| 
	
 			
			
			
			
  	
	
		
	| Author | Thread |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 10:30:29 PM · #101			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by Olyuzi:   It's amazing you write something like this after defending the president who, at the least, did not do the research about Iraqi WMDs. President Bush and his administration certainly were counting on all the media outlets you named below not to look any further than what they wanted the public to believe about Iraq. 
 
 Sorry for this temporary redirection...I now return you to your regularly scheduled global warming rant. 
 
 Originally posted by RonB:   1) I thought that you'd get a kick out of it. That's why I included it. I just wanted to prove once again, your penchant for dismissing anything and everything that doesn't come from a liberal web-site or publication. You obviously care not about the content, but the source. You therefore display to the world that you haven't the ability or desire to do any research beyond the immediate. That's what mainstream media like CNN, NYTimes, LATimes, WashingtonPost, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. count on. People like you who will believe what they write at face value, without checking to see if it even comes CLOSE to the facts.
  |     |   
 
 If it please Olyuzi, The President of the United States does not have the TIME to do research on his own - that's why he employs a cadre of advisors. And THEIR research can only extend to the data provided by the intelligence agencies.
 
 Global Warming data, and other scientific data related to geology, anthropology, etc. are not "classified" in the same manner as national security intelligence data - that's why William COULD do more research in those areas, if he were so inclined.
 
 And, by the way, I'm NOT defending the president against criticism in his handling of the build up for the war. I'm defending him against accusations that he lied. You may claim that he was reckless, or naive, or that he exercised poor judgement, or a lot of things, and I may or may NOT defend him on those counts, BUT you can be SURE that I will defend him if you say that he LIED. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 10:30:39 PM · #102			 | 
		 
		From bdobe prev post:
 
   It's with this in mind that, for example, the modern Catholic Church    interprets Genesis as a metaphor and does not advocate the literal interpretation of that book.
 
 If you can believe the beginning of the book then how can you believe the middle and the end.  If it is a lie from the start, then it is worthless.
 
 
  Message edited by author 2005-02-25 22:38:01. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 10:34:33 PM · #103			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by bbower1956:   If you can believe the beginning of the book then how can you believe the middle and the end.  If it is a lie from the start, then it is worthless.  |   
 
 huh? |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 10:47:05 PM · #104			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by bbower1956:   If you can believe the beginning of the book then how can you believe the middle and the end.  If it is a lie from the start, then it is worthless.  |   
 
 As I've stated, what's great about Liberals is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time -- for example, some of us have a strong religious core/faith, even though we simultaneously examine and subscribe to the natural sciences (i.e., believe in evolution).  The fact is that people hold seemingly divergent beliefs within themselves all the time.  Here's one such example: conservatives are "Pro-life" when it comes to fetuses, but -- not all, but many -- conservatives are avid advocates of the "Death Penalty" and solid supporters of the Iraq War.  Now, many would note that these are seemingly contradictory beliefs and, yet, there you have it: two opposing beliefs systems often residing within one person.
 
 Now, I know the arguments and, too, know why conservatives hold such positions; I merely present the example here to illustrate how people do hold seemingly opposite beliefs within themselves.
  |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 10:49:18 PM · #105			 | 
		 
		You cannot use computer models in science to come up with 'facts'.   They are only using data you have fed them and that data can be flawed.  The fact that computer models can't predict the weather next week should be enough to show that it is junk science.  Check who funded the research.
 
 You would never invest your money using a computer model but you would invest our nations future for what alot of scientists believe is a simply not true.  You can list alot of scientists that do not believe in Global Warming.  Sciene is not done by consensus.  A bunch of scientist believing the same thing does not make it true.
 
 Eugenics was believed by a majority of scientists to be a good thing before Hitler came along.  No one talks about that anymore but that is a  fact.  Scientist were wrong then.  Why should we jump on the bandwagon now and sacrifice our economy and our way of life?  
 
 We need double-blind research on this before taking drastic steps.  Remember Ted Danson said in the 90's that we'd all be dead by now if we did not get rid of the automobile.  I bet you're still here and still driving. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 10:51:54 PM · #106			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by bdobe:   Originally posted by bbower1956:   If you can believe the beginning of the book then how can you believe the middle and the end.  If it is a lie from the start, then it is worthless.  |   
 
 As I've stated, what's great about Liberals is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time -- for example, some of us have a strong religious core/faith, even though we simultaneously examine and subscribe to the natural sciences (i.e., believe in evolution).  The fact is that people hold seemingly divergent beliefs within themselves all the time.  Here's one such example: conservatives are "Pro-life" when it comes to fetuses, but -- not all, but many -- conservatives are avid advocates of the "Death Penalty" and solid supporters of the Iraq War.  Now, many would note that these are seemingly contradictory beliefs and, yet, there you have it: two opposing beliefs systems often residing within one person.
 
 Now, I know the arguments and, too, know why conservatives hold such positions; I merely present the example here to illustrate how people do hold seemingly opposite beliefs within themselves.  |   
 
 I guess we are just so stupid that we value innocent life over the takers of life.  We are not all enlightened like you.  I pray to Gia every night after I tuck my 3 year-old fetus into bed to please learn me as good as them there liberals. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 10:54:26 PM · #107			 | 
		 
		Since this thread is still going on as if this was not posted, ill post it again.  And I would like to add a special evidence to the book I posted The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight
 
 Originally posted by MadMordegon:   First, I would like to present and urge everyone who has any interest into Earth and Human reality and your childrens/grandchildrens future, to read this book: The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight which I consider one of the best books on our environmental situation and overal sliver of history we currently live in, thats in peril, and how we got here.
 
 Secondly, I present a warning from over 1,700 scientists and most living Nobel Prize winners titled "Warning To Humanity" that was written in 1992.
 
 World Scientists' Warning To Humanity
 Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. 
 
 The Warning was written and spearheaded by UCS Chair Henry Kendall. 
 
 Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.
 
 The Environment
 The environment is suffering critical stress:
 
 The Atmosphere 
 Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests and crops. 
 
 Water Resources 
 Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40% of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water further limits the supply. 
 
 Oceans 
 Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic. 
 
 Soil 
 Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive Land abandonment, is a widespread byproduct of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11% of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded -- an area larger than India and China combined -- and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing. 
 
 Forests 
 Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species. 
 
 Living Species 
 The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. 
 
 Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks are very great.
 
 Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.
 
 Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threat.
 
 Population
 The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.
 
 Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.
 
 No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.
 
 Warning
 *We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.*
 
 What We Must Do
 
 Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:
 
 We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on. 
 
 We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to third world needs -- small scale and relatively easy to implement. We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species. 
 
 We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively. We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling. 
 
 We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning. 
 
 We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty. 
 
 We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions. 
 The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their over-consumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks. 
 
 Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat.
 
 No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.
 
 Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.
 
 Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war -- amounting to over $1 trillion annually -- will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.
 
 A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convince reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.
 
 The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many.
 
 We require the help of the world community of scientists -- natural, social, economic, political;
 
 We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders;
 
 We require the help of the worlds religious leaders; and
 
 We require the help of the world's peoples.
 
 We call on all to join us in this task.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PROMINENT INDIVIDUALS AMONG MORE THAN 1,500 SIGNATORIES
 Anatole Abragam, Physicist; Fmr. Member, Pontifical Academy of Sciences; France
 Carlos Aguirre President, Academy of Sciences, Bolivia
 Walter Alvarez Geologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Viqar Uddin Ammad, Chemist, Pakistani & Third World Academies, Pakistan
 Claude Allegre, Geophysicist, Crafoord Prize, France
 Michael Alpers Epidemiologist, Inst. of Med. Research, Papua New Guinea
 Anne Anastasi, Psychologist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Philip Anderson, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Christian Anfinsen, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
 How Ghee Ang, Chemist, Third World Academy, Singapore
 Werner Arber, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Switzerland
 Mary Ellen Avery, Pediatrician, National Medal of Science, USA
 Julius Axelrod, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Michael Atiyah, Mathematician; President, Royal Society; Great Britain
 Howard Bachrach, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
 John Backus, Computer Scientist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Achmad Baiquni, Physicist, Indonesian & Third World Academies, Indonesia
 David Baltimore, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 H. A. Barker, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Francisco J. Barrantes, Biophysicist, Third World Academy, Argentina
 David Bates, Physicist, Royal Irish Academy, Ireland
 Alan Battersby, Chemist, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Great Britain
 Baruj Benacerraf, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Georg Bednorz, Nobel laureate, Physics; Switzerland
 Germot Bergold, Inst. Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Venezuela
 Sune Bergstrom, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Sweden
 Daniel Bes, Physicist, Argentinean & Third World Academies, Argentina
 Hans Bethe, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Arthur Birch Chemist, Australian Academy of Science, Australia
 Michael Bishop, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Konrad Bloch, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Nicholaas Bloembergen, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 David Mervyn Blow, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Great Britain
 Baruch Blumberg, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Bert Bolin, Meteorologist, Tyler Prize, Sweden
 Norman Borlaug, Agricultural Scientist, Nobel laureate, Peace; USA & Mexico
 Frederick Bormann, Forest Ecologist; Past President, Ecological Soc. of Amer.; USA
 Raoul Bott, Mathematician, National Medal of Science, USA
 Ronald Breslow, Chemist, National Medal of Science
 Ricardo Bressani, Inst. of Nutrition, Guatemalan & Third World Academies, Guatemala
 Hermann Bruck, Astronomer, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Great Britain
 Gerardo Budowski, Natural Resources, Univ. Para La Paz, Costa Rica
 E. Margaret Burbidge, Astronomer, National Medal of Science, USA
 Robert Burris, Biochemist, Wolf Prize in Agriculture, USA
 Glenn Burton, Geneticist, National Medal of Science, USA 
 Adolph Butenandt, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Fmr. President, Max Planck Inst.; Germany
 Sergio Cabrera, Biologist, Univ. de Chile, Chile
 Paulo C. Campos, Medical scientist, Philippine & Third World Academies, Philippines
 Ennio Candotti, Physicist; President, Brazilian Soc. Adv. of Science; Brazil
 Henri Cartan, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, France
 Carlos Chagas, Biologist; Univ. de Rio de Janeiro; Fmr. President, Pontifical Academy of Sciences; Brazil
 Sivaramakrishna Chandrasekhar, Center for Liquid Crystal Research, India
 Georges Charpak, Nobel laureate, Physics; France
 Joseph Chatt, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, Great Britain
 Shiing-Shen Chern, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, China & USA
 Christopher Chetsanga, Biochemist, Affican & Third World Academies, Zimbabwe
 Morris Cohen, Engineering, National Medal of Science, USA
 Stanley Cohen, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Stanley N. Cohen, Geneticist, Wolf Prize in Medicine, USA
 Mildred Cohn, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
 E. J. Corey, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, USA
 John Cornforth, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
 Hector Croxatto, Physiologist, Pontifical & Third World Academies, Chile
 Paul Crutzen, Chemist, Tyler Prize, Germany
 Partha Dasgupta, Economist, Royal Society, Great Britain
 Jean Dausset, Nobel laureate, Medicine; France
 Ogulande Robert Davidson, Univ. Res. & Dev. Serv., African Acad., Sierra Leone
 Margaret Davis, Ecologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Luis D'Croz, Limnologist, Univ. de Panama, Panama
 Gerard Debreu, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
 Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel laureate, Physics; France
 Johann Deisenhofer, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Germany & USA
 Frederica de Laguna, Anthropologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Paul-Yves Denis, Geographer, Academy of Sciences, Canada
 Pierre Deligne, Mathematician, Crafoord Prize, France
 Frank Dixon, Pathologist, Lasker Award, USA
 Johanna Dobereiner, Biologist, First Sec., Brazilian Academy of Sci.; Pontifical & Third World Academies, Brazil
 Joseph Doob, Mathematician, National Medal of Science, USA
 Renato Dulbecco, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Heneri Dzinotyiweyi, Mathematician, African & Third World Academies, Zimbabwe
 Manfred Eigen, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Germany
 Samuel Eilenberg, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, USA
 Mahdi Elmandjra, Economist; Vice President, African Academy of Sciences; Morocco
 Paul Ehrlich, Biologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
 Thomas Eisner, Biologist, Tyler Prize, USA
 Mohammed T. El-Ashry, Environmental scientist, Third World Academy, Egypt & USA
 Gertrude Elion, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Aina Elvius, Astronomer, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
 K. O. Emery, Oceanographer, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Paul Erdos, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, Hungary
 Richard Ernst, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Switzerland
 Vittorio Ersparmer, Pharmacologist, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
 Sandra Faber, Astronomer, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Nina Federoff, Embryologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Herman Feshbach, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Inga Fischer-Hjalmars, Biologist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
 Michael Ellis Fisher, Physicist, Wolf Prize in Physics, Great Britain & USA
 Val Fitch, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Daflinn Follesdal, President, Norwegian Academy of Science; Norway
 William Fowler, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Otto Frankel, Geneticist, Australian Academy of Sciences, Australia
 Herbert Friedman, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
 Jerome Friedman, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Konstantin V. Frolov Engineer; Vice President, Russian Academy of Sciences; Russia
 Kenichi Fukui, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Japan
 Madhav Gadgil, Ecologist, National Science Academy, India
 Mary Gaillard, Physicist, National Academy of Sciences. USA
 Carleton Gajdusek, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Robert Gallo, Research Scientist, Lasker Award, USA
 Rodrigo Gamez ,Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Costa Rica
 Antonio Garcia-Bellido, Biologist, Univ. Auto. Madrid, Royal Society, Spain
 Leopoldo Garcia-Collin, Physicist, Latin American & Third World Academies, Mexico
 Percy Garnham, Royal Society & Pontifical Academy, Great Britain
 Richard Garwin, Physicist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Georgii Georgiev, Biologist, Lenin Prize, Russia
 Humam Bishara Ghassib, Physicist, Third World Academy, Jordan
 Ricardo Giacconi, Astronomer, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
 Eleanor J. Gibson, Psychologist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Marvin Goldberger, Physicist; Fmr. President, Calif. Inst. of Tech., USA
 Maurice Goldhaber, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
 Donald Glaser, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Sheldon Glashow, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 James Gowans, Wolf Prize in Medicine, France
 Roger Green, Anthropologist, Royal Society, New Zealand
 Peter Greenwood, Ichthyologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
 Edward Goldberg, Chemist, Tyler Prize, USA
 Coluthur Gopolan, Nutrition Foundation of India, Indian & Third World Academies, India
 Stephen Jay Gould, Paleontologist, Author, Harvard Univ., USA
 Roger Guillemin, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Herbert Gutowsky, Wolf Prize in Chemistry, USA
 Erwin Hahn, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
 Gonzalo Halffter, Ecologist, Inst. Pol. Nac. ,Mexico
 Kerstin Hall, Endocrinologist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
 Mohammed Ahmed Hamdan, Mathematician, Third World, Academy, Jordan
 Adnan Hamoui, Mathematician, Third World, Academy, Kuwait
 A. M. Harun-ar Rashid, Physicist; Sec., Bangladesh, Academy of Sci., Bangladesh
 Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Physicist; Exec. Sec., Third World Academy of Sciences; Sudan & Italy
 Ahmed Hassanli, Chemist, African Academy of Sciences, Tanzania & Kenya
 Herbert Hauptman, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
 Stephen Hawking, Mathematician, Wolf Prize in Physics, Great Britain
 Elizabeth Hay, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Dudley Herschbach, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, USA
 Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Canada
 Antony Hewish, Nobel laureate, Physics; Great Britain
 George Hitchings, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
 Roald Hoffman, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
 Robert Holley, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Nick Holonyak, Electrical Engineer, National Medal of Science, USA
 Lars Hormander, Wolf Prize in Mathematics, Sweden
 Dorothy Horstmann, Epidemiologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 John Houghton, Meteorologist; Chairman, Science Working Group, IPCC; Great Britain
 Sarah Hrdy, Anthropologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Kenneth Hsu, Geologist, Third World Academy, China & Switzerland
 Kun Huang, Physicist, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
 Hiroshi Inose, Electrical Engineer; Vice President, Engineering Academy; Japan
 Turner T. Isoun, Pathologist, African Academy of Sciences,
 Nigeria Francois Jacob, Nobel laureate, Medicine; France
 Carl-Olof Jacobson Zoologist; Sec-Gen., Royal Academy of Sciences; Sweden
 Dorothea Jameson, Psychologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Daniel Janzen, Biologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
 Cecilia Jarlskog, Physicist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
 Louise Johnson, Biophysicist, Royal Society, Great Britain
 Harold Johnston, Chemist, Tyler Prize, USA
 Victor A. Kabanov, Chemist, Lenin Prize in Science, Russia
 Jerome Karle, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Robert Kates, Geographer, National Medal of Science, USA
 Frederick I. B. Kayanja, Vice-Chnclr., Mbarara Univ., Third World Academy, Uganda
 Joseph Keller, Mathematician, National Medal of Science, USA
 Henry Kendall, Nobel laureate, Physics; Chairman, Union of Concerned Scientists; USA
 John Kendrew, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
 Elisabeth Kessler, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
 Maung-U Khin, Pediatrician, Third World Academy, Myamnar & USA
 Gurdev Khush, Agronomist, International Rice Institute, Indian Natl. Sci. Academy, India & Philippines
 Susan Kieffer, Geologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Klaus von Klitzing, Nobel laureate, Physics; Germany
 Aaron Klug, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, Great Britain
 E. F. Knipling, Agricultural Researcher, National Medal of Science, USA
 Walter Kohn, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Janos Kornai, Economist, Hungarian Academy of Science, Hungary
 Aderemi Kuku, Mathematician, African & Third World Acads., Nigeria
 Ikuo Kushiro, Geologist, Japan Academy, Japan
 Devendra Lal, Geophysicist, National Science Academy, India
 Gerardo Lamas-Muller, Biologist, Museo de Historia Natural, Peru
 Torvard Laurent, Physiological chemist; President, Royal Academy of Sciences; Sweden
 Leon Lederman, Nobel laureate, Physics; Chr., Amer. Assn. Adv. Sci.; USA
 Sang Soo Lee, Physicist, Korean & Third World Academies, Rep. of Korea
 Yuan T. Lee, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
 Susan Leeman PharmacologistX National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Jean Marie Lehn, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; France
 Wassily Leontief, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
 Luna Leopold, Geologist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Louis Leprince-Ringuet, Physicist, French & Pontifical Academies, France
 Vladilen Letokhov, Physicist, Lenin Prize in Science, Russia
 Rita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA & Italy
 Li Chang-lin, Environmental Sciences, Fudan University, China
 Shan Tao Liao, Mathematician, Chinese & Third World Academies, China
 William Lipscomb, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Jane Lubchenco, Zoologist; President-Elect, Ecological Soc. of Amer.; USA
 Christopher Magazda, Limnologist, African Academy of Sciences, Zimbabwe
 Lydia Phindile Makhubu, Chemist, Third World & African Academies, Swaziland
 Khursheed Ahmad Malik, Microbiologist, Pakistan & Third World Academies, Pakistan & Germany
 Lynn Margulis, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Paul Marks, Oncologist, National Medal of Science, USA
 George Martine, Inst. for Study of Society, Population, & Nature; Brazil
 Frederico Mayor, Biochemist; Dir. Gen., UNESCO, Spain & France Ernst Mayr, Zoologist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Maclyn McCarty, Wolf Prize in Medicine, USA
 James McConnell, Physicist, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Ireland
 Digby McLaren, Past President, Royal Society of Canada; Canada
 James Meade, Nobel laureate, Economics; Great Britain
 Jerrold Meinwald, Chemistry, Tyler Prize, USA
 M. G. K Menon, Physicist; President, International Council of Scientific Unions; India
 Gennady Mesiatz, Physicist; Vice President, Russian Academy of Sciences; Russia
 Jan Michalski, Biologist, Polish Academy of Science, Poland
 Hartmut Michel, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Germany
 Brenda Milner, Neurologist, Academy of Sciences, Canada
 Cesar Milstein, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Argentina & Great Britain
 Franco Modigliani, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
 Andrei Monin, Oceanologist, State Prize, Russia
 Marcos Moshinsky, Physicist, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Mexico
 Nevill Mott, Nobel laureate, Physics; Great Britain
 Teruaki Mukaiyama, Chemist, Japan Academy, Japan
 Walter Munk, Geophysicist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Anne Murray, Ethnographer, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
 Joseph Murray, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Noreen Murray, Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
 Lawrence Mysak, Meteorologist; Vice President, Academy of Science, Royal Society of Canada; Canada
 Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, Astrophysicist, Indian & Third World Academies, India
 Anwar Nasim, Biologist, Third World Academy, Saudi Arabia
 Kim Nasmyth, Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain & Austria
 James Neel, Geneticist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Louis Neel, Nobel laureate, Physics; France
 Yuval Ne'eman, Physicist, Natl. Acad. of Sci. & Humanities, Israel
 Oleg M. Nefedov, Chemist; Vice President, Russian Academy of Sciences; Russia
 Erwin Neher, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Germany
 Marshall Nirenberg, Biochemist; Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Yasutomi Nishizuka, Biochemist, Lasker Award, Japan
 John S. Nkoma, Physicist, Third World Academy, Botswana
 Paul Nchoji Nkvvi, Anthropologist, African Academy, Cameroon
 Howard Odum, Ecologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
 Bede Nwoye Okigbo, Agricultural Scientist; Dir., U.N. Unv. Pgm. Natrl. Res. in Afr.; Nigeria & Kenya
 Ayub Khan Ommaya, Neurobiologist, Third World Academy, Pakistan & USA
 Cyril Agodi Onwumechili, Physicist, Fmr. Pres., Nigerian Acad. of Sciences, Nigeria & Great Britain
 Mary Jane Osborn, Microbiologist, National Academy of Scientists, USA
 Yuri Ossipyan, Physicist; Vice President, Russian Academy of Sciences; Russia
 Autzr Singh Paintal, Physiologist, Fmr. President, Indian National Science Academy, India
 George Pake, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
 George Palade, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Mary Lou Pardue, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate, Chemistry & Pence, USA
 Barbara Pearse, Molecular Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
 Muhammed Abed Peerally, Biologist, Third World Academy, Mauritius
 Manuel Peimbert, Astronomer, Univ. Nac. Aut. de Mexico, Mexico
 Roger Penrose, Mathematician, Wolf Prize in Physics, Great Britain
 John Philip, Agricultural Science, Australian Academy of Science, Australia
 Lilian Pickford, Physiologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
 John R. Pierce, Electrical Engineer, National Medal of Science, USA
 John Polanyi, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Canada
 George Porter, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
 Ilya Prigogine, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Belgium
 Giampietro Puppi, Physicist, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Italy
 Edward Purcell, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Atta ur-Rahman, Chemist, Pakistani & Third World Academies, Pakistan
 G. N. Ramachandran, Mathematician, Inst. of Science, India
 Tiruppattur Ramakrishnan, Physicist, Indian & Third World Academies, India
 Chintamani Rao, Inst. of Science, Indian and Pontifical Academies, India
 Eduardo Rapoport, Ecologist, Third World Academy, Argentina
 Marianne Rasmuson, Geneticist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden
 Peter Raven, Director, Missouri Botanical Garden; National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Martin Rees, Astronomer, Royal Society & Pontifical Academy, Great Britain
 Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, Anthropologist, Columbian & Third World Academies, Columbia
 Tadeus Reichstein, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Switzerland
 Frederick Reines, Physicist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Alexander Rich, Biologist, National & Pontifical Academies, USA
 Burton Richter, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Ralph Riley, Wolf Prize in Agriculture, Great Britain
 Claude Rimington, Inst. for Cancer Research, Norwegian Academy of Science, Norway
 Gustavo Rivas Mijares, Engineer; Fmr. President, Academy of Sciences, Venezuela
 Frederick Robbins, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Wendell Roelofs, Entomologist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Betty Roots, Zoologist, Academy of Sciences, Canada
 Miriam Rothschild, Biologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
 Sherwood Rowland, Chemist; President, American Association for the Advancement of Science; USA
 Janet Rowley, Physician, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Carlo Rubbia, Nobel laureate, Physics, Italy & Switzerland
 Vera Rubin, Physicist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Yuri Rudenko, Energy Research Inst., State Prize laureate, Russia
 Elizabeth Russell, Jackson Laboratory, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Albert Sabin, Virologist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Carl Sagan, Astrophysicist & Author, USA
 Roald Sagdeev, Physicist, Russian & Pontifical Academies, Russia & USA
 Ruth Sager, Geneticist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Farrokh Saidi, Surgeon, Third World Academy, Iran
 Abdus Salam, Nobel laureate, Physics; President, Third World Academy of Sciences, Pakistan & Italy
 Frederick Sanger, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
 Jose Sarukhan, Biologist, Third World Academy, Mexico
 Berta Scharrer,Neuroscientist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Richard Schultes, Botanist, Tyler Prize, USA
 Melvin Schwartz, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Julian Schwinger, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Glenn Seaborg, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 Michael Sela, Weizmann Inst., Pontifical Academy of Science, Israel
 Arne Semb-Johansson, Entomologist, Norwegian Academy of Science, Norway
 Salimuzzaman Siddiqui, Chemist, Pontifical & Third World Academies, Pakistan
 Kai Siegbahn, Nobel laureate, Physics; Sweden
 Thomas Silou, Biochemist, African Academy of Sciences, Congo
 Herbert Simon, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
 Alexej Sitenko, Physicist, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Ukraine
 Jens Skou, Biophysicist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Denmark
 Charles Slack, Agricultural Science, Royal Society, New Zealand
 George Snell, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Roger Sperry, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Alexander Spirin, Biologistn Lenin Prize, Russia
 Earl Stadtman, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Thressa Stadtman, Biochemist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Ledyard Stebbins, Geneticist, National Medal of Science, USA
 Jack Steinberger, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA & Switzerland
 Janos Szentgothai, Fmr. President, Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Hungary
 Tan Jia-zhen, Geneticist, Shanghai Univ., China
 Andrezej Tarkowski, Embryologist, Polish [text missing]
 Valentine Telegdi, Wolf Prize in Physics, Switzerland
 Kirthi Tennakone, Physicist, Third World Academy, Sri Lanka
 Walter Thirring, Physicist, Austrian & Pontifical Academies, Austria
 Donnall Thomas, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Jan Tinbergen, Nobel laureate, Economics; Netherlands
 Samuel C. C. Ting, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
 James Tobin, Nobel laureate, Economics; USA
 Alexander Todd, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
 Susumu Tonegawa, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Japan & USA
 Cheng Kui Tseng, Oceanologist, Chinese & Third World Academies, China
 Hans Tuppy, Biochemist, Austrian & Pontifical Academies, Austria
 James Van Allen, Physicist, Crafoord Prize, USA
 Simon van der Meer, Nobel laureate, Physics; Netherlands & Switzerland
 John Vane, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Great Britain
 Harold Varmus, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Martha Vaughan, Biochemist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 George Wald, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Henrik Wallgren, Zoologist, Society of Science & Letters, Finland
 E. T. S. Walton, Nobel laureate, Physics, Ireland
 Prawase Wasi, Hematologist, Third World Academy, Thailand
 Gerald Wasserburg, Geophysicist, Crafoord Prize, USA
 James Watson, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Victor Weisskopf, Wolf Prize in Physics, USA
 Thomas Weller, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Diter von Wettstein, Physiologist, Royal Academy of Sciences, Denmark
 Fred Whipple, Astronomer, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Gilbert White, Geographer, Tyler Prize, USA
 Torsten Wiesel, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
 Jerome Wiesner, Physicist, Fmr. President, Mass. Inst. of Tech., USA
 Maurice Wilkins, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Great Britain
 Geoffrey Wilkinson, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; Great Britain
 Richard Willems, Geneticist, Estonian Biocentre, Estonia
 Edward O. Wilson, Biologist, Crafoord Prize, USA
 Lawrence A. Wilson, Agricultural Science, Third World Academy, Trinidad
 Evelyn Witkin, Biologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
 Yang Fujia, Physicist, Chinese & Third World Academies, China
 Alexander L. Yanshin, Geologist, Karpinsky Gold Medal, Russia
 Yongyuth Yuthavong, Biochemist; Director, National Sci. & Tech. Devl. Agency, Thailand
 Zhao Zhong-xian, Physicist, Chinese & Third World Academies, China
 Zhou Guang-zhao, Physicist; President, Chinese Academy of Sciences; China
 Solly ZuckerInan, Zoologist, Royal Society, Great Britain
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Over 1,500 members of national, regional, and inter-national science academies have signed the Warning. Sixty-nine nations from all parts of Earth are represented, including each of the twelve most populous nations and the nineteen largest economic powers. The full list includes a majority of the Nobel laureates in the sciences. Awards and institutional affiliations are listed for the purpose of identification only. The Nobel Prize in medicine is for physiology or medicine. 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 A WORLD SCIENTISTS' WARNING BRIEFING BOOK is available from the Union of Concerned Scientists. It provides the citations to support their WARNING. 
 Union of Concerned Scientists
 96 Church Street
 Cambridge, Mass 02238-9105, USA
 
 VOX: 617-547-5552
 FAX: 617-864-9405
 //www.ucsusa.org/
 ucs@igc.apc.org
 
 Warning issued on November 18, 1992  |  
  |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 10:59:00 PM · #108			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by bdobe:   Originally posted by RonB:  3) It seems that you STILL haven't the guts to answer my TOM LOVES MARY question - why is that?????  |   
 
 I'll be perfectly blunt with you Ron. I believe the TOM LOVES MARY analogy is an extremely stupid one, and nothing more than a simpleminded rhetorical exercise, that's just a simple game of linear logic -- that's why I hadn't bothered to entertain it. |   
 
 Actually, it is NOT "simpleminded", not "rhetorical" and not "linear logic". It is a blunt question that will reveal whether you REALLY believe in science as opposed to intelligent design.
 
 It is obvious that, by refusing to answer the question, you do not.
 
 You CLAIM to believe in macro evolution and NOT to believe in intelligent design ( Creationism to some of us ), yet when confronted with just a small example, you cannot bring yourself to defend a scientific explanation as opposed to an explanation requiring intelligent design.
 
 I think that you are afraid to answer because it's a catch-22 for those like you who CLAIM to believe in "science". If you pick science, then you show yourself to be a fool. But if you DON'T pick science, then you show yourself to be someone who the bible refers to as a "double minded" man. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:00:39 PM · #109			 | 
		 
		I'll give you this: You're funny... but I don't know why you carry such a chip on your shoulder about education or enlightenment... it's got nothing to do with either, it's about values.  My values include tolerance, respect for religious diversity (that's why I don't advocate for the imposition of my faith over others), love of family  and community, and the right of couples to determine and control their reproductive destiny.  As I indicated, am familiar with the arguments that conservatives make to rationalize their ideological inconsistencies, so your response is not at all surprising.
 
 .......................................
 
 Originally posted by bbower1956:   Originally posted by bdobe:   [quote=bbower1956] If you can believe the beginning of the book then how can you believe the middle and the end.  If it is a lie from the start, then it is worthless.  |   
 
 As I've stated, what's great about Liberals is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time -- for example, some of us have a strong religious core/faith, even though we simultaneously examine and subscribe to the natural sciences (i.e., believe in evolution).  The fact is that people hold seemingly divergent beliefs within themselves all the time.  Here's one such example: conservatives are "Pro-life" when it comes to fetuses, but -- not all, but many -- conservatives are avid advocates of the "Death Penalty" and solid supporters of the Iraq War.  Now, many would note that these are seemingly contradictory beliefs and, yet, there you have it: two opposing beliefs systems often residing within one person.
 
 Now, I know the arguments and, too, know why conservatives hold such positions; I merely present the example here to illustrate how people do hold seemingly opposite beliefs within themselves.  |   
 
 Originally posted by bbower1956:   I guess we are just so stupid that we value innocent life over the takers of life.  We are not all enlightened like you.  I pray to Gia every night after I tuck my 3 year-old fetus into bed to please learn me as good as them there liberals.  |  
 
  |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:03:14 PM · #110			 | 
		 
		What drastic steps are you talking about that would be taken that would sacrifice our economy or way of life?
 
 You can't have a double blind study with something like global warming. It's not like giving out pills to two different groups of study participants and recording the results. There are many confounding factors and the atomosphere/biosphere can't be duplicated anywhere near what it's true make up is.  The research study that the OP sited was probably the closest thing as it sounds like two different data sets were fed to computer models and the results recorded. The many computer model studies that suggest the human causation of global warming is good enough for me to warn us that we need to take some steps to improve our energy useage.
 
 Originally posted by bbower1956:   You cannot use computer models in science to come up with 'facts'.   They are only using data you have fed them and that data can be flawed.  The fact that computer models can't predict the weather next week should be enough to show that it is junk science.  Check who funded the research.
 
 You would never invest your money using a computer model but you would invest our nations future for what alot of scientists believe is a simply not true.  You can list alot of scientists that do not believe in Global Warming.  Sciene is not done by consensus.  A bunch of scientist believing the same thing does not make it true.
 
 Eugenics was believed by a majority of scientists to be a good thing before Hitler came along.  No one talks about that anymore but that is a  fact.  Scientist were wrong then.  Why should we jump on the bandwagon now and sacrifice our economy and our way of life?  
 
 We need double-blind research on this before taking drastic steps.  Remember Ted Danson said in the 90's that we'd all be dead by now if we did not get rid of the automobile.  I bet you're still here and still driving.  |  
  |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:03:47 PM · #111			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by RonB:  If you pick science, then you show yourself to be a fool. But if you DON'T pick science, then you show yourself to be someone who the bible refers to as a "double minded" man.  |   
 
 Precisely, this is why I described your analogy as simpleminded and nothing more than a rhetorical exercise using nothing more than linear logic. Hence, an utter waste of time.
  Message edited by author 2005-02-25 23:17:28.
  |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:11:10 PM · #112			 | 
		 
		| Btw, the reason more scientists and professors are liberal is because they are smarter and more educated than normal men. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:11:41 PM · #113			 | 
		 
		| There is many a educated fool. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:16:59 PM · #114			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by bdobe:   Originally posted by RonB:  If you pick science, then you show yourself to be a fool. But if you DON'T pick science, then you show yourself to be someone who the bible refers to as a "double minded" man.  |   
 
 Precisely, this is why I described your analogy as simpleminded and nothing more than a rhetorical argument using nothing more than liner logic.  Hence, an utter waste of time.  |   
 
 Thanks for the response. It answers the question just as well as if you had answered the question. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:17:11 PM · #115			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by RonB:  If it please Olyuzi, The President of the United States does not have the TIME to do research on his own - that's why he employs a cadre of advisors. |   
 
 Actually, WE employ them (not willingly). Your buddy Bush sure has time for vacation though. And naps. Definately doesn't have any time for press conferences though. Or researching matters on national interest.
 
 Originally posted by RonB:  You CLAIM to believe in macro evolution and NOT to believe in intelligent design ( Creationism to some of us ), yet when confronted with just a small example, you cannot bring yourself to defend a scientific explanation as opposed to an explanation requiring intelligent design.  |   
 
 Can you show me any proof of Creationism RonB? No? I didn't think so. Until you can, why don't you stop talking your absolute nonsense, demanding proof of everything, then claiming in the totally bizzare way that you do that any evidence that is provided (that you disagree with) is somehow a lie.
 
 You always demand proof. Yet, you can't even provide your own proof about anything.
  |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:20:10 PM · #116			 | 
		 
		Don't you want your 3 year-old to have fresh air to breath and have a healthy body for the duration of his/her life? Global warming is not the only result of our use of fossil fuels.
 
 Originally posted by bbower1956:    I pray to Gia every night after I tuck my 3 year-old fetus into bed to please learn me as good as them there liberals.  |  
  |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:25:37 PM · #117			 | 
		 
		It is amazing how this debate undulates from fact to fancy. I always feel that when you say something and post it you are creating a public record of all that you are. It tells a lot of your psychological make up and how you view the external.
 
 I even saw the line, why wait for the proof. Is this not like saying may as well believe and accept a hypothesis as fact to satisfy an insecurity of inner uncertainty. Do you know how many incorrect theories have been laid down by otherwise intelligent people?
 
 Is is not strange that the Liberals latch on to all these loony beliefs and then expect everybody else to eat the cake. 
 
 Let me give some facts which are taking place. The belief of the left is that the natural cause of death is extinct. My father in law quit smoking at age 32. Died at age 77. The doctor asked us did he smoke. We said yes, quit 45 years ago. Well, they added his name all the same to the smoking stats and that is what is taking place. Numbers are being created to support this structure. He even scared the wife saying that second smoke is certain to take its toll on you. She is alive in good health and 91.
 
 They would love to print the headline, "Man lights up cigarette in bus and 10 people die." Yes, it all depends on your constitution. Some people are simply all messed up health wise because of upbringing, diet or simply a hereditary disposition. 
 
 I was raised in a smoke filled room. Mom and dad chain smokers. I started smoking at age 14. Well, according to the stats I should have died long ago. Lungs are perfect, blood pressure perfect and all vital signs at peak. I am going on 67 and shovelled all the snow on my two lot property and I do it very swiftly and even do my neighbors when I get there first. I would advise anyone against smoking merely because, in my case it creates a strong irritant to my sinus. That is, you smoke at your own risk and you must determine if you can withstand it. If you have  breathing problems forget it, it will just aggravate it more. If your kidney and liver are not robust then you won't be able to cleanse yourself. But not everybody dies from smoking and less from the supposed second hand smoke. 
 
 So you see, the left gets it into its head and takes up a cause and is bent on bending everybody elses will. But I do know that no longer people die of natural causes. The left has preempted the natural cause for whatever cause they have in mind. They simply hate big business and love to bring down dynasties and corrupt the capitalist system.
 
 Now we are told that display of God or belief in God or anything related to God is a no-no. They seek to remove "God" from the very constitution that has proven the most successful government in the face of the earth. Look at the concerted effort.
 
 Now, we hear about earthwarming and without evidence that we are the cause, the left runs rampant in public television and in our schools teaching this misinformation and all the other hogwash that has replaced the very basics and is turning out not the most brightest into the world and allowing other nations to graduate more engineers, etc, etc.
 
 All this being done for political reasons so the liberal can justify its existence by being a better person with a bigger heart and a bigger brain. I don't think so. That's merely heaping praise on an empty ego.
 
 The very last post begs no reply. It is rooted in fear mongering and is now bringing in the children to support a half baked argument. I wonder what would function in life without the burning of energy. I know, we should all stop exhaling, it will bring about the end with so much carbon dioxide filling the air.
  Message edited by author 2005-02-25 23:57:50. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:35:37 PM · #118			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by ericlimon:   Originally posted by RonB:  If it please Olyuzi, The President of the United States does not have the TIME to do research on his own - that's why he employs a cadre of advisors. |   
 
 Actually, WE employ them (not willingly). Your buddy Bush sure has time for vacation though. And naps. Definately doesn't have any time for press conferences though. Or researching matters on national interest.
 
 Originally posted by RonB:  You CLAIM to believe in macro evolution and NOT to believe in intelligent design ( Creationism to some of us ), yet when confronted with just a small example, you cannot bring yourself to defend a scientific explanation as opposed to an explanation requiring intelligent design.  |   
 
 Can you show me any proof of Creationism RonB? No? I didn't think so. Until you can, why don't you stop talking your absolute nonsense, demanding proof of everything, then claiming in the totally bizzare way that you do that any evidence that is provided (that you disagree with) is somehow a lie.
 
 You always demand proof. Yet, you can't even provide your own proof about anything.  |   
 
 Can you show me proof of macro evolution Eric. No? I didn't think so. Until you can, why don't you stop talking your absolute nonsense, offering up opinions and conjecture as though it were fact?
 
 You are correct. I can't PROVE creationsim. I can only offer simple examples that demonstrate to reasonably inteligent people that macro evolution is a fraud. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:40:29 PM · #119			 | 
		 
		I quit smoking to help the enviroment....not really, but it sounds good.   Sunday will be one week.
 
 My G/F still smokes, and she can smoke in the house...no prob, but man I am going to be a fat ass if I keep eating like I am ...
 
 /sorta hijacked, I am sorry...   :) |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:44:21 PM · #120			 | 
		 
		lol...exercise!
 I wish you the best of luck in quitting. It's the best thing you can do for your health.
 
 Originally posted by Riggs:   I quit smoking to help the enviroment....not really, but it sounds good.   Sunday will be one week.
 
 My G/F still smokes, and she can smoke in the house...no prob, but man I am going to be a fat ass if I keep eating like I am ...
 
 /sorta hijacked, I am sorry...   :)  |  
  |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/25/2005 11:57:13 PM · #121			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by RonB:  I can only offer simple examples that demonstrate to reasonably inteligent people that macro evolution is a fraud.  |   
 
 That's funny RonB, you sound just like the same people you insinuate are liars. Maybe you've only been lying to your self huh? Any reasonably intellingent person would obviously see that maybe it's actually you that might be the fraud. If you can't talk it, you shouldn't walk it.
  Message edited by author 2005-02-25 23:58:19.
  |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/26/2005 12:54:35 AM · #122			 | 
		 
		So now we reach the conclusion that Liberals are the enlightened one and that conservatives are lost in their ignorance. Only one problem I see. Liberals can not sell their junk science and their pseudo intelligence to the majority of Americans. They certainly are more popular with second and third world countries. Here in America the Liberals get clobbered in the domain of ideas. 
 
 There was even a time when the liberal hid. Now with nuts like Howard Dean, Al Gore, and many other prominent ones, it becaomes fashionable to proudly wear the label. Even Churchill is ranting, he feels assured his time has come. I think this is good because it makes the thinking person run even further from electing such luminaries. 
 
 Again I point out that the liberal battles are being won in the courts by the activist leftish judges. The majority of Americans opposed most of this lunacy. With all due repect but there is such an air of superiority and supposed understanding and concern which exhibit an edge of the supercilious. Why any human being would assume this demeanor at the cost of sounding so pompous escapes me, but then I am not a liberal and must contend with my limitations. 
 
 No dear friend. If I were to preach the agenda of the Liberal I would have to look deep in my hearts for these convictions. I am sorry but that would lead to a very uncomfortable life.
 
 I do not mean this as an insult, I am merely saying that as humans we accumulate knowledge and nonsense side by side. It is up to each of us to chose whether to file the nonsense in our mental hard drive in the same folder as the knowledge and then have retrival problems.
 
 There is a warning not to discuss politics and religion. However, I join these forums because I am a seeker of truth and as such I entertain a philosophical outlook. I can take it as well I give it. I simply notice that liberals do not discuss ideas as they are soldiers or true believers and frankly, I envy how anyone can assume to know so much with so much passion. I have read most of the ancients' writings and I was always surprised to find how a wrong premise mounted a literal change in a society only for it to crumble and give rise to the next nonsesical fever. Yet here we are practicing the same lame logic and advancing big scope planetary changes and we still can not cure the common cold or foretell the weather a few days inadvance. But yes, the computer models get fed raw info which foretells how we better change our ways. Are these not the same people that carry these signs, repent, the end is near? lol. Do not hate me. I speak my mind.
  Message edited by author 2005-02-26 21:11:05. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/26/2005 01:20:59 AM · #123			 | 
		 
		 |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/26/2005 01:39:17 AM · #124			 | 
		 
		| I have one question. If the population explosion is such a big problem why then are we trying to live forever? Why do we worry about all the little things that might kill us when it is us that we think are the problem? Isn’t it more sane to just let us do ourselves in rather than worry incessantly about our welfare and in so doing just making this population explosion all the worse? I think there is no sense to the belief that there are too many humans on earth and then to be going on about smoking and seatbelts in cars or driving drunk. Maybe if the earth warms up us humans will die off and then we will have solved our population problem. Maybe you lefty’s are looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Just let the dummies die and then you can have a perfect world to live in with no power no heat in homes no cars no beef no cigarettes no(OH ya you guys like to drink so you can have your booze) Hot dogs. Just line up with your 10 speeds and go about your merry ways. |  
  |  
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
02/26/2005 10:15:09 AM · #125			 | 
		 
		Originally posted by MadMordegon:   Btw, the reason more scientists and professors are liberal is because they are smarter and more educated than normal men.  |   
 
 More educated I'll agree with that. However, more educated does NOT automatically equate to 'smarter'. Many of these people are extremely knowledgable in their one field of expertise while being quite ignorant in other unrelated but important areas, such as common sense, human relations, etc. In your description of 'liberal' scientists and professors you left out intolerant, narrow-minded, self-righteous, patronizing, and bigoted. Btw, I loved the way you differentiated your liberal 'intellectuals' from 'normal men'. A freudian slip, perhaps? |  
  |  
 
 
	
		
			| 
											 | 
			
				 Current Server Time: 11/04/2025 08:04:36 AM 				 			 | 
		 
	 
			
			
			
			
  
			
  
		
			Home -
			 Challenges -
			 Community -
			 League -
			 Photos -
			 Cameras -
			 Lenses -
			 Learn -
			
			 Help -
			 Terms of Use -
			 Privacy -
			 Top ^
		DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
		 All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
		 Current Server Time: 11/04/2025 08:04:36 AM EST.
		  
		 |