 12 or so billion years, while the universe has been around like 6 billion more. if anything, it'll end in a few hundred thousand or a few million years from now, assuming that humans have zero impact.

there is, however, substantial evidence that if global warming continues, it will cause the next ice age. why? because if the polar caps melt (as they do every few millenia), the underwater ocean currents will stop flowing. these currents are the only thing keeping the water from freezing. ocean freezes...we're in trouble :).

back to studying for midterms..

[logamus]

Originally posted by impostal22
there is, however, substantial evidence that if global warming continues, it will cause the next ice age. why? because if the polar caps melt (as they do every few millenia), the underwater ocean currents will stop flowing. these currents are the only thing keeping the water from freezing. ocean freezes...we're in trouble :).

back to studying for midterms..

if its warm enough to melt the polar caps wouldnt it stand to reason that it would be warm enough to keep the oceans from freezing as well?

[Trigger_Happy]

There is no substantial data to show that global warming is an issue. The best measurements we've been able to take show that earth's "composite temperature" hasn't varied by more than 2 degrees C in the last hundred years or so, and that varience is not all increasing temperature, the chart looks more like "/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/" than anything.

Sure, we might all burn, freeze, or drown. Anything's possible. In reality, though, good arguments have shown that the root of "global warming" lies in greedy scientists looking for research grants. That's right, feed the media a doomsday story and you win yourself a cushy job.

And as far as CFC's destroying the ozone layer; total myth. The CFC's we produce are a worthlessly small percentage compared to the amount of CFC's that occur naturally. Natural wind patterns cause updrafts near the south pole. That wind caries CFC's (mostly naturally occurring) with it and so the updraft causes a hole in the ozone layer over the south pole. How many of your good friends live near the south pole? The truth is that only about 400 artic people are at risk because of the hole. Meanwhile refrigeration, firefighting, and surgical sterilization takes a hit because we aren't allowed to produce CFC's to do the job. You can thank more greedy researchers for this hoax as well.

All the evidence has a grain of truth, but it's all really obscured to ensure more and more multi-million dollar research grants.

P.S. Please don't attempt to point out flaws in all this by pointing to a quote or figure originating from a well paid, and corrupt, scientist.

[Barfly]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Don't sweat the oil thing too much.


There is plenty of oil. The only problem is the we're using up the cheapest oil to drill for. Once that's all gone we'll get the next cheapest oil, which will steadily, but slowly, increase prices. Once prices rise supplies will look for a cheaper way to provide energy and the next alternative will be found, which will relax the oil price somewhat while it is slowly phased out.

Don't sweat it. It's cylical and this is how it's supposed to work.

Albinonewt smart smart smart, smart smart smart smart smaaaarrt

Mathew David Dumb d-dumb

[Tyger]

We can always worry about it a lot. I mean, we can dig shelters, horde oil and water and nuclear crackers, and wait out the hellstorm that is sure to follow?

Wait, I wonder... can I get a good deal on a slightly used Y2K Shelter?

-Tyger

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
There is no substantial data to show that global warming is an issue. The best measurements we've been able to take show that earth's "composite temperature" hasn't varied by more than 2 degrees C in the last hundred years or so, and that varience is not all increasing temperature, the chart looks more like "/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/" than anything.

Sure, we might all burn, freeze, or drown. Anything's possible. In reality, though, good arguments have shown that the root of "global warming" lies in greedy scientists looking for research grants. That's right, feed the media a doomsday story and you win yourself a cushy job.

And as far as CFC's destroying the ozone layer; total myth. The CFC's we produce are a worthlessly small percentage compared to the amount of CFC's that occur naturally. Natural wind patterns cause updrafts near the south pole. That wind caries CFC's (mostly naturally occurring) with it and so the updraft causes a hole in the ozone layer over the south pole. How many of your good friends live near the south pole? The truth is that only about 400 artic people are at risk because of the hole. Meanwhile refrigeration, firefighting, and surgical sterilization takes a hit because we aren't allowed to produce CFC's to do the job. You can thank more greedy researchers for this hoax as well.

All the evidence has a grain of truth, but it's all really obscured to ensure more and more multi-million dollar research grants.

P.S. Please don't attempt to point out flaws in all this by pointing to a quote or figure originating from a well paid, and corrupt, scientist.

okay then. by default, you are correct, since you are immune to any response.


logamus- no because the deep deep blue doesn't get any sunlight whatsoever.

[Trigger_Happy]

That's only half true. There is plenty of data dug up by legit scientists who failed to get cushy jobs and seem to be intent on blowing the wistle. Unfortunately there are no non-bought scientists who report a definate negative when it come to global warming.

So, when only scientists who are making big bucks to study the problem seem to be finding the problem, what does that say to you?

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
That's only half true. There is plenty of data dug up by legit scientists who failed to get cushy jobs and seem to be intent on blowing the wistle. Unfortunately there are no non-bought scientists who report a definate negative when it come to global warming.

So, when only scientists who are making big bucks to study the problem seem to be finding the problem, what does that say to you?

it says that the money is being put to good use? cmon, if you're gonna be that paranoid, you really should apply it to the government...imo.

[RT pRo AuToMaG]

Super volcanoes, global warming, ozone layer, pollution, oil shortage, screw it all. If it is as big of a problem as everyone says it is, then they probably are already working on alternative methods to do things. You can't live worrying about stuff like this, something will kill you eventually. You may walk outside and get shot, or you house may explode from an electrical short causing a spark and burning your house down. My point is, if you worry about every little thing that could kill you, you will die trying to save yourself. Live your life to the fullest and you will have nothing to worry about.

[PyRo]

Well the earth is here to stay for the next few billion years untill the sun dies, and whatever is left on the planet burns to death.
Now as far as humans go, its questionable. Most likely we will still be around billions of years from now, society will definatly be differant, but humans will almost certainly still exist. There isn't much severe enough to wipe out the entire human race. We have lived through ice ages before ya know? :)

[impostal22]

Originally posted by PyRo
Well the earth is here to stay for the next few billion years untill the sun dies, and whatever is left on the planet burns to death.
Now as far as humans go, its questionable. Most likely we will still be around billions of years from now, society will definatly be differant, but humans will almost certainly still exist. There isn't much severe enough to wipe out the entire human race. We have lived through ice ages before ya know? :)

that is..if the universe doesn't go into the big crunch before then...muahahhahaha!

[bunkermaster10]

Imagine what we will look like........

HUGE tall people that are tan and all look similar?

Small tiny people that are ugly lil' creatures that talk a weird language?

Man I wish I could see the future.

[RRfireblade]

Originally posted by impostal22


and then we look at all the other planets that are still around, and have been just as long as earth:rolleyes:



We're not talking about the elimination on the planet,duh.

The "end of the world" is a common phrase refering to "life on the panet".

But you do help make my point,based on how much life is still found on other planets (Mars)and the number of times life has been destroyed on earth (dinosarus for one)in the past.

[PyRo]

Life wasn't destoryed, there are still animals from that era, or atleast having evolved from animals of that era. :)

[RRfireblade]

I should know better.

If the dominating life on a Planet is destroyed,or in our case,the highest form of life,most would consider that an Apocolypse.

But if it makes you feel better that after your gone there will likely be lower forms of life left,then that's fine too.;)

[dansim]

as long as kitties are still around who cares;)

[Barfly]

actually there are creatures from 200 million years ago that are still pretty much the same. One sharks have not chnaged that much, crocadiles got smaller, dragonflies got smaller, certain dinasours turned into birds, and just look also there is a lot of different sealife that hasn't changed a whole lot.

[PyRo]

Anyone else up for looting when this happens?

[Trigger_Happy]

What is with this evolution crap? Evolution is false. It was a theory formulated by a scientist who thought it sounded possible. He observed genetics and how traits were passed to allow animals to adapt. He deicided maybe, just maybe, over eons an animal might adapt so much that it would be a different animal. He spent over half of his book explaining the evidence against his theory, bu concluded by stating that he thought more evidence might be found in favor of his theory in the future, thus proving him correct.

Since Darwin's time, we've found more evidence against evolution, thus proving him wrong. I will not get into an in-depth discussion, but I will scratch the surface.

First of all, in Darwin's time scientists were stupid. They believed in spontaineous generation, the immutability of species, and had no idea that microorganisms existed. The "immutability of species" stated that God created each creature a certain way, and it could never change. Well, when darwin proved that cross breeding could succeed (seems common sense now, but hey) they were all gasping for air and scratching their heads. Science as they knew it was shattered. Since then, the science of genetics has been studied, but at that time nobody knew about it but a dead monk. Because Darwin shook current thinking so much, everybody decided he must be right about his entire theory (extrapolating microevolution into macroevolution).

THE FOSSIL RECORD

First of all, 95% of fossils found are clams. Because only 5% of a sample can be studied, nothing in the fossil record should ever be used at determining proof of anything. Still, we'd assume that if layers of earth formed slowly over eons of time, you'd see simple stuff at the bottom, and complex organisms near the top with slight changes being show all the way through. This is not found. Eveything is pretty random, and there are no apparent intermediate links (labeled "missing links" because none have been found)
If darwin was correct, there would be far more "missing links" than modern looking fossils. This is a big blow to evolution.
Although some "chains" of evolved creatures (such as the horse) have been put on exhibit, they are misleading at best. The samples were found on different continents, and the simplest creatures are not shown to pre-date their complicated relatives. Thus, this is not admissable evidence.

STRUCTURAL HOMOLOGY

This is the thought that because many mammels have similar basic characteristics, we may have come from the same root ancestor. Many mammels have one bone in the "upper arm", a joint, two bones, a wrist joint, and then five "fingers".
This was thought to be evidence by scientists in Darwin's time. We now know of genetics and how DNA may be passed from parent to offspring. If we all came from a root organism, we would all have similar DNA segments dictating that we'd have 5 fingers. Thus, a human, bird, bat, and porpoise would have to have similar DNA segments because the bone structures are simlilar. In reality, the DNA segments are not related at all.

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

The most blatent evidence against evolution comes in the field of molecular biology. It can't be denied.
This science deals with amino acids (the building blocks of protein) and how they order to create organisms.
Long story short, the way a specific section of an ape's amino acids order themselves should be more similar to the way a human's amino acids order themselves than, say, a speck of yeast's or a tuna fish's. However, upon close study, there is no trend found to indicate this to be true!
Basically, if you grab the same strand of amino acids out of six different organisms and yourself and compare them, you'll find that there is no relation. You're (within 5% points) as similar to a horse as to a pigeon as to a silkworm, as to wheat!

Although all this is true, macroevolution is widespead today! I personally believe in the theory of Creation, but since there are nearly as many scientific holes int hat as there are in macroevolution, I won't even attempt to "prove" it. I will only disprove evolution so you can educate yourselfs and stop sounding like idiots talking about science that has been proven to be false.

I should throw in, just so I don't have to do it later, that Darwin's theory has been revised. Once genetic were discovered, scientists begain claiming that organisms could still "evolve" outside thier genetic structure through the process called "mutation". Too bad no "helpful" mutation has ever been witnessed. Any mutation (alteration from the parent caused by something other than genes) has always shortened life-span, decreased quality of life, and more often that not, made reproduction impossible (so much for survival of the mutated fittest)

Well, this "solved" that little genetic problem, but thos darnded "missing links" were still getting flamed by critics. This is when the theory of "puctuated equalibrium" was introduced. Punctuated equalibrium states that evolution does not constantly take place, it happen every so often during times of intense toxic chemical or radiation exposure. Suring those times, the exposure speed mutation (aka evolution) so that "missing links" only occur over the space of a couple generations. That's what there are "so few" *coughnonecough* found.

Yes, that's correct. Current evolution theory requires intense radiation in order to create the fabled but unseen "good" mutation so that things evolve. All this, of course, while ignoring molecular biology.

Although all this is true, macroevolution is widespead today! I personally believe in the theory of Creation, but since there are nearly as many scientific holes in that as there are in macroevolution, I won't even attempt to "prove" it. I will only disprove evolution so you can educate yourselves and stop sounding like idiots talking about science that has been proven to be false.

Please do us all a favor and start back at square one in your minds. We have no idea where we came from, and have no known way of finding out.

[Tyger]

ummm...

okay...

If you say so.

-Tyger

("I'm ahead I'm a man
I'm the first mammal to wear pants yeah
I'm at peace with my lust
I can kill 'cause in God I trust yeah
It's evolution baby "
Pearl Jam : "Do the Evolution")

[RRfireblade]

The fact that Darwins Evo Theory has large holes is not exactly "News".;)

But thanks for the recap.

[Cryer]

I say bring it on. Let me get a few more paintball games in, but bring it on.

We all gotta go somehow, dont we?

I think I want to be playing a tournie when it happens. Then when everyone else is distracted, I'll bunker everyone and hang the flag.




Originally posted by PyRo
Anyone else up for looting when this happens?
I'm down. Meet me at the NPS Distribution center;)

[Cryer]

and ya...


Darwin was drunk.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
What is with this evolution crap?

lol...god probably made us then. :rolleyes:

i think i'll stick with darwin...and you can't really argue that something is not true without providing a substitute explanation. i mean you can obviously (and you did), but it leaves us with nothing. i would say go with the lesser of two evils, and say there is no such thing as god, and that darwin was right. see, by just disproving something and not substituting it with something else, you give no compelling reason for the person to change their beliefs.

[Trigger_Happy]

Since you didn't BS me up an answer about something we don't know about, I'm gonna believe that old dude's disproven BS, okay?

Sorry to misquote you, there, but that's some of the owrst reasoning imaginable! I did give you an alternative to evolution: Square one. Yeah, just admit that we don't know. It generally works better than pretending to know all the answers while educated people can clearly see that you don't have a clue.

[spantol]

In the future, I strongly suggest that you follow the advice given in your sig.

First off, Darwin's Natural Selection encompassed a mechanism for evolution, not evolution itself. The concept of evolution had been around for quite awhile. Further, while I have little doubt that data exists that might be interpretted as evidence against evolution, you have spectacularly failed to provide any.

You have claimed that the fossil record is spotty, so it should not be used to prove anything. You then cite this as evidence against evolution.

You have claimed that since many mammals have similar bone structures, all animals would necessarily have to have similar bone structures for a common ancestor to have existed. You have provided no evidence for such a broad claim. The concept of speciation can explain why such diversity exists.

Your molecular biology example is at best over-simplified, and at worst flat out wrong. There's at most a 10% difference in the DNA of all species, of all life on this planet. There's about a 5% difference between humans and chimps.

You go on to "debunk" punctuated equilibrium, failing to note that PE was proposed, like Natural Selection, as merely a mechanism for evolution, not a catch-all description of the concept writ-large. This particular mechanism requires periods of environmental instability, not necessarily "intense toxic chemical or radiation exposure."

In short, you've presented a poorly-informed attack on two proposed mechanisms of evolution, stopping periodically to claim that everything you've presented is true. This is called Proof By Repeated Assertion, and isn't exactly a valid form of inference.

While it's true that we don't have all of the answers, we do have a compelling, well-supported scientific theory. We've observed speciation. We have a fossil record, from which we can clearly observe adaptive changes to organisms over time. What more do you want?



Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
Please do us all a favor and start back at square one in your minds. We have no idea where we came from, and have no known way of finding out.

[Trigger_Happy]

I want:

To know what fossil record you speak of

And to inform you that I used structural homology as an example because evolutionists did first. If it's good enought for you, it's good enough for me.

I also want to point out I said the fossil record offered no proof, and then went on to show that even that 5% was not valid.

Your version of molecular biology is simply not true. We vary much or little from other creatures seeminly at random. For instance, the Rhesus Monkey only differs 1% from humans. This was widely touted as amazing proof. Still, any assortment of random organisms will fail to fall in order from "simple" to "complex".

So while you say you have a compelling theory, I have yet to see it.

[dansim]

i belive in evolution, because we all had to come from somewhere, there wasn't two(one in some cases) of every species all of a sudden on the planet

[spantol]

Here's a primer:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

And here's some stuff specifically on Macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And here are some examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

And here's a quick debunking of your claim that all mutations are harmful:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html




Originally posted by Trigger_Happy


So while you say you have a compelling theory, I have yet to see it.

[SlartyBartFast]

Please do us all a favor and start back at square one in your minds. We have no idea where we came from, and have no known way of finding out.

That is possible the most ignorant and stupid thing ever posted. Stay ignorant, impossible to learn.

Go live in a cave. :rolleyes:


I did give you an alternative to evolution: Square one.

Here's the problem bub. The belief in Christianity is predated by centuries of other belief. It isn't "square one".

Your belief in your books and rituals is no more proven or founded than the hundred and more other long dated belief systems. I won't argue with you over that fact, because I know you'll refuse to see the validity of other beliefs. Although you have absolutely no basis for you positio other than what has been repeated to you.


This is called Proof By Repeated Assertion, and isn't exactly a valid form of inference.

:cheers:

I just wasted my time writing a long post against the stupid belief of Mayans and Egyptians fortelling the future. :rolleyes: I'll leave this thread to you.

You can repeat the Bible all you want. Doesn't make it any more or less true. Just what you believe.

Even the Pope agrees that theology and scientific theory (including evolution) can coexist.

[bofh]

Holy thread necromancy!

/OH NOES the Mayan's calendar ends!

[stop whining buy a mag]

Here's a primer:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

And here's some stuff specifically on Macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And here are some examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

And here's a quick debunking of your claim that all mutations are harmful:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

I'm guessing you have a major in some science related background. You seem to have double the IQ of my biology teacher.

Even though this is turning into another religion thread, I'll say that I'd first believe in Buddhism over Christianity. Every single religion that came after the first/correct one has to be just an arguement for someone to get rich/famous/be worshipped out of.

If you look a little further into all the DNA mumble jumble you'll see that it makes more sense. While a fruit fly has half the number of genes as us, ours work differently and produce many more protiens making our body more complex.

I hope spantol can get more in before this thread closes. He now competes with Lohman for the smartest person on AO award.

[Rhandhali]

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

Great bedtime stories.

[tropical_fishy]

OKAY. SO. RECAP.

1) Evolution? Definitely not.
2) "Myan" Calendar? HERESY! HERESY!
3) Christianity/creationism? Very yes! In fact, the Bible PROVES that the Earth isn't billions of years old. In fact, fossils were a government ploy to secularize the world.
4) End of the world? The Rapture is coming! The Rapture is coming!



Let me be the first in this thread to pass out the tinfoil hats.

PS-- Lohmann ain't so smaht, just loquacious ;)

[SCpoloRicker]

I'm compelled to enter this thread. I don't know why.

SBF: seriously, whats with the ressurect? A newer member started a Creationalism/ID thread a few days ago and it got locked in a few hours.

I'm all for good fun and all, but its a lopsided case, and pointing out said obviousness always gets folks riled up.

/howdy gang
// I work for an Intelligent Designer, so I'm really getting a kick out of a lot of these replies.