General Music Chat

I don't know how old you are Kramer, but I remember when we were being told the end would come in the 1980s, and certainly by the year 2000.

It's all still here, a planet which has survived natural upheavals making all of man's pollution look silly by comparison. It is as George Carlin stated in his famous routine. With all the planet has been through a bunch of aluminum cans and plastic bags are not going to stop it.

I do not dismiss the chemical problems. I do dismiss the conclusions of those who do not believe the earth can deal with it all in ways mankind does not have understanding of.

The solution to pollution (sorry) is simple but presently expensive: collect it and send it into the sun. Of course we're only talking about nuclear waste and other super poisons; burning fossil fuels will continue to escalate atmospheric pollution until they are used up.

Jimmy, the whole universe is not a lab. We have zero control of it.

Second, with science constantly changing their ideas of origins, time, and every other subject in the discussion of the big question, and the number of scientists leaving the ranks of Darwinian origins every year, because so many objections to it all now exist (if nothing else - information; where did IT come from), all theories are up for grabs.

Science is as much religion as any other, TIME being its god, and is no more an answer to everything than those who believe life was seeded on earth by other civilizations in the universe.

if nothing else, burning coal spews partical mercury into the air, where it floats anywhere from ground zero to halfway around the world, eventually getting caught in a storm and raining down onto the earth below, where it seeps into the ground, absorbed by plants, crops, eaten by animals, seeps into groundwater and rivers, streams, fish.. eventually several of those end up consumed by humans.

And that's just one of dozens, if not hundreds of toxic chemicals that have found their way into our everyday lives.

And we're all getting sicker and sicker. Autism, Downs, parkinsons, adhd, aspergers, MR, diabetes, juvenile diabetes, MS, lukemia, cancer, childhood cancer, agenesis of the corpus callosum, bipolar and other psychological disorders..

.. All not just on the rise, but many rising at epidemic levels.

GW is only a notch on the cog.. and not even worthy of debate anymore. We are slowly poisoning the entire planet, and believe me, we WILL eventually make it unlivable if we continue our current trend, it's not a matter of IF, but WHEN.

Kramer, I am definitely an advocate of common sense about the environment. We should strive to exact the balances that parallel mother nature. Or, simply put, we should stop being excessive about many things. But I also believe that the Green movement thing goes too far over the top. If the greenie-meanies are so adamant about the environment, why don't they give up their concrete houses and gas consuming cars in favor of straw huts and horses? There is nothing to stop them. As it stands, the green movements are turning the job market upside down, because of arbitrary rulings, which have their basis on 'political connection' rather than environmental concern.
My money is always gonna be on Mother nature to prevail by natural cause... I do not believe that 'my' existence has posed a deleterious and huge negative impact on the integrity of this massive huge planet. Nor do I believe that 2 billion people is a strong enough force to actually destroy this planet. Earth will swallow up anything that breeches its natural balance (internally). Evidence has shown that it successfully adapted after the asteroids hit it) At most, 2 billion people will Phuk up your garden... I DO believe that the green concept is a self-serving, political agenda, for people who have been banned from shopping at Michael's Arts & Crafts stores... (Well maybe not that extreme...)

Science and religion are NOT the same thing; religion is based on faith in the unknowable, science is based on evidence, proof and facts. Any scientist who would deny such basic and accepted theories like the Big Bang and evolution is no scientist at all. More than 95% of scientists agree that the Big Bang is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe; that's good enough for me.

Well, most plausible is hardly fact. Is the English language that shaky?

Faith in TIME to perform all things is the religion of those 95%. And why the other 5% of PHDs who see things otherwise is of no consequence is beyond me. TRUTH is not a majority rules thing.

Having spent the last 33 years of my life looking at the scientific reasoning which abides alongside fiat creation and the global flood, and seeing all the scientists lining up with it year in and year out, I would say it will not be long before the big bang theory glides into something else as more and more holes are poked in it.

Wait till Webb is launched and it shows the world everything is order out there, not chaos. We'll see what the 95% say then.

Never mind...

PaperDog, well said.

if nothing else, burning coal spews partical mercury into the air, where it floats anywhere from ground zero to halfway around the world, eventually getting caught in a storm and raining down onto the earth below, where it seeps into the ground, absorbed by plants, crops, eaten by animals, seeps into groundwater and rivers, streams, fish.. eventually several of those end up consumed by humans.

And that's just one of dozens, if not hundreds of toxic chemicals that have found their way into our everyday lives.

And we're all getting sicker and sicker. Autism, Downs, parkinsons, adhd, aspergers, MR, diabetes, juvenile diabetes, MS, lukemia, cancer, childhood cancer, agenesis of the corpus callosum, bipolar and other psychological disorders..

.. All not just on the rise, but many rising at epidemic levels.

GW is only a notch on the cog.. and not even worthy of debate anymore. We are slowly poisoning the entire planet, and believe me, we WILL eventually make it unlivable if we continue our current trend, it's not a matter of IF, but WHEN.

Kramer, I am definitely an advocate of common sense about the environment. We should strive to exact the balances that parallel mother nature. Or, simply put, we should stop being excessive about many things. But I also believe that the Green movement thing goes too far over the top. If the greenie-meanies are so adamant about the environment, why don't they give up their concrete houses and gas consuming cars in favor of straw huts and horses? There is nothing to stop them. As it stands, the green movements are turning the job market upside down, because of arbitrary rulings, which have their basis on 'political connection' rather than environmental concern.
My money is always gonna be on Mother nature to prevail by natural cause... I do not believe that 'my' existence has posed a deleterious and huge negative impact on the integrity of this massive huge planet. Nor do I believe that 2 billion people is a strong enough force to actually destroy this planet. Earth will swallow up anything that breeches its natural balance (internally). Evidence has shown that it successfully adapted after the asteroids hit it) At most, 2 billion people will Phuk up your garden... I DO believe that the green concept is a self-serving, political agenda, for people who have been banned from shopping at Michael's Arts & Crafts stores... (Well maybe not that extreme...)

Well the population is fast approaching 7Bil, a number scientists have warned is the theoretical limit of the ability to grow food, but that's besides the point. I disagree that all green movements are political in nature and strive only for personal wealth and gain.

Why don't I live in a hut? Because I don't own property, and they call that vagrancy, and also my "awakening" to the problems of today came unfortunately after my marriage and the birth of my disabled child. I'm chained to the system, a slave at best. I'm opposed to the system that enslaves me and dependent on it solely based on the welfare and well being of my family. If I were single and on my own, I'd probably live somewhere in alaska, far away from other people, electricity, and chemicals. I can disappear into the mountains as a single entity, but I can't take my family into that.

Other than that, I DO practice minimal footprint techniques, such as ride my bike whenever and wherever possible, I police energy usage in my home, eat mostly natural and organic foods. My sins include internet porn and electric guitar, both of which I'd give up or reduce in concert with the rest of the world on board with returning to an all-natural existence.

I believe the quote by plato in my sig explains anything else.

"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed by the masses." - Plato

Lies implies truth necessary to discern them. What is your source of truth?

Should also be pointed out paperdog did not say "you," but "they" living in huts.

Maybe Richard Prior was right in the routine where he says "you people got to stop phukin I have no place to ride my horsie"

Science is the only path to truth. If it's not verified with repeatable experiments it didn't happen.

1. Science can't prove that statement - in order to know something is the only something, you have to have knowledge of all other things which finite people are incapable of.

2. Laws (such as laws of negation) are not physical attributes of our experience. The claim True is not False is based entirely on intuition, not observation.

3. Facts are interpreted. A rock on the ground is a fact, but what it proves is contingent on what you seek to prove. What you seek to prove is based on intuition - you feel something needs to be proven in the first place, based on observation. and because you cannot observe all of the factors in the world,, you can't possibly test all of the factors.

As such, the "fact" you used to prove something is only one of many possible facts that you either included or excluded. But why would you exclude a fact?

You would exclude a fact either because you don't know of its existence or its relationship to the theory, or because it wouldn't fit into your preconceived framework of what is a "plausible" answer or not.

That is to say - the scientific method, though it works, does not yield truth - it yields utility, and utility does not equal truth. As long as there is a future, there is the possibility of uncovering new information that overturns previously held beliefs. But the previously held belief can still "work".

I can believe that light switches employ magic that is channeled through plastic wires connected to a glass bulb - you flip the switch and there is light. The belief is irrelevant to the outcome. The facts are the switch, the light bulb and the plastic covered wires. Do I have all the facts? Certainly not - but can I replicate what I see in other homes and have it work? Certainly I can - the theory is wrong, the facts are rights (but incomplete), and yet it works from a practical standpoint.

Given that example - the working theory seems right - you employ it and it works (but for the wrong reasons), on what basis would I continue the search for more facts? Certainly not observation - you can't see magic, and you can't see electricity (if it's not arcing). So the theory is put to rest and the answer based on the facts is incomplete and "false". Any new information that surfaces to override magic would come by chance - someone in another domain might uncover its existence - now the working theory of light switches comes under scrutiny because of "new" information proving that the once held truth is in fact false. Can you still use that theory? Certainly yes!

Science is circular reasoning that yields utility, not truth. As long as we are finite (not knowing "all things"), it is impossible for us to derive truth from observation since truth by definition is unchanging - it cannot be true one day, then false the next day.

Well said.

Science and religion are NOT the same thing; religion is based on faith in the unknowable, science is based on evidence, proof and facts. Any scientist who would deny such basic and accepted theories like the Big Bang and evolution is no scientist at all. More than 95% of scientists agree that the Big Bang is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe; that's good enough for me.

Science is based on faith that all of the facts necessary to form the correct answer have been considered. The proof of this statement is the fact that scientists stop actively looking for more facts after they feel the theory has been adequately bolstered - yet the possibility exists there may be an undiscovered "fact" lying round that contradicts the working theory. The excluded fact may not be known yet, or is discounted because it seems unlikely or even impossible there is a correlation.

Science is replete with examples of this.